Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Notices 95233 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in each Subject Country, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: This proceeding is being 

conducted under authority of Title VII 

of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is 

published pursuant to § 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 25, 2024. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28057 Filed 11–29–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1369] 

Certain Icemaking Machines and 

Components Thereof; Notice of a 

Commission Determination To Review 

a Final Initial Determination Finding a 

Violation of Section 337; Request for 

Written Submissions on the Issues 

Under Review and on Remedy, the 

Public Interest, and Bonding; 

Extension of the Target Date 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has 

determined to review a final initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) of the chief 

administrative law judge (‘‘CALJ’’), 

finding a violation of section 337 in this 

investigation. The Commission requests 

written submissions from the parties on 

the issues under review and 

submissions from the parties, interested 

government agencies, and other 

interested persons on the issues of 

remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding, under the schedule set forth 

below. The Commission has also 

determined to extend the target date for 

completion of this investigation to 

February 13, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Benjamin S. Richards, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–5453. 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, telephone 

(202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

16, 2023, the Commission instituted this 

investigation based on a complaint filed 

by Hoshizaki America, Inc. of Peachtree 

City, Georgia (‘‘Hoshizaki’’). 88 FR 

55721–22 (Aug. 16, 2023). The 

complaint alleges 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, or the sale 

within the United States after 

importation of certain icemaking 

machines and components thereof by 

reason of the infringement of one or 

more of claims 1–3, 6–8, and 11–20 of 

U.S. Patent No. 10,107,538 (‘‘the ’538 

patent’’); claims 1–4, 10–13, and 16 of 

U.S. Patent No. 10,113,785 (‘‘the ’785 

patent’’); and claims 1, 2, 5–9, and 11– 

14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,458,692 (‘‘the 

’692 patent’’). Id. at 5572. The 

Commission’s notice of investigation 

named as respondents Blue Air FSE LLC 

of Gardena, California; and Bluenix Co., 

Ltd. of Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea 

(collectively, ‘‘Bluenix’’). The Office of 

Unfair Import Investigations was also 

named as a party in this investigation, 

but ceased participating on October 13, 

2023. Id.; see also EDIS Doc. ID 805894. 

The CALJ issued IDs terminating the 

following claims from the investigation 

at Hoshizaki’s request: claims 2, 8, 11– 

18, and 20 of the ’538 patent; claims 2– 

4, 11–13, and 16 of the ’785 patent; and 

claims 2, 6–8, and 11–14 of the ’692 

patent. Order No. 9 (Dec. 19, 2023), 

unreviewed, Comm’n Notice, EDIS Doc. 

ID 811832 (Jan. 11, 2024); Order No. 15 

(Apr. 8, 2024), unreviewed, Comm’n 

Notice, EDIS Doc. ID 819782 (Apr. 26, 

2024). 

On April 25, 2024, the CALJ issued an 

ID granting Hoshizaki’s unopposed 

motion for summary determination that 

Hoshizaki satisfied the domestic 

industry requirement. Order No. 16 

(Apr. 25, 2024). The Commission 

reviewed and then affirmed that ID. 

Comm’n Notice, EDIS Doc. ID 822414 

(May 29, 2024). 

The CALJ conducted an evidentiary 

hearing from May 6, 2024, through May 

10, 2024. 

On August 30, 2024, the CALJ issued 

his final ID on violation. That ID found 

that a violation of section 337 had 

occurred in the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

or the sale within the United States after 

importation of certain icemaking 

machines and components thereof that 

infringe certain claims of the ’538, ’785, 

and ’692 patents. On September 16, 

2024, Bluenix filed a petition for review 

of the ID, and Hoshizaki filed a 

contingent petition for review of the ID. 

On September 23, 2024, Bluenix filed a 

response to Hoshizaki’s contingent 

petition for review. On September 24, 

2024, Hoshizaki filed a response to 

Bluenix’s petition for review. 

