[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 7 (Thursday, January 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2282-2283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00313]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-562]


Certain Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment Appliances and 
Methods of Producing Same (Enforcement Proceeding); Commission 
Determination To Review and Reverse an Initial Determination of the 
Presiding Administrative Law Judge; Termination of the Enforcement 
Proceeding

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to review and reverse an initial 
determination (``ID'') (Order No. 57) of the presiding administrative 
law judge in the above-captioned enforcement proceeding. The 
enforcement proceeding is hereby terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Worth, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3065. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are 
or will be available for inspection during official business hours 
(8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, 
telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission 
may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed 
on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 
Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter 
can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-
1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted the underlying 
investigation in this matter on February 15, 2006, based on a complaint 
filed by Align Technology, Inc. (``Align'') of Santa Clara, California 
(now of San Jose, California). 71 FR 7995-96. The complaint alleged 
violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 
U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for 
importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of 
certain incremental dental positioning adjustment appliances by reason 
of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,685,469; 
6,450,807 (``the '807 patent''); 6,394,801; 6,398,548; 6,722,880 (``the 
'880 patent''); 6,629,840; 6,699,037; 6,318,994; 6,729,876; 6,602,070; 
6,471,511 (``the '511 patent''); and 6,227,850. The complaint also 
alleged a violation of section 337 by reason of misappropriation of 
trade secrets. The Commission's notice of investigation named 
OrthoClear, Inc. of San Francisco, California; OrthoClear Holdings, 
Inc. of Tortola, British Virgin Islands; and OrthoClear Pakistan Pvt, 
Ltd. of Lahore, Pakistan as respondents. On July 11, 2006, the ALJ 
granted Align's motion to terminate the investigation as to the '807 
patent, which the Commission determined not to review. Order No. 10 
(July 11, 2006), Notice of Non-Review (July 20, 2006).
    On November 13, 2006, the Commission issued notice of its 
determination not to review the presiding administrative law judge's 
initial determination granting Align's and respondents' joint motion to 
terminate the investigation as to respondents (and in its entirety) 
based on a consent order. The consent order prohibits the importation, 
sale for importation, and sale in the United States after importation 
of incremental dental positioning adjustment appliances referenced in 
the complaint and any other articles manufactured in violation of the 
asserted patents or trade secrets.
    On March 1, 2012, Align filed a complaint for an enforcement 
proceeding under Commission Rule 210.75, and filed a corrected 
complaint on March 22, 2012. On April 25, 2012, the Commission 
determined that the criteria for institution of an enforcement 
proceeding were satisfied and instituted an enforcement proceeding, 
naming the following six respondents: ClearCorrect USA of Houston, 
Texas; ClearCorrect Pakistan (Private), Ltd. (``ClearCorrect 
Pakistan'') of Lahore, Pakistan; and Mudassar Rathore, Waqas Wahab, 
Nadeem Arif, and Asim Waheed (the ``bound officers''). 77 FR 25747 (May 
1, 2012). The complaint for enforcement, as corrected, asserts that the 
successors and bound officers of the original respondents have violated 
the November 13, 2006, consent order by the continued practice of 
prohibited activities such as importing, offering for sale, and selling 
for importation into the United States of articles that infringe the

[[Page 2283]]

'511 and '880 patents. According to the complaint for enforcement, the 
imported items are digital datasets, which are used to manufacture 
dental appliances. The notice of institution of an enforcement 
proceeding noted the threshold issue of whether the accused digital 
datasets are within the scope of the consent order sought to be 
enforced, and indicated that the ALJ may wish to consider this issue at 
an early date.
    On November 28, 2012, the ALJ issued Order No. 57, addressing 
whether the accused digital datasets are articles within the meaning of 
the consent order. On December 21, 2012, the Commission issued a notice 
recognizing that Order No. 57 is an ID provided for in the notice of 
institution of an enforcement proceeding and that the deadline for 
determining whether to review the ID is January 14, 2013.
    On December 6, 2012, respondents filed a petition for review of the 
ID. On December 13, 2012, complainant and the Commission investigative 
attorney filed responses.
    Having examined the petitions for review, the responses thereto, 
and the relevant portions of the record, the Commission has determined 
to review and reverse the subject ID because the subject consent order 
did not contain an express provision prohibiting the electronic 
transmission of data. The Commission's determination is dispositive of 
complainant' s claims, and as such, the Commission terminates the 
enforcement proceeding with a finding of no violation of the consent 
order. An opinion will follow.
    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in 
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and 
in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 
part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: January 4, 2013.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-00313 Filed 1-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P