In the Matter of: Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination That June 22, 2010, Initial Determination Is an Order Rather Than an Initial Determination, 65654 [2010-26976]

Download as PDF 65654 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Notices INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–703] In the Matter of: Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof;Notice of Commission Determination ThatJune 22, 2010, Initial Determination Is an OrderRather Than an Initial Determination U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined that the June 22, 2010, initial determination on claim construction (‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in the above-captioned investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’) is properly issued in the form of an order rather than an initial determination. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Worth, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3065. 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 (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 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: This investigation was instituted on February 23, 2010, based upon a complaint filed on behalf of Eastman Kodak Company of Rochester, New York (‘‘Kodak’’) on January 14, 2010, and supplemented on February 4, 2010. 75 FR 8112. 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 mobile telephones and wireless communication emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:09 Oct 25, 2010 Jkt 223001 devices featuring digital cameras, and components thereof, that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,292,218. The complaint named as respondents Apple, Inc., of Cupertino, Calif. (‘‘Apple’’); Research in Motion, Ltd., of Ontario, Canada; and Research in Motion Corp., of Irving, Texas (collectively, ‘‘RIM’’). On June 22, 2010, the ALJ issued the subject Markman hearing initial determination (‘‘ID’’), finding that a Markman ruling was appropriate in this case and that summary determination was an appropriate vehicle for that ruling. He then proceeded to construe certain terms of the asserted patent claims. ID 8–92. On June 30, 2010, the parties filed four petitions and contingent petitions for review. On September 1, 2009, each of the parties filed responses thereto. On July 22, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its determination to review the subject ID and requested briefing on the issues on review, including the following proposed analysis: As used in rule 210.18(a), the term ‘‘issues to be determined in the investigation’’ can be viewed as limited to claims and affirmative defenses; a ‘‘part’’ of such an issue includes an element (or subpart thereof) of a claim or affirmative defense. Thus, the following could be a non-exhaustive list of examples of issues or parts thereof that are covered by rule 210.18(a): Violation, importation, infringement, domestic industry (technical or economic prong), invalidity on any basis (such as anticipation or obviousness), unenforceability. Claim construction may be a necessary underpinning to the resolution of certain issues or elements, and may be part of a summary determination that addresses an issue or element. On its own, however, claim construction might not be viewed as constituting such an issue or element. 75 FR 44282 (July 28, 2010). On August 5, 2010, each of the parties filed a submission in response to the notice of review. On August 16, 2010, each of the parties filed a reply thereto. Upon review of Commission rules 210.18 and 210.42, 19 CFR 210.18, 210.42, and the parties’ submissions, the Commission has determined that the June 22, 2010, initial determination on claim construction issued by the presiding administrative law judge is an order rather than an initial determination. Commission rule 210.42 does not include claim construction in the list of issues that must be decided in the form of an initial determination. Nor is claim construction properly the subject of a motion for summary determination under Commission rule 210.18 since claim construction, standing alone, is not an ‘‘issue’’ or ‘‘any part of an issue’’ within the meaning of PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 that rule. While the Commission finds that the rules are unambiguous, to the extent interpretation is required, the Commission determines in its discretion and in the interest of the expeditious conclusion of section 337 investigations that a ruling on claim construction is properly issued in the form of an order. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and under sections 210.18 and 210.42– .46 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.18, 210.42–.46). By order of the Commission. Issued: October 20, 2010. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2010–26976 Filed 10–25–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–709] In the Matter of: Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions, Media Players, and Cameras; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting a Motion To Amend the Complaint and Notice 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 an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 20) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) granting a motion filed by complainant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (‘‘Freescale’’) for leave to amend its complaint and the notice of investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul M. Bartkowski, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–5432. 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 SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM 26OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 65654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26976]



[[Page 65654]]

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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-703]


In the Matter of: Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless 
Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components 
Thereof;Notice of Commission Determination ThatJune 22, 2010, Initial 
Determination Is an OrderRather Than an Initial Determination

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined that the June 22, 2010, initial determination 
on claim construction (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative 
law judge (``ALJ'') in the above-captioned investigation under section 
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 
337'') is properly issued in the form of an order rather than an 
initial determination.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Worth, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3065. 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 
(http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be 
viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://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: This investigation was instituted on 
February 23, 2010, based upon a complaint filed on behalf of Eastman 
Kodak Company of Rochester, New York (``Kodak'') on January 14, 2010, 
and supplemented on February 4, 2010. 75 FR 8112. 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 mobile 
telephones and wireless communication devices featuring digital 
cameras, and components thereof, that infringe certain claims of U.S. 
Patent No. 6,292,218. The complaint named as respondents Apple, Inc., 
of Cupertino, Calif. (``Apple''); Research in Motion, Ltd., of Ontario, 
Canada; and Research in Motion Corp., of Irving, Texas (collectively, 
``RIM'').
    On June 22, 2010, the ALJ issued the subject Markman hearing 
initial determination (``ID''), finding that a Markman ruling was 
appropriate in this case and that summary determination was an 
appropriate vehicle for that ruling. He then proceeded to construe 
certain terms of the asserted patent claims. ID 8-92.
    On June 30, 2010, the parties filed four petitions and contingent 
petitions for review. On September 1, 2009, each of the parties filed 
responses thereto.
    On July 22, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its determination 
to review the subject ID and requested briefing on the issues on 
review, including the following proposed analysis:

    As used in rule 210.18(a), the term ``issues to be determined in 
the investigation'' can be viewed as limited to claims and 
affirmative defenses; a ``part'' of such an issue includes an 
element (or subpart thereof) of a claim or affirmative defense. 
Thus, the following could be a non-exhaustive list of examples of 
issues or parts thereof that are covered by rule 210.18(a): 
Violation, importation, infringement, domestic industry (technical 
or economic prong), invalidity on any basis (such as anticipation or 
obviousness), unenforceability. Claim construction may be a 
necessary underpinning to the resolution of certain issues or 
elements, and may be part of a summary determination that addresses 
an issue or element. On its own, however, claim construction might 
not be viewed as constituting such an issue or element.

    75 FR 44282 (July 28, 2010).
    On August 5, 2010, each of the parties filed a submission in 
response to the notice of review. On August 16, 2010, each of the 
parties filed a reply thereto.
    Upon review of Commission rules 210.18 and 210.42, 19 CFR 210.18, 
210.42, and the parties' submissions, the Commission has determined 
that the June 22, 2010, initial determination on claim construction 
issued by the presiding administrative law judge is an order rather 
than an initial determination. Commission rule 210.42 does not include 
claim construction in the list of issues that must be decided in the 
form of an initial determination. Nor is claim construction properly 
the subject of a motion for summary determination under Commission rule 
210.18 since claim construction, standing alone, is not an ``issue'' or 
``any part of an issue'' within the meaning of that rule. While the 
Commission finds that the rules are unambiguous, to the extent 
interpretation is required, the Commission determines in its discretion 
and in the interest of the expeditious conclusion of section 337 
investigations that a ruling on claim construction is properly issued 
in the form of an order.
    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and under sections 
210.18 and 210.42-.46 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 CFR 210.18, 210.42-.46).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: October 20, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-26976 Filed 10-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P