[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51055-51056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20913]



[[Page 51055]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-723]


 In the Matter of Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges with Printheads 
and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination to Review in 
Part A Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; 
Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issue Under Review and 
on Remedy, the Public Interest and Bonding

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 the final initial 
determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ'') on June 10, 2011, finding a violation of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panyin A. Hughes, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. 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 Commission instituted this investigation 
on June 25, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Hewlett-Packard Company 
of Palo Alto, California and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., 
of Houston, Texas (collectively ``HP''). 75 FR. 36442 (June 25, 2010). 
The complaint alleged 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 inkjet ink cartridges with printheads and 
components thereof by reason of infringement of various claims of 
United States Patent Nos. 6,234,598 (``the '598 patent'') ; 6,309,053 
(``the '053 patent''); 6,398,347 (``the '347 patent''); 6,481,817 
(``the '817 patent''); 6,402,279 (``the '279 patent''); and 6,412,917 
(``the '917 patent''). The '917 patent was subsequently terminated from 
the investigation. The complaint named the following entities as 
respondents: MicroJet Technology Co., Ltd. of Hsinchu City, Taiwan 
(``MicroJet''); Asia Pacific Microsystems, Inc. of Hsinchu City, Taiwan 
(``APM''); Mipo Technology Limited of Kowloon, Hong Kong (``Mipo 
Tech.''); Mipo Science & Technology Co., Ltd. of Guangzhou, China 
(``Mipo''); Mextec d/b/a Mipo America Ltd. of Miami, Florida 
(``Mextec''); SinoTime Technologies, Inc. d/b/a All Colors of Miami, 
Florida (``SinoTime''); and PTC Holdings Limited of Kowloon, Hong Kong 
(``PTC'').
    Respondents Mipo, Mipo Tech., SinoTime, and Mextec were 
subsequently terminated from the investigation. Respondent MicroJet 
defaulted. Respondent PTC did not participate in the hearing and failed 
to file post-hearing briefs. Pursuant to 19 CFR 210.17(d) and (e), the 
ALJ drew an adverse inference against PTC that ``PTC imported accused 
products into the United States, that those products were manufactured 
by MicroJet, and that those products contain ICs [integrated circuits] 
made by APM.'' ID at 29.
    On June 10, 2011, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding a violation 
of section 337 by the respondents. Specifically, the ALJ found that the 
Commission has subject matter jurisdiction: in rem jurisdiction over 
the accused products and in personam jurisdiction over the respondents. 
The ALJ also found that there has been an importation into the United 
States, sale for importation, or sale within the United States after 
importation of the accused inkjet ink cartridges with printheads and 
components thereof. Regarding infringement, the ALJ found that MicroJet 
and PTC directly infringe claims 1-6 and 8-10 of the '598 patent, 
claims 1-6 and 8-17 of the '053 patent, claims 1, 3-5, and 8-12 of the 
'347 patent, claims 1-14 of the '817 patent, and claims 9-15 of the 
'279 patent. The ALJ also found that MicroJet induces infringement of 
those claims. The ALJ further found that APM does not directly infringe 
claims 1-5 of the '598 and does not induce infringement of the asserted 
patents. The ALJ, however, found APM liable for contributory 
infringement. With respect to invalidity, the ALJ found that the 
asserted patents were not invalid. Finally, the ALJ concluded that an 
industry exists within the United States that practices the '598, '053, 
'347, '817, and '279 patents as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2).
    On June 24, 2011, HP filed a contingent petition for review of the 
ID. On June 27, 2011, APM and the Commission investigative attorney 
(``IA'') filed petitions for review of the ID. On July 5, 2011, the 
parties filed responses to the various petitions and contingent 
petition for review.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, 
the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. 
Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the finding that 
HP failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that 
Respondent APM induced infringement of the asserted patents. The 
Commission has determined not to review any other issues in the ID.
    The parties are requested to brief their positions on the issue 
under review with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary 
record. In connection with its review, the Commission is particularly 
interested in a response to the following question:
    1. Does the record evidence demonstrate that APM's conduct meets 
the ``specific intent'' requirement for inducement in light of the 
ALJ's finding that ``APM certainly had knowledge of the asserted 
patents and the infringement at issue once it was served with HP's 
Complaint. And APM continued to sell its components to MicroJet even 
after receiving HP's Complaint''? ID at 91; RX-69C. See DSU Med. Corp. 
v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the 
Commission may (1) Issue an order that could result in the exclusion of 
the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) 
issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the 
respondent(s) 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, the party 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

[[Page 51056]]

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).
    If 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 include the effect that an 
exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders 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 U.S. Trade 
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve 
or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of 
July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the 
subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under 
bond, in an amount determined by the Commission. The Commission is 
therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of 
the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.
    Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested 
to file written submissions on the issue identified in this notice. 
Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any 
other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on 
the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such 
submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on 
remedy and bonding. Complainants and the IA are also requested to 
submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. 
Complainants are also requested to state the date that the patents 
expire and the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are 
imported. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be 
filed no later than close of business on Thursday, August 25, 2011. 
Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on 
Thursday, September 1, 2011. No further submissions on these issues 
will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
    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. Any person desiring to submit a document 
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 why 
the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 210.6. 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 210.42-46 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46 and 210.50).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 11, 2011.
William R. Bishop,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-20913 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE ;P