Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Notices 57653 

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 May 

31, 2006, the Commission instituted this 

investigation based upon a complaint 

filed on behalf of Ajinomoto Heartland 

LLC (Chicago, Illinois) (‘‘Ajinomoto 

Heartland’’). 71 FR 30958 (May 31, 

2006). The complaint, as amended, 

alleged violations of section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 

U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’), in the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, and the sale within 

the United States after importation of 

certain L-lysine feed products and 

genetic constructs for production 

thereof by reason of infringement of 

claims 13, 15–19, and 21–22 of U.S. 

Patent No. 5,827,698 (‘‘the ‘698 patent’’) 

and claims 1, 2, 15, and 22 of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,040, 160 (‘‘the ‘160 

patent’’). 

The complaint named as respondents 

Global Bio-Chem Technology, Group 

Company Ltd. (Admiralty, Hong Kong), 

Changchun Dacheng Bio-Chem 

Engineering Development Co., Ltd., 

(Jilin Province, China), Changchun 

Baocheng Bio Development Co., Ltd. 

(Jilin Province, China), Changchun Dahe 

Bio Technology Development Co., Ltd. 

(Jilin Province, China), Bio-Chem 

Technology (HK) Ltd. (Admiralty, Hong 

Kong) (collectively, ‘‘GBT’’). 71 FR 

30958. On June 29, 2006, Ajinomoto 

Heartland further amended the 

complaint and notice of institution by 

adding its parent company, Ajinomoto, 

Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) as a complainant. 71 

FR 43209 (July 31, 2006). 

On October 15, 2007, the Commission 

determined not to review an order of the 

ALJ, granting Ajinomoto’s motion to 

withdraw claims 1, 2, and 22 of the ‘160 

patent and claims 13, 16–19, and 21–22 

of the ‘698 patent. 

On July 31, 2008, the ALJ issued his 

final ID, in which he found no violation 

of section 337 with regard to either the 

’160 or the ’698 patents because he 

found that the asserted claims of both 

patents were invalid for failure to satisfy 

the best mode requirement of 35 U.S.C. 

112 ¶ 1 on two separate grounds and 

that both patents were unenforceable 

because of inequitable conduct. He 

found infringement of the asserted 

claims through importation of lysine 

made using the ‘‘old’’ strain of E. coli by 

GBT, but not the ‘‘new’’ strain, based 

upon the stipulation of the parties. The 

ALJ also found the existence of a 

domestic industry for the asserted 

claims, and found that the asserted 

claims were not invalid for obviousness 

or obviousness-type double patenting, 

and that the asserted patents were not 

unenforceable by reason of unclean 

hands. 

On August 19, 2008, Ajinomoto 

petitioned for review of the ALJ’s final 

ID regarding invalidity of the asserted 

claims for failure to meet the best mode 

requirement and unenforceability of the 

patents because of inequitable conduct. 

Neither GBT nor the Commission 

investigative attorney petitioned for 

review of any part of the ID. 

Having examined the relevant 

portions of the record in this 

investigation, including the final ID, the 

petition for review, and the responses 

thereto, the Commission has determined 

(1) to review and take no position on (a) 

the ALJ’s finding that claim 15 of the 

‘160 patent is invalid for failure to meet 

the best mode requirement to the extent 

that finding is based on alleged 

fictitious data and (b) the ALJ’s finding 

that the ‘160 patent is unenforceable for 

inequitable conduct and (2) not to 

review the remainder of the ID. Thus, 

the investigation is terminated with a 

finding of no violation of section 337. 

This action is taken under the 

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

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

and in sections 210.42–.46 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–.46). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 29, 2008. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–23324 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–571] 

In the Matter of Certain L-Lysine Feed 

Products, Their Methods of Production 

and Genetic Constructs for 

Production; Notice of Commission 

Determination (1) To Review and Not 

Take a Position on Certain Issues in 

the Final Initial Determination of the 

Administrative Law Judge and (2) Not 

To Review the Remainder of the Final 

Initial Determination; Termination of 

the Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined (1) to 

review and not take a position on 

certain issues in the final initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) of the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) and (2) 

not to review the remainder of the ID 

finding no violation of section 337 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 

U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’). This action 

terminates the investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Worth, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3065. 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: On May 

31, 2006, the Commission instituted this 

investigation based upon a complaint 

filed on behalf of Ajinomoto Heartland 

LLC (Chicago, Illinois) (‘‘Ajinomoto 

Heartland’’). 71 FR 30958 (May 31, 

2006). The complaint, as amended, 

alleged violations of section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 

U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’), in the 

importation into the United States, the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

57654 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Notices 

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

sale for importation, and the sale within 

the United States after importation of 

certain L-lysine feed products and 

genetic constructs for production 

thereof by reason of infringement of 

claims 13, 15–19, and 21–22 of U.S. 

Patent No. 5,827,698 (‘‘the ‘698 patent’’) 

and claims 1, 2, 15, and 22 of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,040, 160 (‘‘the ’160 

patent’’). 

The complaint named as respondents 

Global Bio-Chem Technology, Group 

Company Ltd. (Admiralty, Hong Kong), 

Changchun Dacheng Bio-Chem 

Engineering Development Co., Ltd., 

(Jilin Province, China), Changchun 

Baocheng Bio Development Co., Ltd. 

(Jilin Province, China), Changchun Dahe 

Bio Technology Development Co., Ltd. 

(Jilin Province, China), Bio-Chem 

Technology (HK) Ltd. (Admiralty, Hong 

Kong) (collectively, ‘‘GBT’’). 71 FR 

30958. On June 29, 2006, Ajinomoto 

Heartland further amended the 

complaint and notice of institution by 

adding its parent company, Ajinomoto, 

Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) as a complainant. 71 

FR 43209 (July 31, 2006). 

On October 15, 2007, the Commission 

determined not to review an order of the 

ALJ, granting Ajinomoto’s motion to 

withdraw claims 1, 2, and 22 of the ‘160 

patent and claims 13, 16–19, and 21–22 

of the ‘698 patent. 

On July 31, 2008, the ALJ issued his 

final ID, in which he found no violation 

of section 337 with regard to either the 

‘160 or the ‘698 patents because he 

found that the asserted claims of both 

patents were invalid for failure to satisfy 

the best mode requirement of 35 U.S.C. 

112 ¶ 1 on two separate grounds and 

that both patents were unenforceable 

because of inequitable conduct. He 

found infringement of the asserted 

claims through importation of lysine 

made using the ‘‘old’’ strain of E. coli by 

GBT, but not the ‘‘new’’ strain, based 

upon the stipulation of the parties. The 

ALJ also found the existence of a 

domestic industry for the asserted 

claims, and found that the asserted 

claims were not invalid for obviousness 

or obviousness-type double patenting, 

and that the asserted patents were not 

unenforceable by reason of unclean 

hands. 

On August 19, 2008, Ajinomoto 

petitioned for review of the ALJ’s final 

ID regarding invalidity of the asserted 

claims for failure to meet the best mode 

requirement and unenforceability of the 

patents because of inequitable conduct. 

Neither GBT nor the Commission 

investigative attorney petitioned for 

review of any part of the ID. 

Having examined the relevant 

portions of the record in this 

investigation, including the final ID, the 

petition for review, and the responses 

thereto, the Commission has determined 

(1) to review and take no position on (a) 

the ALJ’s finding that claim 15 of the 

‘160 patent is invalid for failure to meet 

the best mode requirement to the extent 

that finding is based on alleged 

fictitious data and (b) the ALJ’s finding 

that the ‘160 patent is unenforceable for 

inequitable conduct and (2) not to 

review the remainder of the ID. Thus, 

the investigation is terminated with a 

finding of no violation of section 337. 

This action is taken under the 

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

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

and in sections 210.42–.46 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–.46). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 29, 2008. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–23377 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1123 (Final)] 

Steel Wire Garment Hangers From 

China Determination 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject investigation, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(Commission) determines, pursuant to 

section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured by reason of imports 

from China of steel wire garment 

hangers, provided for in subheading 

7326.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States, that have 

been found by the Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) to be sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(LTFV). 

Background 

The Commission instituted this 

investigation effective July 31, 2007, 

following receipt of a petition filed with 

the Commission and Commerce by M&B 

Metal Products Company, Inc., Leeds, 

AL. The final phase of the investigation 

was scheduled by the Commission 

following notification of a preliminary 

determination by Commerce that 

imports of steel wire garment hangers 

from China were being sold at LTFV 

within the meaning of section 733(b) of 

the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of 

the scheduling of the final phase of the 

Commission’s investigation and of a 

public hearing to be held in connection 

therewith was given by posting copies 

of the notice in the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, Washington, DC, and by 

publishing the notice in the Federal 

Register of April 4, 2008 (73 FR 18560). 

The hearing was held in Washington, 

DC, on July 31, 2008, and all persons 

who requested the opportunity were 

permitted to appear in person or by 

counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determination in this investigation to 

the Secretary of Commerce on 

September 29, 2008. The views of the 

Commission are contained in USITC 

Publication 4034 (September 2008), 

entitled Steel Wire Garment Hangers 

from China: Investigation No. 731–TA– 

1123 (Final). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 29, 2008. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–23322 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of a Consent Decree 

Under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

Notice is hereby given that on 

September 5, 2008, a proposed Consent 

Decree in the case of United States and 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental 

Protection v. Temrac Company, Inc., 

Docket No. 08–4292, was lodged with 

the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 

In this proceeding, the United States 

filed a claim pursuant to Section 107 of 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9607, for 

reimbursement of costs incurred in 

connection with response actions taken 

at the Crossley Farms Superfund Site, 

located in Huffs Church, Hereford 

Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania. 

Pursuant to the Consent Decree, the 

settling Defendant agrees to pay 

$1,916,448.77 in reimbursement of costs 

previously incurred by the United 

States, and $212,938.93 in 

reimbursement of costs previously 

incurred by the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. 

The Department of Justice will 

receive, for a period of thirty (30) days 

from the date of this publication, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES