|April 4, 2013|
Previously published on April 3, 2013
On March 26, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version (dated March 1, 2013) of the Recommended Determination On Remedy And Bond (“RD”) in Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-830).
By way of background, ALJ Pender determined that no violation of Section 337 has occurred in this investigation by Respondents Technical Consumer Products, Inc.; TCP (Shanghai) Tiancanbao Lighting Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Qiangling Electronics Co. Ltd.; Zhejiang Qiang Ling Electronic Co. Ltd.; U Lighting America Inc.; and Golden U Lighting Manufacturing (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Respondents”).
According to the RD, Complainants Neptun Light, Inc. and Andrzej Bobel’s (collectively, “Neptun”) requested a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and a cease and desist order. ALJ Pender held that, if the Commission should find a violation of Section 337, the Commission should issue a LEO directed to infringing dimmable compact fluorescent lamps. Further, ALJ Pender determined that Neptun failed to prove that Respondents maintained a commercially significant quantity of infringing accused products in the United States; therefore, ALJ Pender recommended that, if the Commission should find a violation of section 337, the Commission should not issue a cease and desist order.
Regarding bond, ALJ Pender recommended that, if the Commission should find a violation of Section 337, no bond should issue because Neptun failed to provide any price or royalty information.