Certain Computer and Computer Peripheral Devices, and Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Commission Decision to Review an Initial Determination; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions Including Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding, 64977-64979 [2013-25643]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Notices
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
the Integrated Plan PEIS (see chapters 2
through 5 of the PEIS available at:
www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/
reports/FPEIS/fpeis.pdf). The PEIS
examined the effects of the overall
Integrated Plan Alternative, which
included the Cle Elum Reservoir Pool
Raise Project as part of the Structural
and Operational Changes element. Now
the agencies will prepare a project-level
EIS for the Cle Elum Reservoir Pool
Raise Project and will tier to the
Integrated Plan PEIS as provided for in
the Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations (40 CFR 1502.20, Tiering).
The project-level environmental
analysis to be conducted in this EIS will
expand upon and add detail to those
analyses already completed in the
Integrated Plan PEIS.
The proposed action to be evaluated
in the Cle Elum Reservoir Pool Raise EIS
is to modify the radial gates at Cle Elum
Dam to provide an additional 14,600
acre-feet of storage capacity. This
modification would raise the pool level
by approximately 3 feet. The objective
of this action is to use the additional
water stored to provide increased
seasonal releases from Cle Elum
Reservoir to improve streamflows for
fish. The Cle Elum Pool Raise Project is
authorized in Yakima River Basin Water
Enhancement Project (Sec. 1206, Pub. L.
103–43).
At this time, there are no known
Indian Trust Assets or environmental
justice issues associated with the
proposed action.
Special Assistance for Public Scoping
and Open House Meetings
If special assistance is required to
participate in the public scoping and
open house meetings, please contact Ms.
Candace McKinley, Bureau of
Reclamation, Columbia-Cascades Area
Office, 1917 Marsh Road, Yakima, WA
98901; telephone (509) 575–5848, ext.
232; facsimile (509) 454–5650; email
yrbwep@usbr.gov. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
may call the Federal Relay Service
(FedRelay) at 1–800–877–8339 TTY/
ASCII to contact the above individual
during normal business hours. The
FedRelay is available 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, to leave a message or
question with the above individual. You
will receive a reply during normal
business hours. All meeting facilities are
physically accessible to people with
disabilities.
Public Disclosure
Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:58 Oct 29, 2013
Jkt 232001
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you may ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Dated: October 24, 2013.
Lorri J. Lee,
Regional Director, Pacific Northwest Region.
[FR Doc. 2013–25691 Filed 10–29–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–841]
Certain Computer and Computer
Peripheral Devices, and Components
Thereof, and Products Containing
Same; Commission Decision to Review
an Initial Determination; Schedule for
Filing Written Submissions Including
Remedy, the Public Interest, and
Bonding
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in the entirety the final initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the
presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’) on August 2, 2013, finding a
violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this
investigation.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sidney A. Rosenzweig, 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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64977
The
Commission instituted this investigation
on May 2, 2012, based on a complaint
filed by Technology Properties Limited,
LLC (‘‘TPL’’) of Cupertino, California. 77
FR 26041 (May 2, 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 Nos.
6,976,623 (‘‘the ’623 patent’’), 7,162,549
(‘‘the ’549 patent’’), 7,295,443 (‘‘the ’443
patent’’), 7,522,424 (‘‘the ’424 patent’’),
6,438,638 (‘‘the ’638 patent’’), and
7,719,847 (‘‘the ’847 patent’’). The
complaint further alleges the existence
of a domestic industry. The notice of
investigation named twenty-one
respondents, some of whom have since
settled from the investigation. As a
result of these settlements, the ’638
patent is no longer at issue, as it has not
been asserted against the remaining
respondents. The remaining
respondents are Acer Inc. of New Taipei
City, Taiwan (‘‘Acer’’); Canon Inc. of
Toyko, Japan; Hewlett-Packard
Company of Palo Alto, California
(‘‘HP’’); HiTi Digital, Inc. of New Taipei
City, Taiwan; Kingston Technology
Company, Inc. of Fountain Valley,
California (‘‘Kingston’’); Newegg, Inc.
and Rosewill Inc., both of City of
Industry, California (‘‘Newegg/
Rosewill’’); and Seiko Epson
Corporation of Nagano, Japan.
On October 4, 2012, the ALJ issued a
Markman order construing disputed
claim terms of the asserted patents.
