Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers; Notice of Commission Determination To Review the Final Initial Determination; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, Public Interest, and Bonding, 70464-70466 [2012-28509]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
70464
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
T. 2 N., R. 10 E.,
Secs. 2 to 11, inclusive;
Sec. 14, that portion lying north and west
of the boundary of the Cleghorn Lakes
Wilderness Area;
Sec. 15 and 17 to 22, inclusive;
Sec. 23, that portion lying west of the
boundary of the Cleghorn Lakes
Wilderness Area;
Sec. 26, that portion lying west and south
of the boundary of the Cleghorn Lakes
Wilderness Area;
Secs. 27 to 35, inclusive.
Eastern Acquisition Area
T. 4 N., R. 11 E.,
Secs. 1, 2, 11, 12, and 14.
T. 5 N., R. 11 E.,
Sec. 35.
T. 3 N., R. 12 E.,
Secs. 1, 2, and 3;
Secs. 10 to 15, inclusive;
Secs. 22, 23, and 24;
Sec. 25, that portion lying west of the
boundary of the Sheephole Valley
Wilderness Area;
Secs. 26 and 27;
Sec. 34, that portion lying north and east
of the boundary of Cleghorn Lakes
Wilderness Area;
Sec. 35.
T. 4 N., R. 12 E.,
Secs. 1 to 8, inclusive;
Secs. 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15;
Sec. 18, all except for Mineral Survey No.
5802;
Sec. 19, N1⁄2 except for Mineral Survey
Nos. 5802 and 5805;
Sec. 21, E1⁄2;
Secs. 23 to 27, inclusive;
Sec. 28, E1⁄2;
Secs. 34 and 35.
T. 5 N., R. 12 E.,
Secs. 19 and 20, all except the lands
conveyed by Patent No. 1000678;
Secs. 21 to 27, inclusive;
Sec. 28, N1⁄2 and SW1⁄4;
Secs, 29 and 30, all except the lands
conveyed by Patent No. 1000678;
Secs. 31 to 35, inclusive.
T. 3 N., R. 13 E.,
Sec. 4, that portion lying west of the
Sheephole Valley Wilderness Area;
Secs. 5 and 7;
Sec. 8, 17, 18, and 19, those portions lying
west of the Sheephole Valley Wilderness
Area.
T. 4 N., R. 13 E.,
Secs. 1 to 4, inclusive, 6 to 15, inclusive,
and 17 to 22, inclusive;
Secs. 23, 24, and 27, those portions lying
northwesterly of the Sheephole Valley
Wilderness Area;
Secs. 28 to 32, inclusive;
Secs. 33 and 34, that portion lying
northwesterly of the Sheephole Valley
Wilderness Area.
T. 5 N., R. 13 E.,
Secs. 19 and 20;
Sec. 22, W1⁄2;
Secs. 23 to 28, inclusive, and 30, 31, 32,
34, and 35.
T. 3 N., R. 14 E.,
Secs. 1 and 2;
Secs. 3, 4, and 10, those portions lying east
of the Sheephole Valley Wilderness
Area;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
Secs. 11, 12, and 13;
Secs. 14 and 15, those portions lying east
of the Sheephole Valley Wilderness
Area.
T. 4 N., R. 14 E.,
Secs. 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18;
Sec. 20, that portion lying northeasterly of
the Sheephole Valley Wilderness Area;
Secs. 21 to 24, inclusive;
Sec. 25, that portion lying northwesterly of
the Cadiz Dunes Wilderness Area;
Secs. 26, 27, and 28;
Sec. 29, that portion lying northeasterly of
the Sheephole Valley Wilderness Area;
Secs. 33, 34, and 35.
T. 5 N., R. 14 E.,
Secs. 30 and 31.
T. 4 N, R. 15 E.,
Secs. 1 to 4, inclusive;
Sec. 5, all except for railroad rights-of-way;
Secs. 6, 7, and 8;
Sec. 9, all except for railroad rights-of-way;
[FR Doc. C1–2012–23479 Filed 11–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–794]
Certain Electronic Devices, Including
Wireless Communication Devices,
Portable Music and Data Processing
Devices, and Tablet Computers; Notice
of Commission Determination To
Review the Final Initial Determination;
Schedule for Filing Written
Submissions on the Issues Under
Review and on Remedy, Public
Interest, and Bonding
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
the final initial determination issued by
the presiding administrative law judge
in the above-captioned investigation on
September 14, 2012. The Commission
requests certain briefing from the parties
on the issues under review, as indicated
in this notice. The Commission also
requests briefing from the parties and
the public on the issues of remedy, the
public interest, and bonding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clark S. Cheney, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–
205–2661. 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,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 August 1, 2011, based on a complaint
filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of
Korea and Samsung
Telecommunications America, LLC of
Richardson, Texas (collectively,
‘‘Samsung’’). 76 FR 45860 (Aug. 1,
2011). The complaint alleges 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 electronic devices, including
wireless communication devices,
portable music and data processing
devices, and tablet computers, by reason
of infringement of various patents,
including U.S. Patent Nos. 7,706,348
(‘‘the ’348 patent’’), 7,486,644 (‘‘the ’644
patent’’), 7,450,114 (‘‘the ’114 patent’’),
and 6,771,980 (‘‘the ’980 patent’’). The
notice of investigation names Apple Inc.
of Cupertino, California, as the only
respondent.
On September 14, 2012, the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued
his final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) in
this investigation finding no violation of
section 337. The ALJ determined that
the ’348, ’644, and ’980 patents are valid
but not infringed and that the ’114
patent is both invalid and not infringed.
The ALJ further determined that the
economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement is satisfied for all
four patents at issue, but that the
technical prong is not satisfied for any
of the asserted patents.
On October 1, 2012, complainant
Samsung and the Commission
investigative attorney filed petitions for
review of the ID, while Apple filed a
contingent petition for review.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ID, the
petitions for review, and the responses
thereto, the Commission has determined
to review the ALJ’s determination of no
violation in its entirety.
In connection with the final
disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may issue an order that
results in the exclusion of the subject
articles from entry into the United
E:\FR\FM\26NON1.SGM
26NON1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Notices
States. See 19 U.S.C. 1337(d).
Accordingly, the Commission is
interested in receiving written
submissions that address the form of
remedy, if any, that should be ordered.
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 Certain Devices for
Connecting Computers via Telephone
Lines, lnv. No. 337TA360, USITC Pub.
No. 2843, Comm’n Op. at 7–10
(December 1994).
When 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.
When 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.
Parties to the investigation, interested
government agencies, the Office of
Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’),
and any other interested parties are
encouraged to file written submissions
on the issues of remedy, the public
interest, and bonding. Such submissions
should address the recommended
determination by the ALJ on remedy
and bonding.
The Commission further encourages
briefing from the parties to the
investigation, interested government
agencies, OUII, and any other interested
parties on the following topics:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
1. Does the mere existence of a
FRAND undertaking with respect to a
particular patent preclude issuance of
an exclusion order based on
infringement of that patent? Please
discuss theories in law, equity, and the
public interest, and identify which (if
any) of the 337(d)(1) public interest
factors preclude issuance of such an
order.
2. Where a patent owner has offered
to license a patent to an accused
infringer, what framework should be
used for determining whether the offer
complies with a FRAND undertaking?
How would a rejection of the offer by an
accused infringer influence the analysis,
if at all?
3. Would there be substantial cost or
delay to design around the technology
covered by the ’348 and ’644 patents
asserted in this investigation? Could
such a design-around still comply with
the relevant ETSI standard?
4. What portion of the accused
devices is allegedly covered by the
asserted claims of each of the ’348 and
’644 patents? Do the patents cover
relatively minor features of the accused
devices?
In addition to the foregoing, the
parties to the investigation are requested
to brief their positions on the following
subset of the issues under review, with
reference to the applicable law and the
evidentiary record:
5. What evidence in the record
explains the legal significance of
Samsung’s FRAND undertakings under
French law?
6. [ ]
7. [ ]
8. With respect to the asserted claims
of the ’348 patent, what record evidence
shows that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would understand the phrase ‘‘10
bit TFCI information’’ to allow or
preclude the use of padding bits? What
is the difference between the ‘‘10 bit
TFCI information’’ in the portion of
Table 1a shown in columns 13 and 14
of ’348 patent and the TFCI information
with padding zeroes allegedly used in
the alleged domestic industry devices?
Is the patent’s discussion of padding
zeroes at col. 3, lines 27–34 of any
relevance? What consequence would
construing ‘‘10 bit TFCI information’’ to
allow padding bits have on the issues of
infringement, validity, and the technical
prong of the domestic industry
requirement?
9. With respect to the asserted claims
of the ’348 patent, what claim language,
if any, limits the claim to the use of a
look-up table and precludes the claim
from covering the embodiment of the
invention shown in Figures 8 and 14 of
the ’348 patent?
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
70465
10. With respect to asserted claims
82–84 of the ’348 patent, identify any
support in the patent specification or
the record generally for construing the
term ‘‘puncturing’’ in asserted claims
82–84 to encompass ‘‘excluding’’ bits
(see, e.g., ’348 patent at 32:10–17). What
consequence would such a construction
have on the issues of infringement,
validity, and the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement?
11. With respect to the asserted claims
of the ’644 patent, what is the proper
construction of ‘‘extracting’’? What
variable, if any, in the source code
relied upon by Samsung to prove
infringement and domestic industry
represents a ‘‘60-bit rate-matched block’’
that has been extracted from a received
signal?
12. With respect to the ’980 patent,
has Samsung waived all infringement
and domestic industry allegations
except for those based on claim 10?
Identify by source code file name or
other specific record designation the
precise ‘‘dialing program’’ that Samsung
relies upon to prove infringement and
domestic industry with respect to claim
10. Also identify, using record evidence,
the conditions that trigger execution of
the ‘‘dialing program’’ in the relevant
devices.
13. With respect to the ’980 patent, if
the Commission were to construe
‘‘dialing icon’’ to require a ‘‘pictorial
element,’’ what record evidence
demonstrates that Samsung’s alleged
domestic industry products meet that
limitation?
The parties have been invited to brief
only the discrete issues enumerated
above, with reference to the applicable
law and evidentiary record. The parties
are not to brief other issues on review,
which are adequately presented in the
parties’ existing filings.
Written Submissions: Written
submissions and proposed remedial
orders in response to this notice must be
filed no later than close of business on
December 3, 2012. Complainant and
OUII are also requested to submit
proposed remedial orders for the
Commission’s consideration.
Complainant is also requested to state
the dates that the patents expire and the
HTSUS numbers under which the
accused products are imported. Initial
submissions by the parties are limited to
80 pages, not including any attachments
or exhibits related to discussion of the
public interest. Initial submissions by
other members of the public are limited
to 50 pages, not including any
attachments or exhibits related to
discussion of the public interest. Reply
submissions must be filed no later than
the close of business December 10,
E:\FR\FM\26NON1.SGM
26NON1
70466
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Notices
2012. All reply submissions are limited
to 50 pages, not including any
attachments or exhibits related to
discussion of the public interest. 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
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–794’’) 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 Part
210 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part
210).
Issued: November 19, 2012.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[FR Doc. 2012–28509 Filed 11–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE
UNITED STATES
Meeting of the Judicial Conference
Committee on Rules of Practice and
Procedure
Judicial Conference of the
United States Committee on Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
AGENCY:
The Committee on Rules of
Practice and Procedure will hold a twoday meeting. The meeting will be open
to public observation but not
participation.
SUMMARY:
January 3–4, 2013.
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The Charles Hotel, Harvard
Square, One Bennett Street, Cambridge,
MA 02138.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jonathan C. Rose, Rules Committee
Secretary, Rules Committee Support
Office, Administrative Office of the
United States Courts, Washington, DC
20544, telephone (202) 502–1820.
DATE:
TIME:
Dated: November 20, 2012.
Jonathan C. Rose,
Rules Committee Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–28627 Filed 11–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210–55–P
Overview of This Information
Collection
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1110–NEW]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection,
Comments Requested; Notice of
Collection of Information Relative to
Threats of Explosive Device Violence
at Institutions of Higher Education
ACTION:
Emergency 60-day Notice.
The Department of Justice, Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), National
Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime
(NCAVC), will be submitting the
following information collection request
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and clearance in
accordance with established review
procedures of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995. The proposed information
collection is published to obtain
comments from the public and affected
agencies. Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted until 12/5/2012. This
process is conducted in accordance with
5 CFR 1320.10.
All comments, suggestions, or
questions regarding additional
information, to include obtaining a copy
of the proposed information collection
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
instrument with instructions, should be
directed to Andre Simons, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, NCAVC,
Critical Incident Response Group, FBI
Academy, 1 Range Road, Quantico,
Virginia, 22135.Written comments and
suggestions from the public and affected
agencies concerning the proposed
collection of information are
encouraged. Comments should address
one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques of
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
(1) Type of information collection:
Emergency notice: Identify bomb-related
incidents (including hoax devices and
threats where no device was involved)
occurring at institutions of higher
education (IHE), and how each IHE has
responded to these incidents.
(2) The title of the form/collection:
Institution of Higher Education Bomb
Threat/Incident Survey
(3) The agency form number, if any,
and the applicable component of the
department sponsoring the collection:
N/A
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: IHE law enforcement or
campus safety agencies.
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: It is estimated that 1200
respondents will be contacted to
complete a survey consisting of 19
questions. It is estimated that a burden
of approximately 20 to 60 minutes will
be cast upon each respondent to
complete the survey. However, this
estimated burden will depend on
individualized data retrieval systems,
availability of requested data, and other
E:\FR\FM\26NON1.SGM
26NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 227 (Monday, November 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70464-70466]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28509]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-794]
Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication
Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet
Computers; Notice of Commission Determination To Review the Final
Initial Determination; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the
Issues Under Review and on Remedy, Public Interest, and Bonding
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review the final initial determination
issued by the presiding administrative law judge in the above-captioned
investigation on September 14, 2012. The Commission requests certain
briefing from the parties on the issues under review, as indicated in
this notice. The Commission also requests briefing from the parties and
the public on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clark S. Cheney, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2661. 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 (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 August 1, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. of Korea and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC of
Richardson, Texas (collectively, ``Samsung''). 76 FR 45860 (Aug. 1,
2011). The complaint alleges 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 electronic devices, including
wireless communication devices, portable music and data processing
devices, and tablet computers, by reason of infringement of various
patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 7,706,348 (``the '348 patent''),
7,486,644 (``the '644 patent''), 7,450,114 (``the '114 patent''), and
6,771,980 (``the '980 patent''). The notice of investigation names
Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California, as the only respondent.
On September 14, 2012, the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') issued his final initial determination (``ID'') in this
investigation finding no violation of section 337. The ALJ determined
that the '348, '644, and '980 patents are valid but not infringed and
that the '114 patent is both invalid and not infringed. The ALJ further
determined that the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement
is satisfied for all four patents at issue, but that the technical
prong is not satisfied for any of the asserted patents.
On October 1, 2012, complainant Samsung and the Commission
investigative attorney filed petitions for review of the ID, while
Apple filed a contingent petition for review.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ID,
the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has
determined to review the ALJ's determination of no violation in its
entirety.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may issue an order that results in the exclusion of the
subject articles from entry into the United
[[Page 70465]]
States. See 19 U.S.C. 1337(d). Accordingly, the Commission is
interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of
remedy, if any, that should be ordered. 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 Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, lnv.
No. 337TA360, USITC Pub. No. 2843, Comm'n Op. at 7-10 (December 1994).
When 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.
When 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.
Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, the
Office of Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII''), and any other
interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the
issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such submissions
should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on remedy and
bonding.
The Commission further encourages briefing from the parties to the
investigation, interested government agencies, OUII, and any other
interested parties on the following topics:
1. Does the mere existence of a FRAND undertaking with respect to a
particular patent preclude issuance of an exclusion order based on
infringement of that patent? Please discuss theories in law, equity,
and the public interest, and identify which (if any) of the 337(d)(1)
public interest factors preclude issuance of such an order.
2. Where a patent owner has offered to license a patent to an
accused infringer, what framework should be used for determining
whether the offer complies with a FRAND undertaking? How would a
rejection of the offer by an accused infringer influence the analysis,
if at all?
3. Would there be substantial cost or delay to design around the
technology covered by the '348 and '644 patents asserted in this
investigation? Could such a design-around still comply with the
relevant ETSI standard?
4. What portion of the accused devices is allegedly covered by the
asserted claims of each of the '348 and '644 patents? Do the patents
cover relatively minor features of the accused devices?
In addition to the foregoing, the parties to the investigation are
requested to brief their positions on the following subset of the
issues under review, with reference to the applicable law and the
evidentiary record:
5. What evidence in the record explains the legal significance of
Samsung's FRAND undertakings under French law?
6. [ ]
7. [ ]
8. With respect to the asserted claims of the '348 patent, what
record evidence shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand the phrase ``10 bit TFCI information'' to allow or preclude
the use of padding bits? What is the difference between the ``10 bit
TFCI information'' in the portion of Table 1a shown in columns 13 and
14 of '348 patent and the TFCI information with padding zeroes
allegedly used in the alleged domestic industry devices? Is the
patent's discussion of padding zeroes at col. 3, lines 27-34 of any
relevance? What consequence would construing ``10 bit TFCI
information'' to allow padding bits have on the issues of infringement,
validity, and the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement?
9. With respect to the asserted claims of the '348 patent, what
claim language, if any, limits the claim to the use of a look-up table
and precludes the claim from covering the embodiment of the invention
shown in Figures 8 and 14 of the '348 patent?
10. With respect to asserted claims 82-84 of the '348 patent,
identify any support in the patent specification or the record
generally for construing the term ``puncturing'' in asserted claims 82-
84 to encompass ``excluding'' bits (see, e.g., '348 patent at 32:10-
17). What consequence would such a construction have on the issues of
infringement, validity, and the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement?
11. With respect to the asserted claims of the '644 patent, what is
the proper construction of ``extracting''? What variable, if any, in
the source code relied upon by Samsung to prove infringement and
domestic industry represents a ``60-bit rate-matched block'' that has
been extracted from a received signal?
12. With respect to the '980 patent, has Samsung waived all
infringement and domestic industry allegations except for those based
on claim 10? Identify by source code file name or other specific record
designation the precise ``dialing program'' that Samsung relies upon to
prove infringement and domestic industry with respect to claim 10. Also
identify, using record evidence, the conditions that trigger execution
of the ``dialing program'' in the relevant devices.
13. With respect to the '980 patent, if the Commission were to
construe ``dialing icon'' to require a ``pictorial element,'' what
record evidence demonstrates that Samsung's alleged domestic industry
products meet that limitation?
The parties have been invited to brief only the discrete issues
enumerated above, with reference to the applicable law and evidentiary
record. The parties are not to brief other issues on review, which are
adequately presented in the parties' existing filings.
Written Submissions: Written submissions and proposed remedial
orders in response to this notice must be filed no later than close of
business on December 3, 2012. Complainant and OUII are also requested
to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration.
Complainant is also requested to state the dates that the patents
expire and the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are
imported. Initial submissions by the parties are limited to 80 pages,
not including any attachments or exhibits related to discussion of the
public interest. Initial submissions by other members of the public are
limited to 50 pages, not including any attachments or exhibits related
to discussion of the public interest. Reply submissions must be filed
no later than the close of business December 10,
[[Page 70466]]
2012. All reply submissions are limited to 50 pages, not including any
attachments or exhibits related to discussion of the public interest.
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 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-794'') 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 Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
part 210).
Issued: November 19, 2012.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-28509 Filed 11-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
