[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 77 (Wednesday, April 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19946-19947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10671]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-393]


Certain Ion Trap Mass Spectrometers and Components Thereof; 
Notice of Final Commission Determination of No Violation of Section 337 
of the Tariff Act of 1930

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has made a final determination of no violation of section 
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, in the above-captioned 
investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl P. Bretscher, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone (202) 205-3107.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 210.43 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.43).
    The Commission instituted this investigation on February 20, 1997, 
based on a complaint by Finnigan Corporation (``Finnigan'') of San 
Jose, California. The complaint named three respondents--Bruker-Franzen 
Analytik Gmbh of Bremen, Germany; Bruker Instruments, Inc. of 
Billerica, Massachusetts; and Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto, 
California. After issuance of the administrative law judge's 
(``ALJ's'') final initial determination (``ID''), the ALJ and the 
parties entered into a joint stipulation that the activities complained 
of were performed by Bruker Analytical Systems, Inc., rather than 
Bruker Instruments, Inc.
    In its complaint, Finnigan alleged that respondents violated 
section 337 by importing into the United States, selling for 
importation, and/or selling in the United States after importation ion 
trap mass spectrometers that infringe one or more of claims 1-20 of 
Finnigan's U.S. Letters Patent 4,540,884 (the `` '884 patent'') and 
claims 1, 12-19 of Finnigan's U.S. Reissue Patent No. 34,000 (the `` 
'000 patent''). Finnigan did not pursue all of those claims at trial, 
however, but argued only that respondents infringed one or more of 
claims 1-4, 8, 12, 14, and 17 of the '884 patent and claims 1, 15, 17, 
18 of the '000 patent.
    The presiding ALJ held an evidentiary hearing from October 20 to 
October 31, 1997. On February 25, 1998, the ALJ issued his final ID, in 
which he concluded that there was no violation of section 337, based on 
the following findings: (a) Claims 1-4 and 8 of the '884 patent are 
invalid as anticipated by the prior art; (b) claims 12, 14, and 17 of 
the '884 patent are invalid as obvious over the prior art; (c) claims 
1-4, 8, 12, 14, and 17 of the '884 patent are neither infringed by 
respondents' accused devices nor practiced by Finnigan; (d) claims 15, 
17, and 18 of the '000 patent are invalid as anticipated; (e) claims 1, 
15, 17, and 18 of the '000 patent are invalid as obvious; (f) the 
claims of the '000 patent are invalid due to the inventors' failure to 
disclose the best mode of practicing their invention; (g) claim 1 of 
the '000 patent is neither infringed by respondents' accused devices 
nor practiced by Finnigan; and (h) claims 15, 17, and 18 of the '000 
patent, if valid, would be infringed by the accused devices and are 
practiced by Finnigan, which is sufficient to satisfy the domestic 
industry requirement of section 337.
    On March 9, 1998, Finnigan filed a petition for review of the ID, 
arguing that the ALJ erred in his adverse findings relating to claim 
construction, validity, and infringement. Finnigan also filed a request 
for oral argument, in the event the Commission orders review of the ID. 
No petitions for review were filed by either respondents or the IA. 
Respondents and the IA filed responses in opposition to Finnigan's 
petition on March 16, 1998.
    On March 13, 1998, the ALJ issued his Recommended Determination on 
Remedy and Bonding (``RD''), in the event the Commission were to 
conclude there is a violation of section 337. The parties filed their 
responses to the RD on or about March 25, 1998.
    Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the 
parties' written submissions, the Commission determined to take no 
position on the ALJ's findings that claims 12, 14, and 17 of the '884 
patent and claim 15 of the

[[Page 19947]]

'000 patent are invalid as obvious. The Commission determined not to 
review the remainder of the ID and thereby adopted the ID, with the 
exceptions noted herein, as its final determination. In light of these 
determinations, Finnigan's request for oral argument was denied as 
moot.
    Copies of the ALJ's ID and all other nonconfidential 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, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. 
Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter 
can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-
1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be 
obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov).

    Issued: April 13, 1998.

    By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-10671 Filed 4-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P