Source: http://tonernews.com/forums/topic/websitecontent-42291/
Timestamp: 2016-10-23 12:05:46
Document Index: 348785579

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1337', '§ 210', '§ 210', '§ 1337', 'art 210', 'art 210']

Topic: In The Matter Of Certain Toner Cartridges And Components Thereof…. | Toner News
In The Matter Of Certain Toner Cartridges And Components Thereof….
2015-04-07 at 1:48:16 pm
NOTICE OF A COMMISSION DETERMINATION NOT TO REVIEW FIVE INITIAL DETERMINATIONS, TERMINATING THE INVESTIGATION WITH RESPECT TO RESPONDENT INTERNATIONAL LASER GROUP, INC.; RESPONDENTS NINESTAR IMAGE TECH LIMITED, ZHUHAI SEINE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. NINESTAR TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, LTD., SEINE TECH (USA) CO., LTD., AND NANO PACIFIC CORPORATION; RESPONDENT INK TECHNOLOGIES PRINTER SUPPLIES, LLC; RESPONDENT LINKYO CORPORATION; AND RESPONDENT KATUN CORPORATION BASED ON CONSENT ORDER STIPULATIONS AND CONSENT ORDERS; ISSUANCE OF CONSENT ORDERS AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review five initial determinations (“IDs”) (Order Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”), terminating the investigation as to respondent International Laser Group, Inc. (“ILG”); respondents Ninestar Image Tech Limited; Zhuhai Seine Technology Co., Ltd.; Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd.; Seine Tech (USA) Co., Ltd.; and Nano Pacific Corporation (collectively, “Ninestar”); respondent Ink Technologies Printer Supplies, LLC (“Ink Tech”); respondent Linkyo Corporation (“Linkyo”); and respondent Katun Corporation (“Katun”) based on separately executed consent order stipulations and consent orders. The Commission has issued the consent orders.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation undersection 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”), on June 12, 2014, based on a complaint filed by Canon Inc. of Japan; Canon U.S.A., Inc. of Melville, New York; and Canon Virginia, Inc. of Newport News, Virginia (collectively, “Canon”). 79 Fed. Reg. 33777-78 (Jun. 12, 2014). The complaint alleges a violation of section 337 by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,280,278; 8,630,564; 8,682,215; 8,676,090; 8,369,744 (“the ‘744 patent”); 8,565,640 (“the ‘640 patent”); 8,676,085 (“the ‘085 patent”); 8,135,304 (“the ‘304 patent”); and 8,688,008 by numerous respondents. Id. Subsequently, the investigation was partially terminated based on withdrawal of the complaint as to the following asserted claims: (1) claim 1 of the ‘744 patent (i.e., all asserted claims); (2) claim 1 of the ‘640 patent (i.e., all asserted claims); (3) claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the ‘085 patent (i.e., all asserted claims); and (4) claim 1 of the ‘304 patent (i.e., all asserted claims). The investigation was likewise terminated with respect to various respondents based on default or consent order stipulation and consent order.
On February 13, 2015, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.21(c), complainant Canon and
respondent ILG filed a joint motion to terminate this investigation as to ILG based upon the entry of an executed consent order stipulation and proposed consent order. The Commission investigative attorney (“IA”) filed a response in support of the motion. No other responses were filed. On March 3, 2015, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 28) granting the motion. Based on the record, the ALJ found no evidence that termination of this investigation as to respondent ILG would be contrary to the public interest. The ALJ granted the motion, terminating the investigation as to ILG. No party petitioned for review of ALJ Order No. 28, and the Commission has determined not to review it.
On February 19, 2015, pursuant to 19 C.F.R § 210.21(c), complainant Canon and respondents Ninestar, Ink Tech, Linkyo, and Katun also filed a joint motion to terminate this investigation as to Ninestar, Ink Tech, Linkyo, and Katun based upon separately executed consent order stipulations and proposed consent orders (“Joint Motion”). The Commission IA filed a response in support of the Joint Motion. No other responses were filed.
On March 4, 2015, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 29). The ALJ found that the Joint Motion satisfied Commission rule 210.21(c) which governs motions to terminate by consent order, and the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(b), which governs motions to terminate an investigation on the basis of a licensing or other settlement agreement. Based on the record, the ALJ found no evidence that termination of this investigation as to respondents Ninestar would be contrary to the public interest. The ALJ granted the Joint Motion in part, terminating the investigation as to Ninestar.
On the same day, the ALJ issued three more IDs (Order Nos. 30, 31, and 32). In each of these orders, the ALJ granted the Joint Motion in part, terminating the investigation as to Ink Tech (Order No. 30), Linkyo (Order No. 31), and Katun (Order No. 32), respectively, based on the separately executed consent order stipulations and consent orders. The ALJ found no 3 evidence that termination of this investigation as to respondents Ink Tech, Linkyo, and Katun based on the settlement agreements, consent order stipulations, and proposed consent orders would be contrary to the public interest. No party petitioned for review of Order Nos. 29, 30, 31, and 32, and the Commission has determined not to review them. The authority for the Commission’s determinations 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 C.F.R. Part 210).
Issued: April 3, 2015