In the Matter of Certain GPS Devices and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Determination on Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest and Bonding, 61169-61170 [E8-24553]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Notices
On September 17, 2008, the ALJ
issued the subject ID granting the joint
motion to amend. No party petitioned
for review of the ID. The Commission
has determined not to review this 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
sections 210.14 and 210.42(c) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR 210.14, 210.42(c).
Issued: October 8, 2008
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–24555 Filed 10–14–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–602]
In the Matter of Certain GPS Devices
and Products Containing Same; Notice
of Commission Determination To
Review in Part a Final Determination
on Violation of Section 337; Schedule
for Filing Written Submissions on the
Issues Under Review and on Remedy,
the Public Interest and Bonding
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in part the final initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on
August 8, 2008, regarding whether there
is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the
above-captioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel E. Valencia, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–1999. 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:32 Oct 14, 2008
Jkt 217001
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 May 7, 2007, based on a complaint
filed by Global Locate, Inc. (‘‘Global
Locate’’). 72 FR 25777 (May 7, 2007).
The complaint alleged 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 GPS (Global
Positioning System) devices and
products containing the same by reason
of infringement of various claims of
United States Patent Nos. 6,417,801
(‘‘the ‘801 patent’’); 6,606,346 (‘‘the ‘346
patent’’); 6,651,000 (‘‘the ‘000 patent’’);
6,704,651 (‘‘the ‘651 patent’’); 6,937,187
(‘‘the ‘187 patent’’); and 7,158,080 (‘‘the
‘080 patent’’). The complaint named five
respondents: SiRF Technology, Inc.
(‘‘SiRF’’); Pharos Science &
Applications, Inc. (‘‘Pharos’’); MiTAC
International Corp. (‘‘MiTAC’’); Mio
Technology Ltd., USA (‘‘Mio’’); and ETEN Information Systems Co., Ltd. (‘‘ETEN’’) (collectively, ‘‘respondents’’).
The notice of investigation was
subsequently amended to add Broadcom
Corporation (‘‘Broadcom’’) as a
complainant inasmuch as Broadcom
acquired Global Locate.
On August 8, 2008, the ALJ issued his
final ID, and on August 22, 2008, he
issued his recommended determination
on remedy and bonding. In his ID, the
ALJ found a violation of section 337 in
the importation and the sale after
importation of certain GPS devices and
products containing the same, in
connection with the asserted claims of
each of the six patents at issue.
Respondents and the Commission
investigative attorney (IA) each filed
petitions for review on August 25, 2008.
On September 5, 2008, Complainants
and the IA each filed responses to the
petitions for review.
On September 16, 2008, Respondents
filed a motion for leave to reply in
support of their petition for review of
the ID. On September 22, 2008,
Complainants opposed the motion.
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. Specifically, the Commission has
determined to review (1) ALJ’s finding
that Global Locate has standing to assert
the ’346 patent; (2) the ALJ’s finding
that SiRF directly infringes claim 1 of
the ‘651 patent through its commercial
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61169
activities; and (3) the ALJ’s finding that
SiRF directly infringes claim 1 of the
‘000 patent through its commercial
activities. The Commission has
determined not to review the remaining
issues raised by the petitions for review,
and has denied Respondents’ motion for
leave to file a reply.
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 responses to
the following questions:
1. Please address the issue of whether
Global Locate has standing to assert the
‘346 patent in light of provision 2.1 in
RX–286. Please cite record evidence
and/or relevant legal precedent to
support your position.
2. Does SiRF practice the element
‘‘processing satellite signals * * *’’ of
the method of claim 1 of the ‘651 patent
vicariously through end users of the
accused products? See BMC Resources,
Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373
(Fed. Cir. 2007) and Muniauction, Inc. v.
Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). Please cite record evidence
and relevant legal authority to support
your position.
3. Does SiRF practice the third
element (‘‘at the remote receiver,
representing said formatted data in a
second format supported by the remote
receiver’’) of the method of claim 1 of
the ‘000 patent vicariously through end
users of the accused products? See BMC
Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498
F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and
Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp.,
532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Please
cite record evidence and any relevant
legal authority to support your position.
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 one or
more cease and desist orders that could
result in the respondent(s) 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 In the Matter of Certain
E:\FR\FM\15OCN1.SGM
15OCN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
61170
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Notices
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 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.
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. Complainants
and the IA are also requested to submit
proposed remedial orders for the
Commission’s consideration.
Complainants are also requested to state
the dates that the patents expire and the
HTSUS numbers under which the
accused products are imported. The
written submissions and proposed
remedial orders must be filed no later
than close of business on Monday,
October 27, 2008. Reply submissions
must be filed no later than the close of
business on Monday, November 3, 2008.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:32 Oct 14, 2008
Jkt 217001
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 and 210.50 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 and
210.50).
Issued: October 9, 2008.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–24553 Filed 10–14–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Bureau of International Labor Affairs;
Request for Information on Forced/
Indentured Child Labor Pursuant to
Executive Order 13126
Office of the Secretary, Labor.
Request for information on
forced child labor in the production of
bricks, coal, foundry products,
chemicals, cotton, grape products, toys,
and fireworks in China.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: This notice is a request for
information to assist the Department of
Labor in conducting a review of a
submission on forced child labor in the
production of bricks, coal, foundry
products, chemicals, cotton, grape
products, toys, and fireworks in China.
This review is being conducted
pursuant to Executive Order 13126
(‘‘Prohibition of Acquisition of Products
Produced by Forced or Indentured Child
Labor’’) and the ‘‘Procedural Guidelines
for Maintenance of the List of Products
Requiring Federal Contractor
Certification as to Forced or Indentured
Child Labor’’ at 48 CFR Subpart 22.15.
The Department anticipates that
written information regarding forced
child labor in the above products in
China will aid it in determining, in
consultation with the Departments of
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
State and Homeland Security, whether
these products, and their originating
country, should be added to the
Executive Order list.
DATES: Submitters of information are
requested to provide two (2) copies of
their written submission to the Office of
Child Labor, Forced Labor and Human
Trafficking (OCFT) at the address below
by 5 p.m., December 15, 2008.
To Submit Information, or for Further
Information, Contact: OCFT, Bureau of
International Labor Affairs, U.S.
Department of Labor at (202) 693–4843
(this is not a toll free number).
Information may be submitted by the
following methods:
• Facsimile (fax): OCFT at 202–693–
4830.
• Mail, Express Delivery, Hand
Delivery, and Messenger Service:
Brandie Sasser at U.S. Department of
Labor, OCFT, Bureau of International
Labor Affairs, 200 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Room S–5317, Washington, DC
20210.
• E-mail: EO13126@dol.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Executive Order No. 13126, which
was published in the Federal Register
on June 16, 1999 (64 FR 32383–32385),
declared that it was ‘‘the policy of the
United States Government’’ that the
executive agencies shall take
appropriate actions to enforce the laws
prohibiting the manufacture or
importation of good, wares articles, and
merchandise mined, produced or
manufactured wholly or in part by
forced or indentured child labor.’’
Pursuant to the Executive Order, and
following public notice and comment,
the Department of Labor published in
the January 18, 2001, Federal Register,
a final list of products (the ‘‘List’’),
identified by their country of origin, that
the Department, in consultation and
cooperation with the Departments of
State and Treasury [relevant
responsibilities now within the
Department of Homeland Security], had
a reasonable basis to believe might have
been mined, produced or manufactured
with forced or indentured child labor
(66 FR 5353). In addition to the List, the
Department also published on January
18, 2001, ‘‘Procedural Guidelines for
Maintenance of the List of Products
Requiring Federal Contractor
Certification as to Forced or Indentured
Child Labor,’’ which provide for
maintaining, reviewing, and, as
appropriate, revising the list of products
required by Executive Order 13126 (66
FR 5351). The List can be accessed on
the Internet at https://www.dol.gov/ilab
E:\FR\FM\15OCN1.SGM
15OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61169-61170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24553]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-602]
In the Matter of Certain GPS Devices and Products Containing
Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final
Determination on Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written
Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public
Interest and Bonding
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review in part the final initial
determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') on August 8, 2008, regarding whether there is a violation of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the above-
captioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel E. Valencia, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-1999. 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 May 7, 2007, based on a complaint filed by Global Locate, Inc.
(``Global Locate''). 72 FR 25777 (May 7, 2007). The complaint alleged
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 GPS
(Global Positioning System) devices and products containing the same by
reason of infringement of various claims of United States Patent Nos.
6,417,801 (``the `801 patent''); 6,606,346 (``the `346 patent'');
6,651,000 (``the `000 patent''); 6,704,651 (``the `651 patent'');
6,937,187 (``the `187 patent''); and 7,158,080 (``the `080 patent'').
The complaint named five respondents: SiRF Technology, Inc. (``SiRF'');
Pharos Science & Applications, Inc. (``Pharos''); MiTAC International
Corp. (``MiTAC''); Mio Technology Ltd., USA (``Mio''); and E-TEN
Information Systems Co., Ltd. (``E-TEN'') (collectively,
``respondents''). The notice of investigation was subsequently amended
to add Broadcom Corporation (``Broadcom'') as a complainant inasmuch as
Broadcom acquired Global Locate.
On August 8, 2008, the ALJ issued his final ID, and on August 22,
2008, he issued his recommended determination on remedy and bonding. In
his ID, the ALJ found a violation of section 337 in the importation and
the sale after importation of certain GPS devices and products
containing the same, in connection with the asserted claims of each of
the six patents at issue. Respondents and the Commission investigative
attorney (IA) each filed petitions for review on August 25, 2008. On
September 5, 2008, Complainants and the IA each filed responses to the
petitions for review.
On September 16, 2008, Respondents filed a motion for leave to
reply in support of their petition for review of the ID. On September
22, 2008, Complainants opposed the motion.
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.
Specifically, the Commission has determined to review (1) ALJ's finding
that Global Locate has standing to assert the '346 patent; (2) the
ALJ's finding that SiRF directly infringes claim 1 of the `651 patent
through its commercial activities; and (3) the ALJ's finding that SiRF
directly infringes claim 1 of the `000 patent through its commercial
activities. The Commission has determined not to review the remaining
issues raised by the petitions for review, and has denied Respondents'
motion for leave to file a reply.
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 responses to the following questions:
1. Please address the issue of whether Global Locate has standing
to assert the `346 patent in light of provision 2.1 in RX-286. Please
cite record evidence and/or relevant legal precedent to support your
position.
2. Does SiRF practice the element ``processing satellite signals *
* *'' of the method of claim 1 of the `651 patent vicariously through
end users of the accused products? See BMC Resources, Inc. v.
Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and Muniauction, Inc.
v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Please cite record
evidence and relevant legal authority to support your position.
3. Does SiRF practice the third element (``at the remote receiver,
representing said formatted data in a second format supported by the
remote receiver'') of the method of claim 1 of the `000 patent
vicariously through end users of the accused products? See BMC
Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and
Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Please cite record evidence and any relevant legal authority to support
your position.
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 one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the
respondent(s) 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 In the Matter of Certain
[[Page 61170]]
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 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.
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. Complainants and the IA are also requested to
submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration.
Complainants are also requested to state the dates that the patents
expire and the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are
imported. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be
filed no later than close of business on Monday, October 27, 2008.
Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on
Monday, November 3, 2008. 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 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46 and 210.50).
Issued: October 9, 2008.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8-24553 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
