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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.