Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 2014 / Notices 63163 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Dated: September 23, 2014. 

Deborah Rocque, 

Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25098 Filed 10–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–890] 

Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing 

Treatment Systems and Components 

Thereof; Commission Determination 

To Review In Part a Final Initial 

Determination Finding a Violation of 

Section 337; Schedule for Filing 

Written Submissions on the Issues 

Under Review and on Remedy, the 

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 to review 

in part the final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on 

August 21, 2014, finding a violation of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), in this 

investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3042. 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 August 23, 2013, based on a 

complaint filed by ResMed Corporation 

of San Diego, California; ResMed 

Incorporated of San Diego, California; 

and ResMed Limited of New South 

Wales, Australia (collectively, 

‘‘ResMed’’). 78 FR 52564 (Aug. 23, 

2013). The complaint 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 sleep-disordered breathing 

treatment systems and components 

thereof that infringe one or more of 

claims 32–37, 53, 79, 80, and 88 of U.S. 

Patent No. 7,997,267 (‘‘the ’267 patent’’); 

claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,614,398 

(‘‘the ’398 patent’’); claim 1 of U.S. 

Patent No. 7,938,116 (‘‘the ’116 patent’’); 

claims 30, 37, and 38 of U.S. Patent No. 

7,341,060 (the ’060 patent); claims 1, 3, 

5, 11, 28, 30, 31, and 56 of U.S. Patent 

No. 8,312,883 (‘‘the ’883 patent’’); 

claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 29, 32, 35, 40, 42, 

45, 50, 51, 56, 59, 89, 92, 94, and 96 of 

U.S. Patent No. 7,178,527 (the ’527 

patent); claims 19–24, 26, 29–36, and 

39–41 of U.S. Patent No. 7,950,392 (the 

’392 patent); and claims 13, 15, 16, 26– 

28, 51, 52, and 55 of U.S. Patent No 

7,926,487 (‘‘the ’487 patent’’). The 

notice of investigation named the 

following respondents: BMC Medical 

Co., Ltd. of Beijing, China; 3B Medical, 

Inc. of Lake Wales, Florida; and 3B 

Products, L.L.C., of Lake Wales, Florida 

(collectively ‘‘Respondents’’). The Office 

of Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) 

is participating in the investigation. 

On January 9, 2014, the ALJ issued an 

ID granting a motion by ResMed to 

amend the complaint and notice of 

investigation to substitute U.S. Patent 

No. RE 44,453 (‘‘the ’453 patent’’) for the 

’398 patent and to terminate the 

investigation as to the ’398 patent. See 

Order No. 7 (Jan. 9, 2014). The 

Commission determined not to review 

the ID. See Notice of Commission 

Determination Not to Review an Initial 

Determination Granting the 

Complainants’ Motion to Amend the 

Complaint and Notice of Investigation 

(Feb. 10, 2014); 79 FR 9000–01 (Feb. 14, 

2014). 

On February 24, 2014, the ALJ issued 

an ID granting a motion by ResMed to 

withdraw its allegations with respect to 

the ’116 patent. See Order No. 11 (Feb. 

24, 2014). The Commission determined 

not to review the ID. See Notice of 

Commission Determination Not to 

Review an Initial Determination 

Granting the Complainants’ Motion to 

Partially Terminate the Investigation by 

Withdrawing Allegations with Respect 

to U.S. Patent No. 7,938,116 (March 11, 

2014). 

On March 18, 2014, the ALJ granted 

a motion by ResMed to terminate the 

investigation as to claims 26–28 of the 

’487 Patent. See Order No. 20 (Mar 18, 

2012). The Commission determined not 

to review the ID. See Notice of 

Commission Determination Not to 

Review an Initial Determination 

Granting Complainants’ Unopposed 

Motion for Partial Termination of the 

Investigation by Withdrawal of Claims 

26–28 of U.S. Patent No. 7,926,487 (Apr. 

29, 2014). 

On August 21, 2014, the ALJ issued 

his final ID, finding a violation of 

section 337 by Respondents with 

respect to certain asserted claims of the 

’392, ’267, ’060, ’883, ’527, and ’453 

patents. The ALJ found no violation of 

section 337 with respect to the asserted 

claims of the ’487 patent. Specifically, 

the ALJ found that the Commission has 

subject matter jurisdiction, in rem 

jurisdiction over the accused products, 

and in personam jurisdiction over the 

respondents. ID at 10–11. The parties 

stipulated to importation of the accused 

products and the ALJ found that the 

importation requirement of section 337 

(19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)) has been 

satisfied. Id. at 3. The ALJ found that the 

accused products infringe asserted 

claims 1, 9, 32, 89, and 92 of the ’527 

patent; asserted claims 19, 21, 29, 32, 

and 36 of the ’392 patent; asserted 

claims 32–34 and 53 of the ’267 patent; 

asserted claims 30, 37, and 38 of the 

’060 patent; asserted claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 

28, 30, 31, and 56 of the ’883 patent; and 

asserted claim 2 of the ’453 patent. See 

ID at 23, 46, 57–58, 71–78, 95, 99, and 

102. The ALJ found that Respondents 

failed to establish by clear and 

convincing evidence that the asserted 

claims of the ’392, ’267, ’060, ’883, ’527, 

or claim 2 of the ’453 patents were 

invalid in light of the cited prior art 

references. See id. at 25–45, 48–55, 96, 

and 100. The ALJ concluded that the 

accused products satisfy each limitation 

of claims 4 and 7 of the ’453 patent but 

found those claims invalid in view of 

the prior art. See id. at 103–139. The 

ALJ also found that the accused 

products satisfy each limitation of 

asserted claims 13, 51, 52, and 55 of the 

’487 patent, but found those claims 

invalid in view of the prior art. See id. 

at 78–92. The ALJ further found that 

ResMed established the existence of a 

domestic industry that practices the 

asserted patents under 19 U.S.C. 

1337(a)(2). See ID at 139–188. 

On September 3, 2014, Respondents 

and the Commission investigative 

attorney filed petitions for review of the 

ID. That same day, ResMed filed a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

63164 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 2014 / Notices 

contingent petition for review of the ID. 

On September 11, 2014, the parties filed 

responses to the various petitions and 

contingent petition for review. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final 

ID, the petitions for review, and the 

responses thereto, the Commission has 

determined to review the final ID in 

part. Specifically, with respect to the 

’487 patent, the Commission has 

determined to review the ALJ’s 

construction of the claim term ‘‘gas 

washout vent’’ and construe the 

limitation to mean ‘‘a vent comprising a 

thin air permeable membrane extending 

across an opening for exhausting gas to 

the atmosphere.’’ As a result of the new 

claim construction, the Commission has 

determined to review the ALJ’s findings 

on infringement, invalidity, and the 

technical prong of the domestic industry 

requirement. Regarding the ’453 patent, 

the Commission has determined to 

review (1) the ALJ’s construction of the 

claim limitation ‘‘a retaining mechanism 

configured to secure the connecting 

structure to the CPAP apparatus’’ and 

strike the ID’s requirement that the 

claimed ‘‘retaining mechanism’’ must 

include an arrangement of moving parts; 

(2) the ALJ’s finding that the prior art 

REMstar device does not anticipate the 

asserted claims of the ’453 patent; and 

(3) the ALJ’s findings on infringement 

and the technical prong of the domestic 

industry requirement. The Commission 

has also determined to review the ID’s 

findings and conclusions regarding the 

economic prong of the domestic 

industry requirement under 19 U.S.C. 

1337(a)(3)(C). 

The parties are requested to brief their 

positions on the issues under review 

with reference to the applicable law and 

the evidentiary record. In connection 

with its review, the Commission is 

particularly interested in responses to 

the following: 

The Commission has determined to revise 

the ALJ’s construction of the claim limitation 

‘‘a retaining mechanism’’ recited in the 

asserted claims of the ’453 patent and strike 

the requirement that it requires an 

arrangement of moving parts. That is, the 

claim limitation ‘‘a retaining mechanism 

configured to secure the connecting structure 

to the CPAP apparatus’’ is construed to mean 

‘‘one or more parts for holding in place the 

CPAP apparatus that is configured to attach 

the connecting structure to the CPAP 

apparatus.’’ See ID at 124. Please discuss 

whether the REMstar device anticipates the 

asserted claims under the revised 

construction. 

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 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 (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: 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 ALJ 

on remedy and bonding. Complainants 

and the IA are also requested to submit 

proposed remedial orders for the 

Commission’s consideration and to 

provide identification information for 

all importers of the subject articles. 

Complainants are also requested to state 

the date 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 October 31, 

2014. Reply submissions must be filed 

no later than the close of business on 

November 7, 2014. Such submissions 

should address the ALJ’s recommended 

determinations on remedy and bonding. 

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 and submit eight true paper 

copies to the Office of the Secretary by 

noon the next day pursuant to section 

210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to 

the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 

337–TA–890’’) in a prominent place on 

the cover page and/or the first page. (See 

Handbook for Electronic Filing 

Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/

secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/

handbook_on_electronic_filing.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. All such requests should be 

directed to the Secretary to 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 properly sought will be 

treated accordingly. A redacted nonconfidential version of the document 

must also be filed simultaneously with 

the any confidential filing. All nonconfidential written submissions will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Secretary and on EDIS. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 2014 / Notices 63165 

Issued: October 16, 2014. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25059 Filed 10–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–919] 

Certain Archery Products and Related 

Marketing Materials; Commission 

Determination Not To Review an Initial 

Determination Finding Respondent 

Ningbo Topoint Outdoor Sports Co., 

Ltd., To Be in Default; Request for 

Written Submissions on Remedy, the 

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 an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 11) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on 

September 16, 2014, finding the sole 

respondent, Ningbo Topoint Outdoor 

Sports Co., Ltd. (‘‘Ningbo’’), to be in 

default. Accordingly, the Commission 

requests written submissions, under the 

schedule set forth below, on remedy, 

public interest, and bonding. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Needham, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–5468. 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: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on June 16, 2014, based on a complaint 

filed by Bear Archery, Inc. and SOP 

Services, Inc. (‘‘Complainants’’). 79 FR 

34356. The complaint alleges 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 archery 

products and related marketing 

materials by reason of infringement of 

certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 

RE38,096; U.S. Patent No. 6,978,775; 

U.S. Patent No. 7,226,375; U.S. 

Trademark Registration No. 2,501,255; 

and U.S. Trademark Registration No. 

3,312,392. Id. The complaint further 

alleges the existence of a domestic 

industry. Id. The Commission’s notice 

of investigation named Ningbo as the 

respondent, and indicated that the 

Office of Unfair Import Investigations is 

participating in this investigation. Id. 

On June 11, 2014, the Commission 

attempted to serve Ningbo with the 

complaint and notice of investigation, 

but the notice was returned as 

undeliverable mail on July 23, 2014. On 

July 24, 2014, Complainants sought 

leave to attempt to effect personal 

service on Ningbo, and the leave was 

granted on July 30, 2014. On July 31, 

2014, Complainants filed proof that they 

had served Ningbo with the complaint 

and notice of investigation. 

On August 19, 2014, Complainants 

moved for an order directing Ningbo to 

show cause why it should not be found 

in default for its failure to respond to 

the complaint and notice of 

investigation, and, upon failure to show 

cause, for the issuance of an initial 

determination finding Ningbo in 

default. On August 20, 2014, 

Complainants filed a letter indicating 

that they did not seek a general 

exclusion order in the event of a default. 

On August 21, 2014, the Commission 

Investigative Attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed a 

response supporting Complainants’ 

motion. 

On September 2, 2014, the ALJ 

granted the motion and ordered Ningbo 

to show cause why it should not be 

found in default. See Order No. 10. No 

response to Order No. 10 was filed. 

On September 16, 2014, the ALJ 

issued the subject ID finding Ningbo in 

default under Commission Rule 

210.16(a)(1). See Order No. 11. No 

petitions for review of the ID were filed. 

The Commission has determined not to 

review the subject ID. 

Ningbo is the sole respondent in this 

investigation. Section 337(g)(1) and 

Commission Rule 210.16(c) authorize 

the Commission to order relief against a 

respondent found in default, unless, 

after considering the public interest, it 

finds that such relief should not issue. 

Complainants indicated that they were 

not seeking a general exclusion order 

pursuant to Commission Rule 

210.16(c)(2). 

In connection with the final 

disposition of this investigation, the 

Commission may: (1) issue an order that 

could result in the exclusion of articles 

manufactured or imported by the 

defaulting respondent; and/or (2) issue 

a cease and desist order that could 

result in the defaulting 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 Certain Devices for 

Connecting Computers via Telephone 

Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC 

Pub. No. 2843, Comm’n Op. at 7–10 

(December 1994). 

If the Commission contemplates some 

form of remedy, it must consider the 

effects of that remedy upon the public 

interest. The factors that the 

Commission will consider include the 

effect that the exclusion order and/or 

cease and desists 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, interested government 

agencies, and any other interested 

parties are encouraged to file written 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES