Certain Wireless Devices With 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof Commission Determination To Review the Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337 in Its Entirety, 55294-55296 [2013-21935]
Download as PDF
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
55294
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Notices
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and
1673b(a)) (the Act) to determine
whether there is a reasonable indication
that an industry in the United States is
materially injured or threatened with
material injury, or the establishment of
an industry in the United States is
materially retarded, by reason of
imports from chlorinated isocyanurates
from China and Japan, provided for in
subheadings 2933.69.60 and 3808.99.95
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States, that are alleged to be
sold in the United States at less than fair
value by Japan and alleged to be
subsidized by China. Unless the
Department of Commerce extends the
time for initiation pursuant to sections
702(c)(1)(B) or 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act
(19 U.S.C. 1671a(c)(1)(B) or
1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must
reach a preliminary determination in
antidumping and countervailing duty
investigations in 45 days, or in this case
by October 11, 2013. The Commission’s
views are due at Commerce within five
business days thereafter, or by October
22, 2013.
For further information concerning
the conduct of these investigations and
rules of general application, consult the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, part 201, subparts A through
E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207,
subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
DATES: Effective Date: August 29, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joanna Lo (202–205–1888), Office of
Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain
information on this matter 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 (https://
www.usitc.gov). The public record for
these investigations may be viewed on
the Commission’s electronic docket
(EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background.—These investigations are
being instituted in response to a petition
filed on August 29, 2013 by Clearon
Corp., South Charleston, WV; and
Occidental Chemical Corp. Dallas, TX.
Participation in the investigations and
public service list.—Persons (other than
petitioners) wishing to participate in the
investigations as parties must file an
entry of appearance with the Secretary
to the Commission, as provided in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Sep 09, 2013
Jkt 229001
sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the
Commission’s rules, not later than seven
days after publication of this notice in
the Federal Register. Industrial users
and (if the merchandise under
investigation is sold at the retail level)
representative consumer organizations
have the right to appear as parties in
Commission antidumping and
countervailing duty investigations. The
Secretary will prepare a public service
list containing the names and addresses
of all persons, or their representatives,
who are parties to these investigations
upon the expiration of the period for
filing entries of appearance.
Limited disclosure of business
proprietary information (BPI) under an
administrative protective order (APO)
and BPI service list.—Pursuant to
section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s
rules, the Secretary will make BPI
gathered in these investigations
available to authorized applicants
representing interested parties (as
defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are
parties to the investigations under the
APO issued in the investigations,
provided that the application is made
not later than seven days after the
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. A separate service list will be
maintained by the Secretary for those
parties authorized to receive BPI under
the APO.
Conference.—The Commission’s
Director of Investigations has scheduled
a conference in connection with these
investigations for 9:30 a.m. on
September 19, 2013, at the U.S.
International Trade Commission
Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington,
DC. Requests to appear at the conference
should be filed with William.Bishop@
usitc.gov and Sharon.Bellamy@usitc.gov
(DO NOT FILE ON EDIS) on or before
September 17, 2013. Parties in support
of the imposition of countervailing and
antidumping duties in these
investigations and parties in opposition
to the imposition of such duties will
each be collectively allocated one hour
within which to make an oral
presentation at the conference. A
nonparty who has testimony that may
aid the Commission’s deliberations may
request permission to present a short
statement at the conference.
Written submissions.—As provided in
sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the
Commission’s rules, any person may
submit to the Commission on or before
September 24, 2013, a written brief
containing information and arguments
pertinent to the subject matter of the
investigations. Parties may file written
testimony in connection with their
presentation at the conference no later
than three days before the conference. If
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
briefs or written testimony contain BPI,
they must conform with the
requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3,
and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules.
Please be aware that the Commission’s
rules with respect to electronic filing
have been amended. The amendments
took effect on November 7, 2011. See 76
FR 61937 (Oct. 6, 2011) and the newly
revised Commission’s Handbook on EFiling, available on the Commission’s
Web site at https://edis.usitc.gov.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c)
and 207.3 of the rules, each document
filed by a party to the investigations
must be served on all other parties to
the investigations (as identified by
either the public or BPI service list), and
a certificate of service must be timely
filed. The Secretary will not accept a
document for filing without a certificate
of service.
Authority: These investigations are being
conducted under authority of title VII of the
Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published
pursuant to section 207.12 of the
Commission’s rules.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: September 4, 2013.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–21903 Filed 9–9–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–800]
Certain Wireless Devices With 3G
Capabilities and Components Thereof
Commission Determination To Review
the Final Initial Determination Finding
No Violation of Section 337 in Its
Entirety
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in its entirety, the final initial
determination issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’)
finding no violation of section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337,
(‘‘section 337’’) in the above identified
investigation.
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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM
10SEN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Notices
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 31, 2011, based on a
complaint filed by InterDigital
Communications, LLC of King of
Prussia, Pennsylvania; InterDigital
Technology Corporation of Wilmington,
Delaware; and IPR Licensing, Inc. of
Wilmington, Delaware (collectively,
‘‘InterDigital’’). 76 FR. 54252 (Aug. 31,
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 wireless devices with 3G
capabilities and components thereof by
reason of infringement of certain claims
of United States Patent Nos. 7,349,540
(terminated from the investigation);
7,502,406; 7,536,013; 7,616,970;
7,706,332; 7,706,830; and 7,970,127.
The notice of investigation named the
following entities as respondents:
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. of
Shenzhen, China; FutureWei
Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei,
Technologies (USA) of Plano, Texas;
Nokia Corporation of Espoo, Finland;
Nokia Inc. of White Plains, New York;
ZTE Corporation of Shenzhen, China;
and ZTE (USA) Inc. of Richardson,
Texas (collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’).
The complaint and notice of
investigation were subsequently
amended to allege infringement of
certain claims of United States Patent
No. 8,009,636 (the ’636 patent) and to
add the following entities as
respondents: LG Electronics, Inc. of
Seoul Korea; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; and LG
Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. of
San Diego, California (collectively,
‘‘LG’’). 76 FR 81527 (Dec. 28, 2011). The
complaint and notice of investigation
were further amended to include
Huawei Device USA of Plano, Texas as
a respondent. 77 FR 26788 (May 7,
2012).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Sep 09, 2013
Jkt 229001
InterDigital Communications, LLC
subsequently moved for leave to amend
the Complaint and Notice of
Investigation to reflect the fact that it
converted from a Pennsylvania limited
liability company to a Delaware
corporation, and changed its name to
InterDigital Communications, Inc. The
ALJ issued an ID granting the motion
and the Commission determined not to
review. See Order No. 91 (Jan. 17, 2013);
Notice of Commission Determination
Not to Review an Initial Determination
Granting Complainants’ Motion for
Leave to Amend the Complaint and
Notice of Investigation (Feb. 4, 2013).
On June 4, 2012, the ALJ granted a
motion by LG under 19 CFR 210.21(a)(2)
to terminate the investigation as to LG
based on an arbitration agreement. See
Order No. 30 (June 4, 2012). The
Commission determined not to review.
See Notice of Commission
Determination Not to Review an Initial
Determination Terminating Certain
Respondents From the Investigation
(July 6, 2012). InterDigital appealed LG’s
termination from this investigation, and
the Federal Circuit reversed the
Commission’s determination.
InterDigital Commc’ns, LLC v Int’l Trade
Comm’n, No. 2012–1628 (Fed. Cir. June
7, 2013).
On June 28, 2013, the ALJ issued his
final ID, finding no violation of section
337 by Respondents. Specifically, the
ALJ found that the Commission has
subject matter jurisdiction, in rem
jurisdiction over the accused products,
and in personam jurisdiction over the
respondents. The ALJ also found that
the importation requirement of section
337 (19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)) has been
satisfied. The ALJ, however, found that
the accused products do not infringe
asserted claims 1–3 and 5 of the ’830
patent; asserted claims 1, 2, 4, and 6–
8 of the ’636 patent; asserted claims 6,
13, 20, 26, and 29 of the ’406 patent;
asserted claims 2–4, 7–11, 14, 22–24,
and 27 of the ’332 patent; asserted
claims 1–7 of the ’127 patent; asserted
claims 16–19 of the ’013 patent; or
asserted claims 10–18 of the ’970 patent.
The ALJ found that the accused
products meet each limitation of claims
1–9 of the ’970 patent but found that all
the asserted claims, claims 1–18, of the
’970 patent are invalid in view of the
prior art. The ALJ also found that
asserted claims 1–7 of the ’127 patent
and asserted claims 16–19 of the ’013
patent are invalid in view of the prior
art. The ALJ, however, found that
Respondents failed to establish by clear
and convincing evidence that the
asserted claims of the ’830, ’636, ’406 or
’332 patents were invalid in light of the
cited prior art references. The ALJ also
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55295
found that the Respondents failed to
prove that they hold licenses under the
asserted patents and failed to prevail on
their equitable/FRAND defenses. The
ALJ further found that InterDigital
established the existence of a domestic
industry.
On July 15, 2013, InterDigital filed a
petition for review of the ID. That same
day, the Commission Investigative
Attorney and Respondents filed separate
petitions for review. Respondents also
filed a contingent petition for review.
On July 23, 2013, the parties filed
responses to the petitions and
contingent petition for review.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the petitions for review, and the
responses thereto, the Commission has
determined to review the final ID in its
entirety.
In connection with its review, the
Commission is particularly interested in
responses to the following question:
Please discuss, in light of the statutory
language, legislative history, the
Commission’s prior decisions, and relevant
court decisions, including InterDigital
Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 690
F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012), and 707 F.3d 1295
(Fed. Cir. 2013), whether establishing a
domestic industry based on licensing under
19 U.S.C. 1337 (a)(3)(C) requires proof of
‘‘articles protected by the patent’’ (i.e., a
technical prong). If so, please identify and
describe the evidence in the record that
establishes articles protected by the asserted
patents.
In connection with the final
disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may (1) issue an order that
could result in the exclusion of the
subject articles from entry into the
United States, and/or (2) issue one or
more cease and desist orders that could
result in the respondent(s) being
required to cease and desist from
engaging in unfair acts in the
importation and sale of such articles.
The Commission, however, is not
interested in receiving written
submissions that address the form of
remedy and bonding, if any, or the
public interest at this time.
Written Submissions: The parties to
the investigation are requested to file
written submissions on the issue
identified in this notice. The written
submissions must be filed no later than
close of business on September 27,
2013. Initial submissions are limited to
15 pages. Reply submissions must be
filed no later than the close of business
on October 4, 2013. Reply submissions
are limited to 10 pages. No further
submissions on this issue will be
permitted unless otherwise ordered by
the Commission.
E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM
10SEN1
55296
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Notices
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
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–800’’) in a prominent place on
the cover page and/or the first page. (See
Handbook for Electronic Filing
Procedures, https://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).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: September 4, 2013.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–21935 Filed 9–9–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[USITC SE–13–023]
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Government in the Sunshine Act
Meeting Notice
United
States International Trade Commission.
TIME AND DATE: September 20, 2013 at
11:00 a.m.
PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, Telephone:
(202) 205–2000.
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Sep 09, 2013
Jkt 229001
STATUS:
Open to the public.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1. Agendas for future meetings: none
2. Minutes
3. Ratification List
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701–TA–491–493,
495, and 497 (Final) (Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp from China, Ecuador, India,
Malaysia, and Vietnam). The
Commission is currently scheduled to
complete and file its determinations and
views of the Commission on or before
October 1, 2013.
5. Outstanding action jackets: none
In accordance with Commission
policy, subject matter listed above, not
disposed of at the scheduled meeting,
may be carried over to the agenda of the
following meeting.
Issued: September 6, 2013.
By order of the Commission.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013–22073 Filed 9–6–13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Notice Pursuant to the National
Cooperative Research and Production
Act of 1993—American Gap
Association
Notice is hereby given that, on August
12, 2013, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the
National Cooperative Research and
Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), American Gap
Association (‘‘AGA’’) has filed written
notifications simultaneously with the
Attorney General and the Federal Trade
Commission disclosing additions or
changes to its standards development
activities. The notifications were filed
for the purpose of extending the Act’s
provisions limiting the recovery of
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages
under specified circumstances.
Specifically, the ratification of industry
standards for Gap Year Education, the
further development of a Board of
Advisors, and the further development
of a Board of Directors.
On June 6, 2012, AGA filed its
original notification pursuant to Section
6(a) of the Act. The Department of
Justice published a notice in the Federal
Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the
Act on July 6, 2012 (77 FR 40085).
Antitrust Division
Notice Pursuant to the National
Cooperative Research and Production
Act of 1993—Pistoia Alliance, Inc.
Notice is hereby given that, on August
6, 2013, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the
National Cooperative Research and
Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Pistoia Alliance, Inc.
has filed written notifications
simultaneously with the Attorney
General and the Federal Trade
Commission disclosing changes in its
membership. The notifications were
filed for the purpose of extending the
Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages
under specified circumstances.
Specifically, John G. Sgouros
(individual), London, UNITED
KINGDOM; 3E Company, Carlsbad, CA;
and SIB Swiss Institute of
Bioinformatics, Genopode, Lausanne,
SWITZERLAND, have been added as
parties to this venture. Also, HCL
Technologies Ltd, Berkshire, UNITED
KINGDOM, has withdrawn as a party to
this venture.
In addition, BioXpr has changed its
name to Progenus, Namur, BELGIUM.
No other changes have been made in
either the membership or planned
activity of the group research project.
Membership in this group research
project remains open, and Pistoia
Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional
written notifications disclosing all
changes in membership.
On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance,
Inc. filed its original notification
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The
Department of Justice published a notice
in the Federal Register pursuant to
Section 6(b) of the Act on July 15, 2009
(74 FR 34364).
The last notification was filed with
the Department on May 16, 2013. A
notice was published in the Federal
Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the
Act on June 13, 2013 (78 FR 35646).
Patricia A. Brink
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust
Division.
[FR Doc. 2013–21909 Filed 9–9–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust
Division.
[FR Doc. 2013–21908 Filed 9–9–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM
10SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55294-55296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21935]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-800]
Certain Wireless Devices With 3G Capabilities and Components
Thereof Commission Determination To Review the Final Initial
Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337 in Its Entirety
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 its entirety, the final initial
determination issued by the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, (``section 337'') in the above identified
investigation.
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
[[Page 55295]]
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 31, 2011, based on a complaint filed by InterDigital
Communications, LLC of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; InterDigital
Technology Corporation of Wilmington, Delaware; and IPR Licensing, Inc.
of Wilmington, Delaware (collectively, ``InterDigital''). 76 FR. 54252
(Aug. 31, 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 wireless devices with 3G
capabilities and components thereof by reason of infringement of
certain claims of United States Patent Nos. 7,349,540 (terminated from
the investigation); 7,502,406; 7,536,013; 7,616,970; 7,706,332;
7,706,830; and 7,970,127. The notice of investigation named the
following entities as respondents: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. of
Shenzhen, China; FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei,
Technologies (USA) of Plano, Texas; Nokia Corporation of Espoo,
Finland; Nokia Inc. of White Plains, New York; ZTE Corporation of
Shenzhen, China; and ZTE (USA) Inc. of Richardson, Texas (collectively,
``Respondents''). The complaint and notice of investigation were
subsequently amended to allege infringement of certain claims of United
States Patent No. 8,009,636 (the '636 patent) and to add the following
entities as respondents: LG Electronics, Inc. of Seoul Korea; LG
Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; and LG
Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. of San Diego, California
(collectively, ``LG''). 76 FR 81527 (Dec. 28, 2011). The complaint and
notice of investigation were further amended to include Huawei Device
USA of Plano, Texas as a respondent. 77 FR 26788 (May 7, 2012).
InterDigital Communications, LLC subsequently moved for leave to
amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation to reflect the fact
that it converted from a Pennsylvania limited liability company to a
Delaware corporation, and changed its name to InterDigital
Communications, Inc. The ALJ issued an ID granting the motion and the
Commission determined not to review. See Order No. 91 (Jan. 17, 2013);
Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial
Determination Granting Complainants' Motion for Leave to Amend the
Complaint and Notice of Investigation (Feb. 4, 2013).
On June 4, 2012, the ALJ granted a motion by LG under 19 CFR
210.21(a)(2) to terminate the investigation as to LG based on an
arbitration agreement. See Order No. 30 (June 4, 2012). The Commission
determined not to review. See Notice of Commission Determination Not to
Review an Initial Determination Terminating Certain Respondents From
the Investigation (July 6, 2012). InterDigital appealed LG's
termination from this investigation, and the Federal Circuit reversed
the Commission's determination. InterDigital Commc'ns, LLC v Int'l
Trade Comm'n, No. 2012-1628 (Fed. Cir. June 7, 2013).
On June 28, 2013, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding no violation
of section 337 by Respondents. Specifically, the ALJ found that the
Commission has subject matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over
the accused products, and in personam jurisdiction over the
respondents. The ALJ also found that the importation requirement of
section 337 (19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)) has been satisfied. The ALJ,
however, found that the accused products do not infringe asserted
claims 1-3 and 5 of the '830 patent; asserted claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-8
of the '636 patent; asserted claims 6, 13, 20, 26, and 29 of the '406
patent; asserted claims 2-4, 7-11, 14, 22-24, and 27 of the '332
patent; asserted claims 1-7 of the '127 patent; asserted claims 16-19
of the '013 patent; or asserted claims 10-18 of the '970 patent. The
ALJ found that the accused products meet each limitation of claims 1-9
of the '970 patent but found that all the asserted claims, claims 1-18,
of the '970 patent are invalid in view of the prior art. The ALJ also
found that asserted claims 1-7 of the '127 patent and asserted claims
16-19 of the '013 patent are invalid in view of the prior art. The ALJ,
however, found that Respondents failed to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that the asserted claims of the '830, '636, '406 or
'332 patents were invalid in light of the cited prior art references.
The ALJ also found that the Respondents failed to prove that they hold
licenses under the asserted patents and failed to prevail on their
equitable/FRAND defenses. The ALJ further found that InterDigital
established the existence of a domestic industry.
On July 15, 2013, InterDigital filed a petition for review of the
ID. That same day, the Commission Investigative Attorney and
Respondents filed separate petitions for review. Respondents also filed
a contingent petition for review. On July 23, 2013, the parties filed
responses to the petitions and contingent petition for review.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto,
the Commission has determined to review the final ID in its entirety.
In connection with its review, the Commission is particularly
interested in responses to the following question:
Please discuss, in light of the statutory language, legislative
history, the Commission's prior decisions, and relevant court
decisions, including InterDigital Commc'ns, LLC v. Int'l Trade
Comm'n, 690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012), and 707 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir.
2013), whether establishing a domestic industry based on licensing
under 19 U.S.C. 1337 (a)(3)(C) requires proof of ``articles
protected by the patent'' (i.e., a technical prong). If so, please
identify and describe the evidence in the record that establishes
articles protected by the asserted patents.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of
the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2)
issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the
respondent(s) being required to cease and desist from engaging in
unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. The
Commission, however, is not interested in receiving written submissions
that address the form of remedy and bonding, if any, or the public
interest at this time.
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the issue identified in this notice. The
written submissions must be filed no later than close of business on
September 27, 2013. Initial submissions are limited to 15 pages. Reply
submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on
October 4, 2013. Reply submissions are limited to 10 pages. No further
submissions on this issue will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by
the Commission.
[[Page 55296]]
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 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-800'') in a prominent place on
the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic
Filing Procedures, https://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).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: September 4, 2013.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-21935 Filed 9-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P