Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 78905 

4Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures: 

http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/

rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf. 

5Electronic Document Information System 

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

electronically on or before the deadlines 

stated above and submit 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 docket number (‘‘Docket No. 3048’’) 

in a prominent place on the cover page 

and/or the first page. (See Handbook for 

Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic 

Filing Procedures). 4 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. All nonconfidential 

written submissions will be available for 

public inspection at the Office of the 

Secretary and on EDIS. 5

This action is taken under the 

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

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

and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)). 

Issued: December 23, 2014. 

By order of the Commission. 

Jennifer Rohrbach, 

Supervisory Attorney. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30567 Filed 12–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–931] 

Certain Formatted Magnetic Data 

Storage Tapes and Cartridges 

Containing Same; Notice of 

Commission Determination Not To 

Review an Initial Determination To 

Amend the Complaint and Notice of 

Investigation 

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. 7) to amend the complaint 

and notice of investigation to add as 

respondents Oracle America, Inc., of 

Redwood Shores, California, and 

Fujifilm Recording Media USA, Inc., of 

Bedford, Massachusetts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clark S. Cheney, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202– 

205–2661. 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 September 29, 2014, based on a 

complaint filed by Advanced Research 

Corporation of White Bear Lake, 

Minnesota (‘‘ARC’’). 79 FR 58382 (Sept. 

29, 2014). The complaint alleged 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

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

1337), based upon the importation into 

the United States, the sale for 

importation, and the sale within the 

United States after importation of 

certain formatted magnetic data storage 

tapes and cartridges containing the 

same, by reason of infringement of five 

U.S. patents. The original notice of 

investigation named as respondents 

International Business Machines Corp. 

of Armonk, NY; Fujifilm Holdings 

Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; Fujifilm 

Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; and Oracle 

Corporation of Redwood Shores, 

California. Id. at 58383. The Office of 

Unfair Import Investigations is 

participating in the investigation. Id. 

On November 18, 2014, ARC filed an 

unopposed motion to amend the 

complaint and notice of investigation to 

add as respondents Oracle America, 

Inc., of Redwood Shores, California, and 

Fujifilm Recording Media USA, Inc., of 

Bedford, Massachusetts. 

On December 1, 2014, the ALJ issued 

the subject ID (Order No. 7) granting the 

motion to amend the complaint and 

notice of investigation. The ALJ found 

good cause for the amendment because 

ARC very recently learned of the 

additional respondents through 

discovery, the amendment would not 

delay the investigation, and the 

amendment would not prejudice the 

current parties to the investigation. 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 part 

210 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 

210). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: December 24, 2014. 

Jennifer Rohrbach, 

Supervisory Attorney. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30626 Filed 12–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 337–TA–890] 

Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing 

Treatment Systems and Components 

Thereof; Notice of the Commission’s 

Final Determination; Issuance of a 

Limited Exclusion Order and Cease 

and Desist Orders; 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 found a violation of 

section 337 in this investigation and has 

(1) issued a limited exclusion order 

prohibiting importation of infringing 

sleep-disordered breathing treatment 

systems and components thereof and (2) 

issued cease and desist orders directed 

to domestic respondents. 

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 (http://www.usitc.gov). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

78906 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 

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 

contingent petition for review of the ID. 

On September 11, 2014, the parties filed 

responses to the various petitions and 

contingent petition for review. 

On October 16, 2014, the Commission 

determined to review the final ID in 

part. 79 FR 63163–65 (Oct. 22, 2014). 

Specifically, with respect to the ’487 

patent, the Commission determined to 

review the ALJ’s construction of the 

claim term ‘‘gas washout vent’’ and 

construed 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 

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 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 

struck 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 

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). 

On October 31, 2014, the parties filed 

written submissions on the issues under 

review, remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding. On November 7, 2014, the 

parties filed reply submissions. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final 

ID, with respect to the ’487 patent, the 

Commission has determined that under 

its construction of the claim term ‘‘gas 

washout vent’’ to mean ‘‘a vent 

comprising a thin air permeable 

membrane extending across an opening 

for exhausting gas to the atmosphere,’’ 

a violation of section 337 has not 

occurred because, as all the parties 

agree, ResMed failed to show that its 

domestic industry products practice the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 78907 

’487 patent. To conserve resources, the 

Commission has determined to take no 

position on infringement and validity as 

it pertains to the ’487 patent. Regarding 

the ’453 patent, the Commission has 

determined that the prior art REMstar 

device anticipates the asserted claims of 

the ’453 patent under the Commission’s 

construction of the claim limitation ‘‘a 

retaining mechanism configured to 

secure the connecting structure to the 

CPAP apparatus’’ 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.’’ Given that Commission’s 

construction is broader than the ALJ’s 

construction, the Commission has 

determined to affirm the ALJ’s 

infringement and domestic industry, 

technical prong, findings. With respect 

to domestic industry the Commission 

has determined to vacate the ID’s 

findings and conclusion that ResMed 

established a domestic industry under 

19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). 

