Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices With Graphics Processing and Graphics Processing Units Therein Commission Decision Not To Review the ALJ's Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Termination of Investigation, 79096-79097 [2015-31816]

Download as PDF 79096 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 243 / Friday, December 18, 2015 / Notices Background On October 28, 2015, TB Wood’s Incorporated, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania filed petitions with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV imports of IMTDCs from Canada and China and subsidized imports of IMTDCs from China. Accordingly, effective October 28, 2015, the Commission, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), instituted countervailing duty investigation No. 701–TA–550 and antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731–TA–1304–1305 (Preliminary). Notice of the institution of the Commission’s investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of November 3, 2015 (80 FR 67789). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on November 18, 2015, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on December 14, 2015. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4587 (December 2015), entitled Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and China: Investigation Nos. 701–TA–550 and 731–TA–1304–1305 (Preliminary). By order of the Commission. Issued: December 14, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2015–31779 Filed 12–17–15; 8:45 am] mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES BILLING CODE 7020–02–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:20 Dec 17, 2015 Jkt 238001 INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–932] Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices With Graphics Processing and Graphics Processing Units Therein Commission Decision Not To Review the ALJ’s Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Termination of Investigation U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the final initial determination (ID) issued on October 9, 2015, which found no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Traud, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3427. 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. Hearingimpaired 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 based on a complaint filed by NVIDIA Corporation of Santa Clara, California (NVIDIA). The investigation was instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain consumer electronics and display devices with graphics processing and graphics processing units therein by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 6,198,488 (the ’488 patent); claims 1 29 of U.S. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Patent No. 6,992,667 (the ’667 patent); claims 1 5, 7 19, 21 23, 25 30, 34 36, 38, and 41 43 of U.S. Patent No. 7,038,685 (the ’685 patent); claims 5 8, 10, 12 20, and 24 27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,015,913 (the ’913 patent); claims 7, 8, 11 13, 16 21, 23, 24, 28, and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 6,697,063 (the ’063 patent); claims 1 10, 12, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,209,140 (the ’140 patent); and claims 1 6, 9 16, and 19 25 of U.S. Patent No. 6,690,372 (the ’372 patent), and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. 79 FR 61338 (Oct. 10, 2014). Respondents include Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Republic of Korea); Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Ridgefield Park, NJ); Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (Richardson, TX); Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (San Jose, CA); and Qualcomm, Inc. (San Diego, CA) (collectively, Respondents). NVIDIA later withdrew all allegations regarding the ’488, ’667, ’913, and ’063 patents and some allegations regarding the ’140, ’372, and ’685 patents. On October 9, 2015, the presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) issued his ID finding no violation by Respondents of section 337 with respect to the remaining allegations. Specifically, regarding the ‘140 patent, the ID concluded: (1) Claim 14 is invalid for obviousness; (2) the accused products do not infringe; and (3) there is no domestic industry. Regarding the ‘372 patent, the ID concluded: (1) Claim 23 and claim 24 are invalid for anticipation; (2) some of the accused products infringe claim 23, but none of the accused products infringe claim 24; and (3) there is no domestic industry. Regarding the ‘685 patent, the ID concluded: (1) Neither claim 1 nor claim 15 are invalid for anticipation; (2) the accused products do not infringe claim 1 or claim 15; and (3) there is a domestic industry. The ID additionally found that the scope of this investigation is limited to consumer electronics and display devices that include graphics processing capabilities and that have graphics processing units therein, rejecting NVIDIA’s argument to include Qualcomm graphics processing units separate and apart from the consumer electronic and display devices. On October 26, 2015, NVIDIA filed a petition for review of the ALJ’s findings related to the ’372 and ’685 patents, and Respondents filed a contingent petition for review of the ALJ’s findings related to the ’140 and ’685 patents. NVIDIA did not seek review of the ALJ’s findings related to the ’140 patent. On October 30, 2015, the ALJ issued his recommended determination on remedy E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM 18DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 243 / Friday, December 18, 2015 / Notices and bond. On November 3, 2015, NVIDIA, Respondents, and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations filed responses to the petitions and contingent petitions. Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ID, the petition for review, the contingent petition thereto, and the respective responses, the Commission has determined not to review the ID. On September 24, 2015, NVIDIA filed an Unopposed Motion to Terminate the Investigation as to Respondent Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. We have reviewed the motion, and it is granted. 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 14, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2015–31816 Filed 12–17–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731–TA–125 (Fourth Review)] Potassium Permanganate From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year Review United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. SUMMARY: DATES: Effective Date: December 7, 2015. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Szustakowski ((202) 205–3169), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:20 Dec 17, 2015 Jkt 238001 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 this review may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background.—On December 7, 2015, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (80 FR 52793, September 1, 2015) of the subject five-year review was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate.1 The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review.2 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)). For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207). Staff report.—A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the review will be placed in the nonpublic record on December 28, 2015, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for this review. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. Written submissions.—As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s rules, interested parties that are parties to the review and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution,3 and any party other than an interested party to the review may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the review. Comments are due on or before January 5, 2016 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year review nor an interested party may submit a brief 1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner’s statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission’s Web site. 2 Chairman Meredith M. Broadbent voted to conduct a full review. 3 The Commission has found the response submitted by Carus Corporation to be individually adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 79097 written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the review by January 5, 2016. However, should the Department of Commerce extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its review, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce’s final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce’s results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. Please be aware that the Commission’s rules with respect to filing have changed. The most recent amendments took effect on July 25, 2014. See 79 FR 35920 (June 25, 2014), and the revised Commission Handbook on E-filing, available from the Commission’s Web site at https:// edis.usitc.gov. In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Authority: This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: December 14, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2015–31809 Filed 12–17–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–946] Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof; Commission’s Determination to Review an Initial Determination in Part and, on Review, To Affirm a Finding of a Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions on Remedy, the 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 reviewin-part the initial determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on October 28, 2015, SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM 18DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 243 (Friday, December 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79096-79097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31816]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-932]


Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices With Graphics 
Processing and Graphics Processing Units Therein Commission Decision 
Not To Review the ALJ's Final Initial Determination Finding No 
Violation of Section 337; Termination of Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined not to review the final initial determination 
(ID) issued on October 9, 2015, which found no violation of section 337 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Traud, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3427. 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 
based on a complaint filed by NVIDIA Corporation of Santa Clara, 
California (NVIDIA). The investigation was instituted to determine 
whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in 
the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or 
the sale within the United States after importation of certain consumer 
electronics and display devices with graphics processing and graphics 
processing units therein by reason of infringement of one or more of 
claims 1, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 6,198,488 (the '488 patent); 
claims 1 29 of U.S. Patent No. 6,992,667 (the '667 patent); claims 1 5, 
7 19, 21 23, 25 30, 34 36, 38, and 41 43 of U.S. Patent No. 7,038,685 
(the '685 patent); claims 5 8, 10, 12 20, and 24 27 of U.S. Patent No. 
7,015,913 (the '913 patent); claims 7, 8, 11 13, 16 21, 23, 24, 28, and 
29 of U.S. Patent No. 6,697,063 (the '063 patent); claims 1 10, 12, and 
14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,209,140 (the '140 patent); and claims 1 6, 9 
16, and 19 25 of U.S. Patent No. 6,690,372 (the '372 patent), and 
whether an industry in the United States exists as required by 
subsection (a)(2) of section 337. 79 FR 61338 (Oct. 10, 2014). 
Respondents include Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Republic of Korea); 
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Ridgefield Park, NJ); Samsung 
Telecommunications America, LLC (Richardson, TX); Samsung 
Semiconductor, Inc. (San Jose, CA); and Qualcomm, Inc. (San Diego, CA) 
(collectively, Respondents). NVIDIA later withdrew all allegations 
regarding the '488, '667, '913, and '063 patents and some allegations 
regarding the '140, '372, and '685 patents.
    On October 9, 2015, the presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) 
issued his ID finding no violation by Respondents of section 337 with 
respect to the remaining allegations. Specifically, regarding the `140 
patent, the ID concluded: (1) Claim 14 is invalid for obviousness; (2) 
the accused products do not infringe; and (3) there is no domestic 
industry. Regarding the `372 patent, the ID concluded: (1) Claim 23 and 
claim 24 are invalid for anticipation; (2) some of the accused products 
infringe claim 23, but none of the accused products infringe claim 24; 
and (3) there is no domestic industry. Regarding the `685 patent, the 
ID concluded: (1) Neither claim 1 nor claim 15 are invalid for 
anticipation; (2) the accused products do not infringe claim 1 or claim 
15; and (3) there is a domestic industry. The ID additionally found 
that the scope of this investigation is limited to consumer electronics 
and display devices that include graphics processing capabilities and 
that have graphics processing units therein, rejecting NVIDIA's 
argument to include Qualcomm graphics processing units separate and 
apart from the consumer electronic and display devices.
    On October 26, 2015, NVIDIA filed a petition for review of the 
ALJ's findings related to the '372 and '685 patents, and Respondents 
filed a contingent petition for review of the ALJ's findings related to 
the '140 and '685 patents. NVIDIA did not seek review of the ALJ's 
findings related to the '140 patent. On October 30, 2015, the ALJ 
issued his recommended determination on remedy

[[Page 79097]]

and bond. On November 3, 2015, NVIDIA, Respondents, and the Office of 
Unfair Import Investigations filed responses to the petitions and 
contingent petitions. Having examined the record of this investigation, 
including the ID, the petition for review, the contingent petition 
thereto, and the respective responses, the Commission has determined 
not to review the ID.
    On September 24, 2015, NVIDIA filed an Unopposed Motion to 
Terminate the Investigation as to Respondent Samsung Telecommunications 
America, LLC. We have reviewed the motion, and it is granted.
    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 14, 2015.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-31816 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.