Certain Wireless Devices With 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof; Commission Determination Terminating the Investigation With a Finding of No Violation, 49338-49339 [2014-19715]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
49338
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Notices
Detailed information concerning the
proposed land sale, including sale
procedures, appraisal, planning and
environmental documents, and a
mineral report is available for review at
the location identified in ADDRESSES
above. Comments regarding the
proposed sale will be accepted until
October 6, 2014.
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.
Any comments regarding the
proposed sale will be reviewed by the
BLM Wyoming State Director or
authorized official of the Department of
the Interior, who may sustain, vacate, or
modify this realty action in response to
such comments. In the absence of timely
filed objections, this realty action will
become the final determination of the
Department of the Interior.
Authority: 43 CFR 2711.1–2.
Donald A. Simpson,
State Director, Wyoming.
[FR Doc. 2014–19731 Filed 8–19–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–22–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–868]
Certain Wireless Devices With 3G and/
or 4G Capabilities and Components
Thereof; Commission Determination
Terminating the Investigation With a
Finding of No Violation
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
(‘‘final ID’’) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on
June 13, 2014, finding no violation of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section
337’’), in this investigation. On review,
the Commission has determined to
reverse certain findings, to take no
position on others, and to terminate the
investigation with a finding of no
violation.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:44 Aug 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–2532. 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 February 5, 2013, based on a
complaint filed by InterDigital
Communications, Inc. of King of
Prussia, Pennsylvania, as well as
InterDigital Technology Corporation,
IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital
Holdings, Inc., each of Wilmington,
Delaware (collectively, ‘‘InterDigital’’).
78 FR. 8191 (February 5, 2013). The
complaint alleged violations of section
337 by reason of the infringement of
certain claims from seven United States
Patents. The notice of investigation
named ten respondents including
Nokia, Inc. of White Plains, New York;
and Nokia Corp. of Espoo, Finland; as
well as ZTE Corporation of Shenzhen,
China; and ZTE (USA) Inc. of
Richardson, Texas (collectively, ‘‘ZTE’’).
On July 14, 2014, the Commission
determined not to review an initial
determination (Order No. 116) that
added as a respondent Microsoft
Mobility OY (collectively with the two
Nokia respondents, ‘‘Nokia’’). The
accused ZTE products are certain ZTE
wireless devices with WCDMA or LTE
functionality. The accused Nokia
products are certain Nokia wireless
devices with 4G functionality.
Three asserted patents remain in the
investigation: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,190,966
(‘‘the ’966 patent’’) and 7,286,847 (‘‘the
’847 patent’’) (collectively, the ‘‘Power
Ramp-Up Patents’’), and U.S. Patent No.
7,941,151 (‘‘the ’151 patent’’).
InterDigital asserted claims 1, 3, 6, 8,
and 9 of the ’966 patent and claims 3
and 5 of the ’847 patent against ZTE.
Independent claims 1 and 16 and
dependent claims 2–6, 8–9, 17–21 and
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23–24 of the ’151 patent are asserted
against Nokia and ZTE.
On June 13, 2014, the ALJ issued the
final ID, which finds no violation of
section 337 as to the remaining asserted
patent claims. On June 30, 2014, the
parties filed petitions for review. In
particular, InterDigital and the
Commission investigative attorney
(‘‘IA’’) each filed a petition for review of
certain issues. The respondents filed
two contingent petitions for review. One
contingent petition was based upon
alternative grounds for finding no
violation of section 337. The second
contingent petition concerned the
respondents’ affirmative defenses based
upon InterDigital’s alleged obligations
regarding fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory licensing (‘‘FRAND’’).
On July 8, 2014, the parties filed
responses to each other’s petitions. The
Commission received public interest
submissions from the parties and from
United States Senators Robert P. Casey,
Jr., Kirsten Gillibrand, and Patrick
Toomey; Microsoft Corp.; the
Innovation Alliance; and Ericsson Inc.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the petitions for review, and the
responses thereto, the Commission has
determined to review the final ID in
part.
The Commission’s review and
determinations on review are as follows:
1. The Power Ramp-Up Patents
The Commission has determined not
to review the final ID’s construction of
‘‘successively transmitted signals’’/
‘‘successively transmits signals’’ and not
to review the final ID’s findings that,
based upon that construction, the
accused products do not infringe, and
the domestic industry products do not
practice, the asserted patent claims of
the Power Ramp-Up Patents. Final ID at
37–48, 62–65, 134–35; see InterDigital
Pet. 9–22. Accordingly, the Commission
finds no violation of section 337 as to
the asserted claims of the Power RampUp Patents.
The Commission has also determined
not to review the final ID’s finding that
claim 3 of the ’847 patent is not invalid
for lack of adequate written description.
Final ID at 101–03; see IA Pet. 12–15;
Resp’ts’ Pet. 44–45.
2. The ’151 Patent
The Commission has determined not
to review the final ID’s findings that the
accused products do not infringe, and
the domestic industry products do not
practice, the ‘‘same physical downlink
control channel’’ limitation in
independent claims 1 and 16. Final ID
at 54–58, 134; see InterDigital Pet. 33–
E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM
20AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Notices
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
38. Accordingly, the Commission finds
no violation of section 337 as to the
asserted claims of the ’151 patent,
namely independent claims 1 and 16,
and asserted claims dependent upon
them.
The Commission has determined not
to review the final ID’s determination
that claim 16 of the ’151 patent is
invalid for indefiniteness. Final ID at
29–31; see IA Pet. 6–12; InterDigital Pet.
24–29; see also Rembrandt Data Techs.,
LP v. AOL, LLC, 641 F.3d 1331, 1339–
40 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, there
can be no violation of section 337 as to
claim 16 and its asserted dependent
claims.
The Commission has determined to
review the final ID’s construction of
‘‘and to’’ in claim 16 of the ’151 patent,
Final ID at 31–34; see InterDigital Pet.
at 29–33, and on review finds that the
term is to be afforded its plain and
ordinary meaning. In view of the
Commission’s claim construction, the
final ID’s finding of noninfringement of
asserted claims 16–21 and 23–24 based
upon the final ID’s construction, Final
ID at 58–60, is reversed. The
Commission has also determined to
review the final ID’s infringement
analysis of ‘‘and if so’’ for claim 1, Final
ID at 58–60; see InterDigital Pet. at 38–
43, and on review takes no position
whether the accused products practice
the determining steps in sequence as
required for asserted claims 1–6 and 8–
9.
3. Domestic Industry, FRAND, and
Other Issues
Except as recited above concerning
the Commission’s finding that the
domestic industry products do not
practice the asserted patent claims, the
Commission reviews and takes no
position on the remaining domestic
industry issues raised in the parties’
petitions. Similarly, the Commission
reviews and takes no position on the
FRAND issues raised by the respondents
concerning their affirmative defenses.
The Commission finds that it is in the
interest of the efficient use of
administrative, judicial, and private
resources for the domestic industry and
FRAND issues to be decided, if at all,
subsequent to final disposition of the
pending appeal in InterDigital
Communications LLC v. ITC, No. 2014–
1176 (Fed. Cir.), which involves many
of the same parties and issues with
regard to related patents.
The Commission does not review any
other issues raised in the parties’
petitions except as otherwise recited
above. The reasoning in support of the
Commission’s decision will be set forth
in fuller detail in a forthcoming opinion.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:44 Aug 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
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).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: August 14, 2014.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014–19715 Filed 8–19–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–505 and 731–
TA–1231, 1232, 1235, and 1237 (Final)]
Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel
(‘‘GOES’’) From China, Czech
Republic, Korea, and Russia
Supplemental schedule for the subject
investigations.
AGENCY: United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
DATES:
Effective Date: August 13, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of
Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain
information on this matter by contacting
the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–
205–1810. Persons with mobility
impairments who will need special
assistance in gaining access to the
Commission should contact the Office
of the Secretary at 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
these investigations may be viewed on
the Commission’s electronic docket
(EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective
May 9, 2013, the Commission
established a schedule for the conduct
of the final phase of the subject
investigations (79 FR 32310, June 4,
2014). The Department of Commerce
extended the date for its final
determinations in the investigations
concerning China, Czech Republic,
Korea, and Russia to no later than 135
days after the publication of the
preliminary determinations (79 FR
26936, May 12, 2014 (China); 79 FR
26717, May 9, 2014 (Czech Republic);
79 FR 26939, May 12, 2014 (Korea); and
79 FR 26941, May 12, 2014 (Russia)).
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49339
The Commission, therefore, is
supplementing its schedule to conform
with Commerce’s postponed schedule.
The Commission’s supplemental
schedule for the investigations is as
follows: the deadline for filing party
comments on Commerce’s final
determinations is October 2, 2014; the
staff report in the final phase of these
investigations will be placed in the
nonpublic record on October 14, 2014,
and a public version will be issued
thereafter.
Supplemental party comments may
address only Commerce’s final
determinations regarding imports from
China, Czech Republic, Korea, and
Russia. These supplemental final
comments may not contain new factual
information and may not exceed five (5)
pages in length.
For further information concerning
these investigations see the
Commission’s notice cited above and
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, part 201, subparts A through
E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207,
subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Authority: These investigations are being
conducted under authority of title VII of the
Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published
pursuant to section 207.21 of the
Commission’s rules.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: August 14, 2014.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014–19716 Filed 8–19–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Glenn R. Unger, D.D.S.; Declaratory
Order
On March 7, 2014, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Glenn R. Unger, D.D.S.,
of Clifton Park, New York. The Show
Cause Order proposed the revocation of
the Certificate of Registration issued to
Dr. Unger on three separate grounds.
First, the Show Cause Order alleged
that Dr. Unger’s New York State dental
license expired on June 30, 2010, and
that he is ‘‘currently without authority
to practice dentistry or handle
controlled substances in the State of
New York, the State in which [he is]
registered with the DEA.’’ GX 1, at 1–2.
The Order thus alleged that Dr. Unger’s
registration is subject to revocation
under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3). Id. at 2.
E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM
20AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 161 (Wednesday, August 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49338-49339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19715]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-868]
Certain Wireless Devices With 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and
Components Thereof; Commission Determination Terminating the
Investigation With a Finding of No Violation
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 (``final ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law
judge (``ALJ'') on June 13, 2014, finding no violation of section 337
of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''),
in this investigation. On review, the Commission has determined to
reverse certain findings, to take no position on others, and to
terminate the investigation with a finding of no violation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. 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 February 5, 2013, based on a complaint filed by InterDigital
Communications, Inc. of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, as well as
InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc., and
InterDigital Holdings, Inc., each of Wilmington, Delaware
(collectively, ``InterDigital''). 78 FR. 8191 (February 5, 2013). The
complaint alleged violations of section 337 by reason of the
infringement of certain claims from seven United States Patents. The
notice of investigation named ten respondents including Nokia, Inc. of
White Plains, New York; and Nokia Corp. of Espoo, Finland; as well as
ZTE Corporation of Shenzhen, China; and ZTE (USA) Inc. of Richardson,
Texas (collectively, ``ZTE''). On July 14, 2014, the Commission
determined not to review an initial determination (Order No. 116) that
added as a respondent Microsoft Mobility OY (collectively with the two
Nokia respondents, ``Nokia''). The accused ZTE products are certain ZTE
wireless devices with WCDMA or LTE functionality. The accused Nokia
products are certain Nokia wireless devices with 4G functionality.
Three asserted patents remain in the investigation: U.S. Patent
Nos. 7,190,966 (``the '966 patent'') and 7,286,847 (``the '847
patent'') (collectively, the ``Power Ramp-Up Patents''), and U.S.
Patent No. 7,941,151 (``the '151 patent''). InterDigital asserted
claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9 of the '966 patent and claims 3 and 5 of the
'847 patent against ZTE. Independent claims 1 and 16 and dependent
claims 2-6, 8-9, 17-21 and 23-24 of the '151 patent are asserted
against Nokia and ZTE.
On June 13, 2014, the ALJ issued the final ID, which finds no
violation of section 337 as to the remaining asserted patent claims. On
June 30, 2014, the parties filed petitions for review. In particular,
InterDigital and the Commission investigative attorney (``IA'') each
filed a petition for review of certain issues. The respondents filed
two contingent petitions for review. One contingent petition was based
upon alternative grounds for finding no violation of section 337. The
second contingent petition concerned the respondents' affirmative
defenses based upon InterDigital's alleged obligations regarding fair,
reasonable, and non-discriminatory licensing (``FRAND''). On July 8,
2014, the parties filed responses to each other's petitions. The
Commission received public interest submissions from the parties and
from United States Senators Robert P. Casey, Jr., Kirsten Gillibrand,
and Patrick Toomey; Microsoft Corp.; the Innovation Alliance; and
Ericsson Inc.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto,
the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part.
The Commission's review and determinations on review are as
follows:
1. The Power Ramp-Up Patents
The Commission has determined not to review the final ID's
construction of ``successively transmitted signals''/``successively
transmits signals'' and not to review the final ID's findings that,
based upon that construction, the accused products do not infringe, and
the domestic industry products do not practice, the asserted patent
claims of the Power Ramp-Up Patents. Final ID at 37-48, 62-65, 134-35;
see InterDigital Pet. 9-22. Accordingly, the Commission finds no
violation of section 337 as to the asserted claims of the Power Ramp-Up
Patents.
The Commission has also determined not to review the final ID's
finding that claim 3 of the '847 patent is not invalid for lack of
adequate written description. Final ID at 101-03; see IA Pet. 12-15;
Resp'ts' Pet. 44-45.
2. The '151 Patent
The Commission has determined not to review the final ID's findings
that the accused products do not infringe, and the domestic industry
products do not practice, the ``same physical downlink control
channel'' limitation in independent claims 1 and 16. Final ID at 54-58,
134; see InterDigital Pet. 33-
[[Page 49339]]
38. Accordingly, the Commission finds no violation of section 337 as to
the asserted claims of the '151 patent, namely independent claims 1 and
16, and asserted claims dependent upon them.
The Commission has determined not to review the final ID's
determination that claim 16 of the '151 patent is invalid for
indefiniteness. Final ID at 29-31; see IA Pet. 6-12; InterDigital Pet.
24-29; see also Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC, 641 F.3d 1331,
1339-40 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, there can be no violation of
section 337 as to claim 16 and its asserted dependent claims.
The Commission has determined to review the final ID's construction
of ``and to'' in claim 16 of the '151 patent, Final ID at 31-34; see
InterDigital Pet. at 29-33, and on review finds that the term is to be
afforded its plain and ordinary meaning. In view of the Commission's
claim construction, the final ID's finding of noninfringement of
asserted claims 16-21 and 23-24 based upon the final ID's construction,
Final ID at 58-60, is reversed. The Commission has also determined to
review the final ID's infringement analysis of ``and if so'' for claim
1, Final ID at 58-60; see InterDigital Pet. at 38-43, and on review
takes no position whether the accused products practice the determining
steps in sequence as required for asserted claims 1-6 and 8-9.
3. Domestic Industry, FRAND, and Other Issues
Except as recited above concerning the Commission's finding that
the domestic industry products do not practice the asserted patent
claims, the Commission reviews and takes no position on the remaining
domestic industry issues raised in the parties' petitions. Similarly,
the Commission reviews and takes no position on the FRAND issues raised
by the respondents concerning their affirmative defenses. The
Commission finds that it is in the interest of the efficient use of
administrative, judicial, and private resources for the domestic
industry and FRAND issues to be decided, if at all, subsequent to final
disposition of the pending appeal in InterDigital Communications LLC v.
ITC, No. 2014-1176 (Fed. Cir.), which involves many of the same parties
and issues with regard to related patents.
The Commission does not review any other issues raised in the
parties' petitions except as otherwise recited above. The reasoning in
support of the Commission's decision will be set forth in fuller detail
in a forthcoming opinion.
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).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: August 14, 2014.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-19715 Filed 8-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