Order No. 23. On January 7–11, 2013,
the ALJ conducted a hearing, and on
August 2, 2013, the ALJ issued the final
ID. The ALJ found that TPL
demonstrated the existence of a
domestic industry, as required by 19
U.S.C. 1337(a)(2), through TPL’s
licensing investment under 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(3)(C). ID at 152–55. The ALJ
rejected TPL’s showing based upon
OnSpec Electronic, Inc.’s research and
development, and engineering
investments for section 337(a)(3)(C), as
well as subsections (a)(3)(A) and
(a)(3)(B). Id. at 155–57.
The ALJ found that the respondents
had not shown that any of the asserted
patent claims are invalid. However, the
ALJ found that TPL demonstrated
infringement of the ’623 patent, and not
the other patents. With respect to the
’623 patent, the ALJ found that TPL
demonstrated direct infringement of the
asserted apparatus claims (claims 1–4
and 9–12). Accordingly, the ALJ found
a violation of section 337 by Acer,
Kingston and Newegg/Rosewill
(collectively, ‘‘the ’623 respondents’’) as
to these apparatus claims of the ‘‘623
patent.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\30OCN1.SGM
30OCN1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
64978
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Notices
On August 19, 2013, the parties filed
petitions for review. TPL’s petition
challenges the ALJ’s noninfringement
determinations for the ’443, ’424, and
’847 patents. TPL did not petition for
review of the ALJ’s noninfringement
determination for the ’549 patent. The
’623 respondents challenge one of the
ALJ’s claim constructions, and
independently challenge the ALJ’s
finding that the asserted claims of the
’623 patent are not anticipated by, or
obvious in view of, three pieces of prior
art. The ’623 respondents also challenge
the ALJ’s finding that TPL demonstrated
the existence of a domestic industry,
and subscribe to the analysis presented
by the respondents against whom the
’623 patent was not asserted.
The respondents against whom the
’623 patent was not asserted
contingently challenge TPL’s evidence
of expenditures, as well as the nexus
between those expenditures and the
asserted patents, for purposes of
showing a domestic industry under
section 337(a)(3)(C). They also argue
that ‘‘[t]here is no evidence that TPL’s
licensees’ efforts relate to ’an article
protected by’ any of the asserted
patents.’’ Resp’ts’ Pet. 42, 54–56. The
respondents against whom the ’623
patent was not asserted also argue that
the four patents asserted against them
are invalid as anticipated or obvious in
view of the prior art. They also make
additional non-infringement arguments
for the three patents asserted against
them for which TPL has petitioned for
review (the ’443, ’424 and ’847 patents).
Respondent HP filed a short petition
for review on its own behalf. HP argues
for a narrow interpretation of articles
‘‘protected by’’ an asserted patent. HP
Pet. 5.
On August 27, 2013, the parties filed
responses to each other’s petitions.
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 ID in its
entirety.
In connection with the Commission’s
review, the parties are asked to brief
only the issues enumerated below. See
19 CFR 210.43(b)(2).
(1) Discuss, in light of the statutory
language, legislative history, the
Commission’s prior decisions, and
relevant court decisions, including
InterDigital Communications, LLC v.
ITC, 690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012), 707
F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013) and Microsoft
Corp. v. ITC, Nos. 2012–1445 & –1535,
2013 WL 5479876 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3,
2013), whether establishing a domestic
industry based on licensing under 19
U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C) requires proof of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:58 Oct 29, 2013
Jkt 232001
‘‘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.
(2) Discuss the construction of
‘‘accessible in parallel’’ in view of the
prosecution history of the ’623 patent
(including the Examiner’s Statement of
Reasons for Allowance, see Salazar v.
Proctor & Gamble Co., 414 F.3d 1342,
1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005)), and whether the
asserted patent claims are infringed and
not invalid based upon that
construction. Invalidity arguments not
dependent on that claim construction
should not be briefed.
(3) Comment on whether the
respondents’ invalidity evidence and
analysis as to the Pro II system, the Uno
Mas article, the Kaneshiro patent, and
the ’928 Publication, and TPL’s
evidence and analysis as to the
technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement, were undisputed. Please
cite all evidence in the record that
supports your position.
