Certain Microprocessors, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Termination of Investigation With a Finding of No Violation, 12354-12355 [2013-04070]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
12354
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 36 / Friday, February 22, 2013 / Notices
5 snowmobiles each allocated for noncommercially guided access. BAT
requirements for snowmobiles would
remain the same as the BAT
requirements in the 2011/2012 interim
regulation until the 2017/2018 winter
season, at which time additional sound
and air emission requirements would be
implemented. BAT requirements for
snowcoaches would also be
implemented beginning in the 2017/
2018 season. If OSVs meet additional
voluntary standards for air and sound
emissions beyond those required for
BAT, the group size of snowmobiles
would be allowed to increase from an
average of 7 to an average of 8 per
transportation event, and snowcoaches
would be allowed to increase from one
to two snowcoaches per transportation
event. Sylvan Pass would remain open.
More information regarding
Yellowstone in the winter, including
educational materials and a detailed
history of winter use in Yellowstone, is
available at https://www.nps.gov/yell/
planvisit/winteruse/index.htm.
Dated: January 15, 2013.
John Wessels,
Regional Director, Intermountain Region,
National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–04124 Filed 2–21–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–CB–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–853]
Certain Wireless Consumer
Electronics Devices and Components
Thereof; Commission Determination
Concerning an Initial Determination
Granting a Motion To Amend
Complaint and Notice of Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission did not determine to
review the presiding administrative law
judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 17) granting a motion
of complainants Technology Properties
Limited LLC and Phoenix Digital
Solutions LLC of Cupertino, California
and Patriot Scientific Corporation of
Carlsbad, California (collectively
‘‘Complainants’’) to amend the
Complaint and Notice of Investigation
(‘‘NOI’’). The ID therefore became the
determination of the Commission.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Megan M. Valentine, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Feb 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–2301. 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 August 24, 2012, based on a
complaint filed by Complainants. 77 FR
51572–573 (August 24, 2012). The
complaint alleges violations of Section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent No. 5,809,336. The complaint
further alleges the existence of a
domestic industry. The Commission’s
notice of investigation named numerous
respondents, including Huawei
Technologies Co, Ltd. of Shenzhen,
China (‘‘Huawei’’); Huawei North
America of Plano, Texas (‘‘Huawei
North America’’); Sierra Wireless, Inc. of
British Columbia, Canada and Sierra
Wireless America, Inc. of Carlsbad,
California (collectively ‘‘Sierra’’). The
Office of Unfair Import Investigation
was also named as a participating party.
On February 4, 2013, the Commission
terminated the investigation with
respect to Sierra. Notice (Feb. 4, 2013);
see Order No. 17 (Jan. 15, 2013).
On November 13, 2012, Complainants
filed a motion to amend the Complaint
and NOI to remove Huawei North
America as a respondent and to add
Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Huawei Device
USA Inc., and Futurewei Technologies,
Inc. (collectively, ‘‘Proposed
Respondents’’) as respondents. On
November 23, 2012, the Commission
investigative staff filed a response in
support of the motion. On November 26,
2012, Huawei and Proposed
Respondents filed a response opposing
the motion.
On January 8, 2013, the ALJ issued
the subject ID, granting Complainants’
motion to amend the Complaint and
NOI pursuant to section 210.14(b)(1) of
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Procedure (19 CFR 210.14(b)(1)). The
ALJ found that good cause supported
granting the motion because the public
interest will be best served by the
inclusion of all relevant parties in a
single investigation. No petitions for
review of this ID were filed.
The subject ID became the
determination of the Commission on
February 8, 2013, under section
210.42(h)(3) of the Commission’s Rules
of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42(h)(3)).
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: February 15, 2013.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–04068 Filed 2–21–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–781]
Certain Microprocessors, Components
Thereof, and Products Containing
Same; Termination of Investigation
With a Finding of No Violation
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
December 14, 2012, finding no violation
of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation. On
review, the Commission has determined
to reverse or vacate certain findings, and
to terminate the investigation with a
finding of no violation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Esq., Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–2532. Copies of non-confidential
documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for
inspection during official business
hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the
Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205–2000. General
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\22FEN1.SGM
22FEN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 36 / Friday, February 22, 2013 / Notices
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 July 7, 2011, based on a complaint
filed by X2Y Attenuators, LLC of Erie,
Pennsylvania (‘‘X2Y’’). 76 FR 39,895
(July 7, 2011). The respondents are Intel
Corporation and Intel America, Inc.,
both of Santa Clara, California;
Componentes Intel de Costa Rica S.A. of
Heredia, Costa Rica; Intel Technology
Sdn Bhd of Penang, Malaysia; and Intel
Products (Chengdu) Ltd. of Chengdu,
China (collectively, ‘‘Intel’’), as well as
two of Intel’s customers who import
computers containing accused Intel
microprocessors, Apple Inc. of
Cupertino, California (‘‘Apple’’); and
Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto,
California (‘‘HP’’).
