3002 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 13 / Friday, January 20, 2012 / Notices 

United States after importation of 

Deere’s European version (‘‘EV’’) selfpropelled forage harvesters (‘‘SPFHs’’) 

by reason of infringement of U.S. 

Registered Trademarks Nos. 1,254,339; 

1,502,103; 1,503,576; 91,860; and 

2,729,766. In the original investigation, 

the Commission determined that there 

was a violation of section 337 and 

issued, in relevant part, a general 

exclusion order covering EVSPFHs and 

cease and desist orders directed to 

certain of the Bourdeau respondents and 

other respondents. 

On appeal to the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the 

Court vacated the determination of 

violation against the Bourdeau 

respondents and remanded for findings 

on whether domestic sales of EVSPFHs 

by official Deere dealers were 

authorized by Deere and whether all or 

substantially all of the SPFH’s 

authorized by Deere for sale in the 

domestic market were of its North 

American version (‘‘NA’’) SPFHs. 

Bourdeau Bros., Inc. v. Int’l Trade 

Comm’n, 444 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

Following receipt of the mandate, the 

Commission rescinded its remedial 

orders with respect to EVSPFHs and 

referred the investigation to the original 

presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’). The ALJ considered and denied 

cross-motions for summary 

determination on the remanded issues, 

conducted an evidentiary hearing, and 

issued an initial determination on 

remand (‘‘RID’’) of violation of section 

337. The Bourdeau respondents 

petitioned for review. The Commission 

determined to review the ALJ’s 

summary determination order and the 

RID. Based on additional rounds of 

briefing and its review of the entire 

record, the Commission issued a final 

determination that there was no 

violation of section 337. The 

Commission found that Deere failed to 

prove that sales of EVSPFHs in the 

United States by its official dealers were 

not authorized and also failed to prove 

that substantially all of the authorized 

sales of Deere SPFHs in the United 

States were NASPFHs. 

Deere appealed. On appeal, the Court 

vacated and remanded for further 

proceedings. Deere & Co. v. Int’l Trade 

Comm’n, 605 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

The Court upheld the Commission’s 

consideration of official Deere dealer 

sales and found that substantial 

evidence supported the determination 

that sales of EVSPFHs in the United 

States by official U.S. and European 

Deere dealers were authorized. Id. at 

1355–58. The Court further ruled, 

however, that the Commission 

misapplied the ‘‘all or substantially all’’ 

test by using the wrong denominator 

and taking into consideration the ratio 

of authorized sales of EVSPFHs to the 

total number of EVSPFHs sold in the 

United States. Id. at 1358–62. The Court 

remanded for consideration, based on 

its instructions, of whether Deere 

satisfied the requirement that 

substantially all of its SPFH sales in the 

United States were of NASPFHs. Id. at 

1362. The Court’s mandate, issued July 

19, 2010, was received by the 

Commission on July 23, 2010. 

On October 14, 2010, the Commission 

requested briefing by the parties on the 

merits of the remand. Deere and the 

Bourdeau respondents completed 

briefing on December 10, 2010. 

Based on the record of this 

investigation, including the Court’s 

instructions on remand and the parties’ 

briefing on remand, the Commission 

determined that Deere has established 

that substantially all of its U.S. SPFH 

sales were of NASPFHs and therefore 

has met its burden of proof on remand 

to satisfy the ‘‘all or substantially all’’ 

test for gray market trademark 

infringement and, accordingly, is 

entitled to a determination of violation 

of section 337 and the reinstatement of 

the exclusion order and cease and desist 

orders with respect to EVSPFHs issued 

by the Commission in the original 

investigation. 

The Commission has terminated the 

investigation in accordance with the 

above findings on remand. 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 Part 210 

of the Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure (19 CFR part 210). 

Issued: January 13, 2012. 

By order of the Commission. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1028 Filed 1–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–773] 

Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound 

Effects Devices and Image Display 

Devices and Components and 

Products Containing Same; 

Termination of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 61) granting a joint motion 

to terminate the above-captioned 

investigation as to respondents Toshiba 

Corporation of Tokyo, Japan, and 

Toshiba America Information Systems, 

Inc., of Irvine, California (collectively, 

‘‘Toshiba’’) based on a settlement 

agreement. Because the Toshiba entities 

were the last remaining entities in the 

investigation, the consolidated 

investigation is terminated. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clark S. Cheney, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–2661. 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 May 19, 2011, based on a complaint 

filed by Ogma, LLC (‘‘Ogma’’). 76 FR 

29006 (May 19, 2011). The complaint 

alleges violations of section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (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 motion-sensitive 

sound effects devices and image display 

devices and components and products 

containing same by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 5,825,427 (‘‘the ’427 

patent’’) and 6,150,947 (‘‘the ’947 

patent’’). 

