[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 71 (Monday, April 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20908-20910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08298]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-872]


Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps, Products Containing 
Same and Components Thereof; Commission Determination To Review in Part 
A Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; 
Schedule for Briefing on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the 
Public Interest, and Bonding

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to review in part a final initial 
determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ''), finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Needham, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. 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

[[Page 20909]]

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 this investigation 
on March 5, 2013, based on a complaint filed by Neptun Light, Inc., and 
Mr. Andrzej Bobel (together, ``Neptun'') to consider alleged violations 
of section 337 by reason of infringement of claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 of 
U.S. Patent No. 7,053,540 (``the '540 patent''). 78 FR 14357-58. The 
Commission's notice of investigation named as respondents Maxlite, Inc. 
(``Maxlight''); Satco Products, Inc. (``Satco''); Litetronics 
International, Inc. (``Litetronics'') (together, ``Respondents''); and 
Technical Consumer Products, Inc. (``TCP''). Id. at 14358. The Office 
of Unfair Import Investigations did not participate in this 
investigation. Id.
    On June 10, 2013, Neptun and TCP moved to terminate the 
investigation with respect to TCP on the basis of a settlement 
agreement. The motion was granted on June 11, 2013. Order No. 20, not 
reviewed (July 8, 2013).
    On February 3, 2014, the ALJ issued his final initial determination 
(``ID''), finding a violation of section 337. Specifically, the ALJ 
found that Maxlite and Satco violated section 337 with respect to 
claims 1, 2 and 11 of the '540 patent, and that Litetronics violated 
section 337 with respect to claims 1, 2 and 10 of the '540 patent. The 
ALJ recommended that a limited exclusion order issue against the 
infringing products of Maxlite, Satco, and Litetronics. He did not 
recommend the issuance of any cease and desist orders.
    On February 18, 2014, Respondents petitioned for review of several 
of the ALJ's findings. Also on February 18, 2014, Neptun contingently 
petitioned for review of the ALJ's finding that Neptun had not made a 
sufficient showing on the economic prong of the domestic injury 
requirement through 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). On February 26, 2014, 
Neptun and Respondents opposed each other's petitions.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, 
the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. 
Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the ALJ's 
findings on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, 
the ALJ's construction of ``mating opening,'' and the ALJ's findings on 
infringement. The Commission has determined not to review the remaining 
findings in the ID.
    The parties are requested to brief their positions on the issues 
under review with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary 
record. In connection with its review, the Commission is particularly 
interested in briefing on the following issues:
    1. Whether Neptun's asserted investments and expenditures were made 
``with respect to the articles protected by the ['540] patent'' within 
the meaning of 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3). In doing so, please address the 
following: ``Commission precedent requires that expenses be allocated 
to each of the products covered by the asserted patents.'' Certain 
Computer Forensic Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-
TA-799, USITC Pub 4408, Initial Determination at 10 (July 2013) 
(unreviewed in relevant part). Please provide a reasonable estimate, 
based on the evidence of record, of the portion of Neptun's investments 
that are associated with articles protected by the '540 patent. Explain 
whether, and to what extent, Neptun's books and records enable an 
accounting of expenditures specific to the articles protected by the 
'540 patent.
    2. Please explain why (or why not) the relevant portion of Neptun's 
asserted investments and expenditures related to the articles protected 
by the '540 patent are ``significant'' within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. 
1337(a)(3)(A) and (B) in the context of the company, the industry, or 
the realities of the marketplace. In doing so, please identify the 
appropriate methodology for assessing significance here, and explain 
how the methodology and the record evidence shows (or does not show) 
that the investments with respect to the articles protected by the '540 
patent are significant.
    3. Whether Neptun made ``substantial investment'' in 
``engineering'' or ``research and development'' with respect to the 
exploitation of the '540 patent within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. 
1337(a)(3)(C). Which of Neptun's asserted expenses constitute 
investments that fall under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C), such as 
investments in engineering, research and development, or licensing? 
Please identify and provide a reasonable estimate, based on the 
evidence of record, of the portion of these expenses that are 
associated with the exploitation of the '540 patent. Please explain, 
qualitatively, how these expenses and the underlying activities that 
these expenses reflect--relate to exploitation of the '540 patent. 
Please identity any such investments and explain why (or why not) such 
investments are substantial in the context of the company, the 
industry, or the realities of the marketplace.
    4. Whether ``a hole or aperture through which the light source base 
is mated with the ballast housing'' is an appropriate construction for 
the term ``mating opening'' in the '540 patent. Additionally, using 
this construction, explain how Respondents' accused products satisfy 
(or do not satisfy) the ``mating opening'' limitation, either literally 
or under the doctrine of equivalents.
    5. Please explain how Respondents' accused products satisfy (or do 
not satisfy) the limitations ``said cavity having a first 
circumferential flange'' and ``the first circumferential flange of the 
reflector cavity.'' Specifically, identify the evidence showing that 
the asserted cavity and the first circumferential flange of the accused 
products have a sufficient relationship such that there is a cavity 
``having a first circumferential flange'' and that the first 
circumferential flange is ``of the reflector cavity.''
    6. Please explain how Respondents' accused products satisfy (or do 
not satisfy) the limitations ``said base being inside said defined 
cavity of said reflector and located inside said mating opening.'' 
Specifically, identify the evidence showing whether or not the light 
source base is located inside the reflector's defined cavity and 
located inside the mating opening either literally or under the 
doctrine of equivalents.
    7. Please explain how Respondents' accused products satisfy (or do 
not satisfy) the limitations ``said base having a second 
circumferential flange'' and ``the second circumferential flange of the 
light source base.'' Specifically, please identify the evidence showing 
whether or not the asserted base and second circumferential flange have 
a sufficient relationship such that there is a base ``having a second 
circumferential flange'' and that the second circumferential flange is 
``of the light source base.''
    The parties have been invited to brief only the discrete issues 
described above, with reference to the applicable law and evidentiary 
record. The parties are not to brief other issues on review, which are 
adequately presented in the parties' existing filings.
    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the 
Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of 
the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) 
issue a cease and desist order that could result in the respondent 
being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the 
importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is 
interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of

[[Page 20910]]

remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of 
an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than 
entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide 
information establishing that activities involving other types of entry 
either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, 
see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. 
No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994) (Commission 
Opinion).
    If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must 
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The 
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an 
exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order would have on (1) the 
public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. 
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly 
competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. 
consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written 
submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in 
the context of this investigation.
    If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade 
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve 
or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of 
July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the 
subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under 
bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the 
Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in 
receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be 
imposed if a remedy is ordered.
    Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested 
to file written submissions on the issues identified in this notice. 
Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any 
other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on 
the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such 
submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on 
remedy and bonding. The complainants are also requested to submit 
proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. The 
complainants are also requested to state the date that the '540 patent 
expires and the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are 
imported. The entirety of the parties' written submissions must not 
exceed 50 pages, and must be filed no later than close of business on 
April 22, 2014. Reply submissions must not exceed 25 pages, and must be 
filed no later than the close of business on April 29, 2014. No further 
submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered 
by the Commission.
    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document 
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 
true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day 
pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the 
investigation number (``Inv. No. 337-TA-872'') in a prominent place on 
the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic 
Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). Persons with questions 
regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).
    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in 
confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests 
should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include 
a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such 
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment 
by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A 
redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed 
simultaneously with the any confidential filing. All non-confidential 
written submissions will be available for public inspection at the 
Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.
    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: April 8, 2014.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-08298 Filed 4-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P