In the Matter of Certain Unified Communications Systems, Products Used With Such Systems, and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Decision To Review-In-Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337, 15005-15007 [E8-5608]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 55 / Thursday, March 20, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
complaint, as supplemented, alleges
violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (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 DVD players and recorders and
certain products containing the same by
reason of infringement of claims 6 and
7 of U.S. Patent No. 5,587,991, claims 16
and 31 of the ‘523 patent, and claim 4
of U.S. Patent No. 5,956,306. The
complaint named over a dozen
respondents, including the GVG
respondents.
Each respondent has been terminated
from the investigation on the basis of
settlement, consent order, or, in the case
of the GVG respondents, default.
Because the GVG respondents were
found in default, and thus subject to a
limited exclusion order under section
337(g)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1), the
Commission requested briefing from
interested parties on remedy, the public
interest, and bonding on December 17,
2007.
On February 15, 2008, the
Commission issued a limited exclusion
order prohibiting the unlicensed entry
of certain DVD players and recorders
and products containing same by reason
of infringement of claims 6 and 7 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,587,991, claim 31 of the
‘523 patent, and claim 4 of U.S. Patent
No. 5,956,306, and that are
manufactured abroad by or on behalf of,
or imported by or on behalf of, the GVG
respondents. The Commission’s order
was delivered to the President and the
United States Trade Representative on
the day of its issuance.
Under section 337(g)(1), 19 U.S.C.
1337 (g)(1), in the case of a defaulting
respondent, the Commission presumes
facts alleged in the complaint to be true.
Accordingly, method claim 16 of the
‘523 patent should have been included
in the limited exclusion order. The
inclusion of method claim 16 will not
broaden the scope of products covered
by the exclusion order. Rather, it will
merely provide an additional basis for
exclusion of the products already
covered by the order.
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
§ 210.16(c) of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.16(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 14, 2008.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–5609 Filed 3–19–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:44 Mar 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337–TA–596]
In the Matter of: Certain GPS Chips,
Associated Software and Systems, and
Products Containing Same; Notice of
Commission Determination Not To
Review ALJ Order No. 36 Granting in
Part Complainant’s Motion for
Summary Determination That the
Importation Requirements of 19 U.S.C.
1337 Have Been Met
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to
review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
(Order No. 36) of the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’)
granting in part complainant’s motion
for summary determination that the
importation requirements of 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(1)(B) have been met in the
above-captioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Frahm, Office of the General Counsel,
U.S. International Trade Commission,
500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC
20436, telephone 202–205–3152. Copies
of the ID and all other nonconfidential
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. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that
information on this matter can be
obtained by contacting the
Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–
205–1810. 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March
13, 2007, the Commission instituted an
investigation under section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based
on a complaint filed by SiRF
Technology, Inc. of San Jose, California
(‘‘SiRF’’), alleging a violation of section
337 in the importation, sale for
importation, and sale within the United
States after importation of certain GPS
chips, associated software and systems,
and products containing same by reason
of infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 6,304,216; 7,043,363;
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15005
7,091,904 (‘‘the ’904 patent’’); and
7,132,980. 72 FR 11378 (Mar. 13, 2007).
The complainant named Global Locate,
Inc. of San Jose, California (‘‘Global
Locate’’) as respondent. The complaint
and notice of investigation were later
amended to include one additional
claim of the ’904 patent. Subsequently,
the investigation was terminated with
respect to the ’904 patent and certain
other asserted claims of the remaining
patents. The complaint and notice of
investigation were also amended to add
Broadcom, Inc. as a respondent to the
investigation.
On February 1, 2008, complainant
SiRF moved for summary determination
that the importation requirements of 19
U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B) have been met. On
February 15, 2008, Global Locate
opposed SiRF’s motion, and the
Commission investigative attorney
supported SiRF’s motion in part.
On February 26, 2008, the ALJ issued
the subject ID granting complainant’s
motion in part. No party petitioned for
review of the ID, and the Commission
has determined not to review the ID.
The authority for the Commission’s
determination is contained in section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in
section 210.42(h) of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42(h)).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 13, 2008.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–5613 Filed 3–19–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–598]
In the Matter of Certain Unified
Communications Systems, Products
Used With Such Systems, and
Components Thereof; Notice of
Commission Decision To Review-InPart a Final Initial Determination
Finding a Violation of Section 337
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to reviewin-part a final initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) of the presiding administrative
law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) finding a violation of
section 337 in the above-captioned
investigation.
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
15006
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 55 / Thursday, March 20, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clint Gerdine, Esq., 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 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 March 26, 2007, based on a
complaint filed by Microsoft
Corporation (‘‘Microsoft’’) of Redmond,
Washington. 72 FR 14138–9. The
complaint, as amended and
supplemented, 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 unified communications
systems, products used with such
systems, and components thereof by
reason of infringement of certain claims
of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,421,439 (‘‘the ‘439
patent’’); 6,430,289; 6,263,064 (‘‘the ‘064
patent’’); and 6,728,357. The complaint
further alleges the existence of a
domestic industry. The Commission’s
notice of investigation named AlcatelLucent (‘‘ALE’’) of Paris, France as the
only respondent.
On April 20, 2007, Microsoft moved
to amend the complaint to: (1)
Substitute Alcatel Business Systems for
Alcatel-Lucent as respondent in this
investigation, and (2) add allegations of
infringement of claims 8, 28, 38, and 48
of the ‘439 patent, and claim 20 of the
‘064 patent. Respondent and the
Commission investigative attorney
(‘‘IA’’) did not oppose the motion.
On May 17 and September 20, 2007,
respectively, the Commission
determined not to review IDs, issued by
the presiding ALJ, granting Microsoft’s
motions to amend the complaint and to
terminate the investigation in part based
on Microsoft’s withdrawal of certain
claims. On October 23 and October 26,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:44 Mar 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
2007, respectively, the Commission
determined not to review IDs, issued by
the presiding ALJ, granting Microsoft’s
motion to terminate the investigation in
part based on Microsoft’s withdrawal of
certain claims and granting ALE’s
motion to amend the complaint.
On January 28, 2008, the ALJ issued
his final ID and recommended
determinations on remedy and bonding.
The ALJ found a violation of section 337
based on his findings that the
respondent’s accused products infringe
one or more of the asserted claims of the
patents at issue. On February 11, 2008,
all parties, including the IA, filed
petitions for review of the final ID. On
February 19, 2008, all parties filed
responses to the petitions for review.
Upon considering the parties’ filings,
the Commission has determined to
review-in-part the ID. Specifically, with
respect to the ‘439 patent, the
Commission has determined to review:
(1) The ALJ’s construction of the claim
term ‘‘current activity of subscribers on
the computer network’’; (2) the ALJ’s
determination that ALE’s OXE system
directly and indirectly infringes the ‘439
patent; (3) the ALJ’s determination that
ALE’s OXO system does not infringe the
‘439 patent; (4) the ALJ’s determination
that claims 1 and 28 of the ‘439 patent
are not invalid in view of U.S. Patent
No. 6,041,114 (‘‘the ‘114 patent’’) or U.S.
Patent No. 5,652,789 (‘‘the ‘789 patent’’);
(5) the ALJ’s determination that claim
38 of the ‘439 patent is invalid in view
of the ‘114 patent; and (6) the ALJ’s
determination that claim 38 is not
invalid in view of the ‘789 patent. The
Commission has determined not to
review the remainder of the ID, or ALJ
Order No. 14 for which review was also
sought.
On review, with respect to violation,
the parties are requested to submit
briefing limited to the following issues:
(1) The ALJ’s finding that the ‘‘current
activity of the user on the computer
network’’ as found in the ‘439 patent
‘‘can consist of both user-selected
indicators based on user activity (e.g.,
‘conditional processing’ as per the ‘439
specification) and the transfer of data
between the computer and telephone
networks while the user is engaged in a
VoIP phone call’’ (ID at 47), and the
implications of this finding for the
infringement and invalidity analyses;
(2) What is the exact demarcation
between the ‘439 patent claim terms
‘‘telephone network’’ and ‘‘computer
network’’ as it relates to claim
construction, invalidity using the ‘114
and ‘789 patents, and the infringement
analysis for a Voice-over-IP (VoIP)
communication system;
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(3) Whether the PBX and telecommute
server of the ‘114 patent, functioning
together, can be considered to disclose
the ‘‘network access port’’ and
‘‘controller’’ limitations of claim 1 of the
‘439 patent to anticipate this claim;
(4) To what extent, if any, does
anticipation of claims 1 and 28 of the
‘439 patent depend on a finding that the
claim limitations are inherently
disclosed by the ‘114 and ‘789 patents;
and
(5) Please comment on Microsoft’s
argument that the ALJ, when construing
the term ‘‘current activity’’ to mean
‘‘either the status of the user or
subscriber at the present time or the
most recent status of a user or
subscriber,’’ did so in a manner
inconsistent with Federal Circuit
precedent. Complainant Microsoft’s
Contingent Petition for Review at 9. In
addressing this argument, please
address Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v.
Cybex Int’l, Inc., 423 F.3d 1343 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (‘‘[u]nder Phillips, the rule
that ‘a court will give a claim term the
full range of its ordinary meaning,’
* * * does not mean that the term will
presumptively receive its broadest
dictionary definition or the aggregate of
multiple dictionary definitions * * *’’))
and Impax Labs, Inc. v. Aventis Pharms,
Inc. 468 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(‘‘claim is unpatentable under the
preponderance of evidence, burden-ofproof standard, giving each term its
broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification’’).
In addressing these issues, the parties
are requested to make specific reference
to the evidentiary record and to cite
relevant authority.
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
States. 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 In the Matter of Certain
Devices for Connecting Computers via
Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360,
USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994)
(Commission Opinion).
When the Commission contemplates
some form of remedy, it must consider
the effects of that remedy upon the
public interest. The factors the
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 55 / Thursday, March 20, 2008 / Notices
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.
Written Submissions: The written
submissions mentioned above should be
concise and thoroughly referenced to
the record in this investigation. Also,
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, and such submissions should
address the recommended
determination by the ALJ on remedy
and bonding. The complainant and the
Commission investigative attorney are
also requested to submit proposed
remedial orders for the Commission’s
consideration. Complainants are also
requested to state the dates that the
patents at issue expire and the HTSUS
numbers under which the accused
products are imported. All of the
written submissions and proposed
remedial orders must be filed no later
than close of business on March 24,
2008. Reply submissions must be filed
no later than the close of business on
March 31. No further submissions on
these issues will be permitted unless
otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document and 12
true copies thereof on or before the
deadlines stated above with the Office
of the Secretary. Any person desiring to
submit a document to the Commission
in confidence must request confidential
treatment unless the information has
already been granted such treatment
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:44 Mar 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
during the proceedings. All such
requests should be directed to the
Secretary of the Commission and must
include a full statement of the reasons
why the Commission should grant such
treatment. See 19 CFR 210.6. Documents
for which confidential treatment by the
Commission is sought will be treated
accordingly. All nonconfidential written
submissions will be available for public
inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
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.
Issued: March 14, 2008.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–5608 Filed 3–19–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Settlement
Agreement Pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act
Notice is hereby given that on March
14, 2008 a proposed settlement
agreement in In re W.R. Grace & Co.,
Case No. 01–01139 (JFK), was lodged
with the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware. The
proposed Settlement Agreement would
resolve the United States’ proofs of
claim filed in W.R. Grace & Co.’s
bankruptcy proceeding for
environmental response costs at the
Curtis Bay Site near Baltimore,
Maryland pursuant to section 107 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9607.
Under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, W.R. Grace & Co. will
implement a cleanup action at the
Curtis Bay Site selected by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers. The
Settlement Agreement also allocates
financial responsibility for the cleanup
between the United States and Debtors.
The Department of Justice will
receive, for a period of thirty (30) days
from the date of this publication,
comments relating to the proposed
settlement agreement. Comments should
be addressed to the Assistant Attorney
General for the Environment and
Natural Resources Division, and either
e-mailed to pubcommentees.enrd@usdoj.gov or mailed to P.O.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15007
Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC 20044–7611, and
should refer to In re W.R. Grace & Co.,
Case No. 01–01139 (JFK), and D.J. Ref.
No. 90–11–2–07106/5.
During the public comment period,
the settlement agreement may be
examined on the following Department
of Justice Web site, https://
www.usdoj.gov/enrd/
Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the
settlement agreement may also be
obtained by mail from the Consent
Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC
20044–7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a
request to Tonia Fleetwood
(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no.
(202) 514–0097, phone confirmation
number (202) 514–1547. In requesting a
copy from the Consent Decree Library,
please enclose a check in the amount of
$10.00 ($.25 per page) payable to the
U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax,
forward a check in that amount to the
Consent Decree Library at the stated
address.
Robert D. Brook,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement
Section, Environment and Natural Resources
Division.
[FR Doc. E8–5606 Filed 3–19–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–CW–P
MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP
AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
FOUNDATION
The United States Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution;
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request: See List of
Evaluation Related ICRs Planned for
Submission to OMB in Section A
Morris K. Udall Scholarship
and Excellence in National
Environmental Policy Foundation, U.S.
Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces
that the U.S. Institute for Environmental
Conflict Resolution (the U.S. Institute),
part of the Morris K. Udall Foundation,
is planning to submit seven Information
Collection Requests (ICRs) to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB). Six
of the seven ICRs are for revisions to
currently approved collections due to
expire 06/30/2008 (OMB control
numbers 3320–0003, 3320–0004, 3320–
2005, 3320–0006, 3320–0007, and 3320–
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 55 (Thursday, March 20, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15005-15007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-5608]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-598]
In the Matter of Certain Unified Communications Systems, Products
Used With Such Systems, and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission
Decision To Review-In-Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a
Violation of Section 337
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 a final initial
determination (``ID'') of the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') finding a violation of section 337 in the above-captioned
investigation.
[[Page 15006]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., 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 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 March 26, 2007, based on a complaint filed by Microsoft Corporation
(``Microsoft'') of Redmond, Washington. 72 FR 14138-9. The complaint,
as amended and supplemented, 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 unified communications
systems, products used with such systems, and components thereof by
reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,421,439
(``the `439 patent''); 6,430,289; 6,263,064 (``the `064 patent''); and
6,728,357. The complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic
industry. The Commission's notice of investigation named Alcatel-Lucent
(``ALE'') of Paris, France as the only respondent.
On April 20, 2007, Microsoft moved to amend the complaint to: (1)
Substitute Alcatel Business Systems for Alcatel-Lucent as respondent in
this investigation, and (2) add allegations of infringement of claims
8, 28, 38, and 48 of the `439 patent, and claim 20 of the `064 patent.
Respondent and the Commission investigative attorney (``IA'') did not
oppose the motion.
On May 17 and September 20, 2007, respectively, the Commission
determined not to review IDs, issued by the presiding ALJ, granting
Microsoft's motions to amend the complaint and to terminate the
investigation in part based on Microsoft's withdrawal of certain
claims. On October 23 and October 26, 2007, respectively, the
Commission determined not to review IDs, issued by the presiding ALJ,
granting Microsoft's motion to terminate the investigation in part
based on Microsoft's withdrawal of certain claims and granting ALE's
motion to amend the complaint.
On January 28, 2008, the ALJ issued his final ID and recommended
determinations on remedy and bonding. The ALJ found a violation of
section 337 based on his findings that the respondent's accused
products infringe one or more of the asserted claims of the patents at
issue. On February 11, 2008, all parties, including the IA, filed
petitions for review of the final ID. On February 19, 2008, all parties
filed responses to the petitions for review.
Upon considering the parties' filings, the Commission has
determined to review-in-part the ID. Specifically, with respect to the
`439 patent, the Commission has determined to review: (1) The ALJ's
construction of the claim term ``current activity of subscribers on the
computer network''; (2) the ALJ's determination that ALE's OXE system
directly and indirectly infringes the `439 patent; (3) the ALJ's
determination that ALE's OXO system does not infringe the `439 patent;
(4) the ALJ's determination that claims 1 and 28 of the `439 patent are
not invalid in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,041,114 (``the `114 patent'')
or U.S. Patent No. 5,652,789 (``the `789 patent''); (5) the ALJ's
determination that claim 38 of the `439 patent is invalid in view of
the `114 patent; and (6) the ALJ's determination that claim 38 is not
invalid in view of the `789 patent. The Commission has determined not
to review the remainder of the ID, or ALJ Order No. 14 for which review
was also sought.
On review, with respect to violation, the parties are requested to
submit briefing limited to the following issues:
(1) The ALJ's finding that the ``current activity of the user on
the computer network'' as found in the `439 patent ``can consist of
both user-selected indicators based on user activity (e.g.,
`conditional processing' as per the `439 specification) and the
transfer of data between the computer and telephone networks while the
user is engaged in a VoIP phone call'' (ID at 47), and the implications
of this finding for the infringement and invalidity analyses;
(2) What is the exact demarcation between the `439 patent claim
terms ``telephone network'' and ``computer network'' as it relates to
claim construction, invalidity using the `114 and `789 patents, and the
infringement analysis for a Voice-over-IP (VoIP) communication system;
(3) Whether the PBX and telecommute server of the `114 patent,
functioning together, can be considered to disclose the ``network
access port'' and ``controller'' limitations of claim 1 of the `439
patent to anticipate this claim;
(4) To what extent, if any, does anticipation of claims 1 and 28 of
the `439 patent depend on a finding that the claim limitations are
inherently disclosed by the `114 and `789 patents; and
(5) Please comment on Microsoft's argument that the ALJ, when
construing the term ``current activity'' to mean ``either the status of
the user or subscriber at the present time or the most recent status of
a user or subscriber,'' did so in a manner inconsistent with Federal
Circuit precedent. Complainant Microsoft's Contingent Petition for
Review at 9. In addressing this argument, please address Free Motion
Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int'l, Inc., 423 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(``[u]nder Phillips, the rule that `a court will give a claim term the
full range of its ordinary meaning,' * * * does not mean that the term
will presumptively receive its broadest dictionary definition or the
aggregate of multiple dictionary definitions * * *'')) and Impax Labs,
Inc. v. Aventis Pharms, Inc. 468 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(``claim is unpatentable under the preponderance of evidence, burden-
of-proof standard, giving each term its broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the specification'').
In addressing these issues, the parties are requested to make
specific reference to the evidentiary record and to cite relevant
authority.
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 States. 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 In the Matter of Certain Devices for Connecting
Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843
(December 1994) (Commission Opinion).
When the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The
factors the
[[Page 15007]]
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.
Written Submissions: The written submissions mentioned above should
be concise and thoroughly referenced to the record in this
investigation. Also, 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, and such submissions should address the recommended
determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. The complainant and the
Commission investigative attorney are also requested to submit proposed
remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainants are
also requested to state the dates that the patents at issue expire and
the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported. All of
the written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no
later than close of business on March 24, 2008. Reply submissions must
be filed no later than the close of business on March 31. No further
submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered
by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with
the Office of the Secretary. Any person desiring to submit a document
to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment
unless the information has already been granted such treatment during
the proceedings. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary
of the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why
the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 210.6. Documents
for which confidential treatment by the Commission is sought will be
treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be
available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
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.
Issued: March 14, 2008.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8-5608 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
