Commission Reverses Remand Initial Determination And Finds No Violation In Certain R-134a Coolant (337-TA-623)
On August 3, 2009, the Commission issued a Notice determining to reverse the conclusion reached in the April 1, 2009 Remand Initial Determination that the only remaining asserted claim is not obvious in Certain R-134a Coolant (Otherwise Known as 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluorothane) (Inv. No. 337-TA-623).
As we explained in our April 6 post, this investigation was instituted in December 2007 based on a complaint filed by INEOS Fluor Holdings Ltd., INEOS Fluor Ltd. and INEOS Fluor Americas LLC (“INEOS”). INEOS’ complaint alleged violations of Section 337 by respondents Sinochem Modern Environmental Protection Chemicals (Xi’an) Co. Ltd., Sinochem Ningbo Ltd., Sinochem Environmental Protection Chemicals (Taicang) Co., Ltd., and Sinochem (U.S.A.) Inc. (collectively, “Sinochem”) in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain R-134a coolant (otherwise known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluorothane) by reason of infringement of certain patents, including U.S. Patent No. 5,559,276 (the “‘276 patent”).
On December 1, 2008, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued a final initial determination (“ID”) that Sinochem infringed the ‘276 patent and the domestic industry requirement had been met. ALJ Luckern further determined that Sincochem failed to establish that the ‘276 patent was invalid or unenforceable. Following submissions by the parties, the Commission reviewed the ID with respect to invalidity and issued an order on January 30, 2009 remanding the investigation to the ALJ for further proceedings related to anticipation and obviousness because the disposition of these issues was unclear from the ALJ’s ID. On April 1, 2009, ALJ Luckern issued the Remand Initial Determination (“RID”) concluding that Sinochem’s arguments regarding anticipation and obviousness arguments were waived under the ground rules and, alternatively, that the arguments were without merit. As explained in our June 3 post, on June 1, 2009, the ITC determined to review the RID in its entirety.
In the August 3, 2009 notice, the Commission determined to “reverse the conclusion of nonobviousness of claim 1 of the ‘276 patent in the RID,” stating that “the Commission has determined to rely on certain party admissions and other evidence as to the state of the prior art.” The Commission further “determined to take no position on the RID’s conclusions relating to obviousness arguments based on prior art references identified in the Commission’s remand instructions, including the RID’s conclusions on whether arguments as to those references have been waived.” The notice also states that the Commission “determined not to rely on the RID’s conclusions as to anticipation and waiver of anticipation arguments.” Finally, the Commission’s “findings terminate the Commission’s investigation.”