Having reviewed the record of the 

investigation, including the final ID, the 

parties’ submissions to the CALJ, the 

evidentiary record, and the parties’ 

petitions for review and responses 

thereto, the Commission has determined 

to review the ID in part. Specifically, the 

Commission has determined to review 

the ID’s infringement findings for the 

’785 and ’692 patents. 

In connection with its review, the 

Commission requests responses to the 

following questions. The parties are 

requested to brief their positions with 

reference to the applicable law and the 

existing evidentiary record. 

(1) For the ’785 and ’692 patents, 

please address whether the ‘‘function’’ 

of the ‘‘inner flat portion’’ limitation for 

purposes of the doctrine of equivalents 

analysis should include the overall 

function of making ice or be more 

narrowly defined to just the separation 

of active and passive cavities. As a legal 

matter, should the doctrine of 

equivalents analysis focus on the 

specific function of the claim limitation 

or the overall function of the claimed 

invention? See AquaTex Indus., Inc. v. 

Techniche Sols., 479 F.3d 1320, 1326– 

27 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (finding error where 

the identified function of promoting 

evaporation was for the filler layer as a 

whole rather than the specific function 

of the ‘‘fiberfill batting material’’ 

limitation). As a factual matter, please 

address what role, if any, the inner flat 

portions play with respect to the 

formation and harvesting of ice in the 

claimed invention. See, e.g., ’785 patent 

at 5:23–27 (‘‘The degree to which ice 

extends over the inner flat portions 30 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
95234 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Notices 

and the adjacent second protrusions 38 

is determined, at least in part, by the 

length of time that water is applied to 

the front and rear plates 14, 16 during 

the ice forming cycle.’’). 

(2) Please address whether the 

difference between an inner flat portion 

(as claimed) and a slightly curved inner 

portion (as found in the accused 

products) will affect the ‘‘way’’ in which 

ice is formed (i.e., by preventing the 

formation of ‘‘boundary layers,’’ or due 

to less surface area of contact between 

the plates and the water that forms ice 

during the cooling and harvesting 

cycles, or due to the shape of the 

surrounding tubing coil). See RRB at 

18–20. 

(3) Please address the ‘‘result’’ that 

should be considered for purposes of 

the doctrine of equivalents analysis, e.g., 

the efficiency of the icemaking process 

or the quantity or quality of ice 

produced from the icemaking machine. 

Please address whether the difference 

between an inner flat portion (as 

claimed) and a slightly curved inner 

portion (as found in the accused 

products) will affect that result. 

(4) Assuming that the icemaking 

function should be considered in 

determining equivalency, please address 

the expert testimony and other 

supporting evidence for or against your 

positions in response to the questions 

above (and in particular why the final 

ID found Dr. Tanbour’s testimony to be 

more credible than Bluenix’s expert). 

See ID at 72 n.20. 

(5) Please address any evidence of 

record indicating what constitutes 

‘‘slightly curved inner portions’’ in the 

accused products as characterized in the 

ID. ID at 69. Will the degree of curvature 

of the inner portion make a difference 

in an assessment of whether an accused 

product is equivalent to the claimed 

‘‘inner flat portion’’? 

(6) For purposes of applying the 

function-way-result test for equivalence, 

if you contend that that function of the 

claimed ‘‘inner flat portions’’ is 

something other than ‘‘separat[ing] 

active and passive cavities, which are, 

in turn, interspersed so as to define ice 

forming sites,’’ ID at 70, indicate 

whether and where you raised that 

contention in the post-hearing briefing 

before the CALJ. Similarly, indicate 

whether and where you raised that 

contention in your petition for review of 

the ID. If you did not contend before the 

CALJ or in a petition for review that the 

function of the ‘‘inner flat portions’’ is 

something other than the function 

identified in the ID, explain why that 

contention has or has not now been 

forfeited, waived, or abandoned. 

(7) Do you contend that the asserted 

claims of the ’785 and ’692 patents are 

limited to evaporators comprising ovalshaped refrigerant conduits? If so, 

explain where that limitation appears in 

the ’785 and ’692 patents. 

(8) Do you contend that the asserted 

claims of the ’785 and ’692 patents limit 

the surface area of the claimed ‘‘inner 

flat portions’’ to a particular size or 

range of sizes? If so, explain where that 

limitation appears in the ’785 and ’692 

patents. 

(9) Do you contend that the asserted 

claims of the ’785 and ’692 patents are 

limited to evaporators that meet a 

certain efficiency threshold? If so, 

explain where that limitation appears in 

the ’785 and ’692 patents. 

(10) Do you contend that the 

evaporators claimed in the asserted 

claims of the ’785 and ’692 patents are 

limited to the dimensions shown in 

figure 2 of those patents? If so, explain 

why your contention is not in conflict 

with Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. 

Avia Grp. Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 

(Fed. Cir. 2000) (‘‘[I]t is well established 

that patent drawings do not define the 

precise proportions of the elements and 

may not be relied on to show particular 

sizes if the specification is completely 

silent on the issue.’’). 

(11) In testifying regarding a lack of 

equivalence between the claimed ‘‘inner 

flat portions’’ of the ’785 and ’692 

patents and the accused structures in 

the accused products, see tr. 521:2– 

526:13, did Bluenix’s expert witness 

treat the dimensions shown in figure 2 

of the ’785 and ’692 patents as limiting? 

The parties are invited to brief only 

the discrete issues requested above. The 

parties are not to brief other issues on 

review, which are adequately presented 

in the parties’ existing filings. 

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 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 issues 

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 

CALJ on remedy and bonding. 

In its initial submission, Complainant 

is also requested to identify the remedy 

sought and to submit proposed remedial 

orders for the Commission’s 

consideration. Complainant is further 

requested to state the dates that the 

Asserted Patents expire, to provide the 

HTSUS subheadings under which the 

accused products are imported, and to 

supply the identification information for 

all known importers of the products at 

issue in this investigation. The initial 

written submissions and proposed 

remedial orders must be filed no later 

than close of business on December 9, 

2024. Reply submissions must be filed 

no later than the close of business on 

December 16, 2024. No further 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Notices 95235 

submissions on these issues will be 

permitted unless otherwise ordered by 

the Commission. Opening submissions 

are limited to 75 pages. Reply 

submissions are limited to 60 pages. 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 

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–1369) 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, (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. Any non-party 

wishing to submit comments containing 

confidential information must serve 

those comments on the parties to the 

investigation pursuant to the applicable 

Administrative Protective Order. A 

redacted non-confidential version of the 

document must also be filed with the 

Commission and served on any parties 

to the investigation within two business 

days of 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 has also determined 

to extend the target date for completion 

of this investigation to February 13, 

2025. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on November 

25, 2024. 

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: November 25, 2024. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28146 Filed 11–29–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–750 and 731– 

TA–1728 (Preliminary)] 

Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic 

Abrasive Grains From China; Notice of 

Institution of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Investigations and 

Scheduling of Preliminary Phase 

Investigations 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the institution of investigations 

and commencement of preliminary 

phase antidumping and countervailing 

duty investigation Nos. 701–TA–750 

and 731–TA–1728 (Preliminary) 

pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘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 of sol gel alumina-based 

ceramic abrasive grains from China, 

provided for in subheading 2818.10.20 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States, that are alleged to be 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value and alleged to be subsidized by 

the Government of China. Unless the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) 

extends the time for initiation, the 

Commission must reach a preliminary 

determination in antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations in 45 

days, or in this case by January 9, 2025. 

The Commission’s views must be 

transmitted to Commerce within five 

business days thereafter, or by January 

16, 2025. 

DATES: November 25, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keysha Martinez ((202) 205–2136), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired 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 (https://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—These investigations 

are being instituted, pursuant to 

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

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

1673b(a)), in response to petitions filed 

on November 25, 2024, by Saint-Gobain 

Ceramics & Plastics, Inc., Malvern, 

Pennsylvania. 

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 and B 

(19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207). 

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 

§§ 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 antidumping duty and 

countervailing 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 these investigations 

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 

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


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1