Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 13 / Friday, January 20, 2012 / Notices 3001 

at http://edis.usitc.gov, and 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. Hearingimpaired 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 has received a complaint 

filed on behalf of Mondis Technology, 

Ltd. on January 13, 2012. 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 video displays 

and products using and containing 

same. The complaint names Chimei 

Innolux Corporation of Taiwan; and 

Innolux Corporation of Austin, TX, as 

respondents. 

The complainant, proposed 

respondents, other interested parties, 

and members of the public are invited 

to file comments, not to exceed five 

pages in length, on any public interest 

issues raised by the complaint. 

Comments should address whether 

issuance of an exclusion order and/or a 

cease and desist order in this 

investigation would negatively affect the 

public health and welfare in the United 

States, competitive conditions in the 

United States economy, the production 

of like or directly competitive articles in 

the United States, or United States 

consumers. 

In particular, the Commission is 

interested in comments that: 

(i) Explain how the articles 

potentially subject to the orders are used 

in the United States; 

(ii) Identify any public health, safety, 

or welfare concerns in the United States 

relating to the potential orders; 

(iii) Indicate the extent to which like 

or directly competitive articles are 

produced in the United States or are 

otherwise available in the United States, 

with respect to the articles potentially 

subject to the orders; and 

(iv) Indicate whether Complainant, 

Complainant’s licensees, and/or third 

party suppliers have the capacity to 

replace the volume of articles 

potentially subject to an exclusion order 

and a cease and desist order within a 

commercially reasonable time. 

Written submissions must be filed no 

later than by close of business, eight 

business days after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. There will be further 

opportunities for comment on the 

public interest after the issuance of any 

final initial determination in this 

investigation. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document and 12 

true copies thereof on or before the 

deadlines stated above with the Office 

of the Secretary. Submissions should 

refer to the docket number (‘‘Docket No. 

2871’’) in a prominent place on the 

cover page and/or the first page. The 

Commission’s rules authorize filing 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means only to the 

extent permitted by section 201.8 of the 

rules (see Handbook for Electronic 

Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/ 

secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/

documents/handbook_on_electronic_

filing.pdf. Persons with questions 

regarding electronic filing should 

contact the Secretary (202) 205–2000). 

Any person desiring to submit a 

document to the Commission in 

confidence must request confidential 

treatment. All such requests should be 

directed to the Secretary to the 

Commission and must include a full 

statement of the reasons why the 

Commission should grant such 

treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents 

for which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is properly sought will be 

treated accordingly. All nonconfidential 

written submissions will be available for 

public inspection at the Office of the 

Secretary. 

This action is taken under the 

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), 

and of sections 201.10 and 210.50(a)(4) 

of the Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 

210.50(a)(4)). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: January 17, 2012. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1093 Filed 1–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–487 (Second 

Remand)] 

Certain Agricultural Vehicles and 

Components Thereof Final 

Determination; Reinstatement of 

General Exclusion Order and Cease 

and Desist Orders; Termination of the 

Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined that there 

is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 

1337), by respondents Bourdeau Bros., 

Inc., Sunova Implement Co., and OK 

Enterprises in the above-captioned 

remand investigation. The Commission 

has reinstated the general exclusion 

order with respect to subject selfpropelled forage harvesters and the 

cease and desist orders against 

Bourdeau and OK Enterprises and 

certain other firms that it had issued in 

the original investigation, and has 

terminated the investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark B. Rees, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3116. 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 

remand of this investigation involves 

the gray market claims of Deere & Co. 

(‘‘Deere’’) that Bourdeau Bros., Inc., 

Sunova Implement Co., and OK 

Enterprises (collectively, ‘‘the Bourdeau 

respondents’’) violated section 337 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation 

into the United States, the sale for 

importation, and the sale within the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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