82 FR 23593 - Certain Air Mattress Systems, Components Thereof, and Methods of Using the Same; Commission Final Determination of Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order; Termination of Investigation

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 98 (May 23, 2017)

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (``the Commission'') has determined that there is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337) (``section 337'') by respondents Sizewise Rentals LLC of Kansas City, Missouri; American National Manufacturing Inc. of Corona, California; and Dires LLC and Dires LLC d/b/a Personal Comfort Beds of Orlando, Florida (collectively, ``Respondents'') in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission has issued a limited exclusion order (``LEO'') directed to products of the Respondents and has terminated the investigation.

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23593-23595]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10476]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-971]


Certain Air Mattress Systems, Components Thereof, and Methods of 
Using the Same; Commission Final Determination of Violation of Section 
337; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order; Termination of 
Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission (``the Commission'') has determined that there is a 
violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 
U.S.C. 1337) (``section 337'') by respondents Sizewise Rentals LLC of 
Kansas City, Missouri; American National Manufacturing Inc. of Corona, 
California; and Dires LLC and Dires LLC d/b/a Personal Comfort Beds of 
Orlando, Florida (collectively, ``Respondents'') in the above-captioned 
investigation. The Commission has issued a limited exclusion order 
(``LEO'') directed to products of the Respondents and has terminated 
the investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. 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 https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed 
on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://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 November 20, 2015, based on a complaint filed by Select Comfort 
Corporation of Minneapolis, Minnesota and Select Comfort SC Corporation 
of Greenville, South Carolina (collectively, ``Select Comfort,'' or 
``Complainants''). 80 FR 72738 (Nov. 20, 2015). The complaint alleges 
violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

[[Page 23594]]

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the 
sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after 
importation of certain air mattress systems, components thereof, and 
methods of using the same by reason of infringement of certain claims 
of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,904,172 (``the '172 patent'') and 7,389,554 
(``the '554 patent''). Id. In addition to the private parties named as 
respondents, the Commission named the Office of Unfair Import 
Investigations as a party in this investigation. Id.
    Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the 
Commission ordered that the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ''):

    [S]hall take evidence or other information and hear arguments 
from the parties and other interested persons with respect to the 
public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide 
the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination 
on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public 
interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1).

80 FR 72738 (Nov. 20, 2015).
    The evidentiary hearing on the question of violation of section 337 
was held August 8-12, 2016. The final ID on violation was issued on 
November 18, 2016. The ALJ issued his recommended determination on 
remedy, the public interest and bonding on the same day. The ALJ found 
no violation of section 337 in this investigation. The ALJ recommended 
that should the Commission find a violation of section 337 in the 
present investigation, it issue an LEO prohibiting the importation of 
Respondents' air controllers and air mattress systems found to infringe 
the asserted patents. The ALJ also recommended the inclusion of a 
provision for the '554 patent, whereby Respondents could certify that 
certain imports are not covered by the LEO. The ALJ did not recommend 
that the Commission issue a cease and desist order in this 
investigation. The ALJ further recommended a zero bond during the 
period of Presidential review.
    All parties to this investigation filed timely petitions for review 
of various portions of the final ID, as well as timely responses to the 
petitions.
    On December 13, 2016, Respondents filed a ``Motion For a Limited 
Re-Opening of the Record for Consideration of Prior Art Not Identified 
By Complainants During Discovery.'' Both the IA and Complainants filed 
timely responsive pleadings opposing Respondents' motion. The 
Commission has determined to deny Respondents' motion to re-open the 
record.
    On December 19, 2016, both Complainants and Respondents filed their 
respective Public Interest Statement pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4). 
Responses from the public were likewise received by the Commission 
pursuant to notice. See Notice of Request for Statements on the Public 
Interest (Nov. 29, 2016).
    The Commission determined to review various portions of the final 
ID and issued a Notice to that effect dated January 23, 2017 (``Notice 
of Review''). 82 FR 8623 (Jan. 27, 2017). In the Notice of Review, the 
Commission also set a schedule for the filing of written submissions on 
the issues under review, including certain questions posed by the 
Commission, and on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. The 
parties have briefed, with initial and reply submissions, the issues 
under review and the issues of remedy, the public interest, and 
bonding.
    Having examined the record in this investigation, including the 
parties' submissions filed in response to the Notice of Review, the 
Commission has determined as follows:
    (1) To reverse (a) the ID's finding that Respondents' P5000, P6000, 
and Arco products do not meet the ``guides'' and ``stops'' limitation 
of claim 2 of the '172 patent; (b) the ID's finding that the Gen 3 Arco 
and Platinum 5000/6000 controllers do not meet the ``guides'' and 
``stops'' limitation of claim 12 of the '172 patent; and (c) the ID's 
finding that the Gen 3 Arco and Platinum 5000/6000 controllers do not 
infringe claim 12 of the '172 patent;
    (2) To affirm the ID's finding that the '172 Accused Products do 
not meet the claim limitation ``pressure monitor means being operably 
coupled to the processor and being in fluid communication with the at 
least one bladder for continuously monitoring the pressure in the at 
least one bladder'' in claims 2, 6, 20, 22, and 24 of the '172 patent;
    (3) To (a) modify the ID's finding that the '172 Accused Products 
do not infringe claim 9 of the '172 patent by striking the words ``For 
the reasons stated above in the discussion of claim 2'' in the first 
full paragraph on page 23 of the ID and, instead, find that the Accused 
Products do not meet the ``continuously monitoring'' limitation of 
claim 9 and therefore do not infringe claim 9 for the reasons detailed 
in the accompanying Commission Opinion; and (b) affirm the ID's finding 
of no induced infringement of claim 9 of the '172 patent;
    (4) To take no position on the ID's discussion in the last 
paragraph on page 20 and the first paragraph on page 21 of the ID. See 
Beloit Corporation v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir.1984) 
(``Beloit'');
    (5) To modify the ID's finding regarding non-infringement of claim 
16 of the '554 patent by striking the words ``For the reasons stated 
above in the discussion of claim 1,'' in the fourth paragraph on page 
70 of the ID and instead find that the '554 Accused Products do not 
meet the ``air posturizing sleep surface'' limitation of claim 16 and 
therefore do not infringe claim 16 for the reasons detailed in the 
accompanying Commission Opinion;
    (6) To reverse the ID's determination that the '554 Domestic 
Industry Products do not practice the '554 patent and thus do not 
satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with 
respect to the '554 patent and, instead, determine that for the reasons 
detailed in the accompanying Commission Opinion, Complainants have 
satisfied the technical prong with respect to the '554 patent based 
only on the U15 and U11 products practicing claim 16 of the '554 
patent;
    (7) To take no position on the ID's determination on whether 
Complainants satisfied the economic prong with regard to the '554 
patent. See Beloit, 742 F.2d at 1423.
    (8) To reverse the ID's determination regarding the economic prong 
of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '172 patent, 
and find that the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement 
is satisfied for the '172 patent.
    Accordingly, the Commission finds that there is a violation of 
section 337 with respect to the '172 patent in this investigation. The 
Commission has determined that the appropriate relief in this 
investigation includes an LEO prohibiting the unlicensed entry of 
infringing air mattress systems, components thereof, and methods of 
using the same that are covered by claims 12 or 16 of the '172 patent 
and that are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or imported by or 
on behalf of Respondents, or their affiliated companies, parents, 
subsidiaries, or other related business entities, or their successors 
or assigns.
    The Commission has further determined that the public interest 
factors enumerated in section 337(d)(l) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(l)) do not 
preclude issuance of the LEO. Finally, the Commission has determined 
that the amount of a bond should be set to zero (0) percent of entered 
value during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)). The 
Commission's order was delivered to the President and the

[[Page 23595]]

United States Trade Representative on the day of its issuance.
    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 Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 
part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

     Issued: May 17, 2017.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-10476 Filed 5-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P