Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software; Final Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the Investigation, 11157-11158 [2012-4263]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and (v) Explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 332–525] Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation. Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (‘‘Docket No. 2878’’) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, https:// www.usitc.gov/secretary/ fed_reg_notices/rules/ handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202–205– 2000). Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)). [Investigation No. 337–TA–721] Remanufactured Goods: An Overview of the U.S. and Global Industries, Markets, and Trade; Change in Start Time of Public Hearing Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software; Final Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the Investigation United States International Trade Commission. AGENCY: AGENCY: ACTION: Notice. Following receipt of a request dated and received June 28, 2011 from the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)), the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) instituted investigation No. 332–525, Remanufactured Goods: An Overview of the U.S. and Global Industries, Markets, and Trade (76 FR 44606). Public Hearing: In order to facilitate the hearing in Inv. No. 332–525, the Commission has determined to change the start time of the public hearing to 9:00 a.m., February 28, 2012, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. SUMMARY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Project Leader Alan Treat (202–205– 3426 or alan.treat@usitc.gov), Deputy Project Leader Jeremy Wise (202–205– 3190 or jeremy.wise@usitc.gov), or Hearings and Meetings Coordinator Bill Bishop (202–205–2595 or william.bishop@usitc.gov) for information. The media should contact Margaret O’Laughlin, Office of External Relations (202–205–1819 or margaret.olaughlin@usitc.gov). Hearingimpaired individuals may obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal at 202– 205–1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. Issued: February 16, 2012. By order of the Commission. Issued: February 17, 2012. By order of the Commission. James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission. James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2012–4264 Filed 2–23–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P [FR Doc. 2012–4262 Filed 2–23–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 11157 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has found no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337 with respect to United States Patent No. 6,999,800 (‘‘the ’800 patent’’) in this investigation, and has terminated the investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda S. Pitcher, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2737. 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 (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 June 17, 2010, based on a complaint filed by HTC Corporation (‘‘HTC’’) of Taiwan. 75 FR 34,484–85 (June 17, 2010). The complaint alleged violations of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain portable electronic devices and related software by reason of infringement of various claims of the ’800 patent; United States Patent No. 5,541,988 (‘‘the ’988 patent’’); United States Patent No. 6,320,957 (‘‘the ’957 patent’’); United States Patent No. 7,716,505 (‘‘the ’505 patent’’); and United States Patent No. 6,058,183 (‘‘the ’183 patent’’) (subsequently terminated SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\24FEN1.SGM 24FEN1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11158 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices from the investigation). The complaint named Apple Inc. as the Respondent. On October 17, 2011, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding no violation of section 337 by the Respondent. Specifically, the ALJ found that the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction and that Apple did not contest that the Commission has in rem and in personam jurisdiction. The ALJ also found that there was an importation into the United States, sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation of the accused portable electronic devices and related software. Regarding infringement, the ALJ found that Apple does not infringe claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 14 and 15 of the ’800 patent, claims 1 and 10 of the ’988 patent, claims 8–9 of the ’957 patent and claims 1–2 of the ’505 patent. With respect to invalidity, the ALJ found that the asserted claims are not invalid. Finally, the ALJ concluded that an industry exists within the United States that practices the ’988 and ’957 patents, but not the ’800 and ’505 patents as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2). On October 31, 2011, HTC filed a petition for review of the ID, which also included a contingent petition for review. Also on October 31, 2011, Apple filed a contingent petition for review. On November 8, 2011, the parties filed responses to the petition and contingent petitions for review. On December 16, 2011, the Commission determined to review the ID in part. The Commission determined to review the ALJ’s findings for ’800 patent in its entirety and requested briefing on nine issues, and on remedy, the public interest and bonding. 76 FR 79708–09 (Dec. 22, 2011). The Commission did not review any issues related to the ’505 patent and reviewed in part the ALJ’s findings for the ’988 and ’957 patents. Id. The Commission took no position on one limitation and affirmed the remainder of the ALJ’s findings for the ’988 and ’957 patents. Id. The Commission terminated those patents from the investigation. Id. On January 4, 2012, the parties filed written submissions on the issues under review, remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On January 11, 2012, the parties filed reply submissions on the issues on review, remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID, the Commission has determined that there is no violation of section 337. Specifically, the Commission has determined to reverse the ALJ’s finding that the ‘‘switching the PDA system from normal mode to sleep mode when the PDA system has been idle for a VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 second period of time’’ limitation of claim 1 is met and affirm the ALJ’s determination that the accused products do not meet the ‘‘implementing a power detection method comprising steps of: detecting an amount of power of a source in the power system; switching the mobile phone system to off mode when the detected amount is less than a first threshold; and switching the PDA system to off mode when the detected amount is less than a second threshold’’ limitations of claim 1. In addition, the Commission affirms the ALJ’s finding that no domestic industry exists for the ’800 patent. The Commission also finds that Apple’s waiver argument is moot. The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in sections 210.42–46 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46). By order of the Commission. Issued: February 17, 2012. James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2012–4263 Filed 2–23–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Toxic Substances Control Act Notice is hereby given that on February 7, 2012, a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Dover Chemical Corp., Civil Action No. 5:12– cv–00292–SL was lodged with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. In this action, the United States sought injunctive relief from Defendant Dover Chemical Corporation (‘‘Dover Chemical’’) for violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (‘‘TSCA’’) Section 15, 15 U.S.C. 2614. The Complaint alleges that Dover Chemical manufactured and continues to manufacture multiple ‘‘new chemical substances’’ as defined in TSCA Section 3(9), 15 U.S.C. 2602(9), at its chemical manufacturing plants located in Dover, Ohio and Hammond, Indiana, while failing to comply with the manufacturing and processing notices required under TSCA Section 5, 15 U.S.C. 2604. The Consent Decree requires Dover Chemical to pay a $1.4 million civil penalty. Dover Chemical has halted manufacture of short-chain chlorinated paraffins and committed to submit premanufacture notices (‘‘PMNs’’) for PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 medium and long-chain chlorinated paraffins, pursuant to TSCA Section 5. The proposed Consent Decree prohibits Dover Chemical from manufacturing any chlorinated paraffin product not placed on the TSCA Inventory via the PMN process. The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either emailed to pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611, and should refer to United States v. Dover Chemical Corp., D.J. Ref. 90–5–2–1–10116. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree, may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, to https:// www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the Consent Decree 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 emailing a request to ‘‘Consent Decree Copy’’(EESCDCopy. ENRD@usdoj.gov), fax no. (202) 514– 0097, phone confirmation number (202) 514–5271. If requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library by mail, please enclose a check in the amount of $6.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if requesting by email or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at the address given above. Maureen Katz, Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. 2012–4369 Filed 2–23–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–15–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act Notice is hereby given that on February 17, 2012, a proposed Consent Decree in In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig ‘‘Deepwater Horizon’’ in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL 2179, was lodged with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In this action the United States sought, in part, civil penalties under Section 311(b) of the Clean Water Act, E:\FR\FM\24FEN1.SGM 24FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11157-11158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4263]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-721]


Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software; Final 
Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the 
Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has found no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337 with respect to United States Patent No. 6,999,800 
(``the '800 patent'') in this investigation, and has terminated the 
investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda S. Pitcher, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. 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 (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 June 17, 2010, based on a complaint filed by HTC Corporation 
(``HTC'') of Taiwan. 75 FR 34,484-85 (June 17, 2010). The complaint 
alleged violations of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the 
importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and sale 
within the United States after importation of certain portable 
electronic devices and related software by reason of infringement of 
various claims of the '800 patent; United States Patent No. 5,541,988 
(``the '988 patent''); United States Patent No. 6,320,957 (``the '957 
patent''); United States Patent No. 7,716,505 (``the '505 patent''); 
and United States Patent No. 6,058,183 (``the '183 patent'') 
(subsequently terminated

[[Page 11158]]

from the investigation). The complaint named Apple Inc. as the 
Respondent.
    On October 17, 2011, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding no 
violation of section 337 by the Respondent. Specifically, the ALJ found 
that the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction and that Apple did 
not contest that the Commission has in rem and in personam 
jurisdiction. The ALJ also found that there was an importation into the 
United States, sale for importation, or sale within the United States 
after importation of the accused portable electronic devices and 
related software. Regarding infringement, the ALJ found that Apple does 
not infringe claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 14 and 15 of the '800 patent, 
claims 1 and 10 of the '988 patent, claims 8-9 of the '957 patent and 
claims 1-2 of the '505 patent. With respect to invalidity, the ALJ 
found that the asserted claims are not invalid. Finally, the ALJ 
concluded that an industry exists within the United States that 
practices the '988 and '957 patents, but not the '800 and '505 patents 
as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2).
    On October 31, 2011, HTC filed a petition for review of the ID, 
which also included a contingent petition for review. Also on October 
31, 2011, Apple filed a contingent petition for review. On November 8, 
2011, the parties filed responses to the petition and contingent 
petitions for review. On December 16, 2011, the Commission determined 
to review the ID in part. The Commission determined to review the ALJ's 
findings for '800 patent in its entirety and requested briefing on nine 
issues, and on remedy, the public interest and bonding. 76 FR 79708-09 
(Dec. 22, 2011). The Commission did not review any issues related to 
the '505 patent and reviewed in part the ALJ's findings for the '988 
and '957 patents. Id. The Commission took no position on one limitation 
and affirmed the remainder of the ALJ's findings for the '988 and '957 
patents. Id. The Commission terminated those patents from the 
investigation. Id.
    On January 4, 2012, the parties filed written submissions on the 
issues under review, remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On 
January 11, 2012, the parties filed reply submissions on the issues on 
review, remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID, the Commission has determined that there is no 
violation of section 337. Specifically, the Commission has determined 
to reverse the ALJ's finding that the ``switching the PDA system from 
normal mode to sleep mode when the PDA system has been idle for a 
second period of time'' limitation of claim 1 is met and affirm the 
ALJ's determination that the accused products do not meet the 
``implementing a power detection method comprising steps of: detecting 
an amount of power of a source in the power system; switching the 
mobile phone system to off mode when the detected amount is less than a 
first threshold; and switching the PDA system to off mode when the 
detected amount is less than a second threshold'' limitations of claim 
1. In addition, the Commission affirms the ALJ's finding that no 
domestic industry exists for the '800 patent. The Commission also finds 
that Apple's waiver argument is moot.
    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in 
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and 
in sections 210.42-46 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46).

    By order of the Commission.
    Issued: February 17, 2012.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-4263 Filed 2-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.