Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof; Notice of the Commission's Determination To Review in Part the Final Initial Determination, 69499-69501 [2012-28064]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 223 / Monday, November 19, 2012 / Notices Dated: October 23, 2012. Alexandra Lord, Acting Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program. ALABAMA Mobile County Africatown Historic District, Bounded by Jakes Ln., Paper Mill, & Warren Rds., Chin, & Railroad Sts., Mobile, 12000990 COLORADO Jefferson County Jack County Jack County Courthouse, 100 N. Main St., Jacksboro, 12001002 Potter County Fisk Medical Arts Building, 724 S. Polk St., Amarillo, 12001003 Tarrant County Farmers and Mechanics National Bank, 714 Main St., Fort Worth, 12001004 Van Zandt Cottage, 2900 Crestline Rd., Fort Worth, 12001005 [FR Doc. 2012–27991 Filed 11–16–12; 8:45 am] Staunton Ranch Rural Historic Landscape, 11559 Upper Ranch Dr., Pine, 12000991 BILLING CODE 4312–51–P FLORIDA Broward County Council Oak Tree Site on the Hollywood Seminole Indian Reservation, Address Restricted, Hollywood, 12000992 INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–804] MARYLAND Prince George’s County Old Town College Park, (Historic Residential Suburbs in the United States, 1830–1960 MPS), Roughly bounded by Yale & Columbia Aves., Calvert Rd., & UM Campus, College Park, 12000993 MASSACHUSETTS Northampton Veterans Administration Hospital Historic District, (United States Second Generation Veterans Hospitals MPS), 421 N. Main St., Northampton, 12000994 MONTANA Flathead County Conrad, C.E., Memorial Cemetery, 641 Conrad Dr., Kalispell, 12000995 NEW YORK Erie County Elmwood Historic District—West, Roughly Ashland, Auburn, Bird, Claremont, Elmwood, Forest, Highland, Hodge, Lafayette, Lexington, Norwood Aves., Buffalo, 12000996 Hamburg Main Street Historic District, 11 through 235 Main St., Hamburg, 12000997 Niagara County Taylor, William, House, 97 S. Main St., Middleport, 12000998 TEXAS pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Comanche County Cunningham, Captain James & Susannah, Homestead, 19601 TX 16 S., Comanche, 12000999 Harris County San Jacinto Senior High School, 1300 Holman St., Houston, 12001000 Hill County Nolan River Bridge 303–4 of the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway, Cty. Rd. 1127 at Nolan R., Blum, 12001001 14:04 Nov 16, 2012 U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part the final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on September 7, 2012, finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda S. Pitcher, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2737. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov, and 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: The Commission instituted this investigation on September 7, 2011, based on a SUMMARY: Hampshire County VerDate Mar<15>2010 Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof; Notice of the Commission’s Determination To Review in Part the Final Initial Determination Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 69499 complaint filed by Litepanels, Inc. and Litepanels, Ltd. (collectively, ‘‘Litepanels’’). 76 FR 55416 (Sept. 7, 2011). The complaint alleged 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 LED photographic lighting devices and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,429,117 (terminated from the investigation); 7,510,290 (terminated from the investigation); 7,972,022 (‘‘the ’022 patent’’); 7,318,652 (‘‘the ’652 patent’’); and 6,948,823 (‘‘the ’823 patent’’). The Notice of Institution named respondents Flolight, LLC. of Campbell, California; Prompter People, Inc. of Campbell, California; IKAN Corporation of Houston, Texas; Advanced Business Computer Services, LLC d/b/a Cool Lights, USA of Reno, Nevada; Elation Lighting, Inc. of Los Angeles, California; Fotodiox, Inc. of Waukegan, Illinois; Fuzhou F&V Photographic Equipment Co., Ltd. of Fujian, China; Yuyao Lishuai PhotoFacility Co., Ltd. of Zhejiang Province, China; Yuyao Fotodiox Photo Equipment Co., Ltd. of Zhejiang Province, China; Shantou Nanguang Photographic Equipment Co., Ltd. of Guangdong Province, China; Visio Light, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; Tianjin Wuqing Huanyu Film and TV Equipment Factory of Tianjin, China; Stellar Lighting Systems of Los Angeles, California; and Yuyao Lily Collection Co., Ltd. of Yuyao, China. The Commission Investigative Attorney (‘‘IA’’) of the Office of Unfair Import Investigations also participated in this investigation. On September 7, 2012, the ALJ issued the subject final ID finding a violation of section 337. The ALJ held that a violation occurred in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain LED photographic lighting devices and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 1, 57–58, and 60 of the ’022 patent; claims 1, 2, 5, 16, 18, 19, 25 and 27 of the ’652 patent; and claim 19 of the ’823 patent. ID at ii. The ALJ further held that no violation of section 337 occurred in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain LED photographic lighting devices and components thereof that infringe claims 17 and 28 of the ’823 patent because claims 17 and 28 are anticipated. Id. at ii, 81. E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM 19NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 69500 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 223 / Monday, November 19, 2012 / Notices Litepanels petitions for review of the ALJ’s construction of the preamble of claim 17 of the ’823 patent and asserts that the ALJ incorrectly found that independent claim 17 and dependent claim 28 of the ’823 patent were invalid based on his incorrect construction. The IA petitioned for review of the ALJ’s finding that claims 17, 19 and 28 of the ’823 patent are infringed based on the construction of the term ‘‘an integrated power source’’ of independent claim 17. Respondents petitioned for review of most of the ALJ’s invalidity findings (including public use, and obviousness), the construction of ‘‘focusing element’’ of claim 1 of the ’652 patent, and the exclusion of claim charts. The Commission has determined to review the ID in part. The Commission has determined to review (1) the ALJ’s construction of the preamble of the asserted independent claims of the ’652 patent, the ’823 patent and the ’022 patent; (2) the ALJ’s findings of infringement; (3) the ALJ’s findings of obviousness and anticipation; (4) the ALJ’s construction of ‘‘an integrated power source’’ of claim 17 of the ’823 patent; and (5) the ALJ’s findings on the technical prong of domestic industry. The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the ID. The parties are requested to brief their positions on the issues under review with 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) If the Commission were to determine that the preambles of the asserted independent claims of the ’652 patent, the ’823 patent and the ’022 patent are limitations and should be interpreted based on their plain and ordinary meaning (see ID at 44), what impact, if any, does this have on the ALJ’s findings regarding anticipation and obviousness for the asserted patents? Please cite to record evidence that supports your position. (2) If the Commission were to determine that the preambles of the asserted independent claims of the ’652 patent, the ’823 patent and the ’022 patent are limitations and should be interpreted based on their plain and ordinary meaning (see ID at 44), do the accused products and domestic industry products meet the preamble limitation of each of the asserted independent claims? Please cite to record evidence to support your position. Have the Respondents waived the ability to challenge a finding that the preambles of the asserted independent claims, interpreted based on their plain and VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:04 Nov 16, 2012 Jkt 229001 ordinary meaning, are met by the accused products? In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. The Commission is particularly interested in responses to the following questions: (1) Please discuss the technical and qualitative interchangeability of Litepanels and its licensees’ products with the products that would be excluded under a general exclusion order. Please discuss the evidence that supports your position. (2) Discuss whether Litepanels and its licensees have sufficient capability to meet the demand for any products that would be excluded under a general exclusion order. Please discuss the evidence that supports your position, including evidence regarding current manufacturing capacity and product interchangeability. (3) What lead time would be required for existing manufacturers to modify their allegedly infringing products to be noninfringing? Please discuss the evidence that supports your position. (4) Please discuss specific evidence pertaining to any specialized requirements of the film, video, photographic industries, or any other industries, that cannot be met by the products of Litepanels or its licensees, but are only met by the products that would be excluded under a general exclusion order. (5) Please provide specific evidence regarding the impact, if any, of a general exclusion order on public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 U.S. 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 persons are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding, as well as respond to the questions posed herein relating to remedy and the public interest. Such submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. Complainant and IA are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission’s consideration. Complainant is also requested to state the dates that the ’853, ’022 and ’652 patents expire 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 Wednesday, November 28, 2012. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on Wednesday, December 5, 2012. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. 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 E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM 19NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 223 / Monday, November 19, 2012 / Notices 210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 337–TA–804’’) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, http://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. A redacted nonconfidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with the any confidential filing. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS. 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: November 13, 2012. By order of the Commission. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2012–28064 Filed 11–16–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–809] pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Certain Devices for Mobile Data Communication; Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting a Motion By Complainant To Terminate the Investigation in Its Entirety Based Upon Withdrawal of the Complaint; Termination of the 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’’) SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:04 Nov 16, 2012 Jkt 229001 (Order No. 60) of the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) granting a motion by complainant to terminate the investigation in its entirety based upon withdrawal of the complaint. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3042. 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 October 13, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Openwave Systems Inc. of Redwood City, California (‘‘Openwave’’). 76 FR 63657–58 (Oct. 13, 2011). The complaint alleged 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 devices for mobile data communication by reason of infringement of certain claims of United States Patent Nos. 6,233,608; 6,289,212; 6,405,037; 6,430,409; and 6,625,447. The notice of investigation named Research In Motion Ltd. of Ontario, Canada; Research In Motion Corp. of Irving, Texas; and Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California as respondents. During pendency of the investigation, Openwave changed its name to Unwired Planet, Inc. On October 12, 2012, Openwave filed an unopposed motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based upon withdrawal of the complaint. No responses to the motion were filed. That same day, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 60) terminating the investigation. The ALJ found that the motion complied with the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(a) (19 CFR 210.21(a)) and that no extraordinary circumstances prohibited PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 69501 granting the motion. None of the parties petitioned for review of the ID. The Commission has determined not to review the ID. The Commission notes that in Order No. 57 the ALJ denied a request by the parties to terminate the investigation prior to the evidentiary hearing based upon Openwave’s stipulation that, under the ALJ’s claim construction, the accused products do not infringe the asserted claims. The Commission clarifies that it encourages early disposition of investigations on dispositive issues, when possible, before the evidentiary hearing in the interest of mitigating litigation costs and conserving resources of the parties and the Commission. See, e.g., Certain Drill Bits and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337–TA–844, 77 FR 51825–26 (Aug. 27, 2012) (affirming grant of summary determination of no importation on the merits and terminating 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 in section 210.42 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42). Issued: November 13, 2012. By order of the Commission. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2012–27989 Filed 11–16–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–698 (Enforcement Proceeding)] Certain DC–DC Controllers and Products Containing Same; Decision To Affirm-in-Part, Reverse-in-Part, Modify-in-Part, and Vacate-in-Part an Enforcement Initial Determination Finding a Violation of the August 13, 2010 Consent Order; Issuance of Modified Consent Order and Civil Penalty; and Termination of Enforcement Proceeding U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to affirmin-part, reverse-in-part, modify-in-part, and vacate-in-part an enforcement initial determination (‘‘EID’’) of the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) finding a violation of the SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM 19NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 223 (Monday, November 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69499-69501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28064]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-804]


Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof; 
Notice of the Commission's Determination To Review in Part the Final 
Initial Determination

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to review in part the final initial 
determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ'') on September 7, 2012, finding a violation of section 337 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda S. Pitcher, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. The public version of 
the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket 
(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov, and 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: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on September 7, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Litepanels, Inc. 
and Litepanels, Ltd. (collectively, ``Litepanels''). 76 FR 55416 (Sept. 
7, 2011). The complaint alleged 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 LED photographic lighting devices 
and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 
7,429,117 (terminated from the investigation); 7,510,290 (terminated 
from the investigation); 7,972,022 (``the '022 patent''); 7,318,652 
(``the '652 patent''); and 6,948,823 (``the '823 patent''). The Notice 
of Institution named respondents Flolight, LLC. of Campbell, 
California; Prompter People, Inc. of Campbell, California; IKAN 
Corporation of Houston, Texas; Advanced Business Computer Services, LLC 
d/b/a Cool Lights, USA of Reno, Nevada; Elation Lighting, Inc. of Los 
Angeles, California; Fotodiox, Inc. of Waukegan, Illinois; Fuzhou F&V 
Photographic Equipment Co., Ltd. of Fujian, China; Yuyao Lishuai Photo-
Facility Co., Ltd. of Zhejiang Province, China; Yuyao Fotodiox Photo 
Equipment Co., Ltd. of Zhejiang Province, China; Shantou Nanguang 
Photographic Equipment Co., Ltd. of Guangdong Province, China; Visio 
Light, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; Tianjin Wuqing Huanyu Film and TV 
Equipment Factory of Tianjin, China; Stellar Lighting Systems of Los 
Angeles, California; and Yuyao Lily Collection Co., Ltd. of Yuyao, 
China. The Commission Investigative Attorney (``IA'') of the Office of 
Unfair Import Investigations also participated in this investigation.
    On September 7, 2012, the ALJ issued the subject final ID finding a 
violation of section 337. The ALJ held that a violation occurred in the 
importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the 
sale within the United States after importation of certain LED 
photographic lighting devices and components thereof that infringe one 
or more of claims 1, 57-58, and 60 of the '022 patent; claims 1, 2, 5, 
16, 18, 19, 25 and 27 of the '652 patent; and claim 19 of the '823 
patent. ID at ii. The ALJ further held that no violation of section 337 
occurred in the importation into the United States, the sale for 
importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of 
certain LED photographic lighting devices and components thereof that 
infringe claims 17 and 28 of the '823 patent because claims 17 and 28 
are anticipated. Id. at ii, 81.

[[Page 69500]]

    Litepanels petitions for review of the ALJ's construction of the 
preamble of claim 17 of the '823 patent and asserts that the ALJ 
incorrectly found that independent claim 17 and dependent claim 28 of 
the '823 patent were invalid based on his incorrect construction. The 
IA petitioned for review of the ALJ's finding that claims 17, 19 and 28 
of the '823 patent are infringed based on the construction of the term 
``an integrated power source'' of independent claim 17. Respondents 
petitioned for review of most of the ALJ's invalidity findings 
(including public use, and obviousness), the construction of ``focusing 
element'' of claim 1 of the '652 patent, and the exclusion of claim 
charts.
    The Commission has determined to review the ID in part. The 
Commission has determined to review (1) the ALJ's construction of the 
preamble of the asserted independent claims of the '652 patent, the 
'823 patent and the '022 patent; (2) the ALJ's findings of 
infringement; (3) the ALJ's findings of obviousness and anticipation; 
(4) the ALJ's construction of ``an integrated power source'' of claim 
17 of the '823 patent; and (5) the ALJ's findings on the technical 
prong of domestic industry. The Commission has determined not to review 
the remainder of the ID.
    The parties are requested to brief their positions on the issues 
under review with 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) If the Commission were to determine that the preambles of the 
asserted independent claims of the '652 patent, the '823 patent and the 
'022 patent are limitations and should be interpreted based on their 
plain and ordinary meaning (see ID at 44), what impact, if any, does 
this have on the ALJ's findings regarding anticipation and obviousness 
for the asserted patents? Please cite to record evidence that supports 
your position.
    (2) If the Commission were to determine that the preambles of the 
asserted independent claims of the '652 patent, the '823 patent and the 
'022 patent are limitations and should be interpreted based on their 
plain and ordinary meaning (see ID at 44), do the accused products and 
domestic industry products meet the preamble limitation of each of the 
asserted independent claims? Please cite to record evidence to support 
your position. Have the Respondents waived the ability to challenge a 
finding that the preambles of the asserted independent claims, 
interpreted based on their plain and ordinary meaning, are met by the 
accused products?
    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the 
Commission may issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the 
subject articles from entry into the United States. Accordingly, the 
Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address 
the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. The Commission is 
particularly interested in responses to the following questions:
    (1) Please discuss the technical and qualitative interchangeability 
of Litepanels and its licensees' products with the products that would 
be excluded under a general exclusion order. Please discuss the 
evidence that supports your position.
    (2) Discuss whether Litepanels and its licensees have sufficient 
capability to meet the demand for any products that would be excluded 
under a general exclusion order. Please discuss the evidence that 
supports your position, including evidence regarding current 
manufacturing capacity and product interchangeability.
    (3) What lead time would be required for existing manufacturers to 
modify their allegedly infringing products to be noninfringing? Please 
discuss the evidence that supports your position.
    (4) Please discuss specific evidence pertaining to any specialized 
requirements of the film, video, photographic industries, or any other 
industries, that cannot be met by the products of Litepanels or its 
licensees, but are only met by the products that would be excluded 
under a general exclusion order.
    (5) Please provide specific evidence regarding the impact, if any, 
of a general exclusion order on public health and welfare, competitive 
conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or 
directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States 
consumers.

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 U.S. 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 persons are encouraged to file written submissions on 
the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding, as well as 
respond to the questions posed herein relating to remedy and the public 
interest. Such submissions should address the recommended determination 
by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. Complainant and IA are also requested 
to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration.
    Complainant is also requested to state the dates that the '853, 
'022 and '652 patents expire 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 
Wednesday, November 28, 2012. Reply submissions must be filed no later 
than the close of business on Wednesday, December 5, 2012. No further 
submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered 
by the Commission.
    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

[[Page 69501]]

210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 
210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (``Inv. 
No. 337-TA-804'') in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the 
first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, http://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. A 
redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed 
simultaneously with the any confidential filing. All non-confidential 
written submissions will be available for public inspection at the 
Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.
    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: November 13, 2012.

    By order of the Commission.

Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-28064 Filed 11-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P