In the Matter of Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof Notice of Commission Determination To Review A Final Determination of No Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding, 17965-17966 [2011-7553]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2011 / Notices • Native American Student Information System (NASIS) Update. • Native Star Update—Gaye Leia King. • Public Comment (via conference call, May 5, 2011, meeting only*). • Panel discussion with Special Education faculty from Sherman Indian School, Riverside, California. • BIE Advisory Board—Advice and Recommendations. *During the May 5, 2011, meeting, time has been set aside for public comment via conference call from 11:30 a.m.–12 p.m. Pacific Standard Time. The call-in information is: Conference Number 1–888–417–0376, Passcode 1509140. Dated: March 14, 2011. Alvin Foster, Acting Chief Information Officer—Indian Affairs. [FR Doc. 2011–7586 Filed 3–30–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–4M–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs Advisory Board for Exceptional Children Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. ACTION: Notice of meeting. AGENCY: The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is announcing that the Advisory Board for Exceptional Children (Advisory Board) will hold its next meeting in Riverside, California. The purpose of the meeting is to meet the mandates of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA) for Indian children with disabilities. Dated: March 21, 2011. Donald Laverdure, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. The Advisory Board will meet on Thursday, May 5, 2011, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and Friday, May 6, 2011, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Pacific Standard Time. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Sherman Indian High School, 9010 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside, California 92503; telephone number (951) 276– 6325. [Investigation No. 337–TA–703] SUMMARY: DATES: Sue Bement, Designated Federal Official, Bureau of Indian Education, Albuquerque Service Center, Division of Performance and Accountability, 1011 Indian School Road, NW., Suite 332, Albuquerque, NM 87104; telephone number (505) 563–5274. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the BIE is announcing that the Advisory Board will hold its next meeting in Riverside, California. The Advisory Board was established under the IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) to advise the Secretary of the Interior, through the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, on the needs of Indian children with disabilities. The meetings are open to the public. The following items will be on the agenda: • Report from Gloria Yepa, Supervisory Education Specialist, BIE, Division of Performance and Accountability. • Report from BIE Director’s Office. • Report from Dr. Jeffrey Hamley, Associate Deputy Director, BIE. • Advisory Board work on priorities. wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: VerDate Mar<15>2010 11:23 Mar 31, 2011 Jkt 223001 [FR Doc. 2011–7582 Filed 3–30–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–6W–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION In the Matter of Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof Notice of Commission Determination To Review A Final Determination of No 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. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review the final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on January 24, 2011, finding no violation of section 337 in the above-captioned investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–2532. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. General SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17965 information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at 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 ’218 patent’’). 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’’). Claim 15 is now the only claim in issue. On January 24, 2011, the ALJ issued a final ID finding no violation of section 337. The ALJ found that none of the accused Apple and RIM products infringe asserted claim 15 of the ’218 patent. In addition, the ALJ found that claim 15 is invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. The ALJ found, however, that the domestic industry requirement is satisfied with respect to the asserted patent. With respect to remedy, the ALJ recommended that if the Commission disagrees with the finding of no violation, the Commission should issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders directed to Apple and RIM. In addition, the ALJ recommended, in the event that a violation is found, that no bond be required during the Presidential review period. On February 7, 2011, Kodak, Apple, RIM, and the Commission investigative attorney each filed a petition for review of the ALJ’s final ID. The parties each filed a response submission on February 15, 2011. Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID and the submissions of the parties, the Commission has determined to review the final ID in its entirety. The parties should brief their positions on the issues on review with E:\FR\FM\31MR1.SGM 31MR1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES 17966 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2011 / Notices 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. Kodak has argued in its petition for review that the ALJ made a ruling on obviousness with respect to prior art combinations that Kodak did not have an opportunity to address. The parties should address whether the ALJ permissibly relied on these prior art combinations and whether these combinations render claim 15 invalid for obviousness. 2. Kodak has argued in its petition for review that the ALJ did not address the claim constructions of the presiding ALJ in Inv. No. 337–TA–663. The parties should address whether the ALJ should have considered the claim constructions in Inv. No. 337–TA–663 and what effect those constructions should have in this case. 3. Kodak has argued in its petition for review that the ALJ did not address the reexaminations at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of the ’218 patent. The parties should address whether the ALJ should have considered the reexaminations and what effect those reexaminations should have in this case. 4. Please explain whether U.S. Patent No. 5,493,335 is prior art, and if so, on what statutory basis. 5. What is the meaning of ‘‘color pixel value’’ in part (b) of claim 15? Is it ‘‘the value of a color pixel’’? In your answer, address the patent’s discussion of each red, green, or blue element of a display being a ‘‘pixel’’ (column 8 lines 17–28). 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 a respondent 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 Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994) (Commission Opinion). VerDate Mar<15>2010 11:23 Mar 31, 2011 Jkt 223001 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 United States 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. Complainant and the Commission investigative attorney are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission’s consideration. Complainant is also requested to state the date that the patent expires 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 Friday April 8, 2011. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on Friday April 15, 2011. The written submissions must be no longer than 100 pages and the reply submissions must be no longer than 50 pages. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 non-confidential 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: March 25, 2011. By order of the Commission. James R. Holbein, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2011–7553 Filed 3–30–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE–11–008] Government In the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice United States International Trade Commission. TIME AND DATE: April 12, 2011 at 11 a.m. PLACE: Room 110, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Telephone: (202) 205–2000. STATUS: Open to the public. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Agendas for future meetings: none. 2. Minutes. 3. Ratification List. 4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 731–TA–1084– 1087 (Review) (Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden). The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determinations and Commissioners’ opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before May 3, 2011. 5. Outstanding action jackets: none. In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. Earlier Notification of this meeting was not possible. AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: E:\FR\FM\31MR1.SGM 31MR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17965-17966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7553]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 To Review A Final Determination of 
No 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 the final initial determination 
(``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') on 
January 24, 2011, finding no violation of section 337 in the above-
captioned investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are 
or will be available for inspection during official business hours 
(8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the 
Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at 
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 '218 patent''). 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''). Claim 15 is now the only claim 
in issue.
    On January 24, 2011, the ALJ issued a final ID finding no violation 
of section 337. The ALJ found that none of the accused Apple and RIM 
products infringe asserted claim 15 of the '218 patent. In addition, 
the ALJ found that claim 15 is invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 
103. The ALJ found, however, that the domestic industry requirement is 
satisfied with respect to the asserted patent. With respect to remedy, 
the ALJ recommended that if the Commission disagrees with the finding 
of no violation, the Commission should issue a limited exclusion order 
and cease and desist orders directed to Apple and RIM. In addition, the 
ALJ recommended, in the event that a violation is found, that no bond 
be required during the Presidential review period.
    On February 7, 2011, Kodak, Apple, RIM, and the Commission 
investigative attorney each filed a petition for review of the ALJ's 
final ID. The parties each filed a response submission on February 15, 
2011.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID and the submissions of the parties, the Commission has 
determined to review the final ID in its entirety.
    The parties should brief their positions on the issues on review 
with

[[Page 17966]]

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. Kodak has argued in its petition for review that the ALJ made a 
ruling on obviousness with respect to prior art combinations that Kodak 
did not have an opportunity to address. The parties should address 
whether the ALJ permissibly relied on these prior art combinations and 
whether these combinations render claim 15 invalid for obviousness.
    2. Kodak has argued in its petition for review that the ALJ did not 
address the claim constructions of the presiding ALJ in Inv. No. 337-
TA-663. The parties should address whether the ALJ should have 
considered the claim constructions in Inv. No. 337-TA-663 and what 
effect those constructions should have in this case.
    3. Kodak has argued in its petition for review that the ALJ did not 
address the reexaminations at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of 
the '218 patent. The parties should address whether the ALJ should have 
considered the reexaminations and what effect those reexaminations 
should have in this case.
    4. Please explain whether U.S. Patent No. 5,493,335 is prior art, 
and if so, on what statutory basis.
    5. What is the meaning of ``color pixel value'' in part (b) of 
claim 15? Is it ``the value of a color pixel''? In your answer, address 
the patent's discussion of each red, green, or blue element of a 
display being a ``pixel'' (column 8 lines 17-28).
    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 a 
respondent 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 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 United States 
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. Complainant and the Commission investigative 
attorney are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the 
Commission's consideration. Complainant is also requested to state the 
date that the patent expires 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 Friday 
April 8, 2011. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close 
of business on Friday April 15, 2011. The written submissions must be 
no longer than 100 pages and the reply submissions must be no longer 
than 50 pages. 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 non-confidential 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: March 25, 2011.

    By order of the Commission.
James R. Holbein,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-7553 Filed 3-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P