Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof; Notice of the Commission's Determination To Review in Part the Final Initial Determination, 69499-69501 [2012-28064]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 223 / Monday, November 19, 2012 / Notices
Dated: October 23, 2012.
Alexandra Lord,
Acting Chief, National Register of Historic
Places/National Historic Landmarks Program.
ALABAMA
Mobile County
Africatown Historic District, Bounded by
Jakes Ln., Paper Mill, & Warren Rds., Chin,
& Railroad Sts., Mobile, 12000990
COLORADO
Jefferson County
Jack County
Jack County Courthouse, 100 N. Main St.,
Jacksboro, 12001002
Potter County
Fisk Medical Arts Building, 724 S. Polk St.,
Amarillo, 12001003
Tarrant County
Farmers and Mechanics National Bank, 714
Main St., Fort Worth, 12001004
Van Zandt Cottage, 2900 Crestline Rd., Fort
Worth, 12001005
[FR Doc. 2012–27991 Filed 11–16–12; 8:45 am]
Staunton Ranch Rural Historic Landscape,
11559 Upper Ranch Dr., Pine, 12000991
BILLING CODE 4312–51–P
FLORIDA
Broward County
Council Oak Tree Site on the Hollywood
Seminole Indian Reservation, Address
Restricted, Hollywood, 12000992
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–804]
MARYLAND
Prince George’s County
Old Town College Park, (Historic Residential
Suburbs in the United States, 1830–1960
MPS), Roughly bounded by Yale &
Columbia Aves., Calvert Rd., & UM
Campus, College Park, 12000993
MASSACHUSETTS
Northampton Veterans Administration
Hospital Historic District, (United States
Second Generation Veterans Hospitals
MPS), 421 N. Main St., Northampton,
12000994
MONTANA
Flathead County
Conrad, C.E., Memorial Cemetery, 641
Conrad Dr., Kalispell, 12000995
NEW YORK
Erie County
Elmwood Historic District—West, Roughly
Ashland, Auburn, Bird, Claremont,
Elmwood, Forest, Highland, Hodge,
Lafayette, Lexington, Norwood Aves.,
Buffalo, 12000996
Hamburg Main Street Historic District, 11
through 235 Main St., Hamburg, 12000997
Niagara County
Taylor, William, House, 97 S. Main St.,
Middleport, 12000998
TEXAS
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Comanche County
Cunningham, Captain James & Susannah,
Homestead, 19601 TX 16 S., Comanche,
12000999
Harris County
San Jacinto Senior High School, 1300
Holman St., Houston, 12001000
Hill County
Nolan River Bridge 303–4 of the Gulf,
Colorado and Santa Fe Railway, Cty. Rd.
1127 at Nolan R., Blum, 12001001
14:04 Nov 16, 2012
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in part the final initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on
September 7, 2012, finding a violation
of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amanda S. Pitcher, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–2737. The public version of the
complaint can be accessed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov, and will be
available for inspection during official
business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.)
in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205–2000. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
Internet server (https://www.usitc.gov).
The public record for this investigation
may be viewed on the Commission’s
electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired
persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission instituted this investigation
on September 7, 2011, based on a
SUMMARY:
Hampshire County
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Certain LED Photographic Lighting
Devices and Components Thereof;
Notice of the Commission’s
Determination To Review in Part the
Final Initial Determination
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69499
complaint filed by Litepanels, Inc. and
Litepanels, Ltd. (collectively,
‘‘Litepanels’’). 76 FR 55416 (Sept. 7,
2011). The complaint alleged violations
of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain LED photographic lighting
devices and components thereof that
infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent
Nos. 7,429,117 (terminated from the
investigation); 7,510,290 (terminated
from the investigation); 7,972,022 (‘‘the
’022 patent’’); 7,318,652 (‘‘the ’652
patent’’); and 6,948,823 (‘‘the ’823
patent’’). The Notice of Institution
named respondents Flolight, LLC. of
Campbell, California; Prompter People,
Inc. of Campbell, California; IKAN
Corporation of Houston, Texas;
Advanced Business Computer Services,
LLC d/b/a Cool Lights, USA of Reno,
Nevada; Elation Lighting, Inc. of Los
Angeles, California; Fotodiox, Inc. of
Waukegan, Illinois; Fuzhou F&V
Photographic Equipment Co., Ltd. of
Fujian, China; Yuyao Lishuai PhotoFacility Co., Ltd. of Zhejiang Province,
China; Yuyao Fotodiox Photo
Equipment Co., Ltd. of Zhejiang
Province, China; Shantou Nanguang
Photographic Equipment Co., Ltd. of
Guangdong Province, China; Visio
Light, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; Tianjin
Wuqing Huanyu Film and TV
Equipment Factory of Tianjin, China;
Stellar Lighting Systems of Los Angeles,
California; and Yuyao Lily Collection
Co., Ltd. of Yuyao, China. The
Commission Investigative Attorney
(‘‘IA’’) of the Office of Unfair Import
Investigations also participated in this
investigation.
On September 7, 2012, the ALJ issued
the subject final ID finding a violation
of section 337. The ALJ held that a
violation occurred in the importation
into the United States, the sale for
importation, or the sale within the
United States after importation of
certain LED photographic lighting
devices and components thereof that
infringe one or more of claims 1, 57–58,
and 60 of the ’022 patent; claims 1, 2,
5, 16, 18, 19, 25 and 27 of the ’652
patent; and claim 19 of the ’823 patent.
ID at ii. The ALJ further held that no
violation of section 337 occurred in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, or the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain LED photographic lighting
devices and components thereof that
infringe claims 17 and 28 of the ’823
patent because claims 17 and 28 are
anticipated. Id. at ii, 81.
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
69500
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 223 / Monday, November 19, 2012 / Notices
Litepanels petitions for review of the
ALJ’s construction of the preamble of
claim 17 of the ’823 patent and asserts
that the ALJ incorrectly found that
independent claim 17 and dependent
claim 28 of the ’823 patent were invalid
based on his incorrect construction. The
IA petitioned for review of the ALJ’s
finding that claims 17, 19 and 28 of the
’823 patent are infringed based on the
construction of the term ‘‘an integrated
power source’’ of independent claim 17.
Respondents petitioned for review of
most of the ALJ’s invalidity findings
(including public use, and obviousness),
the construction of ‘‘focusing element’’
of claim 1 of the ’652 patent, and the
exclusion of claim charts.
The Commission has determined to
review the ID in part. The Commission
has determined to review (1) the ALJ’s
construction of the preamble of the
asserted independent claims of the ’652
patent, the ’823 patent and the ’022
patent; (2) the ALJ’s findings of
infringement; (3) the ALJ’s findings of
obviousness and anticipation; (4) the
ALJ’s construction of ‘‘an integrated
power source’’ of claim 17 of the ’823
patent; and (5) the ALJ’s findings on the
technical prong of domestic industry.
The Commission has determined not to
review the remainder of the ID.
The parties are requested to brief their
positions on the issues under review
with reference to the applicable law and
the evidentiary record. In connection
with its review, the Commission is
particularly interested in responses to
the following questions:
(1) If the Commission were to
determine that the preambles of the
asserted independent claims of the ’652
patent, the ’823 patent and the ’022
patent are limitations and should be
interpreted based on their plain and
ordinary meaning (see ID at 44), what
impact, if any, does this have on the
ALJ’s findings regarding anticipation
and obviousness for the asserted
patents? Please cite to record evidence
that supports your position.
(2) If the Commission were to
determine that the preambles of the
asserted independent claims of the ’652
patent, the ’823 patent and the ’022
patent are limitations and should be
interpreted based on their plain and
ordinary meaning (see ID at 44), do the
accused products and domestic industry
products meet the preamble limitation
of each of the asserted independent
claims? Please cite to record evidence to
support your position. Have the
Respondents waived the ability to
challenge a finding that the preambles
of the asserted independent claims,
interpreted based on their plain and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:04 Nov 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
ordinary meaning, are met by the
accused products?
In connection with the final
disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may issue an order that
could result in the exclusion of the
subject articles from entry into the
United States. Accordingly, the
Commission is interested in receiving
written submissions that address the
form of remedy, if any, that should be
ordered. The Commission is particularly
interested in responses to the following
questions:
(1) Please discuss the technical and
qualitative interchangeability of
Litepanels and its licensees’ products
with the products that would be
excluded under a general exclusion
order. Please discuss the evidence that
supports your position.
(2) Discuss whether Litepanels and its
licensees have sufficient capability to
meet the demand for any products that
would be excluded under a general
exclusion order. Please discuss the
evidence that supports your position,
including evidence regarding current
manufacturing capacity and product
interchangeability.
(3) What lead time would be required
for existing manufacturers to modify
their allegedly infringing products to be
noninfringing? Please discuss the
evidence that supports your position.
(4) Please discuss specific evidence
pertaining to any specialized
requirements of the film, video,
photographic industries, or any other
industries, that cannot be met by the
products of Litepanels or its licensees,
but are only met by the products that
would be excluded under a general
exclusion order.
(5) Please provide specific evidence
regarding the impact, if any, of a general
exclusion order on public health and
welfare, competitive conditions in the
United States economy, the production
of like or directly competitive articles in
the United States, and United States
consumers.
If a party seeks exclusion of an article
from entry into the United States for
purposes other than entry for
consumption, the party should so
indicate and provide information
establishing that activities involving
other types of entry either are adversely
affecting it or likely to do so. For
background, see In the Matter of Certain
Devices for Connecting Computers via
Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360,
USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994)
(Commission Opinion).
If the Commission contemplates some
form of remedy, it must consider the
effects of that remedy upon the public
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
interest. The factors the Commission
will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease and desist
orders would have on (1) the public
health and welfare, (2) competitive
conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S.
production of articles that are like or
directly competitive with those that are
subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving written
submissions that address the
aforementioned public interest factors
in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form
of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the
President, has 60 days to approve or
disapprove the Commission’s action.
See Presidential Memorandum of July
21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005).
During this period, the subject articles
would be entitled to enter the United
States under bond, in an amount
determined by the Commission and
prescribed by the Secretary of the
Treasury. The Commission is therefore
interested in receiving submissions
concerning the amount of the bond that
should be imposed if a remedy is
ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to
the investigation are requested to file
written submissions on the issues
identified in this notice. Parties to the
investigation, interested government
agencies, and any other interested
persons are encouraged to file written
submissions on the issues of remedy,
the public interest, and bonding, as well
as respond to the questions posed
herein relating to remedy and the public
interest. Such submissions should
address the recommended
determination by the ALJ on remedy
and bonding. Complainant and IA are
also requested to submit proposed
remedial orders for the Commission’s
consideration.
Complainant is also requested to state
the dates that the ’853, ’022 and ’652
patents expire and the HTSUS numbers
under which the accused products are
imported. The written submissions and
proposed remedial orders must be filed
no later than close of business on
Wednesday, November 28, 2012. Reply
submissions must be filed no later than
the close of business on Wednesday,
December 5, 2012. No further
submissions on these issues will be
permitted unless otherwise ordered by
the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines
stated above and submit 8 true paper
copies to the Office of the Secretary by
noon the next day pursuant to section
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 223 / Monday, November 19, 2012 / Notices
210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to
the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No.
337–TA–804’’) in a prominent place on
the cover page and/or the first page. (See
Handbook for Electronic Filing
Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/
secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/
handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf).
Persons with questions regarding filing
should contact the Secretary (202–205–
2000).
Any person desiring to submit a
document to the Commission in
confidence must request confidential
treatment. All such requests should be
directed to the Secretary to the
Commission and must include a full
statement of the reasons why the
Commission should grant such
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents
for which confidential treatment by the
Commission is properly sought will be
treated accordingly. A redacted nonconfidential version of the document
must also be filed simultaneously with
the any confidential filing. All nonconfidential written submissions will be
available for public inspection at the
Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.
The authority for the Commission’s
determination is contained in section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in
sections 210.42–46 and 210.50 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 and
210.50).
Issued: November 13, 2012.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012–28064 Filed 11–16–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–809]
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Certain Devices for Mobile Data
Communication; Determination Not To
Review an Initial Determination
Granting a Motion By Complainant To
Terminate the Investigation in Its
Entirety Based Upon Withdrawal of the
Complaint; Termination of the
Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to
review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:04 Nov 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
(Order No. 60) of the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’)
granting a motion by complainant to
terminate the investigation in its
entirety based upon withdrawal of the
complaint.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3042. Copies of non-confidential
documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for
inspection during official business
hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the
Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205–2000. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov.
The public record for this investigation
may be viewed on the Commission’s
electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired
persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission instituted this investigation
on October 13, 2011, based on a
complaint filed by Openwave Systems
Inc. of Redwood City, California
(‘‘Openwave’’). 76 FR 63657–58 (Oct.
13, 2011). The complaint alleged
violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended 19 U.S.C. 1337,
in the importation into the United
States, the sale for importation, and the
sale within the United States after
importation of certain devices for
mobile data communication by reason
of infringement of certain claims of
United States Patent Nos. 6,233,608;
6,289,212; 6,405,037; 6,430,409; and
6,625,447. The notice of investigation
named Research In Motion Ltd. of
Ontario, Canada; Research In Motion
Corp. of Irving, Texas; and Apple Inc. of
Cupertino, California as respondents.
During pendency of the investigation,
Openwave changed its name to Unwired
Planet, Inc.
On October 12, 2012, Openwave filed
an unopposed motion to terminate the
investigation in its entirety based upon
withdrawal of the complaint. No
responses to the motion were filed.
That same day, the ALJ issued the
subject ID (Order No. 60) terminating
the investigation. The ALJ found that
the motion complied with the
requirements of Commission Rule
210.21(a) (19 CFR 210.21(a)) and that no
extraordinary circumstances prohibited
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69501
granting the motion. None of the parties
petitioned for review of the ID. The
Commission has determined not to
review the ID.
The Commission notes that in Order
No. 57 the ALJ denied a request by the
parties to terminate the investigation
prior to the evidentiary hearing based
upon Openwave’s stipulation that,
under the ALJ’s claim construction, the
accused products do not infringe the
asserted claims. The Commission
clarifies that it encourages early
disposition of investigations on
dispositive issues, when possible, before
the evidentiary hearing in the interest of
mitigating litigation costs and
conserving resources of the parties and
the Commission. See, e.g., Certain Drill
Bits and Products Containing the Same,
Inv. No. 337–TA–844, 77 FR 51825–26
(Aug. 27, 2012) (affirming grant of
summary determination of no
importation on the merits and
terminating investigation).
The authority for the Commission’s
determination is contained in section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in
section 210.42 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42).
Issued: November 13, 2012.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012–27989 Filed 11–16–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–698
(Enforcement Proceeding)]
Certain DC–DC Controllers and
Products Containing Same; Decision
To Affirm-in-Part, Reverse-in-Part,
Modify-in-Part, and Vacate-in-Part an
Enforcement Initial Determination
Finding a Violation of the August 13,
2010 Consent Order; Issuance of
Modified Consent Order and Civil
Penalty; and Termination of
Enforcement Proceeding
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to affirmin-part, reverse-in-part, modify-in-part,
and vacate-in-part an enforcement
initial determination (‘‘EID’’) of the
presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’) finding a violation of the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 223 (Monday, November 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69499-69501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28064]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-804]
Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof;
Notice of the Commission's Determination To Review in Part the Final
Initial Determination
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review in part the final initial
determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') on September 7, 2012, finding a violation of section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda S. Pitcher, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. The public version of
the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov, and will be available for inspection
during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office
of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General
information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing
its Internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this
investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised
that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the
Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
on September 7, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Litepanels, Inc.
and Litepanels, Ltd. (collectively, ``Litepanels''). 76 FR 55416 (Sept.
7, 2011). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United
States after importation of certain LED photographic lighting devices
and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
7,429,117 (terminated from the investigation); 7,510,290 (terminated
from the investigation); 7,972,022 (``the '022 patent''); 7,318,652
(``the '652 patent''); and 6,948,823 (``the '823 patent''). The Notice
of Institution named respondents Flolight, LLC. of Campbell,
California; Prompter People, Inc. of Campbell, California; IKAN
Corporation of Houston, Texas; Advanced Business Computer Services, LLC
d/b/a Cool Lights, USA of Reno, Nevada; Elation Lighting, Inc. of Los
Angeles, California; Fotodiox, Inc. of Waukegan, Illinois; Fuzhou F&V
Photographic Equipment Co., Ltd. of Fujian, China; Yuyao Lishuai Photo-
Facility Co., Ltd. of Zhejiang Province, China; Yuyao Fotodiox Photo
Equipment Co., Ltd. of Zhejiang Province, China; Shantou Nanguang
Photographic Equipment Co., Ltd. of Guangdong Province, China; Visio
Light, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; Tianjin Wuqing Huanyu Film and TV
Equipment Factory of Tianjin, China; Stellar Lighting Systems of Los
Angeles, California; and Yuyao Lily Collection Co., Ltd. of Yuyao,
China. The Commission Investigative Attorney (``IA'') of the Office of
Unfair Import Investigations also participated in this investigation.
On September 7, 2012, the ALJ issued the subject final ID finding a
violation of section 337. The ALJ held that a violation occurred in the
importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the
sale within the United States after importation of certain LED
photographic lighting devices and components thereof that infringe one
or more of claims 1, 57-58, and 60 of the '022 patent; claims 1, 2, 5,
16, 18, 19, 25 and 27 of the '652 patent; and claim 19 of the '823
patent. ID at ii. The ALJ further held that no violation of section 337
occurred in the importation into the United States, the sale for
importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of
certain LED photographic lighting devices and components thereof that
infringe claims 17 and 28 of the '823 patent because claims 17 and 28
are anticipated. Id. at ii, 81.
[[Page 69500]]
Litepanels petitions for review of the ALJ's construction of the
preamble of claim 17 of the '823 patent and asserts that the ALJ
incorrectly found that independent claim 17 and dependent claim 28 of
the '823 patent were invalid based on his incorrect construction. The
IA petitioned for review of the ALJ's finding that claims 17, 19 and 28
of the '823 patent are infringed based on the construction of the term
``an integrated power source'' of independent claim 17. Respondents
petitioned for review of most of the ALJ's invalidity findings
(including public use, and obviousness), the construction of ``focusing
element'' of claim 1 of the '652 patent, and the exclusion of claim
charts.
The Commission has determined to review the ID in part. The
Commission has determined to review (1) the ALJ's construction of the
preamble of the asserted independent claims of the '652 patent, the
'823 patent and the '022 patent; (2) the ALJ's findings of
infringement; (3) the ALJ's findings of obviousness and anticipation;
(4) the ALJ's construction of ``an integrated power source'' of claim
17 of the '823 patent; and (5) the ALJ's findings on the technical
prong of domestic industry. The Commission has determined not to review
the remainder of the ID.
The parties are requested to brief their positions on the issues
under review with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary
record. In connection with its review, the Commission is particularly
interested in responses to the following questions:
(1) If the Commission were to determine that the preambles of the
asserted independent claims of the '652 patent, the '823 patent and the
'022 patent are limitations and should be interpreted based on their
plain and ordinary meaning (see ID at 44), what impact, if any, does
this have on the ALJ's findings regarding anticipation and obviousness
for the asserted patents? Please cite to record evidence that supports
your position.
(2) If the Commission were to determine that the preambles of the
asserted independent claims of the '652 patent, the '823 patent and the
'022 patent are limitations and should be interpreted based on their
plain and ordinary meaning (see ID at 44), do the accused products and
domestic industry products meet the preamble limitation of each of the
asserted independent claims? Please cite to record evidence to support
your position. Have the Respondents waived the ability to challenge a
finding that the preambles of the asserted independent claims,
interpreted based on their plain and ordinary meaning, are met by the
accused products?
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the
subject articles from entry into the United States. Accordingly, the
Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address
the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. The Commission is
particularly interested in responses to the following questions:
(1) Please discuss the technical and qualitative interchangeability
of Litepanels and its licensees' products with the products that would
be excluded under a general exclusion order. Please discuss the
evidence that supports your position.
(2) Discuss whether Litepanels and its licensees have sufficient
capability to meet the demand for any products that would be excluded
under a general exclusion order. Please discuss the evidence that
supports your position, including evidence regarding current
manufacturing capacity and product interchangeability.
(3) What lead time would be required for existing manufacturers to
modify their allegedly infringing products to be noninfringing? Please
discuss the evidence that supports your position.
(4) Please discuss specific evidence pertaining to any specialized
requirements of the film, video, photographic industries, or any other
industries, that cannot be met by the products of Litepanels or its
licensees, but are only met by the products that would be excluded
under a general exclusion order.
(5) Please provide specific evidence regarding the impact, if any,
of a general exclusion order on public health and welfare, competitive
conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or
directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States
consumers.
If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United
States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should
so indicate and provide information establishing that activities
involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or
likely to do so. For background, see In the Matter of Certain Devices
for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360,
USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994) (Commission Opinion).
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the
public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S.
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly
competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written
submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in
the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve
or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of
July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the
subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under
bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the
Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in
receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be
imposed if a remedy is ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the issues identified in this notice.
Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any
other interested persons are encouraged to file written submissions on
the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding, as well as
respond to the questions posed herein relating to remedy and the public
interest. Such submissions should address the recommended determination
by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. Complainant and IA are also requested
to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration.
Complainant is also requested to state the dates that the '853,
'022 and '652 patents expire and the HTSUS numbers under which the
accused products are imported. The written submissions and proposed
remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business on
Wednesday, November 28, 2012. Reply submissions must be filed no later
than the close of business on Wednesday, December 5, 2012. No further
submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered
by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8
true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day
pursuant to section
[[Page 69501]]
210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (``Inv.
No. 337-TA-804'') in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the
first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). Persons with questions regarding filing should
contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in
confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests
should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include
a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment
by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A
redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed
simultaneously with the any confidential filing. All non-confidential
written submissions will be available for public inspection at the
Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and
in sections 210.42-46 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46 and 210.50).
Issued: November 13, 2012.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-28064 Filed 11-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
