16818 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Notices 

201.6). Section 201.6 of the rules 

requires that the cover of the document 

and the individual pages be clearly 

marked as to whether they are the 

‘‘confidential’’ or ‘‘non-confidential’’

version, and that the confidential 

business information be clearly 

identified by means of brackets. All 

written submissions, except for 

confidential business information, will 

be made available in the Office of the 

Secretary to the Commission for 

inspection by interested parties. The 

Committee has asked that the report that 

the Commission transmits not contain 

any confidential business information. 

Any confidential business information 

received by the Commission in this 

investigation and used in preparing the 

report will not be published in a manner 

that would reveal the operations of the 

firm supplying the information. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: April 2, 2007. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–6409 Filed 4–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–551] 

In the Matter of Certain Laser Bar Code 

Scanners and Scan Engines, 

Components Thereof, and Products 

Containing Same; Notice of 

Commission Determination To Review 

a Final Determination on Violation of 

Section 337; Schedule for Briefing on 

the Issues on Review and on Remedy, 

Public Interest, and Bonding; Denial of 

Motion for Stay of Sanctions Order 

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 

November 20, 2006, regarding whether 

there is a violation of section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the 

above-captioned investigation. The 

Commission has also determined to 

deny respondents’ motion for stay of the 

ALJ’s sanctions order. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

M. Bartkowski, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–5432. 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: This 

investigation was instituted on October 

26, 2005, based on a complaint filed by 

Symbol Technologies Inc. (‘‘Symbol’’) of 

Holtsville, New York. The complaint, as 

amended, 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 laser bar code 

scanners or scan engines, components 

thereof, or products containing the 

same, by reason of infringement of 

various claims of United States Patent 

Nos. 5,457,308 (‘‘the ‘308 patent’’); 

5,545,889 (‘‘the ‘889 patent’’); 6,220,514 

(‘‘the ‘514 patent’’); 5,262,627 (‘‘the ‘627 

patent’’); and 5,917,173 (‘‘the ‘173 

patent’’). The complaint named two 

respondents: Metro Technologies Co., 

Ltd. of Suzhou, China; and Metrologic 

Instruments, Inc. of Blackwood, New 

Jersey (collectively, ‘‘Metrologic’’). 

On January 29, 2007, the ALJ issued 

an ID finding a violation of Section 337 

in the importation of certain laser bar 

code scanners and scan engines, 

components thereof, and products 

containing the same, in connection with 

certain asserted claims. The ID also 

issued monetary sanctions against 

Respondents for discovery abuses. 

Complainant, Respondents, and the 

Commission investigative attorney (IA) 

each filed petitions for review on 

February 8, 2007. They each filed 

responses to each other’s petitions on 

February 16, 2007. 

Meanwhile, on February 8, 2007, 

Metrologic filed a motion for stay of the 

ALJ’s sanctions order. The IA and 

Symbol filed oppositions to the motion 

on February 20, 2007. Upon 

consideration of the parties’ filings, the 

Commission has determined to deny 

Metrologic’s motion for stay. 

On February 21, 2007, the 

Commission extended the deadline for 

determining whether to review the 

subject ID by fifteen (15) days, to March 

30, 2007. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final 

ID and the submissions of the parties, 

the Commission has determined to 

review the final ID in part. Specifically, 

the Commission has determined to 

review: (1) The construction of ‘‘single, 

unitary, flexural component’’ in the ‘173 

patent, and related issues of 

infringement, domestic industry, and 

validity; (2) the construction of 

‘‘oscillatory support means’’ in the ‘627 

patent, and related issues of 

infringement, domestic industry, and 

validity; (3) the construction of claims 

containing the so-called ‘‘central area’’

limitations in the ‘889 patent, and 

related issues of infringement, domestic 

industry, and validity; (4) the 

construction of the ‘‘scan fragment’’

limitation in the ‘308 patent; and (5) the 

construction of the term ‘‘plurality’’ in 

the ‘308 patent. The Commission 

requests briefing based on the 

evidentiary record on certain of the 

issues on review. The Commission is 

particularly interested in responses to 

the following questions: 

Regarding the ‘173 patent: 

(1) What is the effect of Symbol’s 

statement in the prosecution history that 

‘‘[c]laim 70 [issued claim 17] also 

contains the feature of allowable claim 

58’’ on a proper claim construction? 

(2) If Symbol’s statement limited the 

scope of the claim, what is the effect on 

claim construction, infringement, 

domestic industry, and validity issues 

as they relate to the ‘173 patent? 

(3) If Symbol’s statement limits the 

scope of the claim by providing that the 

component have ‘‘spring portions 

integral with each other,’’ what would 

be the effect, if any, on the analysis? In 

other words, if a flexural component is 

‘‘single,’’ and ‘‘unitary,’’ does it 

necessarily have ‘‘spring portions 

integral with each other’’? 

Regarding the ‘627 patent: 

(1) How should the modifier 

‘‘oscillatory’’ be construed in the 

limitation ‘‘oscillatory support means’’? 

(2) How does the construction of the 

word ‘‘oscillatory’’ affect infringement, 

domestic industry, and validity as those 

issues relate to the ‘627 patent? 

Regarding the ‘889 patent: 

(1) What effect does Symbol’s 

statements during prosecution history 

such that the smaller mirror is 

‘‘centrally positioned’’ with respect to 

the larger mirror have on claim 

construction? 

(2) If such statements limit claim 

scope, what effect does that limitation 

have on claim construction, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Notices 16819 

infringement, domestic industry, and 

validity as those issues relate to the ‘889 

patent? 

Furthermore, 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 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 

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 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 if a remedy is 

ordered. 

Written Submissions: The parties to 

the investigation are requested to file 

written submissions on the issues under 

review. The submissions should be 

concise and thoroughly referenced to 

the record in this investigation, 

including references to exhibits and 

testimony. Additionally, 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 Commission investigative 

attorney are also requested to submit 

proposed remedial orders for the 

Commission’s consideration. 

Complainants are also requested to state 

the dates 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 April 9, 2007. 

Reply submissions must be filed no later 

than the close of business on April 16, 

2007. 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 

section 210.42–46 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42–46). 

Issued: March 30, 2007. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–6393 Filed 4–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–599] 

In the Matter of Certain Lighting 

Control Devices Including Dimmer 

Switches and/or Switches and Parts 

Thereof; Notice of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of investigation 

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a 

complaint was filed with the U.S. 

International Trade Commission on 

March 2, 2007, under section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 

U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Lutron 

Electronics Co., Inc. of Coopersburg, 

Pennsylvania. An amended complaint 

was filed on March 19, 2007. The 

amended complaint alleges violations of 

section 337 in the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

and the sale within the United States 

after importation of certain lighting 

control devices including dimmer 

switches and/or switches and parts 

thereof by reason of infringement of 

certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 

5,637,930, 5,248,919, 5,982,103, 

5,905,442, and 5,736,965. The amended 

complaint further alleges that an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337. 

The complainant requests that the 

Commission institute an investigation 

and, after the investigation, issue a 

permanent exclusion order and 

permanent cease and desist orders. 

ADDRESSES: The amended complaint, 

except for any confidential information 

contained therein, is 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., Room 112, Washington, DC 

20436, telephone 202–205–2000. 

Hearing impaired individuals are 

advised that information on this matter 

can be obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 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://www.usitc.gov/secretary/ 

edis.htm 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES