14572 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Notices 

Zebra Technologies Corporation, 3 

Overlook Point, Lincolnshire, Illinois 

60069 

Symbol Technologies, LLC, 1 Zebra 

Plaza, Holtsville, New York 11742 

(b) The respondents are the following 

entities alleged to be in violation of 

section 337, and are the parties upon 

which the complaint is to be served: 

Honeywell International Inc., 855 S. 

Mint Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 

28202 

Hand Held Products, Inc., 855 S. Mint 

Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 

28202 

(4) For the investigation so instituted, 

the Chief Administrative Law Judge, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

shall designate the presiding 

Administrative Law Judge. 

The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations is not participating as a 

party in this investigation. 

Responses to the complaint and the 

notice of investigation must be 

submitted by the named respondents in 

accordance with section 210.13 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as 

amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 

2020), such responses will be 

considered by the Commission if 

received not later than 20 days after the 

date of service by the complainants of 

the complaint and the notice of 

investigation. Extensions of time for 

submitting responses to the complaint 

and the notice of investigation will not 

be granted unless good cause therefor is 

shown. 

Failure of a respondent to file a timely 

response to each allegation in the 

complaint and in this notice may be 

deemed to constitute a waiver of the 

right to appear and contest the 

allegations of the complaint and this 

notice, and to authorize the 

administrative law judge and the 

Commission, without further notice to 

the respondent, to find the facts to be as 

alleged in the complaint and this notice 

and to enter an initial determination 

and a final determination containing 

such findings, and may result in the 

issuance of an exclusion order or a cease 

and desist order or both directed against 

the respondent. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 9, 2022. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05380 Filed 3–14–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1210] 

Certain Wrapping Material and 

Methods for Use in Agricultural 

Applications; Notice of Commission 

Determination To Review in Part a 

Final Initial Determination Finding No 

Violation of Section 337; Schedule for 

Filing Written Submissions; Extension 

of Target Date 

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 

(‘‘final ID’’) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on 

December 10, 2021, finding no violation 

of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended. The Commission requests 

briefing from the parties on certain 

issues under review, as indicated in this 

notice. The Commission also requests 

briefing from the parties, interested 

government agencies, and interested 

persons on the issues of remedy, the 

public interest, and bonding. The 

Commission has also determined to 

extend the target date for the completion 

of the investigation to May 9, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ronald A. Traud, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3427. 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 on (202) 

205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

11, 2020, the Commission instituted this 

investigation based on a complaint filed 

on behalf of Tama Group of Israel and 

Tama USA Inc. of Dubuque, Iowa 

(together, ‘‘Tama’’). 85 FR 48561–62 

(Aug. 11, 2020). The complaint alleged 

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 wrapping material and methods 

for use in agricultural applications by 

reason of infringement of one or more of 

claims 1, 2, 4–16, 18, 28, 32, 33, and 35– 

45 of U.S. Patent No. 6,787,209 (‘‘the 

’209 patent’’). Id. The Commission’s 

notice of investigation named as 

respondents Zhejiang Yajia Cotton 

Picker Parts Co., Ltd. of Zhuji City, 

China (‘‘Yajia Cotton’’); Southern 

Marketing Affiliates, Inc. of Jonesboro, 

Arkansas (‘‘SMA’’); Hai’an Xin Fu Yuan 

of Agricultural, Science, and 

Technology Co., Ltd. of Nantong, China 

(‘‘XFY’’); and Gosun Business 

Development Co. Ltd. of Grande Prairie, 

Canada (‘‘Gosun’’). Id. at 48561. The 

Office of Unfair Import Investigations is 

not participating in this investigation. 

Id. 

The Commission previously 

terminated this investigation with 

respect to Gosun. Order No. 6, 

unreviewed by Notice (Oct. 5, 2020). 

Based on Tama’s motion, the 

Commission later amended the 

complaint and notice of investigation to 

add Zhejiang Yajia Packaging Materials 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yajia Packaging’’) as a 

respondent. Order No. 8, unreviewed by 

Notice (Oct. 27, 2020); 85 FR 68,916 

(Oct. 30, 2020). Yajia Cotton and Yajia 

Packaging are collectively referred to 

herein as ‘‘Yajia.’’ Yajia, SMA, and XFY 

are collectively referred to herein as 

‘‘Respondents.’’ 

On November 16, 2020, XFY was 

found in default pursuant to 

Commission Rule 210.16 (19 CFR 

210.16). Order No. 11, unreviewed by 

Notice (Nov. 30, 2020). 

On December 10, 2021, the ALJ issued 

the final ID, which found that 

Respondents did not violate section 337. 

The final ID found (1) that Tama no 

longer asserts claims 15, 16, 18, 28, and 

45 of the ‘209 patent; (2) the importation 

or sale requirement of section 337 has 

been satisfied; (3) the Accused Products 

infringe claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 10–14 of 

the ’209 patent; (4) Yajia and SMA do 

not infringe claims 32, 33, 35–38, and 

41–44 of the ′209 patent; (5) the 

technical prong of the domestic industry 

requirement for the ’209 patent has been 

satisfied; (6) the ’209 patent is not 

invalid; and (7) the economic prong of 

the domestic industry requirement has 

not been satisfied. The ALJ’s 

Recommended Determination on 

remedy and bonding (‘‘RD’’) 

recommended that should the 

Commission find a violation, it should 

issue a limited exclusion order directed 

to certain wrapping material and 

methods for use in agricultural 

applications imported, sold for 

importation, and/or sold after 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Notices 14573 

importation by respondents Yajia, SMA, 

and XFY. The RD further recommended 

that the issuance of cease and desist 

orders would be unnecessary. The RD 

additionally recommended that the 

Commission set a bond during the 

period of Presidential review using a 

price differential between the Accused 

Products and Tama’s TamaWrap 

products. Thus, the CALJ recommended 

that the Commission set a bond in the 

amount of $119 (or 20%) for Tama’s 

Premium product and $23 (or 4%) for 

Tama’s Blue Value product. The 

Commission did not instruct the CALJ 

to make findings concerning the public 

interest. 

On December 27, 2021, Yajia and 

SMA filed a joint petition for review, 

and Tama also filed a petition for 

review. On January 4, 2022, Yajia Cotton 

and SMA filed a joint response to 

Tama’s petition for review, and Tama 

filed a response to Yajia and SMA’s 

joint petition for review. 

The Commission received no public 

interest comments from the public in 

response to the Commission’s Federal 

Register notice seeking comment on the 

public interest. 86 FR 71664–65 (Dec. 

17, 2021). Tama, Yajia, and SMA did 

not submit any public interest 

comments pursuant to Commission Rule 

210.50(a)(4) (19 CFR 210.50(a)(4)). 

Having examined the record in this 

investigation, including the final ID, the 

petitions for review, and the responses 

thereto, the Commission has determined 

to review the final ID in part. In 

particular, the Commission has 

determined to review the following: 

(1) The final ID’s findings that Yajia 

and SMA do not infringe claims 32, 33, 

35–38, and 41–44 directly or indirectly; 

and 

(2) the final ID’s finding that the 

economic prong of the domestic 

industry requirement has not been 

satisfied. 

The Commission has determined not to 

review the remainder of the final ID. 

The Commission has also determined 

to extend the target date for the 

completion of the investigation to May 

9, 2022. 

The parties are requested to brief their 

positions with reference to the 

applicable law and the evidentiary 

record regarding the questions provided 

below: 

(1) Under Commission and judicial 

precedent, section 337 and its legislative 

history, and any other relevant authority, is 

a license (express or otherwise) between 

Tama and John Deere & Co. (‘‘Deere’’) 

necessary for the Commission to consider 

Deere’s investments in its On-Board Module 

Harvesters, including model numbers 7760, 

CP690, and CS690 (‘‘the Deere Machines’’), 

towards Tama’s satisfaction of the economic 

prong of the domestic industry requirement? 

Or, is it sufficient that Deere and Tama 

collaborated to design a system that requires 

Tama’s TamaWrap and Deere’s Deere 

Machines? Is it necessary that Tama 

authorized Deere to use the patented devices 

and methods? 

(2) What evidence is in the record that 

shows that Deere was authorized to use the 

’209 patent? 

(3) Under Commission and judicial 

precedent, section 337 and its legislative 

history, and any other relevant authority, if 

the Commission considers Deere’s 

investments in the categories listed in section 

337(a)(3)(A)–(C) towards the satisfaction of 

the economic prong of the domestic industry 

requirement, to what extent and in which 

statutory category(ies) should the 

Commission consider the Deere 

expenditures? For example, should such 

expenditures be in TamaWrap itself and/or 

the method of using TamaWrap; should such 

expenditures be related to ensuring 

TamaWrap is compatible with the Deere 

Machines; should such expenditures have 

some other connection to TamaWrap and/or 

the ’209 patent; or, should all expenditures 

related to the Deere Machines in each 

relevant statutory category contribute 

towards the satisfaction of the domestic 

industry requirement? 

(4) What evidence is in the record that 

Deere specifically invested in TamaWrap 

and/or the method of using TamaWrap? For 

example, what activities did Deere undertake 

to ensure the Deere Machines would work 

well with TamaWrap? 

(5) What part of the Deere Machines are 

specifically designed to interact with 

TamaWrap and what, if any, of Deere’s 

investments asserted by Tama were 

specifically related to that portion of the 

Deere Machines and/or ensuring that Deere 

Machines are compatible with TamaWrap? 

(6) Does the ‘‘article[ ] protected by the 

patent’’ (19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)) differ for the 

asserted apparatus claims and method 

claims? For example, are the Deere Machines 

‘‘articles protected by the patent’’ with 

respect to the method claims while only the 

TamaWrap is an ‘‘article[ ] protected by the 

patent’’ with respect to the apparatus claim? 

If the articles protected by the patent differ 

as between the apparatus and the method 

claims, please provide a chart with 

supporting citations to the record indicating 

the expenditures for each statutory category 

for the respective apparatus and method 

claims. 

(7) Can the Commission consider Deere’s 

expenditures related to the Deere Machines 

under an ‘‘article of commerce theory’’? See, 

e.g., Certain Video Game Sys. & Wireless 

Controllers & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 

337–TA–770, Comm’n Op. at 66–70 (Oct. 28, 

2013) (Public Version) (‘‘Video Game Sys.’’). 

(8) To what extent do Deere’s activities 

related to the Deere Machines have a direct 

relationship to the exploitation of the 

patented technology, and to what extent can 

the expenditures be considered on that basis? 

See, e.g., Video Game Sys., Comm’n Op. at 

67–68. 

(9) To what extent do the ‘‘realities of the 

marketplace’’ require Deere’s expenditures in 

the Deere Machines for Tama to sell 

TamaWrap (or articles practicing the 

Asserted Patent)? See, e.g., Video Game Sys., 

Comm’n Op. at 8. 

(10) Were the expenditures related to the 

Deere Machines necessary to bringing 

TamaWrap to the consumer market, and if so, 

should the Commission consider those 

expenditures, and to what extent? See, e.g., 

Video Game Sys., Comm’n Op. at 69–70; 

Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes & Components 

Thereof, Inv. No. 337–TA–712, Order No. 33 

(Jan. 11, 2011), aff’d in part, Notice (July 21, 

2011). 

(11) Were the expenditures related to the 

Deere Machines central to the exploitation of 

TamaWrap, and if so, should the Commission 

consider those expenditures, and to what 

extent? See, e.g., Certain Magnetic Tape 

Cartridges & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 

337–TA–1058, Comm’n Op. at 50 (Apr. 9, 

2019) (Public Version); Certain SleepDisordered Breathing Treatment Sys. & 

Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337–TA–890, 

Final ID at 147–50 (Sept. 16, 2014) (Public 

Version), unreviewed in relevant part by 

Notice, (Oct. 16, 2014). 

(12) With citations to record evidence and 

any relevant Commission and/or judicial 

precedent, including, e.g., Certain In Vitro 

Fertilization Products, Components Thereof, 

and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 

337–TA–1196, Dissenting Views of 

Commissioners Schmidtlein and Karpel (Oct. 

28, 2021), please discuss whether Tama’s 

domestic activities as a whole indicate that 

it is more than a ‘‘mere importer.’’ Please 

note that this question is different from 

Question 13. 

(13) With citations to record evidence and 

any relevant Commission and/or judicial 

precedent, please discuss whether Tama’s 

qualifying domestic activities indicate that it 

is more than a ‘‘mere importer.’’ 

(14) Please indicate how Tama’s claimed 

investments in the acquisition of Ambraco, 

components, administrative fees, and 

administrative expenses qualify as 

investments in ‘‘labor or capital’’ under 

section 337(a)(3)(B)? Please allocate those 

investments with respect to the articles 

protected by the patent and to those portions 

attributable to labor or capital. 

(15) What arguments were presented to the 

ALJ that the amount of Deere’s investment 

were significant or substantial? 

(16) To the extent Tama is not a mere 

importer and certain domestic activities and 

investments with respect to the asserted 

patent excluded by the final ID (see e.g., 

certain warehousing, inventory, logistics, 

finance, invoicing, account management, 

and/or promotion, marketing, and sales 

expenditures) should be credited as 

cognizable domestic industry investments, 

please discuss whether Tama’s cognizable 

domestic industry investments (apart from 

any investments by Deere) are significant or 

substantial within the meaning of section 

337(a)(3)(A)–(C), with citation to record 

evidence. 

(17) To the extent investments by Deere are 

considered by the Commission along with 

the investments excluded by the final ID (see, 

e.g., certain warehousing, inventory, 

logistics, finance, invoicing, account 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
14574 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Notices 

management, and/or promotion, marketing, 

and sales expenditures) with respect to 

satisfaction of the economic prong of the 

domestic industry requirement under section 

337(a)(3)(A)–(C), please discuss whether 

domestic industry investments are significant 

or substantial within the meaning of section 

337(a)(3)(A)–(C), with citation to record 

evidence. 

In connection with the final 

disposition of this investigation, the 

statute authorizes issuance of, inter alia, 

(1) an exclusion order that could result 

in the exclusion of the subject articles 

from entry into the United States, and/ 

or (2) cease and desist orders that could 

result in the 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, the party should so 

indicate and provide information 

establishing that activities involving 

other types of entry either are adversely 

affecting it or are likely to do so. For 

background, see Certain Devices for 

Connecting Computers via Telephone 

Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC 

Pub. No. 2843, Comm’n Op. at 7–10 

(Dec. 1994). 

The statute requires the Commission 

to consider the effects of that remedy 

upon the public interest. The public 

interest 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, 

disapprove, or take no action on the 

Commission’s determination. 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 questions 

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 

initial written submissions should 

include views on the RD that issued on 

December 10, 2021. 

Initial written submissions, limited to 

80 pages, must be filed no later than the 

close of business on March 23, 2022. 

Complainants are requested to identify 

the form of the remedy sought and to 

submit proposed remedial orders for the 

Commission’s consideration. 

Complainants are also requested to state 

the HTSUS subheadings under which 

the accused articles are imported, and to 

supply identification information for all 

known importers of the accused 

products. Reply submissions, limited to 

50 pages, must be filed no later than the 

close of business on March 30, 2022. No 

further submissions on these issues will 

be permitted unless otherwise ordered 

by the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document 

electronically on or before the deadlines 

stated above. The Commission’s paper 

filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) 

are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 (Mar. 

19, 2020). Submissions should refer to 

the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 

337–TA–1210’’) in a prominent place on 

the cover page and/or the first page. (See 

Handbook for Electronic Filing 

Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/ 

documents/handbook_on_filing_

procedures.pdf). Persons with questions 

regarding filing should contact the 

Secretary at (202) 205–2000. 

Any person desiring to submit a 

document to the Commission in 

confidence must request confidential 

treatment by marking each document 

with a header indicating that the 

document contains confidential 

information. This marking will be 

deemed to satisfy the request procedure 

set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 

210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 

210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which 

confidential treatment by the 

Commission is properly sought will be 

treated accordingly. A redacted nonconfidential version of the document 

must also be filed simultaneously with 

any confidential filing. All information, 

including confidential business 

information and documents for which 

confidential treatment is properly 

sought, submitted to the Commission for 

purposes of this investigation may be 

disclosed to and used: (i) By the 

Commission, its employees and Offices, 

and contract personnel (a) for 

developing or maintaining the records 

of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in 

internal investigations, audits, reviews, 

and evaluations relating to the 

programs, personnel, and operations of 

the Commission including under 5 

U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. 

government employees and contract 

personnel, solely for cybersecurity 

purposes. All contract personnel will 

sign appropriate nondisclosure 

agreements. All nonconfidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection on EDIS. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on March 9, 

2022. 

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). 

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(s) complete 

service for any party/parties 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). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 9, 2022. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05384 Filed 3–14–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—The Open Group, L.L.C. 

Notice is hereby given that, on March 

2, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the 

National Cooperative Research and 

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), The Open Group, 

L.L.C. (‘‘TOG’’) has filed written 

notifications simultaneously with the 

Attorney General and the Federal Trade 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES