Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
The Commission instituted this investigation on July 19, 2011, based on a complaint filed on June 17, 2011, by Kaneka Corp.
On January 12, 2012, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review an ID granting a motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add a new respondent, Mitsubishi Gas Chemical America, Inc. of New York, New York and to replace respondent Maypro Inc. with Maypro Industries, LLC of Purchase, New York.
An evidentiary hearing was held from July 9-13, 2012.
On September 27, 2012, the presiding ALJ (Judge Rogers) issued a final initial determination (“final ID” or “ID”) finding no violation of section 337. The ALJ also issued a recommended determination on remedy and bonding.
Specifically, the ALJ found that the imported products were not shown to be manufactured by processes covered by the asserted claims. The ALJ found that Kaneka satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement but failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. The ALJ found that the asserted claims were not shown to be invalid.
On October 10, 2012, Kaneka filed a petition for review of the final ID. The Respondents and the Commission investigative attorney (“IA”) filed contingent petitions for review. On October 18, 2012, each party filed a response (with Kaneka filing separate responses to the Respondents and the IA).
Having reviewed the final ID, the petitions for review, and the record in this investigation, the Commission has determined the following: (1) To review and affirm (a) the finding that MGC does not satisfy the 70 mole % limitation, and (b) the claim construction of “inert gas atmosphere” with respect to the asserted claims of the `340 patent; (2) to review and vacate the finding that the asserted claims of the `340 patent are not invalid under the new matter prohibition of 35 U.S.C. § 132; and (3) not to review the remainder of the final initial determination of the ALJ, including the ALJ's finding that certain asserted claims of `340 patent are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112. This action terminates the investigation.
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 section 210.42(h) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42(h)).
By order of the Commission.