17512 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Notices 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on November 15, 2007, based on a 

complaint filed by Funai Electric Co., 

Ltd. of Japan and Funai Corporation of 

Rutherford, NJ (collectively ‘‘Funai’’), 

alleging 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 digital televisions 

and certain products containing the 

same by reason of infringement of 

certain claims of United States Patent 

Nos. 5,329,369 (‘‘the ’369 patent’’) and 

6,115,074 (‘‘the ’074 patent’’). 72 FR 

64240 (November 15, 2007). The 

complaint named fourteen respondents. 

Subsequent to institution, certain 

respondents were terminated from the 

investigation based on settlement 

agreements. 

On November 17, 2008, the ALJ 

issued his final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’), finding that a violation of section 

337 has occurred in the importation into 

the United States, the sale for 

importation, and the sale within the 

United States after importation of 

certain digital televisions and certain 

products containing the same by reason 

of infringement of claims 1, 5, and 23 

of the ’074 patent. The ALJ found that 

no violation exists with respect to the 

’369 patent. Respondents, the 

Commission investigative attorney 

(‘‘IA’’), and complainant Funai each 

filed petitions for review of the ID on 

December 1, 2008. The IA, the 

respondents, and complainant Funai 

each filed responses to the petitions for 

review on December 9, 2008. 

On February 11, 2009, the 

Commission determined to review the 

ALJ’s determination that the 

respondents infringe claim 23 of the 

’074 patent and requested written 

submissions on the issues under review, 

remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding. On February 24, 2009, the 

parties filed opening submissions, and 

on March 3, 2009, the parties filed 

response submissions. Several nonparties, including MediaTek, Inc., 

Taipei Economic and Cultural 

Representative Office, and Congressman 

Adam Schiff of California, also filed 

submissions addressing issues related to 

remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding. 

On March 5, 2009, the respondents 

filed a motion for leave to file a surreply to Funai’s response submission on 

remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding. Both the IA and Funai 

opposed this motion. The Commission 

has determined to deny the 

respondents’ motion for leave to file a 

sur-reply. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID, 

the Commission has determined to (1) 

reverse the ALJ’s findings that the Proview 

and TPV respondents directly infringe claim 

23 of the ’074 patent and (2) affirm the ALJ’s 

conclusion that all respondents induce 

infringement of claim 23 of the ’074 patent. 

The Commission has determined that 

the appropriate form of relief is (i) a 

limited exclusion order prohibiting the 

unlicensed entry of digital televisions 

and products containing the same that 

infringe one or more of claims 1, 5, and 

23 of the ’074 patent and are 

manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, 

or imported by or on behalf of, Vizio, 

AmTran, SBC, Taiwan Kolin, Proview 

International, Proview Shenzhen, 

Proview Technology, TPV Technology, 

TPV USA, Top Victory, and Envision; 

and (ii) cease and desist orders against 

domestic respondents Vizio, Proview 

Technology, TPV USA, Envision and 

SBC. 

The Commission further determined 

that the public interest factors 

enumerated in section 337(d) and (f)(19 

U.S.C. 1337(d), (f)) do not preclude 

issuance of the limited exclusion order 

and the cease and desist orders. Finally, 

the Commission determined that the 

amount of bond during the Presidential 

review period (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)) shall 

be in the amount of two dollars and fifty 

cents ($2.50) per article that is subject 

to the order. The Commission’s order 

was delivered to the President and the 

United States Trade Representative on 

the day of its issuance. 

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 210.42–50 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42–50). 

Issued: April 10, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–8600 Filed 4–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–643] 

In the Matter of Certain Cigarettes and 

Packaging Thereof; Notice of 

Commission Determination To Review 

the Presiding Administrative Law 

Judge’s Initial Summary Determination 

of Violation; Schedule for Written 

Submissions 

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 its entirety the administrative law 

judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) initial summary 

determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 19) in 

the above-captioned investigation, in 

which he granted the complainant’s 

motion for a summary determination of 

violation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan J. Engler, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3112. Copies of the ALJ’s IDs and 

all other 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: On April 

4, 2008, the Commission instituted this 

investigation, based on a complaint filed 

by Philip Morris USA Inc., naming 

Alcesia SRL; Emarket Systems Ltd. 

(d.b.a. http://all-discountcigarettes.com); Jamen Chong (d.b.a. 

http://asiadfs.com); Tri-kita (d.b.a. 

http://cheapcigarettes4all.com); Mr. 

