[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 126 (Monday, July 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30901-30902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13909]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-929 (Enforcement and Rescission Proceeding)]


Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and 
Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination Finding No 
Violation of the Remedial Orders; Determination Not To Rescind the 
Remedial Orders; Termination of the Consolidated Enforcement and 
Rescission Proceeding

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined that enforcement complainants Adrian Rivera 
and Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, ``ARM'') have 
not shown that respondents Eko Brands, LLC, and Espresso Supply, Inc., 
violated a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order 
(together, ``remedial orders''). The Commission has also determined not 
to rescind the remedial orders. The consolidated enforcement and 
rescission proceeding is hereby terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. Needham, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3438. 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 (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed 
on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://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 original 
investigation on September 9, 2014, based on a complaint filed by ARM. 
79 FR 53445-46 (Sept. 9, 2014). 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 beverage 
brewing capsules, components thereof, and products containing the same, 
by reason of infringement of claims 5-8 and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 
8,720,320 (``the '320 patent''). Id. The notice of institution of the 
investigation named as respondents Solofill, LLC (``Solofill''); 
DongGuan Hai Rui Precision Mould Co., Ltd. (``DongGuan''); Eko Brands, 
LLC (``Eko''); Evermuch Technology Co., Ltd. and Ever Much Company Ltd. 
(together, ``Evermuch''); and several additional respondents that were 
terminated by reason of consent order or settlement. 79 FR 53445. The 
Office of Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') was also named as a 
party to the investigation. Id. The Commission found Eko and Evermuch 
in default for failure to respond to the complaint and notice of 
investigation. Notice (May 18, 2015).
    On March 17, 2016, the Commission found no violation of section 337 
by Solofill and DongGuan because claims 5-7, 18, and 20 of the '320 
patent were invalid for a lack of written description and claims 5 and 
6 were invalid as anticipated. 81 FR 15742-43 (Mar. 24, 2016). The 
Commission, however, presumed that the allegations in the complaint 
were true with respect to the defaulted parties Eko Brands and 
Evermuch, and thus concluded that they violated section 337 with 
respect to claims 8 and 19. Id. at 15743. The Commission issued a 
limited exclusion order prohibiting Eko Brands and Evermuch from 
importing certain beverage brewing capsules, components thereof, and 
products containing the same that infringed claims 8 or 19 of the '320 
patent. Id. The Commission also issued cease and desist orders against 
Eko Brands and Evermuch prohibiting the sale and distribution within 
the United States of articles that infringe claims 8 or 19. Id.
    On June 1, 2016, ARM filed a complaint requesting that the 
Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding under Commission 
Rule 210.75(b) to investigate alleged violations of the March 17, 2016, 
remedial orders by Eko and its purchaser, Espresso Supply, Inc. 
(collectively, ``Eko''). The Commission instituted a formal enforcement 
proceeding on July 1, 2016. 81 FR 43242-43.
    On September 12, 2016, Eko file a second petition requesting the 
Commission to rescind its remedial orders, and to terminate the 
enforcement proceeding. On November 25, 2016, the Commission instituted 
a rescission proceeding, and consolidated

[[Page 30902]]

it with the enforcement proceeding. 81 FR 85264-65.
    On January 31, 2017, Eko petitioned the Commission to rescind the 
remedial orders based on a lack of a domestic industry. The Commission 
denied the petition on June 8, 2017, because Eko failed to show changed 
circumstances with respect to the domestic industry. Notice of 
Commission Determination to Deny a Petition Requesting the Rescission 
of Remedial Orders (June 8, 2017).
    On March 27, 2017, the presiding ALJ issued the subject enforcement 
initial determination (``EID''), which found that the remedial orders 
cannot be enforced due to a lack of domestic industry, and issued a 
recommended determination that the remedial orders be rescinded due to 
an intervening district court summary judgment of noninfringement. OUII 
petitioned for review of the EID on April 6, 2017, and ARM petitioned 
for review on April 7, 2017. On April 13, 2017, ARM and Eko filed a 
response to OUII's petition, and OUII filed a response to ARM's 
petition. On April 14, 2017, Eko filed a response to ARM's petition. On 
May 11, 2017, the Commission determined to review the EID.
    The Commission has determined that ARM has not shown that Eko 
violated the remedial orders. The Commission reverses the EID's finding 
that the remedial orders cannot be enforced against Eko due to a lack 
of domestic industry, but finds that ARM has failed to show that Eko 
had the intent necessary to induce or contribute to the infringement of 
claims 8 and 19 of the '320 patent. The Commission has also determined 
not to rescind the remedial orders. This consolidated enforcement and 
rescission proceeding is hereby terminated, and a Commission opinion 
will issue shortly.
    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: June 27, 2017.
 Lisa R. Barton,
 Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-13909 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P