Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 230 / Monday, November 30, 2020 / Notices 76599 

the conveyance and may sustain, vacate, 

or modify this realty action. In the 

absence of any adverse comments, the 

decision will become final. The lands 

will not be offered for conveyance until 

the BLM has signed a Decision Record 

for the completed Environmental 

Assessment. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment, including your 

personal identifying information, may 

be made available to the public at any 

time. While you can ask in your 

comment to withhold your personal 

identifying information from public 

review, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

Authority: 43 CFR 2640 and FAA 14 CFR 

part 153. 

Kimber Liebhauser, 

Wyoming Acting State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26324 Filed 11–27–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–22–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1174] 

Certain Toner Cartridges, Components 

Thereof, and Systems Containing 

Same Issuance of a General Exclusion 

Order and Cease and Desist Orders; 

Termination of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has affirmed a summary 

determination of violation of section 

337 and has determined to issue (1) a 

general exclusion order (‘‘GEO’’) 

denying entry of certain toner 

cartridges, components thereof, and 

systems containing same; and (2) cease 

and desist orders (‘‘CDOs’’) against 20 

respondents (listed below). The 

investigation is terminated. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3179. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help 

accessing EDIS, please email 

EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. 

Hearing-impaired persons are advised 

that information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal, telephone 

(202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 23, 2019, the Commission 

instituted this investigation based on a 

complaint filed by Brother Industries, 

Ltd. of Nagoya Japan; Brother 

International Corp. (U.S.A.) of 

Bridgewater, New Jersey; and Brother 

Industries (U.S.A.), Inc. of Bartlett, 

Tennessee (collectively, ‘‘Brother’’). 84 

FR 49762–63 (Sept. 23, 2019). The 

complaint alleged violations of section 

337 based on the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

or the sale within the United States after 

importation of certain toner cartridges, 

components thereof, and systems 

containing same by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 9,568,856 (‘‘the ’856 

patent’’); 9,575,460 (‘‘the ’460 patent’’); 

9,632,456 (‘‘the ’456 patent’’); 9,785,093 

(‘‘the ’093 patent’’); and 9,846,387 (‘‘the 

’387 patent’’) (collectively, ‘‘the 

Asserted Patents’’). Id. The 

Commission’s notice of investigation 

named the following 32 respondents: 

AMI Brothers, Inc. of San Bruno, 

California (‘‘AMI’’); An An Beauty 

Limited of Kowloon, Hong Kong (‘‘An 

An Beauty’’); Aster Graphics, Inc. of 

Riverside, California (‘‘Aster’’); Aztech 

Enterprises Limited of Kowloon, Hong 

Kong (‘‘Aztech’’); Billiontree 

Technology USA Inc. of City of 

Industry, California (‘‘Billiontree’’); 

Carlos Imaging Supplies, Inc. of 

Hacienda Heights, California (‘‘Carlos’’); 

Cartridge Evolution, Inc. of Brooklyn, 

New York (‘‘Cartridge Evolution’’); Do it 

Wiser, LLC of Wilmington, Delaware 

(‘‘Do it Wiser’’); Eco Imaging Inc. of 

Irvine, California (‘‘Eco Imaging’’); 

Ecoolsmart Co. of Rowland Heights, 

California (‘‘Ecoolsmart’’); EPrinter 

Solution LLC of Pomona, California 

(‘‘EPS’’); E-Z Ink Inc. of Brooklyn, New 

York (‘‘E-Z Ink’’); Globest Trading Inc. 

of Ontario, California (‘‘Globest’’); 

Greencycle Tech, Inc. of South El 

Monte, California (‘‘Greencycle’’); 

Hongkong Boze Co., Ltd. of Kowloon, 

Hong Kong (‘‘Hongkong Boze’’); I8 

International, Inc. of City of Industry, 

California (‘‘I8’’); IFree E-Commerce Co. 