Eduard Lee (d.b.a. http:// 

cigarettesonlineshop.com); Zonitech 

Properties Limited (d.b.a. http:// 

cigline.net); Zonitech Properties Limited 

(d.b.a. http://shopping-heaven.com); 

Cendano (d.b.a. http://galastore.com); 

Ms. Svetlana Trevinska (d.b.a. http:// 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Notices 17513 

save-on-cigarettes.com); LMB Trading 

SA (d.b.a. http://k2smokes.ch); G.K.L. 

International SRL (d.b.a. http://allcigarettes-brandsxom); G.K.L. 

International SRL (d.b.a. http:// 

smokerjim.net); and Best Product 

Solution Ltd. as respondents. The 

complainant alleges violations of 

Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 

U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the 

United States of certain cigarettes and 

packaging thereof that infringe 

registered trademarks owned by 

complainant. 

On December 12, 2008, the ALJ issued 

an ID, Order No. 13, in which he 

determined to extend the target date in 

this investigation from July 6, 2009, to 

September 21, 2009. No petitions for 

review were filed, and the Commission 

determined not to review Order No. 13. 

On November 25, 2008, the 

complainant moved for an initial 

determination finding 11 respondents in 

default for failing to show cause why 

they should not be found in default with 

regard to 14 trademarks listed in the 

Commission’s Notice of Investigation 

and one additional respondent in 

default for failing to participate in the 

proceeding. On January 9, 2009, the ALJ 

issued an initial determination, Order 

No. 17, granting Phillip Morris’ motion 

for entry of default as to these 12 

respondents. No petitions for review 

were filed, and on February 5, 2009, the 

Commission determined not to review 

Order No. 17. 

On February 3, 2009, the ALJ issued 

Order No. 19, an initial determination 

granting Phillip Morris’ motion for 

summary determination that Alcesia 

had violated Section 337 of the Tariff 

Act with respect to three trademarks: 

U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 

68,502; 378,340; and 894,450. On 

February 17, 2009, Alcesia filed a 

petition for review of Order No. 19. Both 

Phillip Morris and the Commission’s 

Office of Unfair Import Investigations 

filed responses on February 23, 2009. 

On February 26, 2009, Alcesia filed a 

motion requesting leave to file a reply, 

which Phillip Morris opposed on March 

2, 2009. On March 4, 2009, the 

Commission extended the deadline for 

determining whether to review Order 

No. 19 until April 9, 2009. 

On February 3, 2009, the ALJ also 

issued Order No. 20, in which he denied 

Phillip Morris’ request for a 

recommended determination on remedy 

and bonding on grounds that Phillip 

Morris’ November 26, 2008 motion for 

summary determination did not, in fact, 

resolve the issues in the investigation 

with respect to all 14 trademarks, but 

only with respect to three: U.S. 

Trademark Registration Nos. 68,502; 

378,340; and 894,450. The ALJ declined 

to terminate the violation phase of the 

investigation until Phillip Morris 

withdrew the 11 trademarks not 

addressed in its motion for summary 

determination. 

On February 9, 2009, Phillip Morris 

filed a motion withdrawing the 11 

trademark claims. On February 23, 

2009, the ALJ issued Order No. 21 in 

which he granted the motion. Order No. 

21 was not reviewed by the 

Commission. On March 18, 2009, the 

ALJ issued his recommendations on 

remedy and bonding. 

The Commission has determined to 

review Order No. 19 in its entirety. It 

has also determined to deny Alcesia’s 

motion for leave to file a reply. The 

Commission requests briefing by the 

parties to the investigation on the 

following questions: 

(1) Does the Commission have the 

authority to find a foreign entity in 

violation of 19 U.S.C. 1337 (a)(1)(C) if 

that entity is not an ‘‘owner, importer or 

consignee’’ of the alleged gray market 

goods? 

(2) What is the appropriate standard 

for the Commission to apply in gray 

market cases to determine whether two 

entities are affiliated for purposes of its 

‘‘all or substantially all’’ analysis? More 

specifically, where the Commission is 

seeking to determine whether all or 

substantially all of a complainant’s sales 

in the United States are of goods that 

contain the alleged material differences, 

and there is evidence that other entities 

in the United States or abroad have a 

corporate relationship with the 

complainant, under what circumstances 

should gray market sales by those other 

entities be imputed to the complainant? 

