Certain Mobile Devices, Associated Software, and Components Thereof Final Determination of Violation; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order; Termination of Investigation, 35427-35428 [2012-14321]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2012 / Notices
Hearing impaired individuals are
advised that information on this matter
can be obtained by contacting the
Commission’s TDD terminal on (202)
205–1810. 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.
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Office of Unfair Import Investigations,
U.S. International Trade Commission,
telephone (202) 205–2560.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AUTHORITY: The authority for institution
of this investigation is contained in section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,
and in section 210.10 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR
210.10 (2012).
Scope of Investigation: Having
considered the complaint, the U.S.
International Trade Commission, on
June 5, 2012, ordered that—
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, an investigation be instituted
to determine whether there is a
violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of
section 337 in the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation,
or the sale within the United States after
importation of certain radio frequency
integrated circuits and devices
containing same that infringe one or
more of claims 14–16, 23–25, 31, 32,
and 37 of the ‘993 patent; claims 1–3,
5–7, and 15 of the ‘898 patent; 1–4, 7,
13, 14, 20, 22, 24, and 25 of the ‘852
patent; claims 6–8, 29, and 30 of the
‘969 patent; and claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 of
the ‘499 patent, and whether an
industry in the United States exists as
required by subsection (a)(2) of section
337;
(2) For the purpose of the
investigation so instituted, the following
are hereby named as parties upon which
this notice of investigation shall be
served:
(a) The complainant is:
Peregrine Semiconductor Corporation,
9380 Carroll Park Drive, San Diego,
CA 92121.
(b) The respondents are the following
entities alleged to be in violation of
section 337, and are the parties upon
which the complaint is to be served:
RF Micro Devices, Inc., 7628 Thorndike
Road, Greensboro, NC 27409–9421;
Motorola Mobility, Inc., 600 North US
Highway 45, Libertyville, IL 60048;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:45 Jun 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
HTC America, Inc., 13920 SE. Eastgate
Way, Suite 400, Bellevue, WA 98005;
HTC Corporation, 23 Xinghua Road,
Taoyuan County 330, Taiwan.
(c) The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite
401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted,
the Chief Administrative Law Judge,
U.S. International Trade Commission,
shall designate the presiding
Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the
notice of investigation must be
submitted by the named respondents in
accordance with section 210.13 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to
19 CFR 201.16(d)–(e) and 210.13(a),
such responses will be considered by
the Commission if received not later
than 20 days after the date of service by
the Commission of the complaint and
the notice of investigation. Extensions of
time for submitting responses to the
complaint and the notice of
investigation will not be granted unless
good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely
response to each allegation in the
complaint and in this notice may be
deemed to constitute a waiver of the
right to appear and contest the
allegations of the complaint and this
notice, and to authorize the
administrative law judge and the
Commission, without further notice to
the respondent, to find the facts to be as
alleged in the complaint and this notice
and to enter an initial determination
and a final determination containing
such findings, and may result in the
issuance of an exclusion order or a cease
and desist order or both directed against
the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: June 7, 2012.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012–14318 Filed 6–12–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–744]
Certain Mobile Devices, Associated
Software, and Components Thereof
Final Determination of Violation;
Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order;
Termination of Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35427
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined that there
is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C.
1337) by respondent Motorola Mobility,
Inc. of Libertyville, Illinois (‘‘Motorola’’)
in the above-captioned investigation.
The Commission has issued a limited
exclusion order directed to the
infringing products of Motorola and has
terminated the investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3115. 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 November 5, 2010, based on a
complaint filed by Microsoft
Corporation of Redmond, Washington
(‘‘Microsoft’’). 75 FR 68379–80 (Nov. 5,
2010). The complaint 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 mobile devices, associated
software, and components thereof by
reason of infringement of U.S. Patent
Nos. 5,579,517 (‘‘the ‘517 patent’’);
5,758,352 (‘‘the ‘352 patent’’); 6,621,746
(‘‘the ‘746 patent’’); 6,826,762 (‘‘the ‘762
patent’’); 6,909,910 (‘‘the ‘910 patent’’);
7,644,376 (‘‘the ‘376 patent’’); 5,664,133
(‘‘the ‘133 patent’’); 6,578,054 (‘‘the ‘054
patent’’); and 6,370,566 (‘‘the ‘566
patent.’’) Subsequently, the ‘517 and the
‘746 patents were terminated from the
investigation. The notice of
investigation, as amended, names
Motorola Mobility, Inc. of Libertyville,
Illinois and Motorola, Inc. of
Schaumburg, Illinois as respondents.
Motorola, Inc. n/k/a Motorola Solutions
was terminated from the investigation
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13JNN1.SGM
13JNN1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
35428
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2012 / Notices
based on withdrawal of infringement
allegations on July 12, 2011.
The presiding administrative law
judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued the final initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) on violation in this
investigation on December 20, 2011. He
issued his recommended determination
on remedy and bonding on the same
day. The ALJ found that a violation of
section 337 has occurred in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, or the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain mobile devices, associated
software, and components thereof
containing same by reason of
infringement of one or more of claims 1,
2, 5 and 6 of the ‘566 patent. Both
Complainant and Respondent filed
timely petitions for review of various
portions of the final ID, as well as timely
responses to the petitions.
The Commission determined to
review various portions of the final ID
and issued a Notice to that effect dated
March 2, 2012. 77 FR 14043 (Mar. 8,
2012). In the Notice, the Commission
also set a schedule for the filing of
written submissions on the issues under
review, including certain questions
posed by the Commission, and on
remedy, the public interest, and
bonding. The parties have briefed, with
initial and reply submissions, the issues
under review and the issues of remedy,
the public interest, and bonding. Public
interest comments were also received
from non-parties Association for
Competitive Technology, Inc. and
Google Inc.
On review, the Commission has
determined as follows.
(1) To affirm with modifications the
ALJ’s determination that Microsoft met
the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement with respect to all
of the presently asserted patents in this
investigation, i.e., the ‘352 patent, the
‘762 patent, the ‘910 patent, the ‘376
patent, the ‘133 patent, the ‘054 patent,
and the ‘566 patent;
(2) With respect to the ID’s
determination regarding the technical
prong of the domestic industry
requirement with respect to all of the
presently asserted patents:
(a) To affirm with modifications the
ALJ’s determination that Microsoft
failed to meet the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement with
respect to the ‘054 patent;
(b) To affirm the ALJ’s determination
that Microsoft satisfied the technical
prong of the domestic industry
requirement with respect to the ‘566,
‘133, and ‘910 patents;
(c) To reverse the ALJ’s determination
that Microsoft failed to meet the
technical prong of the domestic industry
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:45 Jun 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
requirement with respect to the ‘352
patent;
(d) To affirm the ALJ’s determination
that Microsoft failed to meet the
technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement with respect to the ‘762 and
‘376 patents;
(3) To affirm with modifications the
ALJ’s determination that the asserted
claims of the ‘566 patent are not invalid
due to anticipation or obviousness;
(4) To reverse the ALJ’s determination
that Microsoft failed to carry its burden
of showing that Motorola’s accused
products infringe the asserted claims of
the ‘352 patent and determine that,
based on the record, Microsoft proved
by a preponderance of the evidence that
Motorola’s accused products directly
infringe the ‘352 patent;
(5) To affirm the ALJ’s determination
that Microsoft failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that
Motorola induced infringement of each
of the ‘054, ‘762, ‘376, ‘133, and ‘910
patents, and to affirm with
modifications the ALJ’s determination
that Microsoft failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that
Motorola induced infringement of each
of the ‘566 and ‘352 patents.
The Commission has determined that
the appropriate form of relief in this
investigation is a limited exclusion
order prohibiting the unlicensed entry
for consumption of mobile devices,
associated software and components
thereof covered by claims 1, 2, 5, or 6
of the United States Patent No.
6,370,566 and that are manufactured
abroad by or on behalf of, or imported
by or on behalf of, Motorola. The order
provides an exception for service,
repair, or replacement articles for use in
servicing, repairing, or replacing mobile
devices under warranty or insurance
contract.
The Commission has further
determined that the public interest
factors enumerated in section 337(d)(1)
(19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)) do not preclude
issuance of the limited exclusion order.
Finally, the Commission determined
that Motorola is required to post a bond
set at a reasonable royalty rate in the
amount of $0.33 per device entered for
consumption during the period of
Presidential review. The Commission’s
order was delivered to the President and
the United States Trade Representative
on the day of its issuance.
The Commission has therefore
terminated this investigation. 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 sections
210.41–.42, 210.50 of the Commission’s
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.41–.42, 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: May 18, 2012.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012–14321 Filed 6–12–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–814]
Certain Automotive GPS Navigation
Systems, Components Thereof, and
Products Containing Same
Determination Not To Review ALJ
Order Nos. 8 And 9; Termination of the
Investigation Based on a Withdrawal of
the Complaint
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to
review the presiding administrative law
judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) Order No. 8 denying a
motion for a show cause order and an
initial determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No.
9) terminating the investigation based
on complainant’s withdrawal of the
complaint.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean
Jackson, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3104. 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 November 23, 2011, based on a
complaint filed by Beacon Navigation
GmbH of Zug, Switzerland (‘‘Beacon’’).
76 FR 72443 (Nov. 23, 2011). The
complaint alleged violations of section
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13JNN1.SGM
13JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35427-35428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14321]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-744]
Certain Mobile Devices, Associated Software, and Components
Thereof Final Determination of Violation; Issuance of a Limited
Exclusion Order; Termination of Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined that there is a violation of section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337) by respondent
Motorola Mobility, Inc. of Libertyville, Illinois (``Motorola'') in the
above-captioned investigation. The Commission has issued a limited
exclusion order directed to the infringing products of Motorola and has
terminated the investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. 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 November 5, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Microsoft
Corporation of Redmond, Washington (``Microsoft''). 75 FR 68379-80
(Nov. 5, 2010). The complaint 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 mobile devices, associated
software, and components thereof by reason of infringement of U.S.
Patent Nos. 5,579,517 (``the `517 patent''); 5,758,352 (``the `352
patent''); 6,621,746 (``the `746 patent''); 6,826,762 (``the `762
patent''); 6,909,910 (``the `910 patent''); 7,644,376 (``the `376
patent''); 5,664,133 (``the `133 patent''); 6,578,054 (``the `054
patent''); and 6,370,566 (``the `566 patent.'') Subsequently, the `517
and the `746 patents were terminated from the investigation. The notice
of investigation, as amended, names Motorola Mobility, Inc. of
Libertyville, Illinois and Motorola, Inc. of Schaumburg, Illinois as
respondents. Motorola, Inc. n/k/a Motorola Solutions was terminated
from the investigation
[[Page 35428]]
based on withdrawal of infringement allegations on July 12, 2011.
The presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') issued the final
initial determination (``ID'') on violation in this investigation on
December 20, 2011. He issued his recommended determination on remedy
and bonding on the same day. The ALJ found that a violation of section
337 has occurred in the importation into the United States, the sale
for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation
of certain mobile devices, associated software, and components thereof
containing same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1,
2, 5 and 6 of the `566 patent. Both Complainant and Respondent filed
timely petitions for review of various portions of the final ID, as
well as timely responses to the petitions.
The Commission determined to review various portions of the final
ID and issued a Notice to that effect dated March 2, 2012. 77 FR 14043
(Mar. 8, 2012). In the Notice, the Commission also set a schedule for
the filing of written submissions on the issues under review, including
certain questions posed by the Commission, and on remedy, the public
interest, and bonding. The parties have briefed, with initial and reply
submissions, the issues under review and the issues of remedy, the
public interest, and bonding. Public interest comments were also
received from non-parties Association for Competitive Technology, Inc.
and Google Inc.
On review, the Commission has determined as follows.
(1) To affirm with modifications the ALJ's determination that
Microsoft met the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement
with respect to all of the presently asserted patents in this
investigation, i.e., the `352 patent, the `762 patent, the `910 patent,
the `376 patent, the `133 patent, the `054 patent, and the `566 patent;
(2) With respect to the ID's determination regarding the technical
prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to all of the
presently asserted patents:
(a) To affirm with modifications the ALJ's determination that
Microsoft failed to meet the technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement with respect to the `054 patent;
(b) To affirm the ALJ's determination that Microsoft satisfied the
technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to
the `566, `133, and `910 patents;
(c) To reverse the ALJ's determination that Microsoft failed to
meet the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with
respect to the `352 patent;
(d) To affirm the ALJ's determination that Microsoft failed to meet
the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect
to the `762 and `376 patents;
(3) To affirm with modifications the ALJ's determination that the
asserted claims of the `566 patent are not invalid due to anticipation
or obviousness;
(4) To reverse the ALJ's determination that Microsoft failed to
carry its burden of showing that Motorola's accused products infringe
the asserted claims of the `352 patent and determine that, based on the
record, Microsoft proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
Motorola's accused products directly infringe the `352 patent;
(5) To affirm the ALJ's determination that Microsoft failed to
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Motorola induced
infringement of each of the `054, `762, `376, `133, and `910 patents,
and to affirm with modifications the ALJ's determination that Microsoft
failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Motorola
induced infringement of each of the `566 and `352 patents.
The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief
in this investigation is a limited exclusion order prohibiting the
unlicensed entry for consumption of mobile devices, associated software
and components thereof covered by claims 1, 2, 5, or 6 of the United
States Patent No. 6,370,566 and that are manufactured abroad by or on
behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of, Motorola. The order provides
an exception for service, repair, or replacement articles for use in
servicing, repairing, or replacing mobile devices under warranty or
insurance contract.
The Commission has further determined that the public interest
factors enumerated in section 337(d)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)) do not
preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order. Finally, the
Commission determined that Motorola is required to post a bond set at a
reasonable royalty rate in the amount of $0.33 per device entered for
consumption during the period of Presidential review. The Commission's
order was delivered to the President and the United States Trade
Representative on the day of its issuance.
The Commission has therefore terminated this investigation. 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
sections 210.41-.42, 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.41-.42, 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: May 18, 2012.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-14321 Filed 6-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
