Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Notices 64587

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–494] 

In the Matter of Certain Automotive 

Measuring Devices, Products 

Containing Same, and Bezels for Such 

Devices; Notice of Commission 

Determination To Review in Part and 

on Review To Modify Administrative 

Law Judge Order No. 41; Commission 

Determination Not To Review 

Administrative Law Judge Order No. 

42; Termination of the Investigation as 

to Respondent GSN Automotive, Inc., 

on the Basis of a Settlement 

Agreement and Consent Order; 

Issuance of Consent Order; 

Termination of the Investigation in Its 

Entirety; Schedule for Written 

Submissions on Remedy, the Public 

Interest, and Bonding Regarding the 

Respondents Found in Default

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 ALJ Order No 41. Order No. 41 

denied complainant’s motion for 

summary determination with respect to 

domestic industry, injury, and violation 

of section 337 and its request for 

recommendations concerning remedy, 

public interest, and bonding. On review, 

the Commission has determined to 

modify Order No. 41 by declining to 

adopt the ALJ’s comments concerning 

Commission rules 210.42(a)(1)(i) and 

(ii), which comments are unnecessary to 

support the denial of complainant’s 

motion. The Commission has further 

determined not to review Order No. 42, 

which terminated the investigation as to 

respondent GSN Automotive, Inc. 

(‘‘GSN’’) on the basis of a settlement 

agreement and consent order, as well as 

terminated the investigation in its 

entirety. The Commission also 

determined to call for written 

submissions on the issues of remedy, 

the public interest, and bonding 

regarding the respondents that have 

been found in default.

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 the public version 

of the IDs and all nonconfidential 

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. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that 

information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on June 20, 2003, based on a complaint 

filed by Auto Meter Products, Inc. 

(‘‘Auto Meter’’) of Sycamore, Illinois. 68 

FR 37023. The complaint alleged 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 in the importation and sale 

of certain automotive measuring 

devices, products containing same, and 

bezels for such devices, by reason of 

infringement of U.S. Registered 

Trademark Nos. 1,732,643 and 

1,497,472, and U.S. Supplemental 

Register No. 1,903,908, and 

infringement of the complainant’s trade 

dress. The complaint alleged that twelve 

respondents violated section 337. 

Subsequently, seven more firms were 

added as respondents.

On August 18, 2004, Auto Meter filed 

a paper styled ‘‘Motion For Summary 

Determination With Respect to 

Domestic Industry, Injury, and Violation 

of Section 337 and Request for 

Recommendations Concerning Remedy, 

Public Interest, and Bonding.’’ The 

motion requested that the ALJ 

recommend the issuance of a general 

exclusion order. At the time that the 

motion was filed, five of the nineteen 

respondents in this investigation had 

defaulted, viz.: Tenzo R, dba Autotech 

Systems and Accessories, of Santa 

Clarita, California; Auto Gauge (Taiwan) 

Co., Ltd., of Taipei, Taiwan; Dynamik 

Exhaust Industry Co., Ltd., of Taipei, 

Taiwan; Modern Work, Inc., of Taipei, 

Taiwan, and LPL Trans Trade Co. of 

Taipei, Taiwan (collectively, ‘‘defaulted 

respondents’’). All but one of the 

remaining respondents had settled with 

Auto Meter on the basis of consent 

orders and/or settlement agreements at 

the time that Auto Meter filed its motion 

for summary determination and request 

for recommendations. On August 25, 

2004, complainant and the remaining 

respondent GSN filed a joint motion to 

terminate the investigation as to GSN 

based on a settlement agreement and 

consent order. 

On September 15, 2004, the presiding 

administrative law judge (ALJ) issued 

Order Nos. 41 and 42. Order No. 41 

denied complainant’s motion for 

summary determination with respect to 

domestic industry, injury and violation 

of section 337 and denied complainant’s 

request for recommendations 

concerning remedy, the public interest 

and bonding. In denying complainant’s 

motion for summary determination the 

ALJ relied on his finding that 

complainant’s motion was untimely 

under Commission rule 210.18(a). Order 

No. 42 terminated the investigation both 

as to respondent GSN on the basis of a 

settlement agreement and consent order, 

and in its entirety. 

On September 27, 2004, Auto Meter 

filed a petition for review of the subject 

orders. On October 7, 2004, the 

Commission investigative attorneys 

(IAs) filed their response opposing Auto 

Meter’s petition. On October 15, 2004, 

Auto Meter filed a motion for leave to 

reply to the IAs’ response. On October 

25, 2004, the IAs filed a motion for leave 

to file a surreply. 

The Commission has determined to 

review in part the ALJ’s Order No. 41 

and to modify the Order by declining to 

adopt the Order’s comments concerning 

Commission rules 210.42(a)(1)(i) and 

(ii), comments which the Commission 

finds unnecessary to support the ALJ’s 

determination to deny complainant’s 

motion for summary determination. The 

Commission has also determined to 

deny Auto Meter’s motion for leave to 

file a reply to the IAs’ response and the 

IAs’ motion to file a surreply. 

In connection with the final 

disposition of this investigation in 

regard to the defaulted respondents, the 

Commission may issue orders that could 

result in the exclusion of articles from 

entry into the United States, and/or 

issue cease and desist orders that could 

result in the defaulted respondents 

being required to cease and desist from 

engaging in unfair acts in the 

importation and sale of such articles. 

Accordingly, the Commission is 

interested in receiving written 

submissions that address the form of 

remedy, if any, that should be ordered. 

If a party seeks exclusion of an article 

from entry into the United States for 

purposes other than entry for 

consumption, it should so indicate and 

provide information establishing that 

activities involving other types of entry 

either are adversely affecting it or likely 

to do so. For background, see In the 

Matter of Certain Devices for Connecting 

Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. 

No. 337–TA–360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 

(December 1994) (Commission 

Opinion). 

64588 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Notices 

When the Commission contemplates 

some form of remedy, it must consider 

the effects of that remedy upon the 

public interest. The factors the 

Commission will consider in this 

investigation include the effect that an 

exclusion order would have on (1) the 

public health and welfare, (2) 

competitive conditions in the U.S. 

economy, (3) U.S. production of articles 

that are like or directly competitive with 

those that are subject to investigation, 

and (4) U.S. consumers. The 

Commission is therefore interested in 

receiving written submissions that 

address the aforementioned public 

interest factors in the context of this 

investigation. 

If the Commission orders some form 

of remedy, the President has 60 days to 

approve or disapprove the 

Commission’s action. During this 

period, the subject articles would be 

entitled to enter the United States under 

a bond, in an amount determined by the 

Commission and prescribed by the 

Secretary of the Treasury. The 

Commission is therefore interested in 

receiving submissions concerning the 

amount of the bond that should be 

imposed. 

Written Submissions: The parties to 

the investigation, interested government 

agencies, and any other interested 

parties are encouraged to file written 

submissions on remedy, the public 

interest, and bonding. Complainant and 

the Commission’s investigative 

attorneys are also requested to submit 

proposed orders for the Commission’s 

consideration. The written submissions 

and proposed orders must be filed no 

later than close of business on 

November 12, 2004. Reply submissions, 

if any, must be filed no later than the 

close of business on November 19, 2004. 

No further submissions on these issues 

will be permitted unless otherwise 

ordered by the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file with the Office of the Secretary 

the original document and 14 true 

copies thereof on or before the deadlines 

stated above. Any person desiring to 

submit a document (or portion thereof) 

to the Commission in confidence must 

request confidential treatment unless 

the information has already been 

granted such treatment during the 

proceedings. All such requests should 

be directed to the Secretary of the 

Commission and must include a full 

statement of the reasons that the 

Commission should grant such 

treatment. See section 201.6 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for 

which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is sought will be treated 

accordingly. All nonconfidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection at the Office of the Secretary. 

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 

sections 210.16, 210.42, 210.43, 210.45 

of the Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure (19 CFR 210.16, 210.42, 

210.43, 210.45).

Issued: November 1, 2004.

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–24695 Filed 11–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–523] 

In the Matter of Certain Optical Disk 

Controller Chips and Chipsets and 

Products Containing Same, Including 

DVD Players and PC Optical Storage 

Devices II; Notice of Commission 

Decision Not To Review an Initial 

Determination Granting a Motion To 

Amend the Complaint and Notice of 

Investigation To Add an Additional 

Respondent and Another Patent

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 the presiding administrative law 

judge’s (‘‘ALJ’s’’) initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 5) granting a motion 

to amend the complaint and notice of 

investigation to add Sunext Technology 

Co., Ltd. of Hsin-Chu City, Taiwan 

(‘‘Sunext’’) as a respondent and certain 

claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,170,043 

(‘‘the ‘043 patent’’).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Clara Kuehn, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3012. Copies of the public version 

of the ALJ’s ID and all other 

nonconfidential 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 August 31, 2004, based on a 

complaint filed on behalf of MediaTek 

Corporation (‘‘complainant’’) of HsinChu City, Taiwan. 69 FR 53089 (Aug. 

31, 2004). The complaint, as 

supplemented, alleged violations of 

section 337 in the importation into the 

United States, sale for importation, and 

sale within the United States after 

importation of certain optical disk 

controller chips and chipsets by reason 

of infringement of claims 1, 3–6, and 8–

10 of U.S. Patent No. 5,970,031 and 

claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent No. 6,229,773. 

Id. The notice of investigation named 

two respondents: Zoran Corporation of 

Sunnyvale, CA and Oak Technology, 

Inc. of Sunnyvale, CA (collectively 

‘‘respondents’’). Id.

On September 24, 2004, complainant 

moved pursuant to Commission rule 

210.14(b) to amend the complaint and 

notice of investigation to add Sunext as 

a respondent and to add another patent, 

viz., claims 1–2, 5–6, 15–19, and 21–22 

of the ‘043 patent to the scope of the 

investigation. On October 6, 2004, the 

Commission investigative attorney filed 

a response supporting the motion. On 

the same day, respondents filed a 

response opposing the motion. 

On October 7, 2004, the ALJ issued an 

ID (Order No. 5) granting the motion to 

amend the complaint and notice of 

investigation. 

No party petitioned for review 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 

section 210.42 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42).

By order of the Commission.

Issued: November 1, 2004. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–24693 Filed 11–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P