28284 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Notices 

and to correct the name of another; an 

ID issued. Order No. 6 (Mar. 5, 2010). 

On March 31, 2010, the Commission 

determined not to review that ID. 75 FR 

17433–34 (Apr. 6, 2010). 

On April 12, 2010, Richtek moved for 

leave to amend its complaint to assert 

dependent claims 8–11 of the ’190 

patent on the basis of newly discovered 

evidence produced by the respondents 

in this investigation. Independent claim 

1 of the ’190 patent (upon which claims 

8–11 depend) had always been asserted 

in this investigation. On April 20, 2010, 

the respondents filed their opposition, 

arguing that Richtek’s two-month delay 

in asserting these patent claims caused 

them prejudice. The next day, the 

Commission’s investigative attorney 

filed a response indicating that she did 

not oppose the motion. 

On April 22, 2010, the ALJ issued an 

ID granting Richtek’s motion. Order No. 

19 (Apr. 22, 2010). The ID found good 

cause for Richtek’s delay and tacitly 

rejected the respondents’ allegations of 

prejudice. Id. at 6–7. 

No petitions for review of the ID were 

filed. The Commission has determined 

not to review the ID. 

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 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 14, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12101 Filed 5–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–564] 

In the Matter of: Certain Voltage 

Regulators, Components Thereof and 

Products Containing Same; 

Enforcement Proceeding; Notice of 

Commission Determination Not To 

Review the Enforcement Initial 

Determination; Schedule for Briefing 

on the Issues of Remedy, Public 

Interest, and Bonding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The United States 

International Trade Commission hereby 

provides notice that it has determined 

not to review the Enforcement Initial 

Determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the 

presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) on March 18, 2010 in the abovecaptioned investigation. Notice is 

further given that the Commission is 

requesting briefing on remedy, the 

public interest, and bonding with 

respect to the ID’s findings and 

recommendations concerning 

enforcement measures. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

M. Bartkowski, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–5432. Copies of all 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, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone 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 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 

the matter can be obtained by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted the investigation 

underlying this enforcement proceeding 

on March 22, 2006, based on a 

complaint filed by Linear Technology 

Corporation (‘‘Linear’’) of Milpitas, 

California. 71 FR 14545. The complaint, 

as supplemented, 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 voltage regulators, components 

thereof and products containing the 

same, by reason of infringement of 

certain claims of United States Patent 

No. 6,411,531 and of United States 

Patent No. 6,580,258 (‘‘the ‘258 patent’’). 

The complaint named Advanced 

Analogic Technologies, Inc. (‘‘AATI’’) of 

Sunnyvale, California as the sole 

respondent. After Commission review of 

the administrative law judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) 

final ID, the Commission determined 

that there was a violation of section 337 

by AATI with respect to certain asserted 

claims of the ‘258 patent and issued a 

limited exclusion order (‘‘LEO’’) 

consistent with its findings of violation. 

Subsequently, based on an enforcement 

complaint filed by Linear, the 

Commission instituted an enforcement 

proceeding by notice in the Federal 

Register on October 10, 2008. 

On March 18, 2010, the ALJ issued 

the subject ID, finding that, due to 

infringement of claims 2 and 34 of the 

‘258 patent by the accused products, 

AATI violated the LEO. AATI filed a 

petition for review of certain aspects of 

the ID, and Linear filed a contingent 

petition for review of the ID. AATI and 

Linear filed responses to each others’ 

petitions, and the Commission 

investigative attorney filed a joint 

response to the private parties’ 

petitions. Having reviewed the record of 

the enforcement proceeding, including 

the petition for review and the 

responses thereto, the Commission has 

determined not to review the ID. 

In connection with the final 

disposition of this proceeding, the 

Commission may (1) modify the LEO 

and/or (2) issue a cease-and-desist order 

that could result in the respondent 

being required to cease and desist from 

engaging in unfair acts in the 

importation and sale of the subject 

articles. Accordingly, the Commission is 

interested in receiving written 

submissions that address the form of 

remedy, if any, that should be ordered. 

The Commission is particularly 

interested in receiving briefing 

regarding potential modifications to the 

LEO that ensure exclusion of the 

products for which a violation was 

found. 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 a 

modified exclusion order and/or ceaseand-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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Notices 28285 

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. 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, interested government 

agencies, and any other interested 

parties are encouraged to file written 

submissions on the issues of remedy, 

the public interest, and bonding. All 

parties are requested to submit proposed 

remedial orders for the Commission’s 

consideration. Complainants are 

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 June 

2, 2010. Reply submissions, if any, must 

be filed no later than the close of 

business on June 11, 2010. 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 *201.6. 

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 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 14, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12103 Filed 5–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–678] 

In the Matter of Certain Energy Drink 

Products; Notice of Commission 

Decision Not To Review an Initial 

Determination of Violation of Section 

337; Schedule for Submissions on 

Remedy, Public Interest, and Bonding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review a final initial determination 

(‘‘final ID’’) (Order No. 34) issued by the 

presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) finding a violation of Section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘section 337’’) in the aboveidentified investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James A. Worth, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202– 

205–3065. Copies of the public version 

of the ID and all 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, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone 202–205–2000. Hearingimpaired 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). The public 

record for this investigation may be 

viewed on the Commission’s electronic 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

17, 2009, the Commission instituted this 

investigation, based on a complaint filed 

by Red Bull GmbH of Fuschl am See, 

Austria, and Red Bull North America of 

Santa Monica, California (collectively, 

‘‘Red Bull’’) filed on May 15, 2009, and 

supplemented on June 1, 2009. The 

respondents named in the notice of 

investigation were: Chicago Import Inc., 

of Chicago, Illinois (‘‘Chicago Import’’); 

Lamont Distr., Inc., a/k/a Lamont 

Distributors Inc., of Brooklyn, New York 

(‘‘Lamont’’); India Imports, Inc., a/k/a 

International Wholesale Club of 

Metairie, Louisiana (‘‘India Imports’’); 

Washington Food and Supply of DC, 

Inc., a/k/a Washington Cash & Carry of 

Washington, DC (‘‘Washington Food’’); 

Vending Plus, Inc., of Glen Burnie, 

Maryland; and Baltimore Beverage Co., 

Glen Burnie, Maryland. The complaint 

alleged violations of Section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, by 

reason of the importation, the sale for 

importation, or the sale after 

importation, of certain energy drink 

products that infringe U.S. Trademark 

Registration Nos. 3,092,197; 2,946,045; 

2,2994,429; 3,479,607 and U.S. 

Copyright Registration No. 

VA0001410959. The complaint further 

alleged that an industry in the United 

States exists as required by subsection 

(a)(2) of section 337. On August 12, 

2009, the Commission determined not 

to review an ID (Order No. 7) granting 

a motion to amend the notice of 

investigation to clarify that Vending 

Plus, Inc., and Baltimore Beverage Co., 

comprise a single entity, Vending Plus, 

Inc. d/b/a Baltimore Beverage Co. 

(‘‘Vending Plus’’). On September 30, 

2009, the Commission determined not 

to review an ID (Order No. 11) granting 

a motion to amend the notice of 

investigation to include the following 

additional respondents: Posh Nosh 

Imports (USA), Inc., of South Kearny, 

New Jersey (‘‘Posh Nosh’’); Greenwich, 

Inc., of Florham Park, New Jersey 

(‘‘Greenwich’’); Advantage Food 

Distributors Ltd., of Suffolk, UK 

(‘‘Advantage Food’’); Wheeler Trading, 

Inc., of Miramar, Florida (‘‘Wheeler 

Trading’’); Avalon International General 

Trading, LLC, of Dubai, United Arab 

Emirates (‘‘Avalon’’); and Central 

Supply, Inc., of Brooklyn, NY (‘‘Central 

Supply’’). 

On January 5, 2010, the Commission 

determined not to review IDs (Order 

Nos. 21 and 22) finding Lamont and 

Avalon in default pursuant to 

Commission Rule 210.16. On January 

20, 2010, the Commission determined 

not to review four IDs (Order Nos. 24, 

25, 26, and 27) terminating the 

investigation as to respondents Wheeler 

Trading, Washington Food, India 

Imports, and Vending Plus on the basis 

of settlement agreements. On January 

28, 2010, the Commission determined 

not to review IDs (Order Nos. 29 and 30) 

finding respondents Posh Nosh, 

Greenwich, Advantage Food, and 

Chicago Imports in default pursuant to 

Commission Rule 210.16. On February 

16, 2010, the Commission determined 

not to review an ID (Order No. 32) 

finding respondent Central Supply in 

default pursuant to Commission Rule 

210.16. 

On December 2, 2009, Red Bull 

moved for summary determination on 

the issues of domestic industry, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1