The Commission instituted Inv. No. 

337–TA–787 on July 18, 2011, based on 

another complaint filed by Ogma. 76 FR 

42136 (July 18, 2011). The complaint in 

the latter investigation alleged 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) by reason 

of infringement of the same patents 

asserted in the earlier 773 investigation, 

namely the ’427 patent and the ’947 

patent. The complaint in the 787 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 13 / Friday, January 20, 2012 / Notices 3003 

investigation named numerous 

respondents, including Toshiba. 

On July 19, 2011, the ALJ issued an 

order (Inv. No. 337–TA–787, Order No. 

1) consolidating the 787 investigation 

with the 773 investigation. The 

consolidated investigation proceeded 

under the caption of the 773 

investigation. 

On December 13, 2011, Ogma and 

Toshiba filed a joint motion to terminate 

the investigation as to Toshiba based on 

a settlement agreement. On December 

21, 2011, the ALJ issued the subject ID 

(Order No. 61) granting the motion to 

terminate the investigation as to 

Toshiba. Because the Toshiba entities 

were the last remaining respondents in 

the investigation, the ALJ also 

determined that the investigation 

should be terminated. No petitions for 

review of the ID were filed. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the ID. The consolidated 

investigation is terminated. 

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: January 13, 2012. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1030 Filed 1–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1125–0002] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comments Requested: Notice of 

Appeal From a Decision of an 

Immigration Judge 

ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review (EOIR) will be submitting the 

following information collection request 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed 

information collection is published to 

obtain comments from the public and 

affected agencies. This proposed 

information collection was previously 

published in the Federal Register 

Volume 76 Number 220, pages 70754– 

70755, on November 15, 2011, allowing 

for a 60 day comment period. 

The purpose of this notice is to allow 

for an additional 30 days for public 

comment until February 21, 2012. This 

process is conducted in accordance with 

5 CFR 1320.10. 

Written comments and/or suggestions 

regarding the items contained in this 

notice, especially the estimated public 

burden and associated response time, 

should be directed to the Office of 

Management and Budget, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention: Department of Justice Desk 

Officer, Washington, DC 20530. 

Additionally, comments may also be 

submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 

395–5806. Written comments and 

suggestions from the public and affected 

agencies concerning the proposed 

collection of information are 

encouraged. Your comments should 

address one or more of the following 

four points: 

—Evaluate whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the 

proper performance of the functions 

of the agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

—Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

—Minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms 

of information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Revision of a Currently Approved 

Collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Notice of Appeal from a Decision of an 

Immigration Judge. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department of Justice sponsoring the 

collection: Form EOIR 26, Executive 

Office for Immigration Review, United 

States Department of Justice. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: A party (either the 

U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement of the Department of 

Homeland Security or the respondent/ 

applicant) who appeals a decision of an 

Immigration Judge to the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (Board). Other: 

None. Abstract: A party affected by a 

decision of an Immigration Judge may 

appeal that decision to the Board, 

provided the Board has jurisdiction 

pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.1(b). An appeal 

from an Immigration Judge’s decision is 

taken by completing the Form EOIR–26 

and submitting it to the Board. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond/reply: It is estimated that 

19,201 respondents will complete the 

form annually with an average of thirty 

minutes per response. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: There are an estimated 

9,600.5 total burden hours associated 

with this collection annually. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Jerri Murray, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Two Constitution 

Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 2E–508, 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Jerri Murray, 

Clearance Officer, PRA, United States 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1055 Filed 1–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1123–0009] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Information Collection 

Renewal; Comments Requested: 

Inspection of Records Relating to 

Visual Depictions of Simulated 

Sexually Explicit Performances 

ACTION: 60-Day notice of information 

collection. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), 

Criminal Division, Child Exploitation 

and Obscenity Section (CEOS) will 

submit the following information 

collection renewal to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and clearance in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995. The information collection 

renewal is published to obtain 

comments from the public and affected 

agencies. Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted for ‘‘sixty days’’ until 

March 20, 2012. This process is 

conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 

1320.10. 

If you have comments especially on 

the estimated number of respondents, 

estimated public burden or associated 

response time, suggestions, or need 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES