Freedom Scientific requested on Sept. 26 an International Trade Commission investigation into a possible import ban on handheld magnifiers that allegedly infringe its patents. The company alleged Aumed, which is based in China, and its U.S. sales agent are importing and selling the allegedly infringing handheld magnifiers, which are used by people with poor vision to enlarge materials for easier viewing or reading. The patented technology allows for more portable and versatile magnifiers by including a camera that displays enlarged images on a screen for easy viewing. Freedom Scientific is requesting a limited exclusion and cease and desist orders against Aumed.

The International Trade Commission voted Sept. 30 to begin an investigation into a possible import ban on infant incubators and warmers from Atom Medical International of Japan. The Section 337 proceeding, entitled “Certain Thermal Support Devices for Infants, Infant Incubators, Infant Warners, and Components Thereof” (337-TA-896) will look into an allegation filed Aug. 29 by Draeger Medical Systems that Atom’s infant incubators and warmers infringe its patents related to humidification capabilities and temperature controls (see 13090419). Draeger is requesting a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order against Atom, the only respondent.

The Commerce Department published notices in the Oct. 1 Federal Register on the following AD/CV duty proceedings (any notices that announce changes to AD/CV duty rates, scope, affected firms, or effective dates will be detailed in another ITT article):

The Commerce Department announced the opportunity to request administrative reviews by Oct. 31 for producers and exporters subject to 15 antidumping duty orders, two countervailing duty orders, and two suspended antidumping duty investigations with October anniversary dates.

The Commerce Department began administrative reviews for certain firms subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders with August anniversary dates. The agency said it intends to issue the final results of these reviews by Aug. 31, 2014.

Zinc anchors imported from China into the U.S. by Cobra Anchors Co.’s Canadian affiliate are subject to duties under the antidumping duty order on steel nails from China (A-570-909), said the Commerce Department in a final scope ruling Sept. 19. Although the combination steel-zinc fasteners aren’t mentioned in the scope, they are expressly included by the International Trade Commission’s final injury report, Commerce said.

The Commerce Department issued Federal Register notices on its recently initiated antidumping duty investigations on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico and Turkey (A-201-844, A-489-818)), and its countervailing duty investigation on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey (C-489-819). The agency will determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Mexico and Turkey are being sold in the U.S. at less than fair value, and whether imports from Turkey are being illegally subsidized.

The International Trade Commission published notices in the Sept. 30 Federal Register on the following AD/CV injury, Section 337 patent, and other trade proceedings (any notices that warrant a more detailed summary will appear in another ITT article):

The Commerce Department published notices in the Sept. 30 Federal Register on the following AD/CV duty proceedings (any notices that announce changes to AD/CV duty rates, scope, affected firms, or effective dates will be detailed in another ITT article):

The Commerce Department is giving advance notice that it and the International Trade Commission will consider revoking the antidumping duty orders on ferrovanadium from China (A-570-873) and South Africa (A-791-815), freshwater crawfish tailmeat from China (A-570-848), and uncovered innerspring units from China (A-570-928), South Africa (A-791-928), and Vietnam (A-552-803), in their automatic five-year sunset reviews scheduled to begin in November. Advance notice is given because sunset reviews have short deadlines. An order will be revoked unless Commerce finds that revocation would lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and the ITC finds that revocation would result in continuation or recurrence of material injury to a U.S. industry. As a result, a negative determination by either Commerce or the ITC would result in the revocation of these orders.