Originally, X2Y asserted numerous
claims from five patents. X2Y later
received leave to amend the notice of
investigation to add a sixth patent,
Order No. 13 (Oct. 14, 2011), not
reviewed, Nov. 14, 2011, but X2Y later
moved to terminate the investigation as
to three of the six patents and as to
certain claims of the remaining three,
Order No. 35 (June 13, 2012), not
reviewed, June 29, 2012; Order No. 59
(Sept. 7, 2012), not reviewed, Oct. 4,
2012. What remains are claims 23 and
30 of U.S. Patent No. 7,609,500 (‘‘the
’500 patent’’); claims 29, 31, 33, and 36
of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,444 (‘‘the ’444
patent’’); and claims 20, 28–31 of U.S.
Patent No. 8,023,241 (‘‘the ’241 patent’’).
On December 14, 2012, the presiding
ALJ issued the ID. The ALJ found no
violation of section 337. Based
substantially on adoption of certain of
respondents’ claim constructions, the
ALJ found that none of the patent claims
were infringed and that most were
invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
112(b). The ALJ rejected the
respondents’ other section 112
challenges, as well as their equitable
defenses based upon equitable estoppel,
unclean hands, and laches. The ALJ
found in the alternative that if X2Y’s
claim constructions were adopted, all of
the asserted claims would be invalid
under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 in view of
the prior art.
On December 31, 2012, X2Y filed a
petition for review that challenged
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Feb 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
certain claim constructions, as well as
the ALJ’s findings of noninfringement
and invalidity. That same day, the
respondents filed a contingent petition
for review arguing additional bases for
no violation. On January 9, 2013, the
private parties opposed each other’s
petitions. In addition, the Commission
investigative attorney filed a narrow
opposition, which recommended
against Commission review of the
domestic industry issues raised by the
private parties.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the petition for review, and the
responses thereto, the Commission has
determined to review the final ID in
part.
With respect to the issues raised in
X2Y’s petition for review, the
Commission has determined to review
the ALJ’s determination that the term
‘‘portion’’ in the ’444 and ’241 patents
is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The
Commission finds that the term is not
insolubly ambiguous and affords the
term its ordinary meaning. The
Commission has also determined to
review and reverse the ALJ’s
determination that all of the asserted
patent claims have a ‘‘capacitance’’
requirement not part of the adopted
claim constructions. The Commission
has determined not to review the ALJ’s
constructions of the terms ‘‘electrode’’
(all asserted patents) and ‘‘perimeter
edge’’ (the ’241 patent). The
Commission has determined not to
review the ALJ’s finding of
noninfringement based upon these
constructions. Regarding the ALJ’s
alternative invalidity findings under 35
U.S.C. 102 and 103 based upon claim
constructions rejected by the ALJ and
the Commission, the Commission
reviews and vacates those
determinations.
In view of the foregoing, the
Commission, like the ALJ, therefore
does not reach the written description
and anticipation arguments raised by
the respondents in their contingent
petition, both of which rely on claim
constructions inconsistent with the
Commission’s findings.
X2Y petitioned for review of the ALJ’s
determination that X2Y did not
demonstrate the existence of a domestic
industry under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)
through its licensing activities. The
respondents petitioned for review of the
ALJ’s determination that X2Y did
demonstrate the existence of a domestic
industry under section 337(a)(3)(C)
through the engineering, research and
development activities and investments
of X2Y’s licensee. The Commission has
determined to vacate the ALJ’s
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12355
determinations under section
337(a)(3)(C) without reaching the merits.
The ALJ’s findings under this
subsection are nondispositive in view of
the Commission’s adopted claim
constructions. Moreover, it appears that
the issues would be nondispositive even
under X2Y’s proposed claim
constructions, in view of the ALJ’s
findings under section 337(a)(3)(A) and
(a)(3)(B).
The Commission has determined not
to review the remainder of the ID.
Accordingly, the Commission has
terminated this investigation with a
finding of no violation. The
Commission’s determinations will be set
forth more fully in the Commission’s
forthcoming opinion.
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).
Issued: February 15, 2013.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–04070 Filed 2–21–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[Docket No. OLP 153]
Notice of Establishment of the National
Commission on Forensic Science and
Solicitation of Applications for
Commission Membership
Department of Justice.
Notice of Establishment and
Solicitation of Applications for
Membership.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Pursuant to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, as amended,
the Attorney General will be
establishing the National Commission
on Forensic Science. This notice
establishes criteria and procedures for
the selection of members.
DATES: Applications must be received
on or before March 25, 2013.
ADDRESSES: All applications should be
submitted to: Armando Bonilla by email
at Armando.Bonilla2@usdoj.gov or by
mail at Department of Justice, 950
Pennsylvania Ave NW., Room 4313,
Washington, DC 20530.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Armando Bonilla by email at
Armando.Bonilla2@usdoj.gov or by mail
at Department of Justice, 950
Pennsylvania Ave NW., Room 4313,
Washington, DC 20530.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\22FEN1.SGM
22FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 36 (Friday, February 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12354-12355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04070]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-781]
Certain Microprocessors, Components Thereof, and Products
Containing Same; Termination of Investigation With a Finding of No
Violation
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 December 14, 2012, finding no violation of section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation. On
review, the Commission has determined to reverse or vacate certain
findings, and to terminate the investigation with a finding of no
violation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Esq., Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are
or will be available for inspection during official business hours
(8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205-2000. General
[[Page 12355]]
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 July 7, 2011, based on a complaint filed by X2Y Attenuators, LLC of
Erie, Pennsylvania (``X2Y''). 76 FR 39,895 (July 7, 2011). The
respondents are Intel Corporation and Intel America, Inc., both of
Santa Clara, California; Componentes Intel de Costa Rica S.A. of
Heredia, Costa Rica; Intel Technology Sdn Bhd of Penang, Malaysia; and
Intel Products (Chengdu) Ltd. of Chengdu, China (collectively,
``Intel''), as well as two of Intel's customers who import computers
containing accused Intel microprocessors, Apple Inc. of Cupertino,
California (``Apple''); and Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto,
California (``HP'').
Originally, X2Y asserted numerous claims from five patents. X2Y
later received leave to amend the notice of investigation to add a
sixth patent, Order No. 13 (Oct. 14, 2011), not reviewed, Nov. 14,
2011, but X2Y later moved to terminate the investigation as to three of
the six patents and as to certain claims of the remaining three, Order
No. 35 (June 13, 2012), not reviewed, June 29, 2012; Order No. 59
(Sept. 7, 2012), not reviewed, Oct. 4, 2012. What remains are claims 23
and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 7,609,500 (``the '500 patent''); claims 29,
31, 33, and 36 of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,444 (``the '444 patent''); and
claims 20, 28-31 of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,241 (``the '241 patent'').
On December 14, 2012, the presiding ALJ issued the ID. The ALJ
found no violation of section 337. Based substantially on adoption of
certain of respondents' claim constructions, the ALJ found that none of
the patent claims were infringed and that most were invalid as
indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The ALJ rejected the respondents'
other section 112 challenges, as well as their equitable defenses based
upon equitable estoppel, unclean hands, and laches. The ALJ found in
the alternative that if X2Y's claim constructions were adopted, all of
the asserted claims would be invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 in view
of the prior art.
On December 31, 2012, X2Y filed a petition for review that
challenged certain claim constructions, as well as the ALJ's findings
of noninfringement and invalidity. That same day, the respondents filed
a contingent petition for review arguing additional bases for no
violation. On January 9, 2013, the private parties opposed each other's
petitions. In addition, the Commission investigative attorney filed a
narrow opposition, which recommended against Commission review of the
domestic industry issues raised by the private parties.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the petition for review, and the responses thereto, the
Commission has determined to review the final ID in part.
With respect to the issues raised in X2Y's petition for review, the
Commission has determined to review the ALJ's determination that the
term ``portion'' in the '444 and '241 patents is indefinite under 35
U.S.C. 112(b). The Commission finds that the term is not insolubly
ambiguous and affords the term its ordinary meaning. The Commission has
also determined to review and reverse the ALJ's determination that all
of the asserted patent claims have a ``capacitance'' requirement not
part of the adopted claim constructions. The Commission has determined
not to review the ALJ's constructions of the terms ``electrode'' (all
asserted patents) and ``perimeter edge'' (the '241 patent). The
Commission has determined not to review the ALJ's finding of
noninfringement based upon these constructions. Regarding the ALJ's
alternative invalidity findings under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 based upon
claim constructions rejected by the ALJ and the Commission, the
Commission reviews and vacates those determinations.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission, like the ALJ, therefore
does not reach the written description and anticipation arguments
raised by the respondents in their contingent petition, both of which
rely on claim constructions inconsistent with the Commission's
findings.
X2Y petitioned for review of the ALJ's determination that X2Y did
not demonstrate the existence of a domestic industry under 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(3)(C) through its licensing activities. The respondents
petitioned for review of the ALJ's determination that X2Y did
demonstrate the existence of a domestic industry under section
337(a)(3)(C) through the engineering, research and development
activities and investments of X2Y's licensee. The Commission has
determined to vacate the ALJ's determinations under section
337(a)(3)(C) without reaching the merits. The ALJ's findings under this
subsection are nondispositive in view of the Commission's adopted claim
constructions. Moreover, it appears that the issues would be
nondispositive even under X2Y's proposed claim constructions, in view
of the ALJ's findings under section 337(a)(3)(A) and (a)(3)(B).
The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the
ID. Accordingly, the Commission has terminated this investigation with
a finding of no violation. The Commission's determinations will be set
forth more fully in the Commission's forthcoming opinion.
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).
Issued: February 15, 2013.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-04070 Filed 2-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