of Kowloon, Hong Kong (‘‘IFree’’); Ikong 

E-Commerce of Walnut, California 

(‘‘Ikong’’); Intercon International Corp. 

of Brea, California (‘‘Intercon’’); IPrint 

Enterprise Limited of Kowloon, Hong 

Kong (‘‘IPrint’’); LD Products, Inc. of 

Long Beach, California (‘‘LD Products’’); 

Linkyo Corp. of La Puente, California 

(‘‘Linkyo’’); Mangoket LLC of Alhambra, 

California (‘‘Mangoket’’); New Era Image 

LLC of Corona, California (‘‘New Era’’); 

OW Supplies Corp. of Corona, 

California (‘‘OW Supplies’’); Solong ECommerce Co., LLC of Wan Chai, Hong 

Kong (‘‘Solong’’); Smartjet E-Commerce 

Co., LLC of Wan Chai, Hong Kong 

(‘‘Smartjet’’); Super Warehouse Inc. of 

Blaine, Washington (‘‘Super 

Warehouse’’); Theresa Meng of 

Brooklyn, New York (‘‘Ms. Meng’’); 

Triple Best LLC of San Diego, California 

(‘‘Triple Best’’); V4ink, Inc. of Diamond 

Bar, California (‘‘V4ink’’); and Zhuhai 

Xiaohui E-Commerce Co., Ltd. of 

Zhuhai, China (‘‘Xiaohui’’). Id. at 

49762–63. The notice of investigation 

also named the Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) as a party. Id. at 

49763. 

Of the 32 respondents, only one, 

Aster, is participating at this stage. 

Aster, however, did not oppose the 

summary determination motion of 

violation as to the accused products, 

even though Aster’s products are subject 

to the motion. See Joint Stipulation of 

Brother and Aster for Resolution as to 

Aster in the Investigation (Mar. 4, 2020). 

EPS and IFree were terminated from the 

investigation based upon withdrawal of 

the complaint against them. See Order 

No. 32 (Jan. 28, 2020), unreviewed by 

Comm’n Notice (Feb. 25, 2020). 

Cartridge Evolution, E-Z Ink, Linkyo, 

New Era, OW Supplies, Ms. Meng, 

Triple Best, and V4ink were terminated 

from the investigation based upon entry 

of consent orders. See Order No. 36 

(Mar. 12, 2020), unreviewed by Comm’n 

Notice (Mar. 31, 2020); Order No. 38 

(Mar. 12, 2020), unreviewed by Comm’n 

Notice (Mar. 31, 2020); Order No. 37 

(Mar. 12, 2020), unreviewed by Comm’n 

Notice (Mar. 31, 2020); Order No. 10 

(Oct. 18, 2019), unreviewed by Comm’n 

Notice (Nov. 6, 2019); Order No. 17 

(Nov. 21, 2019), unreviewed by Comm’n 

Notice (Dec. 18, 2019); Order No. 28 

(Dec. 30, 2019), unreviewed by Comm’n 

Notice (Jan. 29, 2020); Order No. 18 

(Nov. 27, 2019), unreviewed by Comm’n 

Notice (Dec. 18, 2019); Order No. 33 (Fe. 

3, 2020), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice 

(Mar. 4, 2020). The following 21 

respondents defaulted: AMI, Globest, 

An An Beauty, Aztech, Xiaohui, 

Ecoolmart, Greencycle, Intercon, Do it 

Wiser, I8, Solong, Billiontree, Carlos 

Imaging, Eco Imaging, Hongkong Boze, 

Ikong, IPrint, Mangoket, Smartjet, Super 

Warehouse, and LD Products 

(collectively, ‘‘Defaulting 

Respondents’’). See Order No. 35 (Mar. 

5, 2020), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice 

(Mar. 19, 2020); Order No. 31 (Jan. 22, 


TKELLEY on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
76600 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 230 / Monday, November 30, 2020 / Notices 

1The Chair granted Brother’s motion for leave to 

file one day late. Brother filed on time but 

inadvertently omitted to include the certificate of 

service. Brother corrected the omission the next 

day. 

2020), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice 

(Feb. 21, 2020); Order No. 26 (Dec. 20, 

2019), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice 

(Jan 16, 2020); Order No. 25 (Dec. 18, 

2019), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice 

(Jan. 16, 2020); Order No. 24 (Dec. 18, 

2019), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice 

(Jan. 16, 2020); Order No. 8 (Oct. 15, 

2019), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice 

(Nov. 7, 2019). 

On March 12, 2020, Brother filed a 

motion for summary determination of 

violation of section 337 by Aster and the 

Defaulting Respondents and for a 

recommendation that the Commission 

issue a GEO and CDOs. See 

Complainants’ Motion for Summary 

Determination of Violation and for 

Recommended Determination on 

Remedy and Bonding. On March 23, 

2020, OUII filled a response in support 

of Brother’s motion. See Commission 

Investigative Staff’s Response to 

Brother’s Motion for Summary 

Determination of Violation. No 

respondent filed a response to Brother’s 

motion. Id. 

On July 23, 2020, the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued 

an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order 

No. 40) granting Brother’s motion for 

summary determination on violation of 

section 337 and issued a recommended 

determination (‘‘RD’’) on remedy and 

bonding. The ID found that the 

Commission has subject matter 

jurisdiction over the investigation. ID at 

34. The ID further found that none of 

the respondents contest the 

Commission’s personal jurisdiction over 

them or in rem jurisdiction as to the 

accused products. ID at 34–35. The ID 

found that Brother: (1) Established the 

importation requirement as to Aster and 

Defaulting Respondents, ID at 36–79; (2) 

demonstrated that the accused products 

infringe the asserted claims, id. at 118– 

133; and (3) demonstrated that the 

domestic industry (‘‘DI’’) products 

practice at least one claim of each 

Asserted Patent and that a DI exists in 

the United States, id. at 84–118. The RD 

recommended issuance of a general 

exclusion order (‘‘GEO’’) (or, in the 

alternative, a limited exclusion order 

directed to Aster and each of the 

Defaulting Respondents). RD at 134–44. 

The RD further recommended issuance 

of cease and desist orders (‘‘CDOs’’) 

directed to Aster and each defaulting 

respondent that has domestic 

operations. Id. at 144–46. The RD also 

recommended setting different bond 

rates for entry of the different products 

covered by the GEO during the period 

of Presidential review. Id. at 146–48 

(recommended bond rate table at 147). 

No one petitioned for review of the ID. 

On August 24, 2020, Aster filed a 

public interest statement in response to 

the Commission’s notice soliciting 

public interest comments pursuant to 19 

CFR 210.50(a)(4)(i). In its submission, 

Aster argued that any Commission 

remedial orders issued in this 

investigation should not cover its new 

products pursuant to its stipulation with 

Brother. See Respondent Aster 

Graphics, Inc.’s Statement of Public 

Interest. On August 26, 2020, Brother 

filed a response. See Complainants’ 

Motion to Strike Aster Graphics, Inc.’s 

Statement on the Public Interest for 

Failure to Comply with Commission 

Rule 210.15 Or, in the Alternative, for 

Leave to Respond. 

On September 8, 2020, the 

Commission determined not to review 

the ID and requested written 

submissions on remedy, the public 

interest, and bonding. 85 FR 56628–31 

(Sept. 14, 2020). The Commission 

rejected Aster’s August 24, 2020 public 

interest submission as improper under 

19 CFR 210.50(a)(4)(i). Id. at 56630. The 

Commission noted that while 19 CFR 

210.50(a)(4)(i) provides that parties may 

file information with the Commission 

relating to the public interest, Aster’s 

submission concerned the scope of the 

remedy and thus did not fall within the 

ambit of the public interest submissions 

provided for under 19 CFR 

210.50(a)(4)(i). Id. The Commission 

stated that ‘‘Aster will have an 

opportunity to raise its arguments 

regarding the scope of any remedial 

orders in a remedy submission before 

the Commission in response to the 

instant notice, which invites parties to 

file submissions addressing remedy, 

bonding and the public interest as noted 

below.’’ Id. 

On September 22, 2020, Brother, 

Aster, and OUII filed initial submissions 

in response to the Commission’s 

request. See Complainants’ Submission 

on Remedy, the Public Interest, and 

Bonding; Respondent Aster Graphics, 

Inc.’s Submission on Remedy, the 

Public Interest and Bonding; Response 

of the Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations to the Commission’s 

Request for Written Submissions 

Regarding Remedy, the Public Interest, 

and Bonding. On September 29, 2020, 

the parties filed reply submissions. See 

Complainants’ Reply Submission on 

Remedy, the Public Interest, and 

Bonding; 1 Respondent Aster Graphics, 

Inc.’s Reply to the Submission of the 

Office of Unfair Import Investigations 

and Complainants on Remedy, the 

Public Interest and Bonding; Reply of 

the Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations to the Private Parties’ 

Written Submissions Regarding 

Remedy, the Public Interest, and 

Bonding. 

As noted above, the Commission 

affirmed the ID’s finding that there is a 

violation of section 337 with respect to 

Aster and Defaulting Respondents. The 

Commission also finds that the statutory 

requirements for issuance of a GEO 

under section 337(d)(2) are met. See 19 

U.S.C. 1337(d)(2). The Commission 

further finds that issuance of CDOs 

against Aster and 19 of the defaulting 

respondents (noted below) is 

appropriate under section 337(f)(1). See 

19 U.S.C. 1337(f)(1). In addition, the 

Commission finds that the public 

interest factors do not preclude issuance 

of the requested relief. See 19 U.S.C. 

1337(d)(1), (f)(1). 

The Commission therefore has 

determined that the appropriate remedy 

in this investigation is: (1) A GEO 

prohibiting the unlicensed importation 

of certain toner cartridges, components 

thereof, and systems containing same 

that infringe one or more of claims 1– 

5, 10, and 12–15 of the ’093 patent; 

claims 1, 7–11, 15, and 16 of the ’460 

patent; claims 1–7, and 9 of the ’856 

patent; claims 1, 4, 5, and 9 of the ’456 

patent; and claims 1, 3, 5, 7–12, and 18 

of the ’387 patent; and (2) CDOs 

directed to Aster, AMI, Billiontree, 

Carlos Imaging, Do It Wiser, Eco 

Imaging, Ecoolmart, Globest, 

Greencycle, Hongkong Boze, I8, Ikong, 

Intercon, IPrint, LD Products, Mangoket, 

Smartjet, Solong, Super Warehouse, and 

Xiaohui. The Commission has also 

determined that the bond during the 

period of Presidential review shall be in 

the amount of the following percentages 

of the entered value for respondents 

AMI, Aster, and Globest: 

Infringing products AMI 

(%) 

Aster 

(%) 

Globest 

(%) 

Accused 221/225 

Products ............ 568 1463 900 

Accused 223/227 

Products ............ 274 336 372 

Accused 420/450 

Products ............ .......... 623 682 

Accused 630/660 

Products ............ 575 886 635 

Accused 730/760/ 

770 Products .... 589 354 369 

The bond for all other infringing 

articles shall be in the amount of one 

hundred percent (100%) of the entered 

value. 

The Commission’s orders were 

delivered to the President and to the 


TKELLEY on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 230 / Monday, November 30, 2020 / Notices 76601 

1The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

2 85 FR 65073 (October 14, 2020). 

United States Trade Representative on 

the day of their issuance. The 

investigation is terminated. 

While temporary remote operating 

procedures are in place in response to 

COVID–19, the Office of the Secretary is 

not able to serve parties that have not 

retained counsel or otherwise provided 

a point of contact for electronic service. 

Accordingly, pursuant to Commission 

Rules 201.16(a) and 210.7(a)(1) (19 CFR 

201.16(a), 210.7(a)(1)), the Commission 

orders that the Complainant complete 

service for any party without a method 

of electronic service noted on the 

attached Certificate of Service and shall 

file proof of service on the Electronic 

Document Information System (EDIS). 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on November 

23, 2020. 

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: November 23, 2020. 

William Bishop, 

Supervisory Hearings and Information 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26277 Filed 11–27–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1225] 

Notice of a Commission Determination 

Not to Review an Initial Determination 

Terminating the Investigation in Its 

Entirety Based on Withdrawal of the 

Complaint; Termination of the 

Investigation; Certain Active Matrix 

OLED Display Devices and 

Components Thereof 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the International Trade Commission has 

determined not to review an initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 7) of 

the presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) terminating the investigation 

based on withdrawal of the complaint. 

The investigation is terminated. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2310. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help 

accessing EDIS, please email 

EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. 

Hearing-impaired persons are advised 

that information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal, telephone 

202–205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on October 28, 2020, based on a 

complaint filed by Solas OLED Ltd. 

(‘‘Solas’’) of Dublin, Ireland. 85 FR 

68368–69 (Oct. 28, 2020). The 

complaint alleges violations of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based upon 

the importation into the United States, 

the sale for importation, and the sale 

within the United States after 

importation of certain active matrix 

OLED display devices and components 

thereof by reason of infringement of 

certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 

8,139,007; 7,573,068; and 7,868,880. 

The complaint further alleges the 

existence of a domestic industry. The 

Commission’s notice of investigation 

named the following as respondents: 

Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California; 

Sony Electronics Inc. of San Diego, 

California; Samsung Electronics 

America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New 

Jersey; Samsung Display Co., Ltd. and 

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., both of 

Gyeonggi-do, South Korea; Dell 

Technologies Inc. of Round Rock, Texas; 

Motorola Mobility LLC of Chicago, 

Illinois; LG Electronics Inc. and LG 

Display Co., Ltd., both of Seoul, South 

Korea; LG Display America, Inc. of San 

Jose, California; and LG Electronics 

USA, Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New 

Jersey. The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations is participating in the 

investigation. 

On November 6, 2020, Solas moved to 

terminate the investigation in its 

entirety based on withdrawal of the 

complaint. No party opposed the 

motion. 

On November 12, 2020, the ALJ 

issued the subject ID (Order No. 7), 

granting the unopposed motion to 

terminate the investigation in its 

entirety based on withdrawal of the 

complaint. The ID finds that the motion 

for termination satisfies Commission 

Rule 210.21(a)(1) (19 CFR 210.21(a)(1)) 

and that termination of the investigation 

is not contrary to the public interest. 

The ID also finds that no extraordinary 

circumstances exist that would prevent 

the requested termination. No party 

petitioned for review. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the subject ID. The 

investigation is terminated. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on November 

24, 2020. 

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: November 24, 2020. 

William Bishop, 

Supervisory Hearings and Information 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26357 Filed 11–27–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1546–1549 

(Preliminary)] 

Thermal Paper From Germany, Japan, 

Korea, and Spain 

Determination 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject investigations, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) determines, pursuant 

to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), 

that there is a reasonable indication that 

industries in the United States are 

materially injured by reason of imports 

of thermal paper from Germany, Japan, 

Korea, and Spain, provided for in 

subheadings 4811.80.80 and 4811.80.90 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States, that are alleged to be 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value (‘‘LTFV’’).2

Commencement of Final Phase 

Investigation 

Pursuant to section 207.18 of the 

Commission’s rules, the Commission 

also gives notice of the commencement 

of the final phase of its investigations. 

The Commission will issue a final phase 

notice of scheduling, which will be 

published in the Federal Register as 

provided in section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules, upon notice from 

the U.S. Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Commerce’’) of affirmative 

preliminary determinations in the 


TKELLEY on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES