Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 149 / Friday, August 1, 2008 / Notices 45073 

during calendar year 2007 (report 

quantity data in short tons and value 

data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from each Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from each Subject Country. 

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject 

Country(ies), provide the following 

information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2007 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars, landed and duty-paid at the 

U.S. port but not including antidumping 

duties). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country after 2002, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the 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 the Subject 

Country(ies), and such merchandise 

from other countries. 

(11) (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: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: July 21, 2008. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–17179 Filed 7–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–567] 

In the Matter of Certain Foam 

Footwear; Notice of Commission 

Decision To Modify a Final Initial 

Determination and To Terminate the 

Investigation With a Finding of No 

Violation of Section 337 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to modify 

a final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) of 

the presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’). The Commission has 

determined that there is no violation of 

section 337 in the above-captioned 

investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2310. Copies of 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: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on May 11, 2006, based on a complaint, 

as amended, filed by Crocs, Inc. 

(‘‘Crocs’’) of Niwot, Colorado. 71 FR 

27514 (2006). The amended complaint 

alleges violations of section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (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 foam 

footwear, by reason of infringement of 

claims 1–2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,858 

(‘‘the ‘858 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 

D517,789 (‘‘the ‘789 patent’’); and the 

Crocs trade dress (the image and overall 

appearance of Crocs-brand footwear). 

The complaint further alleges that an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337. The complaint requests that the 

Commission issue a permanent general 

exclusion order and permanent cease 

and desist orders. The complaint 

identifies 11 respondents that include: 

(1) Collective Licensing International, 

LLC (‘‘Collective’’) of Englewood, 

Colorado; (2) Double Diamond 

Distribution Ltd. (‘‘Double Diamond’’) of 

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; (3) 

Effervescent Inc. (‘‘Effervescent’’) of 

Fitchburg, Massachusetts; (4) Gen-X 

Sports, Inc. (‘‘Gen-X Sports’’) of 

Toronto, Ontario; (5) Holey Soles 

Holding Ltd. (‘‘Holey Soles’’) of 

Vancouver, British Columbia; (6) 

Australia Unlimited, Inc. of Seattle, 

Washington; (7) Cheng’s Enterprises Inc. 

of Carlstadt, New Jersey; (8) D. Myers & 

Sons, Inc. of Baltimore, Maryland; (9) 

Inter-Pacific Trading Corp. of Los 

Angeles, California; (10) Pali Hawaii of 

Honolulu, Hawaii; and (11) Shaka Shoes 

of Kaliua-Kona, Hawaii. The 

Commission terminated the 

investigation as to the trade dress 

allegation on September 11, 2006. A 

twelfth respondent, Old Dominion 

Footwear, Inc. of Madison Heights, 

Virginia, was added to the investigation 

on October 10, 2006. All but five 

respondents have been terminated from 

the investigation on the basis of a 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

45074 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 149 / Friday, August 1, 2008 / Notices 

consent order, settlement agreement, or 

undisputed Commission determination 

of non-infringement. The five remaining 

respondents are: (1) Collective; (2) 

Double Diamond; (3) Effervescent; (4) 

Gen-X Sports; and (5) Holey Soles. 

On April 11, 2008, the ALJ issued his 

final ID finding no violation of section 

337 by the remaining respondents. The 

Commission extended the deadline for 

determining whether to review the final 

ID until June 18, 2008. 

On June 18, 2008, the Commission 

determined to review-in-part the final 

ID. Particularly, the Commission 

determined to review: (1) The ALJ’s 

findings concerning non-infringement of 

the ‘789 patent by the respondents’

products and lack of satisfaction of the 

technical prong of the domestic industry 

requirement by Crocs’ footwear; and (2) 

the ALJ’s finding of invalidity with 

respect to the ‘858 patent. 

Having reviewed the record in this 

investigation, including the final ID and 

the parties’ briefing, the Commission 

has determined to modify and clarify 

parts of the final ID concerning noninfringement and lack of satisfaction of 

the technical prong of the domestic 

industry requirement relating to the ‘789 

patent and invalidity of the ‘858 patent. 

The Commission affirms the final ID 

with the modifications and 

clarifications set forth in its separately 

issued Opinion, and terminates the 

investigation with a finding of no 

violation of section 337. 

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 

210.45 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.45. 

Issued: July 25, 2008. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–17665 Filed 7–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–611] 

In the Matter of Certain Magnifying 

Loupe Products and Components 

Thereof; Notice of Commission 

Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order 

Against the Infringing Products of 

Respondent Found in Default; 

Termination of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has issued a limited 

exclusion order against the infringing 

products of a respondent found in 

default, and has terminated the abovecaptioned investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan J. Engler, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3112. Copies of 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 (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: This 

investigation was initiated on August 1, 

2007, based on a complaint filed by 

General Scientific Corporation (‘‘GSC’’) 

of Ann Arbor, Michigan. 72 FR 42111 

(Aug. 1, 2007). The complaint alleges 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337), as 

amended, in the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

and the sale within the United States 

after importation of certain magnifying 

loupe products and components thereof 

by reason of infringement of claim 8 of 

U.S. Patent No. 5,446,507, claim 1 of 

U.S. Patent No. 6,513,929, or claims 1–

5 or 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,704,141. The 

complaint further alleges that an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337. The complainant requested that the 

Commission issue an exclusion order 

and cease and desist orders. The 

complaint named SheerVision, Inc. 

(‘‘SheerVision’’), of Rolling Hills Estates, 

California, as well as Nanjing JinJiahe 

I/E Co. (‘‘Nanjing’’), of Jiangsu, China, as 

respondents. 

On January 28, 2008, GSC and 

respondent SheerVision jointly moved 

to terminate this investigation with 

respect to SheerVision based on a 

settlement agreement and a proposed 

consent order. On February 8, 2008, the 

ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 8) granting 

the motion to terminate. The 

Commission determined not to review 

the ID. 

On March 10, 2008, GSC filed a 

motion requesting an order directing 

respondent Nanjing to show cause why 

it should not be found in default for 

failure to respond to the complaint and 

Notice of Investigation. On March 21, 

2008, the ALJ issued Order No. 9, which 

ordered Nanjing to show cause by April 

4, 2008 why it should not be found in 

default. No response to Order No. 9 was 

filed. On April 25, 2008, the ALJ issued 

an ID, Order No. 10, finding Nanjing in 

default. The Commission determined 

not to review that ID. Because Nanjing 

was found to be in default, the 

Commission issued notice of its 

consideration of a default remedy, and 

requested briefing from interested 

parties on remedy, the public interest, 

and bonding on May 16, 2008. 

The Commission investigative 

attorney and GSC submitted briefing 

responsive to the Commission’s request 

on May 30 and May 29, 2008, 

respectively, and each proposed a 

limited exclusion order directed to 

Nanjing’s accused products, and 

recommended allowing entry under 

bond of 100 percent of entered value 

during the period of Presidential review. 

The Commission found that each of 

the statutory requirements of section 

337(g)(1)(A)–(E), 19 U.S.C. 

1337(g)(1)(A)–(E), has been met with 

respect to the defaulting respondents. 

Accordingly, pursuant to section 

337(g)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1), and 

Commission rule 210.16(c), 19 CFR 

210.16(c), the Commission presumed 

the facts alleged in the complaint to be 

true. 

The Commission has determined that 

the appropriate form of relief in this 

investigation is a limited exclusion 

order prohibiting the unlicensed entry 

of certain magnifying loupe products 

and components thereof, by reason of 

infringement of one or more of claim 8 

of U.S. Patent No. 5,446,507, claim 1 of 

U.S. Patent No. 6,513,929, and claims 1–

5 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,704,141 

that are manufactured abroad by or on 

behalf of, or imported by or on behalf 

of, Nanjing JinJiahe I/E Co. of Jiangsu, 

China, or any of its affiliated companies, 

parents, subsidiaries, or other related 

business entities, or any of their 

successors or assigns. The Commission 

further determined that the public 

interest factors enumerated in section 

337(g)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1), do not 

preclude issuance of the limited 

exclusion order. Finally, the 

Commission determined that the bond 

under the limited exclusion order 

during the Presidential review period 

shall be in the amount of 100 percent of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES