Overview
Title
Certain Chemical Mechanical Planarization Slurries and Components Thereof; Notice of a Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Complainant's Motion To Amend the Complaint and the Notice of Investigation
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. International Trade Commission decided to let a company change its official name in an investigation about special liquids used to polish materials, without changing anything else about the case. This is like letting someone change their name on a school form to make sure everyone knows who they are.
Summary AI
The U.S. International Trade Commission has decided not to review an initial ruling that allowed a change in the name of a respondent in an investigation. This investigation concerns the import and sale of certain chemical mechanical planarization slurries allegedly violating patent rights. The change involved updating the legal entity name from Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials, Inc. to Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials CMP, LLC. The Commission believes this update clarifies the investigation without affecting public interest or the involved parties' rights.
Abstract
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination ("ID") (Order No. 13) of the presiding administrative law judge ("ALJ") granting the complainant's motion to amend the complaint and the notice of investigation to change the name of a respondent.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Document
The document is a notice from the U.S. International Trade Commission regarding a decision not to review an initial determination by an administrative law judge. This determination allowed the amendment of a complaint and notice of investigation to reflect a change in the name of a respondent from Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials, Inc. to Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials CMP, LLC. This investigation focuses on allegations that certain chemical mechanical planarization slurries are being imported and sold in violation of patent rights associated with U.S. Patent No. 9,499,721, owned by CMC Materials, Inc. The Commission concludes that the name change provides clarity without prejudicing public interest or the involved parties' rights.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The language used in the document is replete with legal jargon and references to specific sections of U.S. trade law, such as Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. This legal terminology may be daunting and inaccessible for individuals who lack specialized knowledge in legal or trade matters. Furthermore, the document does not elucidate the reasons or implications for the name change of the respondent, leaving the reader without a clear understanding of its significance. There is also an absence of information about the technologies involved—chemical mechanical planarization slurries—which might help readers grasp the broader context of the investigation.
Impact on the Public
The document's primary audience seems to be legal professionals and stakeholders directly involved in the trade investigation. As such, its impact on the general public is likely minimal barring any resulting changes in market practices or product availability regarding chemical mechanical planarization slurries. However, the document does underscore the role of governance in upholding patent rights, which is an aspect of interest for individuals concerned with intellectual property laws.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
The decision not to review the initial determination primarily impacts the respondents and the complainant involved in the investigation. For CMC Materials, Inc., the amendment to duly reflect the respondent's legal status supports the orderly progression of their complaint, reinforcing their stance against alleged patent infringements. Conversely, for Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials CMP, LLC, the name change may bear administrative or procedural significance, impacting how they respond or present themselves in ongoing and future legal matters. For legal professionals and entities involved in the trade of such materials, this case may serve as a precedent or point of reference for navigating similar legal proceedings related to changes in corporate structure.
Issues
• The document contains complex legal language which may be difficult for the general public to understand without specialized knowledge.
• There is no detailed explanation provided for why the name change of the respondent was necessary or the implications of this change.
• The text lists several legal and procedural references (e.g., Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337) without explaining what they entail, which might be unclear to individuals unfamiliar with U.S. trade law.
• The document does not provide any context or explanation of the technologies involved (chemical mechanical planarization slurries), which could help readers understand the significance of the investigation.