The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain CMOS image sensors and products containing same. The products at issue in this investigation are CMOS image sensors and consumer electronics devices (such as camera phones) containing CMOS image sensors.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) of Pasadena, CA, on May 1, 2012. Letters supplementing the complaint were filed on May 21, 2012, and May 22, 2012. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain CMOS image sensors and products containing same that infringe patents asserted by Caltech. The complainant requests that the USITC issue an exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

The USITC has identified the following as respondents in this investigation:

STMicroelectronics NV of Switzerland;
STMicroelectronics Inc. of Coppell, TX;
Nokia Corp. of Finland;
Nokia, Inc., of White Plains, NY;
Research In Motion Ltd. of Canada; and
Research In Motion Corp. of Irving, TX.

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-846), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC's Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC's six administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission.

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain products containing interactive program guide and parental control technology. The products at issue in this investigation are televisions, media players, and software applications that include interactive programs guides or parental control technology in a specified format.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed on May 1, 2012, by Rovi Corporation; Rovi Guides, Inc.; Rovi Technologies Corporation; Starsight Telecast, Inc.; and United Video Properties, Inc., all of Santa Clara, CA and Index Systems, Inc. of the British Virgin Islands. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain products containing interactive program guide and parental control technology that infringe patents asserted by the complainants. The complainants request that the USITC issue an exclusion order and a cease and desist order.

The USITC has identified the following as respondents in this investigation:

LG Electronics, Inc., of the Republic of Korea;
LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, NJ;
Mitsubishi Electric Corp. of Japan;
Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc., of Cypress, CA;
Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc., of Vernon Hills, IL;
Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc., of Irvine, CA;
Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Inc., of Irvine, CA;
Netflix, Inc., of Los Gatos, CA;
Roku, Inc., of Saratoga, CA; and
Vizio, Inc., of Irvine, CA.

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-845), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC's Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC's six administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission.

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

Tighter Credit, Uncertain Government R&D Funding, and New Competitors Among Challenges Facing U.S. Business Jet Manufacturers

 

The U.S. business jet manufacturing industry is facing new challenges as it competes in a market environment characterized by tightened credit, uncertain government funding for research and development (R&D), and new entrants into the industry, reports the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) in its publication Business Jet Aircraft Industry: Structure and Factors Affecting Competitiveness.

The USITC recently concluded the investigation for the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Ways and Means. As requested, the report covers the period 2006-2010, with data from 2011 as available, for business jets at or below 50,000 pounds maximum takeoff weight.

The report provides an overview of the structure of the U.S. and global business jet industry; discusses the global market for business jet aircraft and the effects of the recent economic downturn on business jet demand; reviews government policies and programs involving the business jet industry, including those related to financial support, aircraft R&D, and certification; and examines factors that may affect the future competitiveness of the industry, particularly in the United States, Europe, Brazil, Canada, and China. Highlights of the report follow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Three of the world's six leading producers are headquartered in the United States, where the majority of production occurs. However, all six of the original equipment manufacturers conduct at least one production-related activity in the United States. All six firms are part of larger corporations, most of which have diversified interests, varied manufacturing experience, and a broader resource base.
• Global deliveries of business jets fell sharply during the period studied, with customers for the very light and light business jets, the market segments in which U.S. producers are most active, being the hardest hit during the recent recession.
• The U.S. and European markets continued to account for the largest number of business jet deliveries during the period studied, despite declines in total business jet deliveries. At the same time, the share of global deliveries to emerging markets such as China, India, and Russia grew during the period. Prospects for the continued growth in business jet deliveries to these markets may be limited, however, by inadequate airport infrastructure and regulatory and tariff concerns.
• Investment in R&D, along with business and technological innovation, are keys to success in this industry. In addition to funding from business jet manufacturers and suppliers, financial support for aeronautics R&D is provided by most governments to foster important national goals. The business jet sector, however, reportedly has had the least government R&D participation among aerospace sectors globally, a trend exacerbated by recently constrained government budgets.
• Export credit agencies (ECAs), such as the U.S. Export-Import Bank, Brazil's BNDES (Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econ“mico e Social), and Canada's Export Development Canada, are available sources of funding for export sales of business jets. ECAs are likely to play an increasing role in providing sales finance to the industry.
• The future competitiveness of the U.S. business jet industry may be influenced by changes in such factors as regional demand, new entrants into the industry, workforce characteristics, government regulations pertaining to the environment, airspace usage, and aircraft user fees. In some cases, the impact of these changes, such as the opening of airspace in China, may benefit U.S. industry, whereas other changes, such as a proposed aircraft user fee in the United States, may pose challenges.

Business Jet Aircraft Industry: Structure and Factors Affecting Competitiveness (Investigation No. 332-526, USITC Publication 4314, April 2012) will be available on the USITC's Internet site at http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4314.pdf. A CD-ROM of the report may be requested by e-mailing pubrequest@usitc.gov, calling 202-205-2000, or contacting the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Requests may also be faxed to 202-205-2104.

USITC general factfinding investigations, such as this one, cover matters related to tariffs or trade and are generally conducted at the request of the U.S. Trade Representative, the House Committee on Ways and Means, or the Senate Committee on Finance. The resulting reports convey the Commission's objective findings and independent analyses on the subject investigated. The Commission makes no recommendations on policy or other matters in its general factfinding reports. Upon completion of each investigation, the USITC submits its findings and analyses to the requester. General factfinding investigations reports are subsequently released to the public, unless they are classified by the requester for national security reasons.

The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) today determined that a U.S. industry is materially injured by reason of imports of high pressure steel cylinders from China that the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) has determined are subsidized and sold in the United States at less than fair value.

All six Commissioners voted in the affirmative.

As a result of the USITC's affirmative determinations, Commerce will issue antidumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of these products from China.

The Commission's public report High Pressure Steel Cylinders from China (Investigation Nos. 701-TA-480 and 731-TA-1188 (Final), USITC Publication 4328, June 2012) will contain the views of the Commissioners and information developed during the investigations.

Copies may be obtained after July 2, 2012, by emailing pubrequest@usitc.gov, calling 202-205-2000, or by writing the Office of the Secretary, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Requests may also be made by fax to 202-205-2104.

 

---

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Office of Industries
Washington, DC 20436

 

FACTUAL HIGHLIGHTS

High Pressure Steel Cylinders from China
Investigation Nos. 701-TA-480 and 731-TA-1188 (Final)

 

Product Description: High pressure steel cylinders (HPSCs) are seamless, chromium-alloy steel containers designed specifically for transporting, storing, and dispensing compressed or liquefied gases. These cylinders are permanently impressed, either before or after importation, with the symbol of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (DOT)-approved producer, as well as a DOT specification 3A, 3AX, 3AA, 3AAX, 3B, 3E, 3HT, 3T, or DOT-E (followed by a specific exemption number) per §178.36-178.68 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as amended. HPSCs included in these investigations have water capacities up to 450 liters and gas capacity ranges of 8-702 cubic feet, regardless of service pressures, physical dimensions, finishes, or coatings. Excluded are HPSCs produced to UN-ISO-9809-1 and 2 specifications and permanently impressed with ISO or UN symbols; and acetylene cylinders permanently impressed with DOT specification 8A or 8AL.

 

Status of Proceedings:

1.  Type of investigations:  Final antidumping and countervailing duty.
2.  Petitioner:  Norris Cylinder Co., Longview, TX.
3.  Investigations instituted by the USITC:  May 11, 2011.
4.  Commission's hearing:  May 1, 2012.
5.  USITC vote:  May 30, 2012.
6.  USITC determinations and views to the U.S. Department of Commerce currently scheduled for:  June 11, 2012.

U.S. Industry:

1.  Number of producers in 2011:  One.
2.  Location of producers' plants:  Alabama and Texas.
3.  Employment of production and related workers in 2011: (1)
4.  Apparent U.S. consumption in 2011: (1)
5.  Ratio of the value of total U.S. imports to total U.S. consumption in 2011: (1)

U.S. Imports:

1.  From the subject country during 2011: (1)
2.  From other countries during 2011: (1)
3.  Leading sources during 2011:  China, Canada, and Korea (in terms of quantities).

(1) Withheld to avoid disclosure of business proprietary information.

Infrastructure, Finance, and Disease Issues Are Challenges Facing Brazil's Future Competitiveness

Brazil is one of the world's largest agricultural economies and has emerged as a leading global exporter of numerous agricultural commodities, but its direct competition with the United States for sales of soybeans, grains, and meats to third country markets has been somewhat limited, reports the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) in its publication Brazil: Competitive Factors in Brazil Affecting U.S. and Brazilian Agricultural Sales in Selected Third Country Markets.

The USITC, an independent, nonpartisan, factfinding federal agency, recently completed the investigation at the request of the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance. Highlights of the report follow.

• Brazil's agricultural sector has rapidly increased domestic production through land expansion and higher yields, thereby meeting rising food requirements for Brazilian consumers and creating opportunities to supply foreign customers. Over the past 20 years, Brazil has emerged as a leading global exporter of soybeans, soybean meal and oil, corn, beef, poultry, pork, cotton, and orange juice, in addition to traditional exports of sugar and coffee.
• Brazil's low-cost resource base, including ample land and water resources and weather patterns conducive to intensive land use, enables high-yield crop production across a wide range of agricultural products. Government-funded agricultural research has developed crop varieties that flourish in Brazil's previously untapped Center-West region. Low on-farm production costs have helped to make Brazil a competitive exporter.
• Despite tremendous potential, several important factors may serve to slow Brazil's expansion of agricultural production. Much of the available farmland is in areas that lack easy access to transportation infrastructure. Increasing demands for transportation, storage, and port infrastructure and capacity will likely outpace supply for quite some time. Relatively high-cost commercial credit could have the effect of discouraging investment. In addition, some livestock disease issues remain unresolved, and Brazil's labor laws and tax structures reportedly also increase costs.
• Although Brazil and the United States are both global exporters of grains and oilseeds, direct competition between the two countries currently is somewhat limited due to the substantial increase in global consumption. For example, both countries supply China with soybeans and soybean products. But given the rapid growth in Chinese soybean demand, increases in U.S. and Brazilian production have been readily consumed, and global prices remain strong.
• Limited competition between the U.S. and Brazil also exists in the meat sectors. Brazilian poultry exports are primarily produced and packaged for customers with exacting specifications, while U.S. poultry exports tend to be undifferentiated broiler cuts, such as leg quarters. In the beef sector, U.S. competition with Brazil is also limited because each country serves a different market segment. The United States supplies grain-fed beef destined for Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Korea, while Brazil supplies grass-fed beef used in processed products to other markets such as Russia. Because of import bans related to foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), market access for Brazilian beef and pork is restricted in many of the largest U.S. export markets.

Brazil: Competitive Factors in Brazil Affecting U.S. and Brazilian Agricultural Sales in Selected Third Country Markets (Investigation No. 332-524, USITC Publication 4310, May 2012) will be available on the USITC's Internet site at http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4310.pdf. A CD-ROM of the report may be requested by e-mailing pubrequest@usitc.gov, calling 202-205-2000, or contacting the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Requests may also be faxed to 202-205-2104.

USITC general factfinding investigations, such as this one, cover matters related to tariffs or trade and are generally conducted at the request of the U.S. Trade Representative, the House Committee on Ways and Means, or the Senate Committee on Finance. The resulting reports convey the Commission's objective findings and independent analyses on the subjects investigated. The Commission makes no recommendations on policy or other matters in its general factfinding reports. Upon completion of each investigation, the USITC submits its findings and analyses to the requester. General factfinding investigation reports are subsequently released to the public unless they are classified by the requester for national security reasons.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain electronic devices having a retractable USB connector. The products at issue in this investigation are devices with retractable USB connectors such as cameras, camcorders, digital audio recorders, MP3 players, wireless modems, and flash memory drives.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by Anu IP LLC of Longview, TX, on April 18, 2012. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain electronic devices having a retractable USB connector that infringe patents asserted by Anu IP. The complainant requests that the USITC issue an exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

The USITC has identified the following as respondents in this investigation:

AIPTEK International, Inc., of Taiwan;
Aluratek, Inc., of Tustin, CA;
Archos S.A. of France;
Archos, Inc., of Greenwood Village, CO;
Bluestar Alliance LLC of New York, NY;
Centon Electronics, Inc., of Aliso Viejo, CA;
Coby Electronics Corporation of Lake Success, NY;
Corsair Memory, Inc., of Fremont, CA;
Emtec Electronics, Inc., of Lew Center, OH;
General Imaging Company of Torrance, CA;
Huawei Technology Company, Ltd., of China;
Iriver, Inc., of Irvine, CA;
JVC Kenwood Corporation of Japan;
JVC Americas Corporation of Wayne, NJ;
Latte Communications, Inc., of San Jose, CA;
Lexar Media, Inc., of Fremont, CA;
Maxell Corporation of America, Inc., of Woodland Park, NJ;
Hitachi Maxell, Ltd., of Japan;
Office Depot, Inc., of Boca Raton, FL;
Olympus Corporation of Japan;
Olympus Corporation of the Americas of Center Valley, PA;
Option NV of Belgium;
Option, Inc., of Alpharetta, GA;
Panasonic Corporation of Japan;
Panasonic Corporation North America of Secaucus, NJ;
Patriot Memory LLC of Fremont, CA;
Provantage LLC of North Canton, OH;
RITEK Corporation of Taiwan;
Advanced Media Inc. d/b/a RITEK U.S.A. of Diamond Bar, CA;
Sakar International, Inc., of Edison, NJ;
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., of Republic of Korea;
Samsung Electronics America of Ridgefield, NJ;
Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., of Japan;
Sanyo North America Corporation of San Diego, CA;
Silicon Power Computer and Comm., Inc., of Taiwan;
Silicon Power Computer and Comm. USA, Inc., of Cupertino, CA;
Supersonic, Inc., of Commerce, CA;
Super Talent Technology Corporation of San Jose, CA;
Toshiba Corporation of Japan;
Toshiba America, Inc., of New York, NY;
ViewSonic Corporation of Walnut, CA;
VOXX International Corporation of Hauppauge, NY;
Audiovox Accessories Corporation of Carmel, IN;
Yamaha Corporation of Japan; and
Yamaha Corporation of America of Buena Park, CA.

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-843), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC's Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC's six administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission.

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

 

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) today determined that revoking the existing antidumping duty order on tin- and chromium-coated steel sheet from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

As a result of the Commission's affirmative determination, the existing order on imports of these products from Japan will remain in place.

All six Commissioners voted in the affirmative.

Today's action comes under the five-year (sunset) review process required by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. See the attached page for background on these five-year (sunset) reviews.

The Commission's public report Tin- and Chromium-Coated Steel Sheet from Japan (Inv. No. 731-TA-860 (Second Review), USITC Publication 4325, May 2012) will contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the review.

Copies may be requested after June 15, 2012, by emailing pubrequest@usitc.gov, calling 202-205-2000, or writing to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Requests may be made by fax at 202-205-2104.

 

---

 

BACKGROUND

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires the Department of Commerce to revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, or terminate a suspension agreement, after five years unless the Department of Commerce and the USITC determine that revoking the order or terminating the suspension agreement would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or subsidies (Commerce) and of material injury (USITC) within a reasonably foreseeable time.

The Commission's institution notice in five-year reviews requests that interested parties file responses with the Commission concerning the likely effects of revoking the order under review as well as other information. Generally within 95 days from institution, the Commission will determine whether the responses it has received reflect an adequate or inadequate level of interest in a full review. If responses to the USITC's notice of institution are adequate, or if other circumstances warrant a full review, the Commission conducts a full review, which includes a public hearing and issuance of questionnaires.

The Commission generally does not hold a hearing or conduct further investigative activities in expedited reviews. Commissioners base their injury determination in expedited reviews on the facts available, including the Commission's prior injury and review determinations, responses received to its notice of institution, data collected by staff in connection with the review, and information provided by the Department of Commerce.

The five-year (sunset) review concerning Tin- and Chromium-Coated Steel Sheet from Japan was instituted on June 1, 2011.

On September 6, 2011, the Commission voted to conduct a full review. All six Commissioners concluded that both the domestic and respondent group responses for this review were adequate and voted for a full review.

A record of the Commission's vote to conduct a full review is available from the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Requests may be made by telephone by calling 202-205-1802.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain cameras and mobile devices, related software and firmware, and components thereof and products containing the same. The products at issue in this investigation are certain cameras and mobile devices with software and firmware that can be used to combine portions of individual captured images to give a sense of depth to the images.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by HumanEyes Technologies, Ltd., of Israel, on March 29, 2012. A supplement to the Complaint was filed on April 18, 2012. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain cameras and mobile devices, related software and firmware, and components thereof and products containing the same that infringe patents asserted by HumanEyes. The complainant requests that the USITC issue an exclusion order and a cease and desist order.

The USITC has identified the following as respondents in this investigation:

Sony Corporation of Japan;
Sony Corporation of America of New York, NY;
Sony Electronics, Inc., of San Diego, CA;
Sony Mobile Communications AB of the United Kingdom; and
Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. of Atlanta, GA.

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-842), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC's Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC's six administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission.

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain computer and computer peripheral devices and components thereof and products containing same. The products at issue in this investigation are laptop and desktop computers and computer peripheral devices such as media card readers and printers.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by Technology Properties Limited, LLC, of Cupertino, CA, on March 27, 2012. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain computers and computer peripheral devices and components thereof and products containing same that infringe patents asserted by Technology Properties Limited LLC. The complainant requests that the USITC issue an exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

The USITC has identified the following as respondents in this investigation:

Acer, Inc., of Taiwan;
Brother Industries, Ltd., of Japan;
Canon Inc. of Japan;
Dane-Elec Memory of France;
Dell Inc. of Round Rock, TX;
Falcon Northwest Computer Systems, Inc., of Medford, OR;
Fujitsu Limited of Japan;
Jasco Products Company of Oklahoma City, OK;
Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto, CA;
HiTi Digital, Inc., of Taiwan;
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., of Fountain Valley, CA;
Micron Technology, Inc., of Boise, ID;
Lexar Media, Inc., of Fremont, CA;
Microdia Limited of San Jose, CA;
Newegg Inc. of City of Industry, CA;
Rosewill Inc. of City of Industry, CA;
Sabrent of Chatsworth, CA;
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., of Korea;
Seiko Epson Corporation of Japan;
Shuttle Inc. of Taiwan; and
Systemax Inc. of Port Washington, NY.

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-841), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC's Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC's six administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission.

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain semiconductor integrated circuit devices and products containing same. The products at issue in this investigation include semiconductor chips and packages.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by Microchip Technology Incorporated of Chandler, AZ, on March 23, 2012. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain semiconductor integrated circuit devices and products containing same that infringe patents asserted by Microchip Technology. The complainant requests that the USITC issue an exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

The USITC has identified the following as respondents in this investigation:

Intersil Corporation of Milpitas, CA;
Zilker Labs, Inc., of Austin, TX; and
Techwell LLC., of Milpitas, CA.

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-840), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC's Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC's six administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission.

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

Subscribe to U.S. International Trade Commission