UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`The Honorable Clark S. Cheney
`Chief Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN CRAFTING MACHINES AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1426
`
`COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO
`TERMINATE THE INVESTIGATION AS TO RESPONDENT SAINSTORE
`TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. ON THE BASIS OF A CONSENT ORDER
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CONSENT ORDER
`[Motion Dkt. 1426-001]
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On December 23, 2024, Respondent SainStore Technology Co., Ltd. (“SainStore”)
`
`moved to (i) terminate this Investigation as to SainStore and (ii) stay the procedural
`
`schedule as to SainStore pending a final ruling on the motion to terminate. Motion Dkt.
`
`1426-001 (Dec. 23, 2024) (EDIS Doc. ID 839963 ) (“Motion”). On December 31, 2024,
`
`SainStore filed a corrected Consent Order Stipulation and a corrected Consent Order.
`
`Corrected Exhibits A and B to Motion to Terminate the Investigation as to Respondent
`
`SainStore Technology Co., Ltd. on the Basis of a Consent Order Stipulation and [Proposed]
`
`Consent Order (Dec. 31, 2024) (EDIS Doc. ID 840237) (“Correction” or “Cor. Exh. A” and
`
`“Cor. Exh. B”).
`
`For the reasons set forth below, the Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff” )
`
`supports termination of the investigation with respect to SainStore based on the Motion and
`
`later filed Corrections.
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`1
`
`Staff’s Response to
`Motion Dkt. 1426-001
`
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`The Honorable Clark S. Cheney
`Chief Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN CRAFTING MACHINES AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1426
`
`COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO
`TERMINATE THE INVESTIGATION AS TO RESPONDENT SAINSTORE
`TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. ON THE BASIS OF A CONSENT ORDER
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CONSENT ORDER
`[Motion Dkt. 1426-001]
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On December 23, 2024, Respondent SainStore Technology Co., Ltd. (“SainStore”)
`
`moved to (i) terminate this Investigation as to SainStore and (ii) stay the procedural
`
`schedule as to SainStore pending a final ruling on the motion to terminate. Motion Dkt.
`
`1426-001 (Dec. 23, 2024) (EDIS Doc. ID 839963 ) (“Motion”). On December 31, 2024,
`
`SainStore filed a corrected Consent Order Stipulation and a corrected Consent Order.
`
`Corrected Exhibits A and B to Motion to Terminate the Investigation as to Respondent
`
`SainStore Technology Co., Ltd. on the Basis of a Consent Order Stipulation and [Proposed]
`
`Consent Order (Dec. 31, 2024) (EDIS Doc. ID 840237) (“Correction” or “Cor. Exh. A” and
`
`“Cor. Exh. B”).
`
`For the reasons set forth below, the Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff” )
`
`supports termination of the investigation with respect to SainStore based on the Motion and
`
`later filed Corrections.
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`1
`
`Staff’s Response to
`Motion Dkt. 1426-001
`
`
`
`
`
`TERMINATION BY ENTRY OF CONSENT ORDER
`
`After institution, a proposal to terminate an investigation by consent order must be
`
`submitted as a motion to the Administrative Law Judge with a stipulation that incorporates
`
`a proposed consent order. See 19 C.F.R. § 210.21(c)(1)(ii). The stipulation must comply
`
`with the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3), while the terms of the consent
`
`order must comply with the requirements set forth in Commission Rule 210.21(c)(4). 19
`
`C.F.R. § 210.21(c)(1)(ii); see also 19 C.F.R. §§ 210.21(c)(3) and 210.21(c)(4).
`
`A motion for termination by consent order must contain (i) copies of any settlement
`
`agreement, (ii) a redacted copy of the agreement if it contains confidential business
`
`information, (iii) copies of any supplemental agreements, and (iv) a statement that there are
`
`no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied between the parties concerning the
`
`subject matter of the investigation. See 19 C.F.R. § 210.21(c). However, if there are no
`
`additional agreements, the parties must so state. Id.
`
` DISCUSSION
`A.
`
`CONSENT ORDER SUBMITTED BY MOTION
`
`As required by Commission Rule 210.21(c), SainStore has submitted its proposal to
`
`terminate the investigation with respect to SainStore by consent order as a motion. The
`
`Correction includes a Consent Order Stipulation (“COS”) that incorporates a [Proposed]
`
`Consent Order (“PCO”). Correction, Exh. A at 2 (“SainStore is entering into this Consent
`
`Order Stipulation and agrees to entry of a Consent Order by the Commission in compliance
`
`with Rule 210.21(c)”); Correction, Exh. B (PCO). In its Motion, SainStore has certified that
`
`there are no other agreements, written or oral, express, or implied between SainStore and
`
`Complainant Cricut, Inc. (“Complainant” or “Cricut”) concerning the subject matter of the
`
`investigation. Motion at 1. Thus, the form in which SainStore has presented its proposal to
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`2
`
`Staff’s Response to
`Motion Dkt. 1426-001
`
`
`
`terminate this Investigation by consent order complies with the requirements set forth in
`
`Commission Rule 210.21(c). 19 C.F.R. § 210.21(c).
`
`B.
`
`CONSENT ORDER STIPULATION
`
`As set forth below, the Staff believes that the Moving Parties’ Consent Order
`
`Stipulation meets the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)(i)-(ii), which governs
`
`the contents of consent order stipulations. All references below to the consent order
`
`stipulation refer to Corrected Exhibit A.
`
`19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(3)(i)(A). Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)(i)(A) requires the COS
`
`to include “[a]n admission of all jurisdictional facts.”
`
`As required, the COS acknowledges that Complainant alleges that SainStore imports
`
`into the United States, sells for importation into the United States, and sells after
`
`importation into the United States certain cutting machines and heat press machines for use
`
`in crafting that are alleged to infringe claims 18-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,208,758; claims 8-
`
`12 and 14-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,905,646; and the claim in each of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`D893,563; and D910,724; D926,237 (“Subject Articles”). Cor. Exh. A at 1. SainStore
`
`admits the Commission has in rem jurisdiction over the Subject Articles. Id. at ¶ 4. The
`
`COS also admits the Commission has personal jurisdiction over SainStore for purposes of
`
`this stipulation and the Consent Order and subject matter jurisdiction over this
`
`Investigation. Id.
`
`19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(3)(i)(B). Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)(i)(B) requires the COS
`
`to include “[a] statement identifying the asserted patent claims … and whether the
`
`stipulation calls for cessation of importation, distribution, sale, or other transfers (other than
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`3
`
`Staff’s Response to
`Motion Dkt. 1426-001
`
`
`
`exportation) of subject articles in the United States and/or specific terms relating to the
`
`disposition of existing U.S. inventories of subject articles.”
`
`In compliance with the Commission Rule, the COS identifies the asserted patent
`
`claims. Cor. Exh. A at 1-2, ¶ 3. Paragraphs 5-7 of the Consent Order Stipulation state that
`
`SainStore will not sell for importation, import, or sell after importation the Subject Articles,
`
`into the United States products accused of infringing the Asserted Patents and shall not aid,
`
`abet, encourage, participate in, or induce the sale for importation, the importation, or the
`
`sale after importation except under consent or license from Complainants. Cor. Exh. A at
`
`¶ 5. SainStore also agrees that it will not sell within the United States or otherwise transfer,
`
`other than to export, any existing U.S. inventories. Id. at ¶ 6.
`
`19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(3)(i)(C). Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)(i)(C) requires that the
`
`COS include “[a]n express waiver of all rights to seek judicial review or otherwise challenge
`
`or contest the validity of the consent order.”
`
`Consistent with the Commission Rule, in the COS, SainStore expressly waives all
`
`rights to seek judicial review or otherwise challenge or contest the validity of the Consent
`
`Order. Cor. Exh. A at ¶ 8.
`
`19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(3)(i)(D). Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)(i)(D) requires the COS
`
`to include “[a] statement that the signatories to the consent order stipulation 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 this part.”
`
`As required, the COS states that SainStore shall cooperate with and will not seek to
`
`impede by litigation or other means the Commission’s efforts to gather information under
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`4
`
`Staff’s Response to
`Motion Dkt. 1426-001
`
`
`
`Subpart I of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. Part 210. Cor.
`
`Exh. A at ¶ 9.
`
`19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(3)(i)(E). Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)(i)(E) requires the COS
`
`to include “[a] statement that the enforcement, modification, and revocation of the consent
`
`order will be carried out pursuant to subpart I of this part, incorporating by reference
`
`the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.” 19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(3)(i)(E) (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`Paragraph 10 of the COS states that enforcement, modification, and revocation of
`
`the Consent Order shall be carried out pursuant to, and incorporates by reference, Subpart I
`
`of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Cor. Exh. A at ¶ 10.
`
`19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(3)(i)(F). Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)(i)(F) requires the COS
`
`to include “[a] statement that the signing thereof is for settlement purposes only and does
`
`not constitute admission by any respondent that an unfair act has been committed, if
`
`applicable.”
`
`The COS complies with Commission Rules by stating that the COS has been signed
`
`for settlement purposes only to resolve this Investigation and does not constitute an
`
`admission to an unfair act. Cor. Exh. A at ¶ 11.
`
`19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(3)(i)(G). Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)(i)(G) requires the COS
`
`to include “[a] statement that 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 this part for other Commission actions, and the Commission may
`
`require periodic compliance reports pursuant to subpart I of this part to be submitted by
`
`the person entering into the consent order stipulation.”
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`5
`
`Staff’s Response to
`Motion Dkt. 1426-001
`
`
`
`Paragraph 11 of the Consent Order Stipulation expressly includes the required
`
`statement and acknowledges that the Commission may require periodic compliance reports.
`
`Cor. Exh. A at ¶ 11.
`
`19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(3)(ii)(A). Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)(ii)(A) requires the
`
`COS to state that the consent order shall become null and void with respect to any claim of
`
`any intellectual property right or unfair trade practice that has expired or been found or
`
`adjudicated invalid or unenforceable by a court or agency of competent jurisdiction or if any
`
`article has been found or adjudicated not to infringe the asserted right in a final decision that
`
`is no longer subject to appeal.
`
`As required, paragraph 13 of the COS states that if the any of the asserted patent
`
`claims are held invalid or unenforceable by a court or agency of competent jurisdiction or if
`
`any accused product has been found or adjudicated not to infringe the asserted right in a
`
`final decision, no longer subject to appeal, the Consent Order shall become null and void as
`
`to such invalid or unenforceable claim(s) or as to any such adjudicated article. Cor. Exh. A
`
`at ¶ 13.
`
`19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(3)(ii)(B). Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)(ii)(B) requires the COS
`
`to include “[a] statement that each signatory to the stipulation who was a respondent in the
`
`investigation will not seek to challenge the validity of the intellectual property right(s), in
`
`any administrative or judicial proceeding to enforce the consent order.”
`
`As required, paragraph 14 of the COS expressly states that SainStore will not
`
`challenge the validity or enforceability of the Asserted Patents in any administrative or
`
`judicial proceeding to enforce the Consent Order. Cor. Exh. A at ¶ 14.
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`6
`
`Staff’s Response to
`Motion Dkt. 1426-001
`
`
`
`Additional Provisions. The COS includes two provisions in addition to those
`
`required by Commission Rules. Paragraph 15 of the COS indicates that the PCO will be
`
`applicable and binding upon SainStore, its officers, directors, agents, employees, and its
`
`successors and assigns. Cor. Exh. A at ¶ 15. The COS also states that it and the PCO are in
`
`the public interest. Id. at ¶ 16. The Staff is of the view that these additional provisions are
`
`not inconsistent with Commission Rules 210.21(c)(3)(i)-(ii) (governing contents of consent
`
`order stipulations).
`
`* * *
`The Consent Order Stipulation includes provisions corresponding to those required
`
`by Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)(i) and (ii), and it is signed by an authorized representative
`
`of SainStore. Cor. Exh. A at 4. The Staff is therefore of the view that the Consent Order
`
`Stipulation substantially complies with the Commission’s requirements.
`
`C.
`
`PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER
`
`As set forth below, the Staff believes that the Moving Parties’ Proposed Consent
`
`Order (“PCO”) meets the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(c)(4), which sets forth
`
`the required contents of consent orders.
`
`19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(4)(i). Commission Rule 210.21(c)(4)(i) requires that the PCO
`
`include “[a] statement of the identity of complainant, the respondent, and the subject
`
`articles, and a statement of any allegation in the complaint that the respondents sell for
`
`importation, import, or sell after importation the subject articles in violation of section 337
`
`by reason of asserted patent claims, copyright, trademark, mask work, boat hull design, or
`
`unfair trade practice.”
`
`Paragraphs 1-2 of the PCO expressly identify Complainant and Respondent
`
`SainStore. Cor. Exh. B at ¶¶ 1-2. Paragraph 3 identifies the articles subject to the PCO and
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`7
`
`Staff’s Response to
`Motion Dkt. 1426-001
`
`
`
`sets forth the allegations made in the Complaint that SainStore sells for importation,
`
`imports, and/or sells after importation articles accused of infringing certain claims of the
`
`Asserted Patents. Id. at ¶ 3.
`
`19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(4)(ii). Commission Rule 210.21(c)(4)(ii) requires the PCO to
`
`include “[a] statement that the respondents have executed a consent order stipulation (but
`
`the consent order shall not contain the terms of the stipulation).”
`
`As required, paragraph 4 of the PCO states that SainStore has executed a consent
`
`order stipulation. Cor. Exh. B at ¶ 4.
`
`19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(4)(iii). Commission Rule 210.21(c)(4)(iii) requires the PCO to
`
`include “[a] statement that the respondent shall not sell for importation, import, or sell after
`
`importation the subject articles, directly or indirectly, and shall not aid, abet, encourage,
`
`participate in, or induce the sale for importation, the importation, or the sale after
`
`importation except under consent, license from the complainant, or to the extent permitted
`
`by the settlement agreement between complainant and respondent.”
`
`The fifth paragraph of the PCO expressly states that SainStore shall not sell for
`
`importation, import, or sell after importation the accused products, 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 the accused products except under consent or
`
`license from Complainants. Cor. Exh. B at ¶ 5.1
`
`
`1 This paragraph of the PCO does not state that SainStore may engage in these acts to the
`extent permitted by the settlement agreement between SainStore and Complainants because
`they have not entered into such an agreement. Motion at 1 (there are no other agreements,
`written or oral, express or implied, between Complainant and SainStore).
`
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`8
`
`Staff’s Response to
`Motion Dkt. 1426-001
`
`
`
`19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(4)(iv). Commission Rule 210.21(c)(4)(iv) requires the PCO to
`
`include “[a] statement, if applicable, regarding the disposition of existing U.S. inventories of
`
`the subject articles.”
`
`In compliance with the Commission Rule, paragraph 6 of the PCO states that
`
`SainStore shall sell within the United States any or otherwise transfer (except for
`
`exportation) any existing inventories upon entry of the COS. Cor. Exh. B at ¶ 6.
`
`19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(4)(v). Commission Rule 210.21(c)(4)(v) requires the PCO to
`
`include “[a] statement, if applicable, whether the respondent would be ordered to cease and
`
`desist from importing and distributing articles covered by the asserted patent claims ….”
`
`Pursuant to the Commission’s Rule, paragraph 7 of the PCO states that SainStore
`
`shall cease and desist from importing and/or distributing the Subject Articles. Cor. Exh. B
`
`at ¶ 7.
`
`19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(4)(vi). Commission Rule 210.21(c)(4)(vi) requires the PCO to
`
`have “[a] statement that respondent shall be precluded from seeking judicial review or
`
`otherwise challenging or contesting the validity of the Consent Order.”
`
`The eighth paragraph of the PCO states that SainStore shall be precluded from
`
`seeking judicial review or otherwise challenging or contesting the validity of the Consent
`
`Order. Cor. Exh. B at ¶ 8.
`
`19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(4)(vii). Commission Rule 210.21(c)(4)(vii) requires the PCO to
`
`include “[a] statement that respondent shall cooperate with and shall 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 CFR part 210.”
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`9
`
`Staff’s Response to
`Motion Dkt. 1426-001
`
`
`
`In accord with the Commission’s Rule, the ninth paragraph of the PCO requires
`
`SainStore to cooperate with, and not 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. Part 210. Cor. Exh. B at ¶ 9.
`
`19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(4)(viii). Commission Rule 210.21(c)(4)(viii) requires the PCO to
`
`include “[a] statement that Respondent 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 any asserted patent claims … in any administrative or
`
`judicial proceeding to enforce the Consent Order.”
`
`As required, paragraph 10 of the PCO prohibits SainStore and its officers, directors,
`
`employees, agents, and any entity or individual acting on behalf of SainStore and its
`
`authority from challenging the validity or enforceability of the asserted patent claims in any
`
`administrative or judicial proceedings to enforce the Proposed Consent Order. Cor. Exh. B
`
`at ¶ 10.
`
`19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(4)(ix) - (x). Commission Rule 210.21(c)(4)(ix) requires that the
`
`PCO have “[a] statement that when the patent … expires the Consent Order shall become
`
`null and void as to such.” Commission Rule 210.21(c)(4)(x) requires the PCO to also
`
`include “[a] statement that if any asserted patent claim, copyright, trademark, mask work,
`
`boat hull design, or unfair trade practice claim is held invalid or unenforceable by a court or
`
`agency of competent jurisdiction or if any article has been found or adjudicated not to
`
`infringe the asserted right in a final decision, no longer subject to appeal, this Consent Order
`
`shall become null and void as to such invalid or unenforceable claim or adjudicated article.”
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`10
`
`Staff’s Response to
`Motion Dkt. 1426-001
`
`
`
`In compliance with the Commission’s Rules, paragraphs 11-12 of the PCO provide
`
`that the PCO will become null and void as to any expired Asserted Patent, any asserted
`
`patent claim found invalid and/or unenforceable by an agency or court of competent
`
`jurisdiction, and with respect to articles that have been adjudicated not to infringe in a final
`
`decision no longer subject to appeal. Cor. Exh. B at ¶¶ 11-12.
`
`19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(4)(xi). Commission Rule 210.21(c)(4)(xi) requires the PCO to
`
`include “[a]n admission of all jurisdictional facts.”
`
`Paragraph 13 of the PCO states that SainStore admits the Commission has in rem
`
`jurisdiction over the accused products, in personam jurisdiction over SainStore, and subject
`
`matter jurisdiction over this Investigation as required. Cor. Exh. B at ¶ 13.
`
`19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(4)(xii). Commission Rule 210.21(c)(4)(xii) requires the PCO to
`
`include “[a] statement that the investigation is hereby terminated with respect to
`
`the respondent; provided, however, that enforcement, modification, or revocation of the
`
`Consent Order shall be carried out pursuant to Subpart I of the Commission’s Rules of
`
`Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.”
`
`In compliance with the Commission Rule, paragraph 14 of the PCO states that this
`
`Investigation is terminated with respect to SainStore, and that enforcement, modification, or
`
`revocation of the consent order shall be carried out pursuant to subpart I of the
`
`Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. Part 210.
`
`* * *
`
`As set forth above, the Staff is of the view that the PCO substantially complies with
`
`all the requirements set forth in Commission Rule 210.21(c)(4).
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`11
`
`Staff’s Response to
`Motion Dkt. 1426-001
`
`
`
` CONCLUSION
`
`The Motion to terminate this Investigation with respect to SainStore by entry of a
`
`consent order substantially complies with the requirements set forth in Commission Rule
`
`210.21(c)(3)-(4). Settlement of disputes, such as by consent order, is in the public interest
`
`because it conserves both the Commission’s and the private parties’ resources. See, e.g.,
`
`Certain Mobile Device Holders and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1028, Order No. 10 at
`
`3 (Apr. 13, 2017) (EDIS Doc. ID 60851 (Public Vers.)) (public interest favors settlement to
`
`avoid needless litigation and to conserve public resources).
`
`The Staff is not aware of any information indicating that termination of this
`
`Investigation as to SainStore based upon the Proposed Consent Order and 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, or U.S. consumers.
`
`Therefore, the Staff supports granting the Motion to terminate Respondent SainStore based
`
`upon the corrected consent order stipulation and corrected proposed consent order and stay
`
`the procedural order with respect to SainStore.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`January 2, 2025
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Yoncha L. Kundupoglu
`Margaret D. Macdonald, Director
`David O. Lloyd, Supervisory Attorney
`Yoncha L. Kundupoglu, Investigative Attorney
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Suite 401
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`(202) 205-3323 (office)
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`12
`
`Staff’s Response to
`Motion Dkt. 1426-001
`
`
`
`CERTAIN CRAFTING MACHINES
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on January 2, 2025, she caused the foregoing
`
`COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO TERMINATE
`THE INVESTIGATION AS TO RESPONDENT SAINSTORE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
`ON THE BASIS OF A CONSENT ORDER STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CONSENT
`ORDER
`[Motion Dkt. 1426-001]
`
`
`to be served upon the Administrative Law Judge, by sending one (1) electronic courtesy PDF copy
`by email to the to the Administrative Law Judge’s chambers (Cheney1426@usitc.gov), and served
`the same upon the private parties in the manner indicated below:
`
`
`For Complainant Cricut, Inc.:
`
`Jay H. Reiziss
`McDermott Will & Emery LLP
`500 North Capitol Street, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`Tel: (202) 756-8000
`
`For Respondents Hunan Sijiu Technology, Col
`Ltd.; Hunan Sijiu Electronic Technology Co.,
`Ltd.; and Guangdong Rongtu Technology Co.,
`Ltd:
`
`Helena Kiepura
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`500 Eighth Street, NS
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Tel: 202.799.4000
`
`For Respondent LiPing Zhan:
`
`LiPing Zhan
`No. 187, Yanglinguan Street
`Xingou Town, Jianli County
`Jingzhou, China 433300
`
`For Respondent SainStore Technology Co., Ltd.:
`
`John M. Augustyn
`Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd.
`180 N. Stetson Avenue, Suite 4900
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Tel: (312) 616-5600
`
`
`
`By Email:
`
`cricutitc@mwe.com
`
`By Email:
`
`DLA-Sijiu-1426@us.dlapiper.com
`
`
`
`By U.S. Air Mail
`
`
`
`By Email:
`
`SainStore-ITC1426@leydig.com
`SainStore-1426@bartkowskipllc.com
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`1
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`CERTAIN CRAFTING MACHINES
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
`For Respondent Shanghai Sishun E-Commerce
`Co., Ltd.:
`
`Shanghai Sishun E-commerce Co., Ltd.
`5th Floor, Building 6, Lane 958, Jinsha Jiangxi
`Road, Jiading District, Shanghai, China 201824
`
`For Respondent Bozhou Wanxingui Technology
`Co. Ltd.:
`
`Bozhou Wanxingui Technology Co. Ltd.
`5th Floor, Building 6, Lane 958, Jinsha Jiangxi
`Road, Jiading District, Shanghai, China 201824
`
`
`For Respondent Bozhou Zhongdaxiang
`Technology Co., Ltd.:
`
`Bozhou Zhongdaxiang Technology Co., Ltd.
`No. 41, Zhaoyangzhuang Vil., Dawang
`Xingzheng Vil., Niuji Town, Qiaocheng Dist.,
`Bozhou, Anhui,
`China 236800
`
`
`By U.S. Air Mail
`
`
`By U.S. Air Mail
`
`
`By U.S. Air Mail
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Yoncha L. Kundupoglu
`Yoncha L. Kundupoglu
`Investigative Attorney
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW
`Washington, DC 20436
`(202) 205-3323 Office
`
`
`
`
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`2
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`
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
