[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 5, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-24639]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: October 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-361]
Certain Portable On-Car Disc Brake Lathes and Components Thereof;
Notice of Commission Determinations to Review and Remand to the
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Certain Portions of an Initial
Determination Terminating the Investigation on the Basis of a Finding
of No Violation of Section 337, and to Designate the Investigation More
Complicated
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review certain portions of the initial
determination (ID) issued on August 12, 1994, in the above-captioned
investigation, and to remand the investigation to the presiding
administrative law judge (ALJ) for further proceedings. The Commission
has further determined to designate this investigation ``more
complicated'' and to direct that the ALJ's ID on remand be issued by
November 28, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shara L. Aranoff, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone 202-
205-3090.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 24, 1993, the Commission
instituted an investigation of a complaint filed by Pro-Cut
International, Inc. (``Pro-Cut'') under section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930. The complaint alleged that two respondents imported, sold for
importation, or sold in the United States after importation certain
portable on-car disc brake lathes and components thereof that infringed
the sole claim of U.S. Letters Patent 4,226,146 (``the '146 patent'').
The Commission's notice of investigation named as respondents Hunter
Engineering Company (``Hunter'') and Ludwig Hunger Maschinenfabrik GmbH
(``Hunger''), each of which was alleged to have committed one or more
unfair acts in the importation or sale of portable on-car disc brake
lathes that infringe the asserted patent claim.
The ALJ conducted an evidentiary hearing on May 2-4, 1994, and
issued his final ID on August 12, 1994. He found that: (1) Respondents'
imported product does not infringe the asserted patent claim; (2)
complainant satisfied the economic requirements for existence of a
domestic industry; but that (3) there is no domestic industry because
complainant is not practicing the '146 patent. Based upon his findings
no infringement and no domestic industry, the ALJ concluded that there
was no violation of section 337. Respondents have not challenged the
validity of the '146 patent in this investigation.
Complainant Pro-Cut filed a petition for review of the ALJ's
findings on both infringement and the domestic industry's failure to
practice the patent. Respondents filed a petition for review of the
ALJ's findings on the economic requirements for a domestic industry.
Complainant, respondents, and the Commission investigative attorneys
filed responses to the petitions for review. No agency comments were
received.
On September 28, 1994, the Commission determined, by a vote of four
to two, to review the subject ID and to remand it to the ALJ for
further explanation on two narrow issues. Specifically, the Commission
was unable to discern from the ID the ALJ's reasoning underlying his
findings of no infringement and no domestic industry under the doctrine
of equivalents. Accordingly, the ALJ was instructed to address the
following questions on remand:
1. Whether the accused device performs substantially the same
function as disclosed in the ``means for attaching'' clause in claim 1
of the '146 patent?
2. Whether the accused device operates in substantially the same
way as disclosed in the ``means for attaching'' clause in claim 1 of
the '146 patent?
3. Whether the accused device achieves substantially the same
result as disclosed in the ``means for attaching'' clause in claim 1 of
the '146 patent?
4. To what scope of equivalents is the '146 patent entitled?
5. Whether, in light of questions 1-4 raised above, the domestic
industry is practicing the '146 patent under the doctrine of
equivalents?
The ALJ was further instructed to make specific factual findings
with respect to each remanded question, to indicate what record
evidence supports those findings, and to provide an analysis of his
ultimate determination on each issue. The Commission determined to
adopt the ID in all other respects.
On September 28, 1994, the Commission also determined to declare
this investigation ``more complicated'' in order to provide the
parties, the presiding ALJ, and the Commission with adequate time to
address the remanded issues and complete the investigation. The 18-
month statutory deadline for completion of this investigation was
therefore extended to June 1, 1995. However, the Commission expects to
complete the investigation prior to the statutory deadline.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337), and Secs. 210.53, 210.56, and
210.59 of the Commission's Interim Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 210.53, 210.56, and 210.59).
Copies of the Commission's order, the non-confidential version of
the ID, and all other 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 202-205-3000. Hearing-impaired persons
are advised that information on the matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: September 29, 1994.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-24639 Filed 10-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
