[Federal Register: December 2, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 231)]
[Notices]
[Page 71589-71590]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02de02-109]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337-TA-456]
Certain Gel-Filled Wrist Rests and Products Containing Same;
Notice of Final Determination of No Violation of Section 337 of the
Tariff Act OF 1930
AGENCY: International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined that there is no violation of section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the above-captioned
investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy P. Monaghan, Esq., Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3152. Copies of all
nonconfidential 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.
[[Page 71590]]
Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this
matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on
202-205-1810. 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-ON-LINE) at http://dockets.usitc.gov/eol/public
.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
on May 17, 2001, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Company (now called 3M Company) and 3M
Innovative Properties Company (collectively complainants), both of St.
Paul, Minnesota. 66 FR 27535 (2001). The complaint, as supplemented,
alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the
importation, sale for importation, and sale after importation of
certain gel-filled wrist rests and products containing same that
infringe certain claims of U.S. Letters Patent 5,713,544 (``the `544
patent''). The Commission named as respondents Velo Enterprise Co.
Ltd., Taiwan; Aidma Enterprise Co. Ltd. (``Aidma''), Taiwan; Good Raise
Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (``Good Raise''), Taiwan; ACCO Brands,
Inc., Lincolnshire, Illinois; Curtis Computer Products Inc.
(``Curtis''), Provo, Utah; Allsop, Inc. (``Allsop''), Bellingham,
Washington; American Covers Inc., Draper, Utah; and Gemini Industries
(``Gemini''), Clifton, New Jersey. The complaint and notice of
investigation were later amended to add Crown Vast Development Ltd. and
Hornleon Company, Ltd. (``Hornleon'') both of Taiwan as respondents. On
October 22, 2001, the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'')
issued an initial determination (``ID''), Order No. 6, granting
complainants'' unopposed motion to terminate the investigation with
respect to respondent Gemini on the basis of a consent order. On
January 9, 2002, the ALJ issued an ID, Order No. 12, finding
respondents Good Raise and Aidma in default. On May 15, 2002, the ALJ
issued an ID, Order No. 15, granting complainants' unopposed motion to
terminate the investigation with respect to respondent Curtis on the
basis of a consent order. On May 21, 2002, the ALJ issued an ID, Order
No. 16, granting complainants' unopposed motion to terminate the
investigation with respect to respondent Allsop on the basis of a
consent order. None of these IDs was reviewed by the Commission. The
ALJ held an evidentiary hearing from January 14, 2002, to January 18,
2002. On July 24, 2002, the ALJ issued his final ID in which he found
no infringement of the claims of the ``544 patent at issue, and hence
no violation of section 337. He also found that complainants had failed
to demonstrate satisfaction of the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement of section 337 for the ``544 patent, and that the
claims in issue of the ``544 patent are invalid due to obviousness and
failure to disclose the best mode of practicing the invention. The ALJ
also found that the claims in issue of the ``544 patent are not invalid
due to anticipation, indefiniteness, lack of a written description or
the lack of enablement, or improper joinder or non-joinder of
inventors; that the ``544 patent is not unenforceable due to
inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; and
that complainants are not barred from asserting the ``544 patent due to
equitable estoppel. The ALJ noted that respondent Hornleon did not
respond to the complaint and notice of investigation or provide written
discovery in this investigation, although a representative of the firm
appeared and testified at a deposition. Hornleon neither appeared at
the hearing nor filed briefs. However, complainants did not move to
find Hornleon in default. The ALJ thus found no violation of section
337 with respect to Hornleon, and no party contested that finding. All
parties filed petitions for review and subsequently responded to each
other's petitions. On September 9, 2002, the Commission determined to
review: (1) The ID's construction of the asserted claims of the ``544
patent; (2) the ID's infringement conclusions; (3) the ID's validity
conclusions with regard to obviousness and failure to disclose best
mode of practice; and (4) the ID's conclusion with respect to the
technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.
The Commission determined not to review the remainder of the ID. In
accordance with the Commission's instructions, the parties filed their
main briefs on September 23, 2002, and reply briefs on September 30,
2002. Having examined the record in this investigation, including the
briefs and the responses thereto, the Commission determined that there
is no violation of section 337. More specifically, the Commission found
that the domestic products of complainants do not practice any claim of
the ``544 patent, and thus the technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement of section 337 is not met in this investigation. The
Commission also found that the accused imported wrist rests, except the
Jelly Mouse product, infringe the asserted claims of the ``544 patent,
and that the ``544 patent is not invalid due to obviousness or failure
to disclose the best mode of practicing the invention. This action is
taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19
U.S.C. 1337, and sections 210.45-210.51 of the Commission's rules of
practice and procedure, 19 CFR 210.45-210.51.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: November 25, 2002.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 02-30372 Filed 11-29-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P