UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, DC
`
`Honorable Theodore R. Essex, Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN BEVERAGE BREWING
`CAPSULES, COMPONENTS THEREOF,
`AND PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE SAME
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-929
`
`RESPONDENT MELITTA USA, INC.’S MOTION TO TERMINATE THE
`INVESTIGATION BASED ON CONSENT ORDER STIPULATION
`AND PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rules 210.21(a)(2) and 210.21(c)(1)(ii), Respondent Melitta
`
`USA, Inc. respectfully moves for termination of this Investigation as to Melitta based upon entry
`
`of the submitted stipulation and proposed Consent Order. Under the stipulation, Melitta will not
`
`import, sell for importation, or sell after importation any beverage brewing capsules, components
`
`thereof, and products containing the same that infringe any of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,720,320.
`
`Entry of the proposed Consent Order will render the dispute as to Melitta moot with respect
`
`to the relief Complainants seek from the Commission. Melitta makes this motion without
`
`admitting that it has committed any unfair act, unlawful act, or act of infringement. Melitta will
`
`not seek to challenge the validity or enforceability of the asserted claims of the asserted patent in
`
`any administrative or judicial proceeding to enforce the Consent Order. However, Melitta
`
`maintains and reserves its right to do so in other proceedings. Pursuant to Commission Rule
`
`210.21(c), there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied between the parties
`
`concerning the subject matter of the investigation.
`
`1
`
`

`
`As set forth in the attached memorandum in support of this motion, entry of the proposed
`
`Consent Order is in the public interest, which favors the settlement of disputes to avoid needless
`
`litigation and to conserve resources. Granting this motion to terminate the Investigation as to
`
`Melitta will streamline the investigation by removing one of the named respondents. Doing so
`
`would thus result in significant savings in Commission and party resources. Accordingly, Melitta
`
`respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge issue an Initial Determination terminating
`
`the investigation as to Melitta and that the proposed Consent Order be entered.
`
`GROUND RULE 3.2 CERTIFICATION
`
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 3.2, Melitta certifies that, at least two business days before filing
`
`this motion, it conferred with counsel for the other parties and made a reasonable, good faith effort
`
`to resolve the issue that is the subject of this motion. Counsel for Complainants Adrian Rivera and
`
`Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. do not oppose the Motion. Counsel for Respondents
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. and Solofill LLC, and DonGuan Hai Rui Precision Mould Co, Ltd. do not
`
`oppose the Motion. The Staff will take a position after reviewing the motion as filed.
`
`Dated: February 3, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Andrew F. Pratt
`Andrew F. Pratt
`Adam R. Hess
`Matthew R. Farley
`Venable LLP
`575 7th Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 344-4389
`AFPratt@venable.com
`
`Counsel for Respondent
`Melitta USA, Inc.
`
`2
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, DC
`
`Honorable Theodore R. Essex, Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN BEVERAGE BREWING
`CAPSULES, COMPONENTS THEREOF,
`AND PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE SAME
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-929
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
`RESPONDENT MELITTA USA, INC.’S MOTION TO TERMINATE THE
`INVESTIGATION BASED ON CONSENT ORDER STIPULATION
`AND PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rules 210.21(a)(2) and 210.21(c)(1)(ii), Respondent Melitta
`
`USA, Inc. moves to terminate the Investigation as to Melitta based upon the attached Consent
`
`Order Stipulation (Ex. A) and proposed Consent Order (Ex. B), which provides Complainants
`
`Adrian Rivera and Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, “ARM”) with all of the
`
`relief that ARM could obtain if this Investigation proceeds against Melitta to a final determination.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Melitta maintains that its accused products do not infringe any valid claim of the asserted
`
`patents, and ARM is not entitled to any of the relief it seeks. Nevertheless, Melitta is willing to
`
`provide all of the relief that ARM is seeking, leaving no reason for this Investigation to move
`
`forward as to Melitta. At the same time, termination will save significant resources for both the
`
`Commission and the parties, including substantial fact and expert discovery, and all pre-hearing,
`
`hearing, and post-hearing activity with respect to Melitta.
`
`1
`
`

`
`For the reasons stated herein, Melitta requests that this motion be granted and that the
`
`Investigation be terminated with respect to Melitta based upon the entry of Melitta’s proposed
`
`Consent Order Stipulation and Consent Order.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`The Commission instituted this Investigation based upon an amended Complaint filed by
`
`ARM on September 9, 2014. 79 Fed. Reg. 53445-46. The Complaint alleged unlawful activities in
`
`the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States
`
`after importation of certain beverage brewing capsules, components thereof, and products
`
`containing the same by Melitta, and others, that allegedly infringe claims 5 and 8 of the ‘320 patent.
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Termination May Be Granted Based on a Respondent’s Motion
`
`The Commission has the authority to terminate an investigation based upon a consent order
`
`submitted by Melitta. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c), “the Commission may, by issuing a consent
`
`order or on the basis of an agreement between the private parties to the investigation . . . terminate
`
`any such investigation . . . .” Commission Rule 210.21(a)(2) also makes this clear, stating that any
`
`singular “party” may seek termination on the basis of a consent order. 19 C.F.R. § 210.21(a)(2)
`
`(“Any party may move at any time to terminate an investigation in whole or in part as to any or all
`
`respondents on the basis of . . . a consent order . . . .”); Certain Digital Photo Frames & Image
`
`Display Devices & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-807 (“Photo Frames”), Order No. 46
`
`at 3-6 (Sept. 5, 2012) (granting Sony’s motion to terminate the investigation as to itself based on
`
`a unilateral consent order); Certain Tires & Prods. Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-894, Order
`
`No. 36 at 2-3 (Feb. 27, 2014) (same).
`
`2
`
`

`
`B.
`
`Conservation of Resources Strongly Favors That This Motion Be Granted
`
`There is a public interest in avoiding needless litigation and conserving public resources.
`
`Photo Frames, Order No. 46 at 6. At the Commission, litigation is needless when the parties
`
`“would gain nothing more from a litigation decision . . . than termination would achieve.” Certain
`
`Ultrafiltration Membrane Sys. & Components Thereof, Including Ultrafiltration Membranes, Inv.
`
`No. 337-TA-107 (“Ultrafiltration Membranes”), Recommended Determination, 1981 ITC LEXIS
`
`18, at *12 (Nov. 20, 1981); see also Certain Handheld Magnifiers & Prods. Containing Same, Inv.
`
`No. 337-TA-901, Order No. 4 at 2-3 (March 20, 2014). An investigation cannot be used solely for
`
`the purpose of obtaining a ruling on patent issues that might then be used for “collateral estoppel”
`
`or other effect in another forum. Ultrafiltration Membranes, 1981 ITC LEXIS 18 at *10-*12.
`
`Continuing this investigation with respect to Melitta through discovery, a hearing, and a
`
`final determination would consume significant public and private resources. Because an
`
`investigation into Melitta’s activities is needless where ARM receives full relief through the
`
`proposed consent order, the public interest in conserving resources strongly favors termination.
`
`C.
`
`Melitta’s Consent Order Stipulation Supports the Public Interest
`
`With respect to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(2), termination of this Investigation as to
`
`Melitta on the basis of Melitta’s proposed Consent Order is not contrary to public health and
`
`welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of like or directly competitive
`
`articles in the U.S., or U.S. consumers. The public interest strongly favors terminating this
`
`investigation as to Melitta, for the conservation of public resources.
`
`3
`
`

`
`D.
`
`Melitta’s Consent Order Stipulation Meets All of the Requirements of
`Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)
`
`This motion and the accompanying Consent Order Stipulation meet all of the requirements
`
`of the Commission Rules. In particular, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)(i), Melitta’s
`
`Consent Order Stipulation contains:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`an admission that the Commission has in rem jurisdiction, in personam jurisdiction,
`and subject matter jurisdiction (Consent Order Stipulation at ¶2),
`
`a waiver of all rights to seek judicial review or otherwise challenge or contest the
`validity of the Consent Order (Consent Order Stipulation at ¶ 3),
`
`a statement that Melitta will cooperate with and will not seek to impede by litigation
`or other means the Commission’s efforts to gather information under subpart I of
`part 210 of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Consent Order Stipulation
`at ¶ 4), and
`
`a statement that the enforcement, modification, and revocation of the Consent Order
`will be carried out pursuant to subpart I of part 210 of Title 19 of the Code of Federal
`Regulations, incorporating by reference the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
`Procedure (Consent Order Stipulation at ¶ 5).
`
`In addition, because the Amended Complaint is based on alleged patent infringement,
`
`pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)(ii), Melitta’s Consent Order Stipulation also contains:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`a statement that the Consent Order shall not apply with respect to any claim of any
`intellectual property right that has expired or been found or adjudicated invalid or
`unenforceable by the Commission or a court or agency of competent jurisdiction,
`provided that such finding or judgment has become final and nonreviewable
`(Consent Order Stipulation at ¶ 6), and
`
`a statement that Melitta will not seek to challenge the validity or enforceability of
`the ‘320 patent in any administrative or judicial proceeding to enforce the Consent
`Order (Consent Order Stipulation at ¶ 7).
`
`As authorized by Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)(i)(C), Melitta’s Consent Order
`
`Stipulation also contains a statement that the signing of the Consent Order Stipulation and the
`
`Consent Order are for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by Melitta
`
`that it ever committed an unfair act.
`
`4
`
`

`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated above, Melitta respectfully requests that the ALJ issue an Initial
`
`Determination entering the proposed Consent Order and terminating this investigation as to Melitta
`
`on the basis of that Consent Order.
`
`Dated: February 3, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Andrew F. Pratt
`Andrew F. Pratt
`Adam R. Hess
`Matthew R. Farley
`Venable LLP
`575 7th Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 344-4389
`AFPratt@venable.com
`
`Counsel for Respondent
`Melitta USA, Inc.
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`WASHINGTON, DC
`
`Honorable Theodore R. Essex, Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN BEVERAGE BREWING
`
`CAPSULES, COMPONENTS THEREOF,
`AND PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE SAME
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-929
`
`CONSENT ORDER STIPULATION BY
`
`RESPONDENT MELITTA USA, INC.
`
`WHEREAS, the United States International Trade Commission on September 9, 2014,
`
`(79 Fed. Reg. 53445-46) instituted the above-captioned Investigation under Section 337 of the
`
`Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337), and section 210.10 of the Commission’s
`
`Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F:R. § 210.10 (2014) based upon allegations contained in
`
`an amended complaint filed by Complainants Adrian Rivera and Adrian Rivera Maynez
`
`Enterprises,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“ARM” or “Comp1ainants”), which alleged unlawful activities in the
`
`importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States
`
`after importation of certain beverage brewing capsules, components thereof, and products
`
`containing the same by Melitta USA, Inc. that are alleged to infringe claims 5 and 8 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,720,320 (the ‘320 patent);
`
`WHEREAS,
`
`in order
`
`to terminate this
`
`Investigation and avoid the costs and
`
`inconveniences associated therewith, Melitta is willing to accept entry of the Consent Order
`
`submitted concurrently herewith by the Commission and agrees to all waivers and other
`
`provisions as required by 19 C.F.R. § 210.21; and
`
`

`
`WHEREAS, Melitta agrees to all terms set forth in the Consent Order.
`
`IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by Melitta as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Upon entry of the proposed Consent Order, Melitta will not import into the United
`
`States, sell for importation into the United States, or sell or offer for sale within the United States
`
`after importation any beverage brewing capsules, components thereof, and products containing
`
`the same that infringe asserted claims 5 and 8 of the ‘320 patent, and shall not aid, abet,
`
`encourage, participate in, or induce the sale for importation, the importation, or the sale after
`
`importation of such articles until the expiration, invalidation, and/or unenforceability of the ‘320
`
`patent or except under consent or license from Complainants, their successors or assignees.
`
`2.
`
`The Commission has in rem jurisdiction over the beverage brewing capsules,
`
`components thereof, and products containing same that are at issue in this Investigation, the
`
`Commission has in personam jurisdiction over Melitta for purposes of this Stipulation and
`
`proposed Consent Order, and the Commission has
`
`subject matter jurisdiction in this
`
`Investigation.
`
`3.
`
`Melitta expressly waives all rights to seek judicial review or otherwise challenge
`
`or contest the validity of the Consent Order entered pursuant to this Stipulation.
`
`4.
`
`Melitta will cooperate with and will not seek to impede by litigation or other
`
`means the Commission’s efforts to gather information under subpart I of the Commission’s
`
`Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F._R., Chapter II, Subchapter C, Part 210.
`
`5.
`
`The Consent Order shall have the same force and effect and may be enforced,
`
`modified, or revoked in the same manner as is provided in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930
`
`and Part 210, Title 19 Code of Federal Regulations, and the Comrnission’s Rules of Practice and
`
`

`
`Procedure, which are hereby incorporated by reference and the Commission may require
`
`periodic compliance reports pursuant to subpart I of Part 210, Title 19 Code of Federal
`
`Regulations.
`
`6.
`
`The Consent Order shall not apply with respect to any claim of any intellectual
`
`property right that has expired or been found or adjudicated invalid or unenforceable by the
`
`Commission or a court or agency of competent jurisdiction, provided that such finding or
`
`judgment has become final and non-reviewable.
`
`7.
`
`Melitta and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and any entity or individual
`
`acting on its behalf and with its authority, will not seek to challenge the validity or enforceability
`
`of the ‘320 patent in any administrative or judicial proceeding to enforce the Consent Order, but
`
`reserves its right to do so in any other proceeding.
`
`8.
`
`The signing of this Consent Order Stipulation and the Consent Order are for
`
`settlement purposes only and does not constitute admission by Melitta that an unfair act has been
`
`committed.
`
`9.
`
`There are no agreements, written or oral, express or
`
`implied, between
`
`Complainant and Melitta concerning the subject matter of this Investigation.
`
`10.
`
`The Consent Order Stipulation and Consent Order are in the public interest.
`
`IN WITNESS WHEREOF duly authorized representatives of Melitta have caused this
`
`Stipulation to be executed as of the date indicated below.
`
`MELITTAUSA,INC.
`
`/,
`
`By: )
`
`Dated: January 26, 2015
`
`Name: Fred Lueck
`
`Title: Vice President / CFO
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, DC
`
`Honorable Theodore R. Essex, Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN BEVERAGE BREWING
`CAPSULES, COMPONENTS THEREOF,
`AND PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE SAME
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-929
`
`[PROPOSED] CONSENT ORDER
`
`The United States International Trade Commission on September 9, 2014, (79 Fed. Reg.
`
`53445-46) instituted the above-captioned Investigation under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of
`
`1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337), and section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice
`
`and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. § 210.10 (2014) based upon allegations contained in an amended
`
`complaint filed by Complainants Adrian Rivera and Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc.
`
`(“ARM” or “Complainants”), which alleged unlawful activities in the importation into the United
`
`States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain
`
`beverage brewing capsules, components thereof, and products containing the same by Melitta
`
`USA, Inc. that are alleged to infringe claims 5 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,720,320 (“the ‘320
`
`patent”);
`
`Melitta has executed a Consent Order Stipulation in which it agrees to the entry of this
`
`Consent Order and to all waivers and other provisions as required by Commission Rule of Practice
`
`and Procedure 210.21(c) (19 C.F.R. § 210.21(c)). Melitta has filed a Motion for Termination of
`
`the Investigation based upon the Consent Order Stipulation.
`
`1
`
`

`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
`
`1.
`
`Melitta has admitted and acknowledged that
`
`the Commission has in rem
`
`jurisdiction over the articles that are the subject of the Complaint and Notice of Investigation.
`
`Melitta has admitted and acknowledged that the Commission has in personam jurisdiction over it
`
`for the purposes of this Stipulation and the Consent Order. Melitta has admitted and acknowledged
`
`that the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction in this Investigation.
`
`2.
`
`Upon entry of this Consent Order, Melitta will not import into the United States,
`
`sell for importation into the United States, or sell or offer for sale within the United States after
`
`importation any beverage brewing capsules, components thereof, and products containing the same
`
`that infringe asserted claims 5 and 8 of the ‘320 patent directly or indirectly, and shall not aid, abet,
`
`encourage, participate in, or induce the sale for importation, the importation, or the sale after
`
`importation of such articles until the expiration, invalidation, and/or unenforceability of the ‘320
`
`patent except under consent or license from Complainant, its successors or assignees.
`
`3.
`
`Melitta shall be precluded from seeking judicial review or otherwise challenging or
`
`contesting the validity of this Consent Order.
`
`4.
`
`Melitta shall cooperate with and will not seek to impede by litigation or other means
`
`the Commission’s efforts to gather information under subpart I of the Commission’s Rules of
`
`Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R., Chapter II, Subchapter C, Part 210.
`
`5.
`
`This Consent Order shall not apply with respect to any claim of any intellectual
`
`property right that has expired or been found or adjudicated invalid or unenforceable by the
`
`Commission or a court or agency of competent jurisdiction, provided that such finding or judgment
`
`has become final and non-reviewable.
`
`2
`
`

`
`6.
`
`Melitta and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and any entity or individual
`
`acting on its behalf and with its authority, shall not seek to challenge the validity or enforceability
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit in any administrative or judicial proceeding to enforce the Consent Order.
`
`7.
`
`The entry of this Consent Order is for settlement purposes only and does not
`
`constitute admission by Melitta that an unfair act has been committed.
`
`8.
`
`This Investigation is hereby terminated as to Respondent Melitta USA, Inc. with
`
`respect to the Patents-in-Suit; provided, however, that enforcement, modification, or revocation of
`
`the Consent Order will be carried out pursuant to subpart I of the Commission’s Rules of Practice
`
`and Procedure, 19 C.F.R., Chapter II, Subchapter C, Part 210, incorporating by reference the
`
`Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
`
`_______________________________
`BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
`
`3
`
`

`
`United States International Trade
`Investigation No. 337-TA-929
`In the Matter of Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and Products
`Containing the Same
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on February 3, 2015, caused the foregoing to be served
`upon the following parties as indicated below:
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 112A
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`The Honorable Theodore R. Essex
`Administrative Law Judge
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W.,
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`Attorney Advisors
`Tamara Lee Foley: Tamara.Foley@usitc.gov
`John Kaplan: John.Kaplan@usitc.gov
`
`James Wiley, Esq.
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E. Street, SW, Room 401
`Washington, DC 20436
`Email: James.Wiley@usitc.gov
`
`On behalf of Complainants Adrian Rivera and ARM
`Enterprises, Inc.:
`
`John R. Fuisz, Esq.
`THE FUISZ-KUNDU GROUP LLP
`1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Suite 400
`Washington, DC 20004
`Email: jfuisz@fuiszkundu.com
`skundu@fuiszkundu.com
`
` Via Hand Delivery
`Via Overnight Delivery (2 copies)
`Via First Class Mail
`Via Electronic Filing (EDIS)
`Via Electronic Mail
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Overnight Delivery (2 Copies)
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Electronic Filing (EDIS)
` Via Electronic Mail
`
` Via Hand Delivery
`Via Overnight Delivery
` Via First Class Mail
`Via Electronic Filing (EDIS)
`Via Electronic Mail
`
` Via Hand Delivery
`Via Overnight Delivery
` Via First Class Mail
`Via Electronic Filing (EDIS)
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`

`
`On Behalf of Respondent Amazon.com, Inc.:
`Eric S. Namrow, Esq.
`MORGAN, LEWIS, & BOCKIUS LLP
`1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`Email: enamrow@morganlewis.com
`
`On Behalf of Respondents Melitta USA, Inc.
`
`Andrew F. Pratt
`VENABLE LLP
`575 7th Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`Email: LBP-Melitta-ITC@venable.com
`
`On Behalf of Respondent DonGuan Hai Rui
`Precision Mould Co., Ltd.
`
`Lei Mei
`MEI & MARK LLP
`818 18th Street NW, Suite 410
`Telephone: (888) 860.5678
`Email: mei@meimark.com
`
`On Behalf of Respondent Solofill LLC
`
`Lei Mei
`MEI & MARK LLP
`818 18th Street NW, Suite 410
`Telephone: (888) 860.5678
`Email: mei@meimark.com
`
`Dated: February 3, 2015
`
` Via Hand Delivery
`Via Overnight Delivery
` Via First Class Mail
`Via Electronic Filing (EDIS)
`Via Electronic Mail
`
` Via Hand Delivery
`Via Overnight Delivery
` Via First Class Mail
`Via Electronic Filing (EDIS)
`Via Electronic Mail
`
` Via Hand Delivery
`Via Overnight Delivery
`Via First Class Mail
`Via Electronic Filing (EDIS)
`Via Electronic Mail
`
` Via Hand Delivery
`Via Overnight Delivery
` Via First Class Mail
`Via Electronic Filing (EDIS)
`Via Electronic Mail
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Andrew F. Pratt
`
`Andrew F. Pratt
`Venable LLP
`575 7th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 344.4389
`Email: AFPratt@Venable.com