[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22632-22633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08845]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-930]


Certain Laser Abraded Denim Garments; Commission Determination To 
Review Order No. 43, and on Review Vacating That Order as Moot; 
Termination of the Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission (``Commission'') has determined to review Order No. 43 
issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ''). On review, 
the Commission has determined to vacate Order No. 43 because the law 
firm disqualification at issue has become moot. This investigation is 
terminated.

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 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 September 23, 2014, based on a complaint filed by RevoLaze, LLC and 
TechnoLines, LLC, both of Westlake, Ohio (collectively, ``RevoLaze''). 
79 Fed Reg. 56828 (Sept. 23, 2014). The complaint alleged violations of 
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by 
reason of the importation into the United States, the sale for 
importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of 
certain laser abraded denim garments. The complaint alleged the 
infringement of seventy-one claims of six United States patents. The 
notice of institution named twenty respondents, including The Gap, Inc. 
of San Francisco, California (``Gap''), who, one-by-one were terminated 
from the investigation. On November 18, 2015, the Commission terminated 
the last remaining respondents from the investigation on the basis of 
settlement and withdrawal of the complaint. 80 FR Reg. 73209, 73210 
(Nov. 24, 2015).
    However, previously in the investigation, the then-presiding ALJ 
disqualified complainants' counsel Dentons US LLP (``Dentons US'') in 
an order that was not an initial determination (``ID''). Order No. 43 
(May 7, 2015). Subsequently, the ALJ granted (as an ID) Dentons US's 
motion to intervene regarding its disqualification, Order No. 82 (Aug. 
7, 2013), but denied (as an order) its motion for reconsideration of 
Order No. 43 as well as its request for leave to seek interlocutory 
review before the Commission, Order No. 83 (Aug. 7, 2015); see 19 CFR 
210.24 (interlocutory review by the Commission). The

[[Page 22633]]

Commission determined not to review Order No. 82. Notice (Aug. 26, 
2015).
    On October 27, 2015, in response to the issuance of an ID (Order 
No. 106), which terminated the investigation before the ALJ, Dentons US 
filed a petition for Commission review of Order Nos. 43 and 83. See 19 
CFR 210.24 (rulings by the ALJ ``on motions may not be appealed to the 
Commission prior to the administrative law judge's issuance of an 
initial determination''). On November 3, 2015, and November 9, 2015, 
the Office of Unfair Import Investigations and Gap, respectively, 
opposed Dentons' petition.
    The Commission has determined to review Order No. 43, and, on 
review, has determined to vacate the disqualification decision as moot. 
In view of the final disposition of the investigation as to all 
respondents, the issue of Dentons US's disqualification has no 
practical effect on this investigation.
    Although the Commission has the discretion to address issues that 
have become moot, it has determined not to do so here. The 
disqualification in this investigation turns on whether Dentons US and 
Dentons Canada LLP as members of Salans FMC Denton Group (``Dentons 
Verein'') should be treated as a single law firm under the American Bar 
Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct (``Model Rules'') in 
this investigation. Answering that question would require further 
proceedings, and potentially additional factfinding. In particular, 
Comment 2 to Model Rule 1.0 sets forth several factors to consider in 
determining whether a group of lawyers constitute a law firm, including 
(1) how the lawyers present themselves to the public, (2) whether the 
lawyers conduct themselves as a law firm, (3) the terms of any formal 
agreement among the lawyers, and (4) whether the lawyers have mutual 
access to client information. Here, the record lacks sufficient 
evidence on these factors, especially as to the third factor, because 
the Dentons Verein organizational agreements have not been made part of 
the record of the investigation. The Commission has decided that the 
added delay, burdens, and expenses that would be incurred by the 
parties and the Commission in resolving these issues are unjustified 
given the termination of the investigation as to all respondents.
    Accordingly, the Commission has determined to review and vacate 
Order No. 43, without deciding whether the disqualification in this 
investigation was appropriate. The reasoning in support of the 
Commission's decision will be set forth more fully in a forthcoming 
opinion.
    In light of its determination above, the Commission has determined 
not to review Order No. 83, which denied as untimely a motion of 
Dentons US and Revolaze for reconsideration of Order No. 43 or for 
interlocutory review by the Commission.
    The Commission notes that in April 2016, it received several 
submissions from RevoLaze and Dentons US after the deadlines for 
submissions set forth in 19 CFR 210.43 had passed. The Commission 
rejects these submissions as untimely and procedurally improper, and 
did not consider them in making its determination.
    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).

     Issued: April 12, 2016.

    By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-08845 Filed 4-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P