In satisfaction of 19 C.F.R. 3The consent order stipulation does not appear to contain the precise words “provided that such finding or judgment has become final and nonreviewable,” which are found in the text of the Commission Rule.

The Commission’s Rules provide that in the case of a proposed termination by settlement agreement, consent order, or arbitration agreement, the parties may file statements regarding the impact of the proposed termination on the public interest, and the Administrative Law Judge may hear argument, although no discovery may be compelled, with respect to issues relating solely to the public interest.

The Commission Investigative Staff is not aware of any information to indicate that termination of the investigation on the basis of the proposed Consent Order, and Settlement and License Agreement would be contrary to the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the domestic economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in this country, or United States consumers.

The Administrative Law Judge determines that there is no evidence that termination of the investigation as requested in the joint motion will prejudice the public interest.

For purposes of the enforcement proceeding, complainant Trend Micro Incorporated of 1010 1 North De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 94015 was also named as a party in addition to the staff.

The Commission Order stated that the administrative law judge is directed to set the earliest practicable target date for completion of the enforcement proceeding within 45 days of institution in accordance with rule 210.51(a); that in his discretion, he may conduct any proceedings he deems necessary, including issuing a protective order, holding hearings, taking evidence, ordering discovery, and seeking documents from other agencies consistent with Commission rules to issue his enforcement initial determination (ED); that the E D will rule on the question of whether the enforcement respondent violated the cease and desist order issued on

August 8,2005; that all defenses not barred by claim preclusion may be raised in the proceeding; that the administrative law judge shall also recommend to the Commission what enforcement measures are appropriate if the respondent is found to violate the Commission’s cease and desist order; and that he, in his discretion, may conduct any proceedings he deems necessary, including taking evidence and ordering discovery, to issue his recommendations on appropriate enforcement measures.

The administrative law judge is ordering each party, no later than October 17,2005, in a filing with the Secretary with two copies served on the administrative law judge, to state its position, after conferring with each other, as to what it considers the “earliest practicable target date” and what proceedings each party deems necessary, including the taking of evidence and ordering discovery.

October 7,2005 Fortinet, Inc. 920 Stewart Drive Sunnyvale, CA 94085 Re: Enforcement complaint under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in Systems for Detecting and Removing Viruses or Worms, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-510 Dear Sir/Madam: Please find enclosed a copy of a complaint for a formal enforcement proceeding filed by Trend Micro Inc. (“Trend Micro”) and a Commission order instituting a formal enforcement proceeding concerning the Commission’s cease and desist order issued at the conclusion of the above-referenced investigation conducted under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 3 1337).

You are advised that pursuant to Commission rule 210.75, 19 C.F.R. 5 210.75, you have fifteen (15) days after the date of receipt of this letter to file a response to the complaint.

Any such response should fully advise the Commission as to the nature of any defense and shall admit or deny each allegation of the complaint specifically and in detail unless you are without knowledge, in which case your answer should so state and the statement shall operate as a denial.

Matters alleged as affirmative defenses shall be separately stated and numbered and shall, in the absence of a reply, be deemed uncontroverted.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has instituted a formal enforcement proceeding relating to a cease and desist order issued at the conclusion of the above-captioned investigation.

On September 13.2005, complainant Trend Micro Incorporated of Cupertino, California (“Trend Micro”) filed a complaint seeking institution of formal enforcement proceedings against Fortinet.

The ALJ is directed to set the earliest practicable target date for completion of the enforcement proceeding within 45 days of institution in accordance with rule 2 10.5 1 (a).

The ALJ, in his discretion, may conduct any proceedings he deems necessary, including taking evidence and ordering discovery, to issue his recommendations on appropriate enforcement measures.