Having found a violation of section 

337 in this investigation, the 

Commission has determined that the 

appropriate form of relief is: (1) A 

limited exclusion order prohibiting the 

unlicensed entry of sleep-disordered 

breathing treatment systems and 

components thereof that infringe one or 

more of claims 1, 9, 32, 89, and 92 of 

the ’527 patent; claims 19, 21, 29, 32, 

and 36 of the ’392 patent; claims 32, 33, 

34, and 53 of the ’267 patent; claims 30, 

37, and 38 of the ’060 patent; and claims 

1, 3, 5, 11, 28, 30, 31, and 56 of the ’883 

patent that are manufactured by, or on 

behalf of, or are imported by or on 

behalf of BMC Medical Co., Ltd., 3B 

Medical, Inc., or 3B Products L.L.C. or 

any of their affiliated companies, 

parents, subsidiaries, agents, or other 

related business entities, or their 

successors or assigns, except for service 

and replacement parts for customers 

that purchased their covered products 

prior to the date the exclusion order 

becomes final; and (2) cease and desist 

orders prohibiting domestic respondents 

BMC Medical Co., Ltd., 3B Medical, Inc. 

from conducting any of the following 

activities in the United States: 

Importing, selling, marketing, 

advertising, distributing, transferring 

(except for exportation), and soliciting 

U.S. agents or distributors for, sleepdisordered breathing treatment systems 

and components thereof covered by 

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

patent; claims 19, 21, 29, 32, and 36 of 

the ’392 patent; claims 32, 33, 34, and 

53 of the ’267 patent; claims 30, 37, and 

38 of the ’060 patent; and claims 1, 3, 

5, 11, 28, 30, 31, and 56 of the ’883 

patent. The proposed cease and desist 

orders include the following 

exemptions: (1) If in a written 

instrument, the owner of the patents 

authorizes or licenses such specific 

conduct, or such specific conduct is 

related to the importation or same of 

covered products by or for the United 

States; or (2) conduct limited to the 

provision of service and replacement 

parts for customers that purchased their 

covered products prior to the date this 

Order becomes final within the meaning 

of 19 U.S.C. 1337(j)(4). 

The Commission has also determined 

that the public interest factors 

enumerated in section 337(d) and (f) (19 

U.S.C. 1337(d) and (f)) do not preclude 

issuance of the limited exclusion order 

or cease and desist orders. Finally, the 

Commission has determined that a bond 

in the amount of 65 percent of entered 

value is required to permit temporary 

importation during the period of 

Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)) 

of sleep-disordered breathing treatment 

systems and components thereof that 

are subject to the limited exclusion 

order. The Commission’s orders and 

opinion were delivered to the President 

and to the United States Trade 

Representative on the day of their 

issuance. 

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. 

Issued: December 23, 2014. 

Jennifer Rohrbach, 

Supervisory Attorney. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30584 Filed 12–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed 

Consent Decree Under Cercla 

On December 22, 2014, the 

Department of Justice lodged a proposed 

consent decree between the United 

States and Robert G. Schory, III with the 

United States District Court for the 

Western District of North Carolina, 

Charlotte Division, in a case entitled 

United States v. Boulos Family 

Properties, LLC, et al, No. 2:14–cv–059. 

The proposed consent decree resolves 

claims for response costs under Section 

107 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980, as amended, (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 

U.S.C. 9607, against Robert G. Schory, 

III, in connection with the National 

Petroleum Packers Site, a former glycol 

reprocessing facility in Stallings, North 

Carolina. Under the proposed consent 

decree, Mr. Schory will pay $1,500 in 

exchange for a covenant not to sue for 

the Site from the United States, 

conditioned on the accuracy of certain 

representations he made about his 

financial condition. 

The publication of this notice opens 

a period for public comment on the 

consent decree. Comments should be 

addressed to the Assistant Attorney 

General, Environment and Natural 

Resources Division, and should refer to 

United States v. Boulos Family 

Properties, LLC, et al, DJ. Ref. No. # 90– 

11–3–10947. All comments must be 

submitted no later than thirty (30) days 

after the publication date of this notice. 

Comments may be submitted either by 

email or by mail: 

To submit 

comments: Send them to: 

By e-mail ............ pubcomment-ees.enrd@

usdoj.gov. 

By mail ............... Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ–ENRD, 

P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044– 

7611. 

During the public comment period, 

the consent decree may be examined 

and downloaded at this Justice 

Department Web site: http://

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_

Decrees.html. We will provide a paper 

copy of the consent decree upon written 

request and payment of reproduction 

costs. Please mail your request and 

payment to: Consent Decree Library, 

U.S. DOJ–ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, 

Washington, DC 20044–7611. 

Please enclose a check or money order 

for $6.00 (25 cents per page 

reproduction cost) payable to the United 

States Treasury. 

Henry S. Friedman, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30629 Filed 12–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES