UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN PLASTIC GROCERY
`AND RETAIL BAGS
`
`1
`)
`1
`1
`1
`)
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-492
`
`Order No. 29: Initial Determination Terminating The Investigation As to Respondent
`Pan Pacific On The Basis Of A Settlement Agreement
`
`C j
`
`.
`
`J
`
`On January 24,2004, complainant Superbag Corp. (Superbag) and respondent Pan
`
`Pacific Plastics Mfg., Inc. (Pan Pacific) filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation with
`
`respect to Pan Pacific based upon a settlement agreement. (Motion Docket No. 492-23.)’
`
`The staff, in a response dated February 2,2004, supported Motion No. 492-23.
`
`Commission rule 210.21(a)(2) permits a party to move at any time for an order to
`
`terminate an investigation as to any respondent on the basis of a settlement or a licensing
`
`agreement. In accordance with Commission rule 210.21(b)(l), Motion No. 492-23 contains a
`
`statement that there are no agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between the parties
`
`other than the settlement agreement. Moreover under the terms of the settlement agreement, Pan
`
`Pacific stipulates to the validity and enforceability of U.S. Patent No. 5,188,235 in issue (the
`
`‘235 patent), and agrees not to import, sell for importation, or sell within the United States after
`
`importation any bags or bag packs covered by the ‘235 patent during the remaining life of the
`
`patent. (Settlement Agreement, ¶ 2.) Superbag agrees to reimburse Pan Pacific for reasonable
`
`travel expenses in connection with the resolution of the investigation as to Pan Pacific
`
`Included with Motion No. 492-23 was a “Termination By Settlement Agreement”
`(Settlement Agreement).
`
`A
`
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN PLASTIC GROCERY
`AND RETAIL BAGS
`
`1
`)
`1
`1
`1
`)
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-492
`
`Order No. 29: Initial Determination Terminating The Investigation As to Respondent
`Pan Pacific On The Basis Of A Settlement Agreement
`
`C j
`
`.
`
`J
`
`On January 24,2004, complainant Superbag Corp. (Superbag) and respondent Pan
`
`Pacific Plastics Mfg., Inc. (Pan Pacific) filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation with
`
`respect to Pan Pacific based upon a settlement agreement. (Motion Docket No. 492-23.)’
`
`The staff, in a response dated February 2,2004, supported Motion No. 492-23.
`
`Commission rule 210.21(a)(2) permits a party to move at any time for an order to
`
`terminate an investigation as to any respondent on the basis of a settlement or a licensing
`
`agreement. In accordance with Commission rule 210.21(b)(l), Motion No. 492-23 contains a
`
`statement that there are no agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between the parties
`
`other than the settlement agreement. Moreover under the terms of the settlement agreement, Pan
`
`Pacific stipulates to the validity and enforceability of U.S. Patent No. 5,188,235 in issue (the
`
`‘235 patent), and agrees not to import, sell for importation, or sell within the United States after
`
`importation any bags or bag packs covered by the ‘235 patent during the remaining life of the
`
`patent. (Settlement Agreement, ¶ 2.) Superbag agrees to reimburse Pan Pacific for reasonable
`
`travel expenses in connection with the resolution of the investigation as to Pan Pacific
`
`Included with Motion No. 492-23 was a “Termination By Settlement Agreement”
`(Settlement Agreement).
`
`A
`
`
`
`(Settlement Agreement, ¶ 3.) Thus the administrative law judge finds that the settlement
`
`agreement effectively terminates the investigation, as to Pan Pacific, pursuant to Commission
`
`rules.
`
`Commission rule 210.50(b)(2) provides that the administrative law judge, in ruling on a
`
`motion to terminate an investigation based on a settlement agreement:
`
`shall consider and make appropriate findings in the initial determination regarding
`the effect of the proposed settlement on the public health and welfare, competitive
`conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of like or directly competitive
`articles in the United States, and U.S. consumers.
`
`The administrative law judge finds that the record indicates no reason why termination of this
`
`investigation, as to Pan Pacific, on the basis of the settlement agreement would be contrary to the
`
`public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of like or
`
`directly competitive articles in the United States, and U.S. consumers. See 19 U.S.C. 0 1337(d).
`
`Moreover the public interest favors settlement to avoid needless litigation and to conserve public
`
`resources. See Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. $554(c)(l).
`
`Motion No. 492-23 is granted.
`
`This initial determination, pursuant to Commission rule 210.42(c), is hereby CERTIFIED
`
`to the Commission. Pursuant to Commission rule 210.42(h)(3), this initial determination shall
`
`become the determination of the Commission within thirty (30) days after the date of service
`
`hereof unless the Commission grants a petition for review of this initial determination pursuant
`
`to Commission rule 210.43, or orders on its own motion a review of the initial determination or
`
`2
`
`
`
`certain issues therein pursuant to Commission rule 210.44.
`
`Issued: February 3,2004
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`3
`
`
`
`CERTAIN PLASTIC GROCERY AND
`AND RETAIL BAGS
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-492
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Marilyn R. Abbott, hereby certify that the attached Order was served by hand upon
`Commission Investigative Attorney David H. Hollander, Jr. Esq. and upon the following parties
`via first class mail, and air mail where necessary, on February 4 Y 2004.
`
`U.S. InternatioMTrade Commission
`500 E Street, SW - Room 112
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`For Complainant Superbag Corp.:
`
`Steven R. Borgman
`Stephen S. Hodgson
`Vinson & Elkins LLP
`2300 First City Tower
`1001 Fannin
`Houston, Texas 77002-6760
`
`For Respondents Thai Plastics Bags Industries Co., Ltd. & Hmong Industries, Inc.:
`
`George W. Thompson
`John M. Peterson
`Neville Peterson, LLP
`1900 M Street, NW, Suite 850
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`
`
`CERTAIN PLASTIC GROCERY AND
`AND RETAIL BAGS
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-492
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE page 2
`
`For Respondent Pan Pacific Plastics Mfg., Inc.:
`
`John K. Kao, Esq.
`Attorney at Law
`580 California Street, 5" Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104-1000
`
`For Respondents Advance Polybag Incorporated and Universal Polybag Co. Ltd.:
`
`Joseph J. Zit0
`Paul Grandinetti
`Kendal M. Sheets
`Zit0 & Grandetti
`26005 Ridge Road, Suite 203
`Damascus, MD 20872
`
`For Respondent Spectrum Plastics, Inc.:
`
`David A. Belasco
`Robert Jacobs
`Mark B. Mizrahi
`Belasco Jacobs & Townsley, LLP
`100 Corporate Pointe, Suite 330
`Culver City, California 90230
`
`For Respondent Prime Source International LLC:
`
`Roger A. Gilcrest
`F. Michael Speed
`Stanley Law Group, LLP
`495 Metro Place South, Suite 210
`Dublin, Ohio
`
`
`
`CERTAIN PLASTIC GROCERY AND
`AND RETAIL BAGS
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-492
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE page 3
`
`Respondents:
`
`Nantong Huasheng Plastic Products Co.
`Jiangzao, Tongzhou City
`Jiangsau Province 2263 15
`People’s Republic of China
`
`Bee Lian Plastic Marketing PTE Ltd.
`67 Begonia Drive
`Singapore
`
`Polson Products Limited
`Harbour Commercial Bldg. 19/F
`122 Connaught Road Central
`Hong Kong
`
`
`
`CERTAIN PLASTIC GROCERY AND
`RETAIL BAGS
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-492
`
`PUBLIC MAILING LIST
`
`Sherry Robinson
`LEXIS-NEXIS
`889 1 Gander Creek Drive
`Miamisburg, OH 45342
`
`Ronnita Green
`West Group
`Suite 230
`901 Fifteenth Street, N.W
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`(PARTIES NEED NOT SERVE COPIES ON LEXIS OR WEST PUBLISHING)
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
