Certain Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof; Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Briefing on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding, 75942-75944 [2013-29738]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
75942
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Notices
submitted to the address listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document.
Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you may ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so. Comments submitted to the above
address will be reviewed and
considered by all of the lead agencies.
Next Steps
The lead agencies will compile and
review all public comments on the Draft
BDCP and Draft EIR/EIS submitted to
them prior to preparation of a final EIR/
EIS. A permit decision by NMFS and
FWS and a decision by Reclamation on
CVP operations consistent with the
BDCP, habitat restoration, and
monitoring actions in the Delta will be
made no sooner than 30 days after the
publication of the final EIR/EIS and
completion of the Record of Decision. A
draft Implementing Agreement is still
under preparation and will be made
available to the public for review and
comment in early 2014. It will be posted
at www.baydeltaconservationplan.com
as soon as it is available.
Dated: December 9, 2013.
Angela Somma,
Chief, Endangered Species Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
Dated: December 4, 2013.
Alexandra Pitts,
Deputy Regional Director, Pacific Southwest
Region, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Dated: December 2, 2013.
Pablo R. Arroyave,
Deputy Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region,
Bureau of Reclamation.
[FR Doc. 2013–29779 Filed 12–11–13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P; 4310–MN–P; 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
[S1D1S SS08011000 SX066A000 67F
134S180110; S2D2S SS08011000 SX066A00
33F 13xs501520]
Notice of Proposed Information
Collection; Request for Comments for
1029–0114
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:32 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
Notice and request for
comments.
ACTION:
In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing
its intention to renew authority to
collect information for a series of
customer surveys to evaluate OSM’s
performance in meeting the
performance goals outlined in its annual
plans developed pursuant to the
Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA). The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) previously approved
the collection and assigned it clearance
number 1029–0114.
DATES: Comments on the proposed
information collection must be received
by February 11, 2014, to be assured of
consideration.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to
John Trelease, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951
Constitution Ave. NW., Room 203–SIB,
Washington, DC 20240. Comments may
also be submitted electronically to
jtrelease@osmre.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
receive a copy of the information
collection request contact John Trelease,
at (202) 208–2783 or electronically at
jtrelease@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB
regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which
implementing provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104–13), require that interested
members of the public and affected
agencies have an opportunity to
comment on information collection and
recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR
1320.8(d)]. This notice identifies the
information collection that OSM will be
submitting to OMB for approval. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. The OMB control number for
this collection of information is 1029–
0114 and is on the forms along with the
expiration date. OSM will request a 3year term of approval for this
information collection activity.
Comments are invited on: (1) The
need for the collection of information
for the performance of the functions of
the agency; (2) the accuracy of the
agency’s burden estimates; (3) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity
of the information collection; and (4)
ways to minimize the information
collection burden on respondents, such
as use of automated means of collection
of the information. A summary of the
public comments will accompany
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
OSM’s submission of the information
collection request to OMB.
Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
This notice provides the public with
60 days in which to comment on the
following information collection
activity:
Title: Technical Evaluations Series.
OMB Control Number: 1029–0114.
Summary: The series of surveys are
needed to ensure that technical
assistance activities, technology transfer
activities and technical forums are
useful for those who participate or
receive the assistance. Specifically,
representatives from State and Tribal
regulatory and reclamation authorities,
representatives of industry,
environmental or citizen groups, or the
public, are the recipients of the
assistance or participants in these
forums. These surveys will be the
primary means through which OSM
evaluates its performance in meeting the
performance goals outlined in its annual
plans developed pursuant to the
Government Performance and Results
Act.
Bureau Form Number: None.
Frequency of Collection: Once.
Description of Respondents: 26 State
and Tribal governments, industry
organizations and individuals who
request information or assistance.
Total Annual Responses: 550.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 46.
Dated: December 5, 2013.
Andrew F. DeVito,
Chief, Division of Regulatory Support.
[FR Doc. 2013–29737 Filed 12–12–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–847]
Certain Mobile Phones and Tablet
Computers, and Components Thereof;
Commission Determination To Review
in Part a Final Initial Determination
Finding a Violation of Section 337;
Schedule for Briefing on the Issues
Under Review and on Remedy, the
Public Interest, and Bonding
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Notices
ACTION:
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in part a final initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’),
finding a violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in
this investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Needham, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–5468. 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 June 8, 2012, based on a complaint
filed by Nokia Corp., Nokia Inc., and
Intellisync Corp. (collectively, ‘‘Nokia’’).
77 FR 34063–64. The Commission’s
notice of investigation named as
respondents HTC Corporation; HTC
America, Inc. (together, ‘‘HTC’’); and
Exedea, Inc. (‘‘Exedea’’). Id. Prior to
receiving the complaint and notice of
investigation, counsel for Exedea
announced that Exedea had dissolved as
a legal entity. The complaint and notice
of investigation sent to Exedea were
returned as undeliverable, and no
further action was taken to serve
Exedea. The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations did not participate in this
investigation.
Originally, Nokia asserted numerous
claims from nine patents against HTC.
Throughout the course of the
investigation, several IDs terminated the
investigation with respect to various
patents and claims. See Order No. 9
(Feb. 7, 2013) (terminating the
investigation with respect to U.S. Patent
No. 7,366,529 because the patent was
covered by an arbitration agreement),
not reviewed (Mar. 11, 2013); Order No.
10 (Apr. 12, 2013) (terminating the
investigation with respect to U.S. Patent
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:32 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
Nos. 7,106,293; 6,141,664; and
7,209,911 patents based on Nokia’s
motion to withdraw the patents), not
reviewed (Apr. 30, 2013); Order No. 14
(May 14, 2013) (terminating the
investigation with respect to U.S. Patent
No. 6,728,530 based on Nokia’s motion
to withdraw the patent), not reviewed
(May 29, 2013); Order No. 33 (June 13,
2013) (terminating the investigation
with respect to U.S. Patent No.
5,570,369 based on Nokia’s motion to
withdraw the patent), not reviewed (July
12, 2013). By the time of the final ID,
Nokia asserted only claim 1 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,884,190 (‘‘the ’190 patent’’);
claims 6, 8, 10, and 11 of U.S. Patent
No. 6,393,260 (‘‘the ’260 patent’’); and
claims 2, 18, 19, 21, and 23 of U.S.
Patent No. 7,415,247 (‘‘the ’247 patent’’).
On May 2, 2013, the ALJ issued an
initial determination (Order 13) finding
that HTC could not establish its defense
of patent exhaustion. Nokia and HTC
both petitioned for review of Order 13.
On June 4, 2013, the Commission
determined to review Order 13, and
stated that it would render its final
disposition on Order 13 in conjunction
with the final disposition of the final
initial determination in this
investigation. Accordingly, Order 13
remains under review.
On September 23, 2013, the presiding
ALJ issued his final ID, finding a
violation of section 337 with respect to
claims 6, 8, 10, and 11 of the ’260 patent
and claims 18, 19, 21, and 23 of the ’247
patent, and finding no violation with
respect to the ’190 patent and claim 2
of the ’247 patent. The ALJ
recommended that a limited exclusion
order issue against all infringing articles
imported, sold for importation, or sold
after importation by HTC. The ALJ also
recommended that a cease-and-desist
order issue against HTC.
On October 23, 2013, HTC filed a
petition for review challenging several
grounds for the ALJ’s determination that
HTC violated section 337. On October
31, 2013, Nokia filed a response in
opposition to HTC’s petition.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the petition for review, and the
response thereto, the Commission has
determined to review the final ID in
part. Specifically, the Commission has
determined to review the ALJ’s findings
on claim construction, infringement,
and the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement for the limitations
‘‘balance adjustment means’’ of the ’260
patent and ‘‘different radio interfaces’’/
‘‘different radio communications
systems’’ of the ’247 patent. The
Commission has determined to review
the ALJ’s remaining findings on
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75943
infringement and the technical prong of
the domestic industry requirement for
the ’247 patent. The Commission has
also determined to review the striking of
the testimony and witness statements of
Dr. Colyannides. The Commission has
determined not to review the remaining
findings in 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 briefing on the
following issues:
1. Whether the phrase ‘‘comprising
transistors, or implemented using a
variable voltage source’’ is an
appropriate modifier of the
corresponding structure for the phrase
‘‘balance adjustment means’’ in the ’260
patent.
2. Whether Nokia’s evidence with
regards to the use of transistors in
calibration is sufficient to establish
HTC’s infringement of the ‘‘balance
adjustment means’’ limitation in the
’260 patent.
3. Whether Nokia abandoned its
contentions with respect to claims 18
and 19 of the ’247 patent by failing to
set forth with particularity HTC’s
infringement of the claim limitation ‘‘an
input for receiving a digital baseband
quadrature signal representing an
information signal to be transmitted’’ in
Nokia’s pre-hearing brief.
4. Whether a person of ordinary skill
in the art, reading the phrase ‘‘different
radio communications systems’’ in the
context of the limitation ‘‘wherein said
mixer is common for processing signals
for transmission in at least two different
radio communication systems, and
wherein said transmitter amplifier is
common for amplifying carrier
frequency signals for transmission to at
least two different radio
communications systems . . .’’ in light
of the specification and prosecution
history of the ’247 patent, would have
understood that the disclosed common
mixer and common transmitter
amplifier could be utilized with radio
communications systems that differed
in ways other than by frequency band.
5. Whether the Federal Circuit’s
decision in Lifescan Scotland, Ltd. v.
Shasta Techs., LLC, 734 F.3d 1361 (Fed.
Cir. 2013), or any other relevant court
decisions, affects HTC’s defense of
patent exhaustion based on the transfer
of rights under the Nokia-Qualcomm
agreement.
The parties have been invited to brief
only the discrete issues described above,
with reference to the applicable law and
evidentiary record. The parties are not
to brief other issues on review, which
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
75944
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Notices
are adequately presented in the parties’
existing filings.
In connection with the final
disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may (1) issue an order that
could result in the exclusion of the
subject articles from entry into the
United States, and/or (2) issue a cease
and desist order that could result in the
respondent being required to cease and
desist from engaging in unfair acts in
the importation and sale of such
articles. 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, 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 a cease and
desist order 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. The Commission is
particularly interested in briefing on the
following issues:
1. HTC’s statement on the public
interest contends that the Qualcomm
Magellan and Odyssey transceiver chips
have become a de facto standard in the
mobile devices industry. What evidence
exists to support or refute HTC’s
contention? If HTC is correct, please
discuss any evidence regarding whether
the exclusion of HTC devices containing
the Qualcomm Magellan and Odyssey
chips raise any concerns similar to those
raised by some commentators regarding
patent hold-up in the FRANDencumbered standards-essential patent
context?
2. Several entities submitted
statements on the public interest
asserting that the Commission should
consider in its public interest analysis
the fact that HTC’s accused products are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:32 Dec 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
complex devices comprising numerous
components, whereas Nokia’s
infringement allegations are directed to
a single component of the accused
devices. How (if at all) should the
Commission consider such a factor in
determining whether to issue such a
remedy or in fashioning an appropriate
remedy in this investigation?
3. How (if at all) should Nokia’s
covenant not to sue Qualcomm over the
asserted patents affect the Commission’s
consideration of the public interest in
determining whether to issue a remedy
against HTC based on the functionality
of Qualcomm components or in
fashioning an appropriate remedy in
this investigation?
4. Several entities submitted
statements on the public interest
asserting that there should be a
transition period for any remedy issued
against HTC. Please explain and provide
evidence regarding whether such a
transition period is warranted in this
investigation. Additionally, please
explain and provide evidence regarding
the appropriate duration for any such
transition period.
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
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 entirety of
the parties’ written submissions must
not exceed 75 pages, and must be filed
no later than close of business on
December 23, 2013. Reply submissions
must not exceed 50 pages, and must be
filed no later than the close of business
on January 6, 2014. No further
submissions on these issues will be
permitted unless otherwise ordered by
the Commission.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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–847’’) 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 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42–46).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: December 9, 2013.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–29738 Filed 12–12–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission
Commencement of Claims Program
Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission of the United States,
Department of Justice.
ACTION: Notice
AGENCY:
This notice announces the
commencement by the Foreign Claims
Settlement Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) of a program for
adjudication of certain categories of
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75942-75944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29738]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-847]
Certain Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers, and Components
Thereof; Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial
Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Briefing
on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and
Bonding
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
[[Page 75943]]
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review in part a final initial
determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ''), finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Needham, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. 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 June 8, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Nokia Corp., Nokia Inc.,
and Intellisync Corp. (collectively, ``Nokia''). 77 FR 34063-64. The
Commission's notice of investigation named as respondents HTC
Corporation; HTC America, Inc. (together, ``HTC''); and Exedea, Inc.
(``Exedea''). Id. Prior to receiving the complaint and notice of
investigation, counsel for Exedea announced that Exedea had dissolved
as a legal entity. The complaint and notice of investigation sent to
Exedea were returned as undeliverable, and no further action was taken
to serve Exedea. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations did not
participate in this investigation.
Originally, Nokia asserted numerous claims from nine patents
against HTC. Throughout the course of the investigation, several IDs
terminated the investigation with respect to various patents and
claims. See Order No. 9 (Feb. 7, 2013) (terminating the investigation
with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,366,529 because the patent was
covered by an arbitration agreement), not reviewed (Mar. 11, 2013);
Order No. 10 (Apr. 12, 2013) (terminating the investigation with
respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,106,293; 6,141,664; and 7,209,911 patents
based on Nokia's motion to withdraw the patents), not reviewed (Apr.
30, 2013); Order No. 14 (May 14, 2013) (terminating the investigation
with respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,728,530 based on Nokia's motion to
withdraw the patent), not reviewed (May 29, 2013); Order No. 33 (June
13, 2013) (terminating the investigation with respect to U.S. Patent
No. 5,570,369 based on Nokia's motion to withdraw the patent), not
reviewed (July 12, 2013). By the time of the final ID, Nokia asserted
only claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,884,190 (``the '190 patent''); claims
6, 8, 10, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 6,393,260 (``the '260 patent'');
and claims 2, 18, 19, 21, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 7,415,247 (``the
'247 patent'').
On May 2, 2013, the ALJ issued an initial determination (Order 13)
finding that HTC could not establish its defense of patent exhaustion.
Nokia and HTC both petitioned for review of Order 13. On June 4, 2013,
the Commission determined to review Order 13, and stated that it would
render its final disposition on Order 13 in conjunction with the final
disposition of the final initial determination in this investigation.
Accordingly, Order 13 remains under review.
On September 23, 2013, the presiding ALJ issued his final ID,
finding a violation of section 337 with respect to claims 6, 8, 10, and
11 of the '260 patent and claims 18, 19, 21, and 23 of the '247 patent,
and finding no violation with respect to the '190 patent and claim 2 of
the '247 patent. The ALJ recommended that a limited exclusion order
issue against all infringing articles imported, sold for importation,
or sold after importation by HTC. The ALJ also recommended that a
cease-and-desist order issue against HTC.
On October 23, 2013, HTC filed a petition for review challenging
several grounds for the ALJ's determination that HTC violated section
337. On October 31, 2013, Nokia filed a response in opposition to HTC's
petition.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the petition for review, and the response thereto, the
Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. Specifically,
the Commission has determined to review the ALJ's findings on claim
construction, infringement, and the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement for the limitations ``balance adjustment means''
of the '260 patent and ``different radio interfaces''/``different radio
communications systems'' of the '247 patent. The Commission has
determined to review the ALJ's remaining findings on infringement and
the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '247
patent. The Commission has also determined to review the striking of
the testimony and witness statements of Dr. Colyannides. The Commission
has determined not to review the remaining findings in 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 briefing on the following issues:
1. Whether the phrase ``comprising transistors, or implemented
using a variable voltage source'' is an appropriate modifier of the
corresponding structure for the phrase ``balance adjustment means'' in
the '260 patent.
2. Whether Nokia's evidence with regards to the use of transistors
in calibration is sufficient to establish HTC's infringement of the
``balance adjustment means'' limitation in the '260 patent.
3. Whether Nokia abandoned its contentions with respect to claims
18 and 19 of the '247 patent by failing to set forth with particularity
HTC's infringement of the claim limitation ``an input for receiving a
digital baseband quadrature signal representing an information signal
to be transmitted'' in Nokia's pre-hearing brief.
4. Whether a person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the
phrase ``different radio communications systems'' in the context of the
limitation ``wherein said mixer is common for processing signals for
transmission in at least two different radio communication systems, and
wherein said transmitter amplifier is common for amplifying carrier
frequency signals for transmission to at least two different radio
communications systems . . .'' in light of the specification and
prosecution history of the '247 patent, would have understood that the
disclosed common mixer and common transmitter amplifier could be
utilized with radio communications systems that differed in ways other
than by frequency band.
5. Whether the Federal Circuit's decision in Lifescan Scotland,
Ltd. v. Shasta Techs., LLC, 734 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2013), or any
other relevant court decisions, affects HTC's defense of patent
exhaustion based on the transfer of rights under the Nokia-Qualcomm
agreement.
The parties have been invited to brief only the discrete issues
described above, with reference to the applicable law and evidentiary
record. The parties are not to brief other issues on review, which
[[Page 75944]]
are adequately presented in the parties' existing filings.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of
the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2)
issue a cease and desist order that could result in the respondent
being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the
importation and sale of such articles. 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, 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 a cease and desist order 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. The Commission is particularly
interested in briefing on the following issues:
1. HTC's statement on the public interest contends that the
Qualcomm Magellan and Odyssey transceiver chips have become a de facto
standard in the mobile devices industry. What evidence exists to
support or refute HTC's contention? If HTC is correct, please discuss
any evidence regarding whether the exclusion of HTC devices containing
the Qualcomm Magellan and Odyssey chips raise any concerns similar to
those raised by some commentators regarding patent hold-up in the
FRAND-encumbered standards-essential patent context?
2. Several entities submitted statements on the public interest
asserting that the Commission should consider in its public interest
analysis the fact that HTC's accused products are complex devices
comprising numerous components, whereas Nokia's infringement
allegations are directed to a single component of the accused devices.
How (if at all) should the Commission consider such a factor in
determining whether to issue such a remedy or in fashioning an
appropriate remedy in this investigation?
3. How (if at all) should Nokia's covenant not to sue Qualcomm over
the asserted patents affect the Commission's consideration of the
public interest in determining whether to issue a remedy against HTC
based on the functionality of Qualcomm components or in fashioning an
appropriate remedy in this investigation?
4. Several entities submitted statements on the public interest
asserting that there should be a transition period for any remedy
issued against HTC. Please explain and provide evidence regarding
whether such a transition period is warranted in this investigation.
Additionally, please explain and provide evidence regarding the
appropriate duration for any such transition period.
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 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 entirety of the parties' written submissions
must not exceed 75 pages, and must be filed no later than close of
business on December 23, 2013. Reply submissions must not exceed 50
pages, and must be filed no later than the close of business on January
6, 2014. 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-847'') 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 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: December 9, 2013.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-29738 Filed 12-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