(3) Is Phillip Morris International 

authorized and/or licensed to use the 

specific Phillip Morris USA trademarks 

at issue in this investigation in the 

manufacture and sale of cigarettes 

abroad? Please make specific reference 

to documents in the record. If Phillip 

Morris International was not so 

authorized, was this case properly 

brought as a gray market case? 

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: Parties to the 

investigation are asked to file written 

submissions on the questions posed by 

the Commission. Parties to the 

investigation, interested government 

agencies, and any other interested 

parties and on the issues of remedy, the 

public interest, 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 HTSUS numbers under which the 

accused products are imported. 

Briefing must be filed no later than 

close of business on May 8, 2009. Reply 

submissions must be filed no later than 

the close of business on May 29, 2009. 

Such submissions should address the 

recommended determinations on 

remedy and bonding which were made 

by the ALJ in Order No. 23 (March 18, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
17514 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Notices 

2009). No further submissions on any of 

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: April 9, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–8569 Filed 4–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–463 and 731– 

TA–1159 (Preliminary)] 

Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods 

From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of countervailing 

duty and antidumping duty 

investigations and scheduling of 

preliminary phase investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the institution of investigations 

and commencement of preliminary 

phase countervailing duty investigation 

No. 701–TA–463 (Preliminary) and 

antidumping duty investigation No. 

731–TA–1159 (Preliminary) under 

sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 

1673b(a)) (the Act) to determine 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that an industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, or the establishment of 

an industry in the United States is 

materially retarded, by reason of 

imports from China of certain oil 

country tubular goods, provided for in 

subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20 and 

7306.29 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States, that are 

alleged to be subsidized by the 

Government of China, and sold in the 

United States at less than fair value. 

Unless the Department of Commerce 

extends the time for initiation pursuant 

to sections 702(c)(1)(B) or 732(c)(1)(B) of 

the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671a(c)(1)(B) or 

1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must 

reach a preliminary determination in 

these investigations in 45 days, or in 

this case by May 26, 2009. The 

Commission’s views are due at 

Commerce within five business days 

thereafter, or by June 2, 2009. 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of these investigations and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: April 8, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Ruggles (202–205–3187 or 

fred.ruggles@usitc.gov), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter 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 (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

These investigations are being 

instituted in response to a petition filed 

on April 8, 2009, by Maverick Tube 

Corporation, Houston, TX; United States 

Steel Corporation, Dallas, TX; V&M Star 

LP, Houston, TX; V&M Tubular 

Corporation of America, Houston, TX; 

TMK IPSCO, Camanche, IA; Evraz 

Rocky Mountain Steel, Pueblo, CO; 

Wheatland Tube Corp., Wheatland, PA; 

and the United Steel, Paper and 

Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union, AFL–CIO– 

CLC, Pittsburgh, PA. 

Participation in the Investigations and 

Public Service List 

Persons (other than petitioners) 

wishing to participate in the 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the 

Commission’s rules, not later than seven 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Industrial users 

and (if the merchandise under 

investigation is sold at the retail level) 

representative consumer organizations 

have the right to appear as parties in 

Commission countervailing duty and 

antidumping duty investigations. The 

Secretary will prepare a public service 

list containing the names and addresses 

of all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to this investigation 

upon the expiration of the period for 

filing entries of appearance. 

Limited Disclosure of Business 

Proprietary Information (BPI) under an 

Administrative Protective Order (APO) 

and BPI Service List Pursuant to section 

207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the 

Secretary will make BPI gathered in 

these investigations available to 

authorized applicants representing 

interested parties (as defined in 19 

U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the 

investigations under the APO issued in 

the investigation, provided that the 

application is made not later than seven 

days after the publication of this notice 

in the Federal Register. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Conference 

The Commission’s Director of 

Operations has scheduled a conference 

in connection with these investigations 

for 9:30 a.m. on April 29, 2009, at the 

U.S. International Trade Commission 

Building, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. Parties wishing to 

participate in the conference should 

contact Fred Ruggles (202–205–3187) 

not later than April 27, 2009, to arrange 

for their appearance. Parties in support 

of the imposition of countervailing and 

antidumping duties in these 

investigations and parties in opposition 

to the imposition of such duties will 

each be collectively allocated one hour 

within which to make an oral 

presentation at the conference. A 

nonparty who has testimony that may 

aid the Commission’s deliberations may 

request permission to present a short 

statement at the conference. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS