[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55985-55986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22754]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-1124]


Certain Powered Cover Plates; Commission Determination To Review 
in Part and To Remand a Final Initial Determination

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 and remand in part the 
final initial determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding 
administrative law judge (``ALJ'') on August 12, 2019, finding a 
violation of section 337 in the above-referenced investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. 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 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 investigation 
on July 23, 2018, based on a complaint filed by SnapRays, LLC d/b/a 
SnapPower of Vineyard, UT (``SnapPower''). 83 FR 34871 (July 23, 2018). 
The complaint, as supplemented, alleges a violation of section 337 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''), 
based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for 
importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of 
certain powered cover plates by reason of infringement of certain 
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,871,324 (``the '324 patent''); 9,882,361 
(``the '361 patent''); 9,917,430 (``the '430 patent''); and U.S. Design 
Patent No. D819,426 (``the Design Patent,'' or ``the 'D426 patent'') 
(collectively, ``the Asserted Patents''). Id. at 34872. The notice of 
investigation named thirteen respondents: (1) Ontel Products 
Corporation of Fairfield, New Jersey (``Ontel''); (2) Dazone, LLC of 
Ontario, Canada (``Dazone''); (3) Shenzhen C-Myway of Shenzhen, 
Guangdong, China (``C-Myway''); (4) E-Zshop4u LLC of Howey in the 
Hills, Florida (``E-ZShop4u''); (5) Desteny Store of Fort Meyers, 
Florida (``Desteny''); (6) Zhongshan Led-Up Light Co., Ltd. of 
Zhongshan, Guangdong, China (``Led-Up''); (7) AllTrade Tools LLC of 
Cypress, California (``Alltrade''); (8) Guangzhou Sailu Info Tech. Co., 
Ltd. of Guangzhou, Gunagdong, China (``Guangzhou Sailu''); (9) Zhejiang 
New-Epoch Communication Industry Co., Ltd. of Yueging, Zhejiang, China 
(``NEPCI''); (10) KCC Industries of Eastvale, California (``KCC''); 
(11) Vistek Technology Co., Ltd. of Fuyong, Baoan, Shenzhen, China 
(``Vistek''); (12) Enstant Technology Co., Ltd. of Xixiang Baoan 
District, Shenzhen, China (``Enstant''); and (13) Manufacturers 
Components Incorporated of Pompano Beach, Florida (``MCI'') 
(collectively, ``the Respondents''). Id. The Commission's Office of 
Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') was also named as a party.
    The evidentiary hearing on the question of violation of section 337 
was held April 8-9, 2019. As of the date of the evidentiary hearing, as 
well as of the date of the issuance of the ID, the status of all 13 of 
the named Respondents was as follows:
    Ontel--terminated by settlement (Order No. 12, non-reviewed Nov. 
27, 2018);
    E-Zshop4U--terminated by Consent Order (Order No. 5, non-reviewed 
Oct. 29, 2018);
    KCC--terminated by Consent Order (Order No. 6, non-reviewed Oct. 
29, 2018);
    Alltrade--terminated by settlement (Order, No. 36, non-reviewed May 
8, 2019);
    Dazone--found in default (Order No. 18, non-reviewed Dec. 21, 
2018);
    Desteny--found in default (Order No. 18, non-reviewed Dec. 21, 
2018);
    NEPCI--found in default (Order No. 18, non-reviewed Dec. 21, 2018);
    MCI--found in default (Order No. 18, non-reviewed Dec. 21, 2018);
    Myway--Complaint withdrawn due to inability to serve this 
respondent (Order No. 8, non-reviewed October 23, 2018);
    Led-Up--complaint withdrawn due to inability to serve this 
respondent (Order No. 8, non-reviewed October 23, 2018);
    Guangzhou Sailu--complaint withdrawn due to inability to serve this 
respondent (Order No. 8, non-reviewed October 23, 2018);
    Enstant--actively participated in all proceedings, and
    Vistek--actively participated in all proceedings. See ID/RD at 11-
12.
    Complainant SnapPower, respondents Enstant and Vistek 
(collectively, ``Enstant/Vistek,'' or ``the Participating 
Respondents''), and the Commission investigative attorney (``the IA'') 
participated in the hearing. See id. at 11.
    We note that Respondents Enstant and Vistek chose not to contest 
importation and infringement. Similarly, there were no genuine disputes 
of material fact with respect to the technical prong of the domestic 
industry (``DI'') requirement. As a result, these legal issues have 
been decided against Enstant and Vistek and against a category of 
Respondents identified by the ID as the ``Defaulting Respondents'' 
through summary determination (``SD'') orders. ID/RD at 2-3 (citing 
Order Nos. 39 (July 10, 2019) (Importation and Infringement), 40 (July 
22, 2019) (Technical DI)). In particular, Order No. 39 explains the 
rationale and evidentiary basis for granting SnapPower's Infringement 
SD Motion. Id. at 12-13 (citing Order No. 39, Doc. ID No. 680751 (July 
10, 2019)). Order No. 39 became the Commission's determination on 
August 1, 2019,

[[Page 55986]]

pursuant to Commission Rule 210.42(h)(3), 19 CFR 210.42(h)(3).
    On August 12, 2019, the ALJ issued her ``Initial Determination on 
Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and 
Bond,'' finding a violation of section 337. The ID finds that a 
violation of section 337 occurred in the importation into the United 
States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States 
after importation, of certain powered cover plates that infringe the 
asserted claims of the '361 patent by Enstant/Vistek. See id. at 125-
26. The ID also finds, inter alia, that ``Respondents Enstant and 
Vistek filed a motion for summary determination of non-infringement 
(`Redesign SD Motion') of [the '361 patent] by Redesign Models P001 
(Smart Wall Plate Charger, Decor Outlet, with USB charger) and P002 
(Smart Wall Plate Charger, Duplex Outlet with USB charger).'' ID at 14. 
Further, the ID states that ``Enstant's and Vistek's Redesign SD Motion 
was effectively rendered moot by rulings on Motions in Limine . . . .'' 
Id.
    In her Recommended Determination (``RD''), the ALJ recommended that 
the Commission should issue a General Exclusion Order, Cease and Desist 
Orders, and impose a one hundred percent bond during the period of 
Presidential Review. Id. at 126.
    On August 26, 2019, Participating Respondents Enstant/Vistek 
jointly filed a timely petition for review of various portions of the 
ID. The IA likewise timely filed a petition for review of the ID in 
part. On September 3, 2019, Snappower timely filed a response to 
Enstant/Vistek's and the IA's petitions for review. The IA likewise 
timely filed a response to Enstant/Vistek's petition for review.
    Having examined the record in this investigation, including the 
final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the 
Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. In 
particular, the Commission has determined: (1) To review the final ID's 
finding that Enstant/Vistek's redesign summary determination motion is 
moot, see id. at 14-15, and on review, to remand the final ID on this 
issue; (2) to review the ID's finding that Complainant's R&D investment 
with respect to the '361 patent is substantial under Section 337 
(a)(3)(C), ID at 97, and on review, to take no position with regard to 
this determination; (3) to review, and on review to strike, the third 
paragraph on page 56 of the ID; and (4) to correct the ID's 
misstatements regarding the asserted claims of the '361 patent, see id. 
at 3-4, Table 1; id. at 125 ]] 3, 6, to the effect that the asserted 
claims of the '361 patent include claims 1, 4, 10, 14, 21, 23, and 24. 
The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the ID.
    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: October 11, 2019.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2019-22754 Filed 10-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P