Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Notices 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 HewlettPackard 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 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
51056 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Notices 

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 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–751] 

In the Matter of Certain 

Turbomachinery Blades, Engines, and 

Components Thereof; Notice of 

Commission Decision Not To Review 

an Initial Determination Terminating 

the 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 the presiding administrative law 

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

(Order No. 8) granting a joint motion to 

terminate the investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2532. 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 December 14, 2010, based on a 

complaint filed by United Technologies 

Corporation of Hartford, Connecticut, 

that named as respondents Rolls-Royce 

Group plc and Rolls-Royce plc, both of 

the United Kingdom. 75 FR 77904 (Dec. 

14, 2010). The complaint alleged a 

violation of section 337 in the 

importation, sale for importation, and 

sale within the United States after 

importation of certain turbomachinery 

blades, engines, and components thereof 

by reason of the infringement of certain 

claims of U.S. Patent No. RE38,040. 

On July 15, 2011, the private parties 

moved to terminate the investigation 

based on a settlement. On July 22, 2011, 

the Commission investigative attorney 

filed a response in support of the 

motion. On July 25, 2011, the ALJ 

granted the motion as an ID (Order No. 

8). 

No petitions for review of the ID were 

filed. The Commission has determined 

not to review 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 Part 

210 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 

210). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: August 11, 2011. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20869 Filed 8–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Notice of Random Assignment Study 

To Evaluate the YouthBuild Program; 

Request for Comment 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA), Labor. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor 

(DOL or the Department) is prepared to 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES