Certain Gaming and Entertainment Consoles, Related Software, and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review a Final Initial Remand Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Affirmance of Original Initial Determination as to Remaining Patent as Modified by the Remand Initial Determination; Termination of the Investigation, 32690-32691 [2013-12893]

Download as PDF 32690 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2013 / Notices of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)). By order of the Commission. Issued: May 24, 2013. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer. Investigation No. 731–TA–894 (Second Review). By order of the Commission. Issued: May 24, 2013. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer. [FR Doc. 2013–12894 Filed 5–30–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P [FR Doc. 2013–12892 Filed 5–30–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–752] [Investigation No. 731–TA–894 (Review)] Certain Ammonium Nitrate From Ukraine Determination On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain ammonium nitrate from Ukraine would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Background The Commission instituted this review on June 1, 2012 (77 FR 32669) and determined on October 17, 2012 that it would conduct a full review (77 FR 65015, October 24, 2012). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission’s review and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on October 24, 2012 (77 FR 65015).2 The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on April 4, 2013, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the Secretary of Commerce on May 24, 2013. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4396 (May 2013), entitled Certain Ammonium Nitrate from Ukraine: 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). 2 The Commission published a revised schedule on December 11, 2012 (77 FR 73674). VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 May 30, 2013 Jkt 229001 Certain Gaming and Entertainment Consoles, Related Software, and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review a Final Initial Remand Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Affirmance of Original Initial Determination as to Remaining Patent as Modified by the Remand Initial Determination; Termination of the Investigation U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the final initial remand determination (‘‘RID’’) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on March 22, 2013. The Commission affirms the ALJ’s final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) issued on April 23, 2012, as to the remaining patent as modified by the RID. 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. PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 The Commission instituted this investigation on December 23, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Motorola Mobility, Inc. of Libertyville, Illinois and General Instrument Corporation of Horsham, Pennsylvania (collectively ‘‘Motorola’’). 75 FR 80843 (Dec. 23, 2010). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (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 gaming and entertainment consoles, related software, and components thereof by reason of infringement of various claims of United States Patent Nos. 6,069,896 (‘‘the ’896 patent’’); 7,162,094 (‘‘the ’094 patent’’); 6,980,596 (‘‘the ’596 patent’’); 5,357,571 (‘‘the ’571 patent’’); and 5,319,712 (‘‘the ’712 patent’’). The notice of investigation named Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Washington (‘‘Microsoft’’) as the sole respondent. The notice of investigation also named the Office of Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) as a party in the investigation. See 75 FR 80843 (Dec. 23, 2010). OUII, however, withdrew from participation in accordance with the Commission’s Strategic Human Capital Plan. See 75 FR 80843 (2010); Letter from OUII to the Administrative Law Judge (Mar. 3, 2011). On April 23, 2012, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding a violation of section 337 by Microsoft. Specifically, the ALJ found that the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over the accused products and in personam jurisdiction over the respondent. The ALJ also found that the importation requirement of section 337 (19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)) has been satisfied. Regarding infringement, the ALJ found that Microsoft’s accused products directly infringe claims 1 and 12 of the ’896 patent; claims 7, 8, and 10 of the ’094 patent; claim 2 of the ’596 patent; and claims 12 and 13 of the ’571 patent. Id. at 330. The ALJ, however, found that the accused products do not infringe asserted claims 6, 8, and 17, of the ’712 patent. With respect to invalidity, the ALJ found that the asserted claims of the ’896, ’094, ’571, ’712 patents and claim 2 of the ’596 patent were not invalid. However, he found asserted claim 1 of the ’596 patent invalid for anticipation. He also found that Microsoft failed to prevail on any of its equitable defenses and that Microsoft failed to establish that Motorola’s alleged obligation to provide a license on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms (‘‘RAND’’) precluded a finding of violation of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM 31MYN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2013 / Notices section 337. The ALJ concluded that an industry exists within the United States that practices the ’896, ’094, ’571, ’596 and ’712 patents as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2). On May 7, 2012, Microsoft filed a petition for review of the ID. That same day, Motorola filed a petition and contingent petition for review. On May 15, 2012, the parties filed responses to the various petitions and contingent petition for review. On June 22, 2012, Microsoft filed a motion for partial termination of the investigation. Specifically, Microsoft moved for termination of the ’094 and ’596 patents from the investigation based on facts alleged in the motion. On June 29, 2012, the Commission determined to review the final ID in its entirety and remanded the investigation to the ALJ to apply the Commission’s opinion in Certain Electronic Devices with Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software, Inv. No. 337–TA–724, Comm’n Op. (Dec. 21, 2011) and rule on Microsoft’s motion for partial termination of the investigation filed June 22, 2012. 77 FR 40082 (July 6, 2012). On November 6, 2012, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 48) granting Motorola’s motion to terminate the investigation as to the ’712 and ’571 patents. On January 11, 2013, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 52) granting Motorola’s motion to terminate the investigation as to the ’596 and ’094 patents. The Commission determined not to review those orders. Thus, only the ’896 patent remains in this investigation. On March 22, 2013, the ALJ issued his RID, finding no violation of section 337 with respect to the asserted claims of the ’896 patent. On April 8, 2013, Motorola filed a petition for review of the RID, challenging the ALJ’s finding that Microsoft is not liable for indirectly infringing the asserted claims of the ’896 patent. That same day, Microsoft filed a contingent petition for review. In its contingent petition for review, Microsoft incorporates its petition for review of the original ID with respect to the ’896 patent. On April 16, 2013, the parties filed responses to the petitions for review. Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID and RID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined not to review the RID. The Commission affirms the ID issued on April 23, 2012, with respect to the ’896 patent as modified by the RID. In that connection, the Commission adopts the ALJ’s findings in the original ID that VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 May 30, 2013 Jkt 229001 (1) Motorola waived its indirect infringement argument and (2) Motorola failed to establish indirect infringement on the merits. ID at 67–68. The Commission also adopts the ALJ’s amplified findings in the RID that Motorola failed to establish indirect infringement on the merits during the remand proceeding. Thus there is no violation of section 337 with respect to the ’896 patent. The investigation is terminated. 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: May 23, 2013. By order of the Commission. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer. [FR Doc. 2013–12893 Filed 5–30–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Certificate of Electrical Training Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor. ACTION: 60-Day Notice. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to assure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. DATES: All comments must be postmarked or received by midnight Eastern Standard Time on July 30, 2013. ADDRESSES: Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this notice must be clearly identified with ‘‘OMB 1219–0001’’ and sent to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Comments may be sent by any of the methods listed below. PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 32691 • Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments for docket number [MSHA– 2013–0012]. • Regular Mail or Hand Delivery: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, 21st floor, Room 2350, Arlington, VA 22209–3939. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila McConnell, Deputy Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at McConnell.Sheila.A@dol.gov (email); 202–693–9440 (voice); or 202–693–9441 (facsimile). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 101(a) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the Mine Act) states that the Secretary shall by rule in accordance with procedures set forth in this section and in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code (without regard to any reference in such section to sections 556 and 557 of such title), develop, promulgate, and revise as may be appropriate, improved mandatory health or safety standards for the protection of life and prevention of injuries in coal or other mines. Under section 103(a)(2) authorized representatives of the Secretary or the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall make frequent inspections and investigations in coal or other mines each year for the purpose of gathering information with respect to mandatory health or safety standards. Under section 305(g) of the Mine Act, all electric equipment shall be frequently examined, tested, and properly maintained by a qualified person to assure safe operating conditions. Title 30 CFR sections 75.153 and 77.103 define a person as qualified to perform electrical work if he has been qualified as a coal mine electrician by a State that has a coal mine electrical qualification program approved by MSHA; or if he has at least one year of experience performing electrical work underground in a coal mine, in the surface work area of an underground coal mine, in a surface coal mine, in a noncoal mine, in the mine equipment manufacturing industry, or in any other industry using or manufacturing similar equipment, and has satisfactorily completed a coal mine electrical training program approved by MSHA or has attained a satisfactory grade on a series of five written tests approved by MSHA. E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM 31MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32690-32691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12893]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-752]


Certain Gaming and Entertainment Consoles, Related Software, and 
Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review a 
Final Initial Remand Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; 
Affirmance of Original Initial Determination as to Remaining Patent as 
Modified by the Remand Initial Determination; Termination of the 
Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined not to review the final initial remand 
determination (``RID'') issued by the presiding administrative law 
judge (``ALJ'') on March 22, 2013. The Commission affirms the ALJ's 
final initial determination (``ID'') issued on April 23, 2012, as to 
the remaining patent as modified by the RID.

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 December 23, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Motorola Mobility, 
Inc. of Libertyville, Illinois and General Instrument Corporation of 
Horsham, Pennsylvania (collectively ``Motorola''). 75 FR 80843 (Dec. 
23, 2010). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (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 gaming and entertainment consoles, related 
software, and components thereof by reason of infringement of various 
claims of United States Patent Nos. 6,069,896 (``the '896 patent''); 
7,162,094 (``the '094 patent''); 6,980,596 (``the '596 patent''); 
5,357,571 (``the '571 patent''); and 5,319,712 (``the '712 patent''). 
The notice of investigation named Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, 
Washington (``Microsoft'') as the sole respondent. The notice of 
investigation also named the Office of Unfair Import Investigations 
(``OUII'') as a party in the investigation. See 75 FR 80843 (Dec. 23, 
2010). OUII, however, withdrew from participation in accordance with 
the Commission's Strategic Human Capital Plan. See 75 FR 80843 (2010); 
Letter from OUII to the Administrative Law Judge (Mar. 3, 2011).
    On April 23, 2012, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding a violation 
of section 337 by Microsoft. Specifically, the ALJ found that the 
Commission has subject matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over 
the accused products and in personam jurisdiction over the respondent. 
The ALJ also found that the importation requirement of section 337 (19 
U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)) has been satisfied. Regarding infringement, the 
ALJ found that Microsoft's accused products directly infringe claims 1 
and 12 of the '896 patent; claims 7, 8, and 10 of the '094 patent; 
claim 2 of the '596 patent; and claims 12 and 13 of the '571 patent. 
Id. at 330. The ALJ, however, found that the accused products do not 
infringe asserted claims 6, 8, and 17, of the '712 patent. With respect 
to invalidity, the ALJ found that the asserted claims of the '896, 
'094, '571, '712 patents and claim 2 of the '596 patent were not 
invalid. However, he found asserted claim 1 of the '596 patent invalid 
for anticipation. He also found that Microsoft failed to prevail on any 
of its equitable defenses and that Microsoft failed to establish that 
Motorola's alleged obligation to provide a license on reasonable and 
nondiscriminatory terms (``RAND'') precluded a finding of violation of

[[Page 32691]]

section 337. The ALJ concluded that an industry exists within the 
United States that practices the '896, '094, '571, '596 and '712 
patents as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2).
    On May 7, 2012, Microsoft filed a petition for review of the ID. 
That same day, Motorola filed a petition and contingent petition for 
review. On May 15, 2012, the parties filed responses to the various 
petitions and contingent petition for review.
    On June 22, 2012, Microsoft filed a motion for partial termination 
of the investigation. Specifically, Microsoft moved for termination of 
the '094 and '596 patents from the investigation based on facts alleged 
in the motion.
    On June 29, 2012, the Commission determined to review the final ID 
in its entirety and remanded the investigation to the ALJ to apply the 
Commission's opinion in Certain Electronic Devices with Image 
Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software, Inv. 
No. 337-TA-724, Comm'n Op. (Dec. 21, 2011) and rule on Microsoft's 
motion for partial termination of the investigation filed June 22, 
2012. 77 FR 40082 (July 6, 2012).
    On November 6, 2012, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 48) granting 
Motorola's motion to terminate the investigation as to the '712 and 
'571 patents. On January 11, 2013, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 52) 
granting Motorola's motion to terminate the investigation as to the 
'596 and '094 patents. The Commission determined not to review those 
orders. Thus, only the '896 patent remains in this investigation.
    On March 22, 2013, the ALJ issued his RID, finding no violation of 
section 337 with respect to the asserted claims of the '896 patent.
    On April 8, 2013, Motorola filed a petition for review of the RID, 
challenging the ALJ's finding that Microsoft is not liable for 
indirectly infringing the asserted claims of the '896 patent. That same 
day, Microsoft filed a contingent petition for review. In its 
contingent petition for review, Microsoft incorporates its petition for 
review of the original ID with respect to the '896 patent. On April 16, 
2013, the parties filed responses to the petitions for review.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID and RID, the petitions for review, and the responses 
thereto, the Commission has determined not to review the RID. The 
Commission affirms the ID issued on April 23, 2012, with respect to the 
'896 patent as modified by the RID. In that connection, the Commission 
adopts the ALJ's findings in the original ID that (1) Motorola waived 
its indirect infringement argument and (2) Motorola failed to establish 
indirect infringement on the merits. ID at 67-68. The Commission also 
adopts the ALJ's amplified findings in the RID that Motorola failed to 
establish indirect infringement on the merits during the remand 
proceeding. Thus there is no violation of section 337 with respect to 
the '896 patent. The investigation is terminated.
    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: May 23, 2013.

    By order of the Commission.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-12893 Filed 5-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P