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 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 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. 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 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: 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 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: 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 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: 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