72700 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 2014 / Notices 

Secretary will maintain a separate list of 

those authorized to receive BPI under 

the administrative protective order 

during the remand proceedings. 

Written Submissions: The 

Commission is not reopening the record 

and will not accept the submission of 

new factual information for the record. 

The Commission will permit the parties 

to file comments concerning how the 

Commission could best comply with the 

Court’s remand instructions. 

The comments must be based solely 

on the information in the Commission’s 

record. The Commission will reject 

submissions containing additional 

factual information or arguments 

pertaining to issues other than those on 

which the Court has remanded this 

matter. The deadline for filing 

comments is December 24, 2014. 

Comments shall be limited to no more 

than twenty (20) double-spaced and 

single-sided pages of textual material. 

Parties are advised to consult with the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subpart A (19 CFR part 207) for 

provisions of general applicability 

concerning written submissions to the 

Commission. All written submissions, 

including those that contain BPI, must 

conform to the Commission’s rules. 

Please be aware that the Commission’s 

rules with respect to electronic filing 

have been amended. The amendments 

took effect on November 7, 2011. See 76 

FR 61937 (Oct. 6, 2011) and the newly 

revised Commission Handbook on EFiling, available on the Commission’s 

Web site at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

investigation must be served on all other 

parties to the investigation (as identified 

by either the public or BPI service list), 

and a certificate of service must be 

timely filed. The Secretary will not 

accept a document for filing without a 

certificate of service. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: December 3, 2014. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28679 Filed 12–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–895] 

Certain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills 

and Parts Thereof; Commission’s 

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 reviewin-part the final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on 

September 26, 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: 

Cathy Chen, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–2392. 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 September 26, 2013, based on a 

complaint filed on behalf of A&J 

Manufacturing, LLC of St. Simons, 

Georgia and A&J Manufacturing, Inc. of 

Green Cove Springs, Florida 

(collectively, ‘‘A&J’’ or 

‘‘Complainants’’). 78 FR 59373 (Sept. 

26, 2013). The complaint alleged 

violations of Section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 

1337, in the sale for importation, 

importation, or sale within the United 

States after importation of certain 

multiple mode outdoor grills and parts 

thereof by reason of infringement of 

certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 

8,381,712, U.S. Patent No. D660,646, 

and U.S. Patent No. D662,773 patent. 

The Commission’s notice of 

investigation, as amended, named 

numerous respondents including: The 

Brinkmann Corporation (‘‘Brinkmann’’); 

Academy Ltd., d/b/a Academy Sports + 

Outdoors (‘‘Academy’’); Ningbo Huige 

Outdoor Products Co. (‘‘Huige’’); CharBroil, LLC (‘‘Char-Broil’’); Zhejiang 

Fudeer Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Fudeer’’); Outdoor Leisure Products, 

Incorporated (‘‘OLP’’); Dongguan 

Kingsun Enterprises Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Kingsun’’); and Keesung 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (‘‘Keesung’’) 

(collectively ‘‘the Respondents’’). The 

Office of Unfair Import Investigations 

(OUII) is also a party to this 

investigation. 

On June 24, 2014, the Commission 

affirmed-in-part and vacated-in-part an 

initial determination granting-in-part a 

motion for summary determination of 

non-infringement filed by Char-Broil, 

Fudeer, OLP, Kingsun, Tractor Supply 

Co. (‘‘TSC’’), and Chant Kitchen 

Equipment (HK) Ltd. (‘‘Chant’’). The 

Commission found that Complainants 

admit that the following redesigned 

grills do not infringe the ’712 patent: (1) 

Chant/Tractor Supply’s New Model 

1046761; (2) Rankam’s Member’s Mark 

Grill, Model No. GR2071001–MM (Ver. 

2) and (3) Rankam’s Smoke Canyon 

Grill, Model No. GR2034205–SC (Ver. 

2). Comm’n Op. at 1 (Jun. 24, 2014). The 

Commission found the other redesigned 

products at issue were within the scope 

of the investigation. Id. The Commission 

adopted the ALJ’s construction of the 

‘‘openable [] cover’’ limitations of 

claims 1 and 17 on modified grounds. 

Id. The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s 

finding of non-infringement of claims 1 

and 17 for the Char-Broil Oklahoma Joe 

Longhorn Model 12210767 Grill and 

adopted the ALJ’s findings that the 

redesigned grills do not infringe claims 

1 and 17 on modified grounds. Id. The 

Commission also found that the 

‘‘openable [] cover means’’ limitations of 

claim 10 are means-plus-function 

limitations and directed the ALJ to make 

findings consistent with its means-plusfunction interpretation. Id. at 2. 

On September 26, 2014, the ALJ 

issued the final ID, finding a violation 

of section 337 as to Respondents 

Brinkmann, OLP, Kingsun, Academy, 

and Huige based upon his 

determinations: (i) That certain, but not 

all, accused products infringe at least 

one claim of the ’712 patent; (ii) that the 

domestic industry requirement has been 

satisfied with respect to the ’712 patent; 

and (iii) that the asserted claims of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 2014 / Notices 72701 

’712 patent have not been shown by 

clear and convincing evidence to be 

invalid. On October 9, 2014, the ALJ 

issued his recommended determination 

on remedy and bonding. 

On October 14, 2014, A&J filed a 

petition for review of the following 

issues: (1) The ALJ’s interpretation of 

the scope of claim 10 of the ’712 patent; 

(2) the ALJ’s finding that certain CharBroil Grills and the certain redesigned 

OLP Grills do not satisfy the ‘‘openable 

[] cover means’’ limitations of claim 10 

of the ’712 patent; and (3) the ALJ’s 

finding that the Char-Broil Model 

463724512 and GHP DGB730SNB–D 

grills do not satisfy the claim limitation 

that the first cover ‘‘includes at least one 

exhaust’’ in claims 1, 10, and 17 of the 

’712 patent. 

On the same day, Respondents 

Academy, Huige, OLP, and Brinkmann 

filed three separate petitions for review 

of the final ID. Brinkmann, OLP, and 

Academy together seek review of the 

following determinations: (1) That the 

asserted claims have not been shown by 

clear and convincing evidence to be 

invalid as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 

5,632,265 in view of U.S. Patent No. 

4,773,319 (‘‘Holland ’319’’) and U.S. 

Patent No. 6,606,986; and (2) that the 

asserted claims have not been shown by 

clear and convincing evidence to be 

invalid as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 

6,189,528, either alone or in view of 

Holland ’319. OLP separately challenges 

the ALJ’s construction of the claim term 

‘‘exhaust,’’ and his finding that certain 

OLP products infringe claims 1–16 of 

the ’712 patent. Academy and Huige 

petition for review of the ALJ’s 

determination (Order No. 47) to exclude 

evidence and testimony concerning 

their redesigns, and the ALJ’s refusal to 

make a determination as to whether 

those redesigns infringe the ’712 patent. 

A&J, Respondents, and OUII each filed 

a response to the petitions on October 

22, 2014. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the final ID, the 

petitions for review, and the responses 

thereto, the Commission has determined 

to review the final ID in part. 

Specifically, the Commission has 

determined to review: (1) The ID’s 

construction of the ‘‘exhaust’’ and 

‘‘exhaust means’’ limitations in claims 

10 and 16, and related findings 

regarding infringement of claims 10–16; 

(2) the ID’s findings regarding 

infringement of claims 1, 4, and 6–8 by 

the accused Dyna-Glo grills imported by 

Respondent GHP; (3) the ID’s findings 

regarding infringement of claims 1, 2, 4– 

8, 10, 11, and 13–15 by the accused 

Char-Broil Model No. 463724512 grill; 

and (4) the ID’s finding that the ’712 

patent was not shown to be invalid. 

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 

requests responses to the following 

questions only. Each party’s brief 

responding to the following questions 

should be no more than 60 pages. 

1. Discuss whether the ‘‘exhaust’’ 

limitation and/or the ‘‘exhaust means’’ 

limitations in claims 10 and 16 should 

be interpreted as means-plus-function 

limitations, including whether any 

presumption that these limitations are 

means-plus-function limitations has 

been rebutted. 

2. If the ‘‘exhaust’’ limitation and/or 

the ‘‘exhaust means’’ limitations in 

claims 10 and 16 are correctly 

interpreted as means-plus-function 

limitations, (a) please identify the 

functions claimed in these limitations, 

as well as what structure(s) in the 

specification perform the claimed 

functions, and (b) discuss whether the 

limitations of claims 10–16 are met by 

the accused products at issue in the 

final ID. 

3. Please discuss whether A&J waived 

petition of the ID’s finding that the 

Dyna-Glo DGJ810CSB–D grill does not 

infringe any asserted claim of the ’712 

patent because it lacks the claimed 

‘‘exhaust’’ and ‘‘exhaust means’’ on its 

openable covers. Assuming that A&J did 

not waive this finding, please discuss 

whether the DGJ810CSB–D grill 

infringes claims 1, 4, and 6–8 of the ’712 

patent. 

4. The Commission is not changing its 

interpretation of the claim term 

‘‘includes,’’ which requires that an 

‘‘exhaust’’ be located on the ‘‘openable 

[ ] cover,’’ as set forth in the 

Commission’s Opinion on June 27, 

2014. Assuming that the asserted claims 

require that an ‘‘exhaust’’ be located on 

(but not necessarily wholly within) the 

‘‘openable [ ] cover,’’ please discuss 

with citations to the record evidence 

whether the Char-Broil Model No. 

463724512 grill and the GHP 

DGB730SNB–D grill satisfy the 

‘‘includes at least one exhaust’’ 

limitation for the claimed ‘‘first cover’’ 

in claim 1 and/or claim 10. 

5. The ID found that the Respondents 

did not prove by clear and convincing 

evidence that the asserted claims of the 

’712 patent have been shown to be 

invalid as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 

5,632,265 (‘‘Koziol’’) in view of U.S. 

Patent No. 4,773,319 (‘‘Holland ’319’’) 

and/or U.S. Patent No. 6,606,986 

(‘‘Holland ’986’’). Please discuss what 

evidence supports or does not support 

modifying Koziol to include the smoke 

stacks disclosed in Holland ’319 and/or 

Holland ’986. If the ‘‘exhaust’’ limitation 

and/or the ‘‘exhaust means’’ limitations 

in claims 10 and 16 are correctly 

interpreted as means-plus-function 

limitations, please discuss whether the 

means-plus-function limitations of 

claims 10 and 16 are met by the prior 

art combination. 

6. The ID found that the Respondents 

did not prove by clear and convincing 

evidence that the asserted claims of the 

’712 patent have been shown to be 

invalid as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 

6,189,528 (‘‘Oliver’’) in view of Holland 

’319. Please discuss what evidence 

supports or does not support modifying 

Oliver to include the smoke stacks 

disclosed in Holland ’319. Please also 

discuss what evidence supports or does 

not support interpreting the lid ends 18 

as described at column 4, line 67 to 

column 5, line 2 in Oliver as part of the 

‘‘openable [] cover’’ and ‘‘openable [] 

cover means,’’ and whether the space 

between the lid ends and the lid 

reflector meets the ALJ’s construction of 

‘‘exhaust.’’ If the ‘‘exhaust’’ limitation 

and/or the ‘‘exhaust means’’ limitations 

in claims 10 and 16 are correctly 

interpreted as means-plus-function 

limitations, please discuss whether the 

means-plus-function limitations of 

claims 10 and 16 are met by the prior 

art combination. 

7. Please discuss the evidence in the 

record that shows or does not show that 

the limitations in each of the dependent 

claims are disclosed in the prior art. 

8. What record evidence supports a 

finding that OLP maintains 

commercially significant inventories of 

its original grills in the United States? 

9. What relief, if any, does A&J 

request as to defaulting respondent 

Keesung? 

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 respondent(s) 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

72702 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 2014 / Notices 

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. 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 with respect to 

the asserted patent. Complainant and 

OUII are also requested to submit 

proposed remedial orders for the 

Commission’s consideration. 

Complainant is further requested to 

state the date that the patent expires and 

the HTSUS numbers under which the 

accused products are imported, and 

provide identification information for 

all known importers of the subject 

articles. A party’s written submission on 

the issues of remedy, the public interest, 

and bonding do not count towards its 

60-page limit. The written submissions 

and proposed remedial orders must be 

filed no later than close of business on 

Friday, December 12, 2014. Reply 

submissions must be filed no later than 

the close of business on Friday, 

December 19, 2014. No further 

submissions on 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 (8) 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–895’’) 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). 

Issued: December 2, 2014. 

By order of the Commission. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28640 Filed 12–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

Hearings of the Judicial Conference 

Advisory Committees on Rules of 

Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and 

Criminal Procedure; Federal Register 

Citation of Previous Announcement: 

79FR 48250 

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the 

United States Advisory Committees on 

Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, 

and Criminal Procedure. 

ACTION: Revised Notice of Proposed 

Amendments and Open Hearings. 

Please note: The public hearing on the 

amendments to the Appellate Rules and 

Forms previously scheduled in 

Washington, DC on February 12, 2015, 

will now take place on February 17, 

2015. 

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committees on 

Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, 

and Criminal Procedure have proposed 

amendments to the following rules and 

forms: 

Appellate Rules 4, 5, 21, 25, 26, 27, 

28.1, 29, 32, 35, and 40, and Forms 1, 

5, 6, and New Form 7 

Bankruptcy Rules 1010, 1011, 2002, 

3002, 3002.1, 3007, 3012, 3015, 4003, 

5009, 7001, 9006, 9009, and New Rule 

1012, and Official Forms 11A, 11B, 

106J, 201, 202, 204, 205, 206Sum, 

206A/B, 206D, 206E/F, 206G, 206H, 

207, 309A, 309B, 309C, 309D, 309E, 

309F, 309G, 309H, 309I, 312, 313, 

314, 315, 401, 410, 410A, 410S1, 

410S2, 416A, 416B, 416D, 424, and 

Instructions, and New Official Forms 

106J–2 and 113 

Civil Rules 4, 6, and 82 

Criminal Rules 4, 41, and 45 

Public hearings are scheduled to be 

held on the amendments to: 

• Appellate Rules and Forms in 

Phoenix, Arizona, on January 9, 2015, 

and in Washington, DC, on February 17, 

2015; 

• Bankruptcy Rules and Official 

Forms in Washington, DC, on January 

23, 2015, and in Pasadena, California, 

on February 6, 2015; 

• Civil Rules in Washington, DC, on 

October 31, 2014, and in Phoenix, 

Arizona, on January 9, 2015; and 

• Criminal Rules in Washington, DC, 

on November 5, 2014, and in Nashville, 

Tennessee, on January 30, 2015. 

Those wishing to testify should 

contact the Secretary at the address 

below in writing at least 30 days before 

the hearing. All written comments and 

suggestions with respect to the proposed 

amendments may be submitted on or 

after the opening of the period for 

public comment on August 15, 2014, 

but no later than February 17, 2015. 

Written comments must be submitted 

electronically, following the 

instructions provided at: http://www.

uscourts.gov/rulesandpolicies/rules/

proposed-amendments.aspx. In 

accordance with established procedures, 

all comments submitted are available for 

public inspection. 

The text of the proposed rules 

amendments and the accompanying 

Committee Notes can be found at the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES