[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 83 (Friday, April 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24052-24053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10363]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-567]
In the Matter of Certain Foam Footwear; Notice of Commission
Decision Not To Review a Remand Initial Determination; Finding of a
Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions Regarding
Remedy, Bonding, and the Public Interest
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 the presiding administrative
law judge's (``ALJ'') remand initial determination (``ID'') and has
found a violation of section 337 in the above-captioned investigation.
The Commission is requesting written submissions regarding remedy,
bonding, and the public interest.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. 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 May 11, 2006, based on a complaint, as amended, filed by Crocs, Inc.
(``Crocs'') of Niwot, Colorado. 71 FR 27514-15 (May 11, 2006). The
complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (19 U.S.C. CC1337), in the importation into the United
States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States
after importation of certain foam footwear, by reason of infringement
of claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,858; U.S. Patent No. D517,789;
and the Crocs trade dress (the image and overall appearance of Crocs-
brand footwear). The complaint further alleged that an industry in the
United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337,
and requested that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion
order and permanent cease and desist orders. The complaint named eleven
(11) respondents that included: (1) Collective Licensing International,
LLC of Englewood, Colorado; (2) Double Diamond Distribution Ltd.
(``Double Diamond'') of Canada; (3) Effervescent Inc.
(``Effervescent'') of Fitchburg, Massachusetts; (4) Gen-X Sports, Inc.
of Toronto, Ontario; (5) Holey Shoes Holding Ltd. of Canada; (6)
Australia Unlimited, Inc. of Seattle, Washington; (7) Cheng's
Enterprises Inc. of Carlstadt, New Jersey; (8) D. Myers & Sons, Inc. of
Baltimore, Maryland; (9) Inter-Pacific Trading Corp. of Los Angeles,
California; (10) Pali Hawaii of Honolulu, Hawaii; and (11) Shaka Shoes
of Kaliua-Kona, Hawaii. The Commission terminated the investigation as
to the trade dress allegation on September 11, 2006. A twelfth
respondent, Old Dominion Footwear, Inc. of Madison Heights, Virginia,
was added to the investigation on October 10, 2006. All but two
respondents have been terminated from the investigation on the basis of
a consent order, settlement agreement, or undisputed Commission
determination of non-infringement. The two remaining respondents are
Double Diamond and Effervescent.
On April 11, 2008, the ALJ issued his final ID finding no violation
of section 337. The ALJ's final ID made no finding on whether either
asserted patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The ALJ's
final ID also included his recommendation on remedy and bonding should
the Commission find that there was a violation. On July 25, 2008, after
review, the Commission affirmed the ALJ's final
[[Page 24053]]
ID with certain modifications and clarifications, and terminated the
investigation with a finding of no violation of section 337. The
Commission took no position regarding the issue of enforceability of
the '858 and '789 patents. On February 24, 2010, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``Federal Circuit'') issued its
judgment overturning the Commission's findings regarding invalidity of
the '858 patent, and non-infringement/lack of domestic industry
concerning the '789 patent. The Federal Circuit also specifically
``remand[ed] the investigation for a determination of infringement of
the '858 patent and any appropriate remedies.'' See Crocs, Inc. v.
United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
On July 6, 2010, the Commission remanded the investigation to the ALJ
to decide the remaining issue of enforceability of the patents.
On February 9, 2011, the ALJ issued his remand ID finding that the
patents were not unenforceable. On February 25, 2011, respondents filed
both a joint petition for review of the remand ID and a motion for
leave to file the petition two (2) days late. On March 4, 2011, the
Commission issued an order declining to grant respondents' motion
without prejudice to respondents refiling their motion stating good
cause for the enlargement of time. On March 16, 2011, respondents filed
a joint motion for an enlargement of the time for filing petitions for
review of the remand ID. On March 18, 2011, the Commission issued an
order granting respondents' motion for an enlargement of time and
making responses due on March 28, 2011. On March 28, 2011, Crocs and
the Commission investigative attorney each filed a brief in response to
respondents' petition for review.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject remand ID.
Also, the Commission has determined to reaffirm the ALJ's previous
ruling that claims 1 and 2 of the '858 patent are infringed by
Effervescent's accused products, and that claim 2 of the '858 patent is
infringed by Double Diamond's accused products. See 73 FR 35710-11
(June 24, 2008); Remand ID at 2 (February 9, 2011) (citing Final ID at
121 (April 11, 2008)); Comm'n Op. at 3-4, n. 1 (July 25, 2008). These
actions, along with the Federal Circuit's decision, result in a finding
of a violation of section 337 by Double Diamond and Effervescent.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may issue an order that results in the exclusion of the
subject articles from entry into the United States. 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 affecting it or likely to do so. For
background, see In the Matter of Certain Devices for Connecting
Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843
(December 1994) (Commission Opinion).
When 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.
When 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 section 337(j), 19 U.S.C.
1337(j) and the 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: 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, and such submissions should address the recommended
determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding issued on April 23, 2008
(public version). The complainant and the IA are also requested to
submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration.
Complainant is also requested to state the dates that the patents at
issue expire and the HTSUS numbers under which the accused articles are
imported. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be
filed no later than close of business on May 6, 2011. Reply submissions
must be filed no later than the close of business on May 13, 2011. No
further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise
ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with
the Office of the Secretary. Any person desiring to submit a document
to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment
unless the information has already been granted such treatment during
the proceedings. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary
of the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why
the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 210.6. Documents
for which confidential treatment by the Commission is sought will be
treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be
available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
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 sections 210.42-46 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR 210.42-46.
Issued: April 25, 2011.
By order of the Commission.
William R. Bishop,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-10363 Filed 4-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P