[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21483-21484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08580]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-830 (Enforcement/Modification)]


Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products 
Containing Same; Commission Decision Finding a Violation of a Consent 
Order; Issuance of a Civil Penalty Order; Termination of 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 affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part an 
enforcement initial determination (``EID'') of the presiding 
administrative law judge (``ALJ'') in the above-captioned proceeding 
finding a violation of a consent order. The Commission has issued a 
civil penalty order against respondent MaxLite, Inc. of Fairfield, New 
Jersey (``MaxLite'') in the amount of $10,000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. 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 at 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 an investigation 
on February 27, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Andrzej Bobel and 
Neptun Light, Inc., both of Lake Forest,

[[Page 21484]]

Illinois (collectively, ``Neptun''). 77 FR 11587 (Feb. 27, 2012). The 
complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended 19 U.S.C. 1337. More specifically, the complaint alleged 
that the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, 
and the sale within the United States after importation of certain 
dimmable compact fluorescent lamps (``CFLs'') and products containing 
the same infringe, inter alia, claim 9 of United States Patent No. 
5,434,480 (``the '480 patent''). The complaint named numerous 
respondents, including MaxLite, Inc. of Fairfield, New Jersey 
(``MaxLite''). On July 25, 2012, the Commission terminated the 
investigation with respect to MaxLite and entered a consent order 
preventing MaxLite from importing dimmable CFLs that infringe claim 9 
of the '480 patent.
    On February 6, 2013, MaxLite petitioned the Commission under 
Commission Rule 210.76 for modification of the consent order on the 
basis of certain district court proceedings regarding a covenant not to 
sue. On February 18, 2013, complainants filed a complaint requesting 
that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding under 
Commission Rule 210.75(b) to investigate a violation of the consent 
order.
    On April 12, 2013, the Commission determined to institute 
consolidated formal enforcement and modification proceedings to 
determine whether MaxLite is in violation of the July 25, 2012 consent 
order issued in the investigation; what, if any, enforcement measures 
are appropriate; and whether to modify the consent order. 78 FR 24233 
(Apr. 24, 2013).
    On January 10, 2014, the ALJ issued the EID in the combined 
enforcement and modification proceeding. Prior to the hearing, MaxLite 
effectively withdrew its request for modification. EID at 52. The ALJ 
therefore found MaxLite's modification request to be ``moot'' in view 
of ``the parties' agreed interpretation of the Consent Order.'' Id. The 
EID in all other respects dealt entirely with Neptun's enforcement 
complaint. At issue for enforcement of the consent order were two 
accused types of products: certain CFL bulbs (``CFL bulbs''); and 
``dimmable CFL Faux Cans'' (``Faux Cans'').
    The ALJ found that the CFL bulbs infringe claim 9 of the '480 
patent. The ALJ also found that Neptun had not demonstrated 
infringement by the Faux Cans.
    On January 23, 2014, Neptun filed a petition for review regarding 
claim construction and noninfringement by the Faux Cans. On January 30, 
2014, MaxLite and the Commission investigative attorney (``IA'') filed 
oppositions to Neptun's petition.
    On February 26, 2014, the Commission determined to review the 
enforcement ID. The Commission notice requested briefing on certain 
patent-related issues and on assessment of the civil penalty. 79 FR 
12221, 12222 (Mar. 4, 2014).
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final EID, the petitions for review and responses thereto, and 
the parties' briefing in response to the Commission notice of review, 
the Commission has determined to affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part the 
EID. In particular, the Commission reverses the ALJ's finding that 
claim 9 has a ``bi-directionality'' requirement imposed by disavowal in 
the patent specification. The Commission likewise reverses that portion 
of the noninfringement determination regarding the Faux Cans predicated 
on that claim construction. The Commission affirms the ALJ's 
determination that Neptun failed to demonstrate infringement even 
absent such a ``bi-directionality'' requirement. EID at 45-51.
    Further, the Commission has made its determination on the issues of 
remedy and the public interest. The Commission has determined to impose 
a civil penalty of $10,000 on MaxLite for violation of the consent 
order as to the accused CFL bulbs. A Commission opinion is forthcoming.
    The Commission has terminated the enforcement proceeding. 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).

Order

    On April 12, 2013, the Commission determined to institute 
consolidated formal enforcement and modification proceedings to 
determine whether MaxLite, Inc. of Fairfield, New Jersey (``MaxLite'') 
is in violation of the July 25, 2012 consent order issued in the 
underlying investigation; what, if any, enforcement measures are 
appropriate; and whether to modify the consent order. 78 FR 24233 (Apr. 
24, 2013). The matter was delegated to a presiding administrative law 
judge (``ALJ'') for issuance of an enforcement ID (``EID'') in the 
combined enforcement and modification proceeding. On January 10, 2014, 
the ALJ issued the EID.
    Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the EID 
and the parties' written submissions, the Commission has found a 
violation of the consent order by MaxLite. The Commission hereby orders 
that --
    1. Respondent MaxLite shall forfeit and pay to the United States a 
civil penalty in the amount of $10,000. MaxLite and its affiliated 
companies, including but not limited to its parents, subsidiaries, 
affiliates and related companies, and successors or assigns shall have 
joint and several liability for the payment of this civil penalty.
    2. The Secretary shall:
    (a) serve copies of this Order and supporting Opinion upon each 
party of record in this enforcement proceeding; and
    (b) publish notice of this Order in the Federal Register.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: April 10, 2014.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-08580 Filed 4-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P