(4) Discuss whether TPL
demonstrated that the products accused
of infringing the ’443, ’424, and ’847
patents receive or interface with SD
cards that operate in a four-bit-bus
mode, and if so, whether the accused
products infringe the asserted claims.
(5) If the Commission were to find
that the accused products infringe the
’443, ’424, and ’847 patents, discuss
whether the SD specification invalidates
the asserted claims of those 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.
Accordingly, the Commission is
interested in receiving written
submissions that address the form of
remedy, if any, that should be ordered.
If a party seeks exclusion of an article
from entry into the United States for
purposes other than entry for
consumption, the party should so
indicate and provide information
establishing that activities involving
other types of entry either are adversely
affecting it or likely to do so. For
background, see Certain Devices for
Connecting Computers via Telephone
Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC
Pub. No. 2843, Comm’n Op. (December
1994).
If the Commission contemplates some
form of remedy, it must consider the
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
effects of that remedy upon the public
interest. The factors the Commission
will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease and desist
orders would have on (1) the public
health and welfare, (2) competitive
conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S.
production of articles that are like or
directly competitive with those that are
subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving written
submissions that address the
aforementioned public interest factors
in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form
of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the
President, has 60 days to approve or
disapprove the Commission’s action.
See Presidential Memorandum of July
21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005).
During this period, the subject articles
would be entitled to enter the United
States under bond, in an amount
determined by the Commission. The
Commission is therefore interested in
receiving submissions concerning the
amount of the bond that should be
imposed if a remedy is ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to
the investigation are requested to file
written submissions as set forth above.
Parties to the investigation, interested
government agencies, and any other
interested parties are encouraged to file
written submissions on the issues of
remedy, the public interest, and
bonding. Such submissions should
address the recommended
determination by the ALJ on remedy
and bonding. The complainants are also
requested to submit proposed remedial
orders for the Commission’s
consideration. The complainants are
also requested to state the date that the
asserted patents expire and the HTSUS
numbers under which the accused
products are imported. The written
submissions and proposed remedial
orders must be filed no later than close
of business on Thursday, November 7,
2013 and responses to the Commission’s
questions should not exceed 75 pages.
Reply submissions must be filed no later
than the close of business on Friday,
November 15, 2013, and such replies
should not exceed 50 pages. No further
submissions on these issues will be
permitted unless otherwise ordered by
the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines
stated above and submit 8 true paper
copies to the Office of the Secretary by
noon the next day pursuant to section
210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
E:\FR\FM\30OCN1.SGM
30OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Notices
210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to
the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No.
337–TA–841’’) 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 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42–46).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: October 24, 2013.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–25643 Filed 10–29–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Revision of a Previously
Approved Collection, with Change;
Comments Requested: COPS Progress
Report
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
ACTION:
60-Day Notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ)
Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS) will be submitting the
following information collection request
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. The revision of
a previously approved information
collection is published to obtain
comments from the public and affected
agencies.
The purpose of this notice is to allow
for 60 days for public comment until
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:58 Oct 29, 2013
Jkt 232001
[insert the date 60 days from the date
this notice is published in the Federal
Register]. This process is conducted in
accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have comments, especially on
the estimated public burden or
associated response time, suggestions,
or need a copy of the proposed
information collection instrument with
instructions or additional information,
please contact Ashley Hoornstra,
Department of Justice Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services,
145 N Street NE., Washington, DC
20530.
Written comments and suggestions
from the public and affected agencies
concerning the proposed collection of
information are encouraged. Your
comments should address one or more
of the following four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
—Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of This Information
Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection:
Revision of a previously approved
collection, with change; comments
requested.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: COPS
Progress Report.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and
the applicable component of the
Department sponsoring the collection:
None. U.S. Department of Justice Office
of Community Oriented Policing
Services.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: Under the Violent Crime and
Control Act of 1994, the U.S.
Department of Justice COPS Office
would require the completion of the
COPS Progress Report by recipients of
COPS hiring and non-hiring grants.
Grant recipients must complete this
report in order to inform COPS of their
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64979
activities with their awarded grant
funding.
An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond/reply:
It is estimated that approximately
9428 annual, quarterly, and final report
respondents can complete the report in
an average of 25 minutes.
(5) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: There are an estimated 3,928
total annual burden hours associated
with this collection.
If additional information is required
contact: Jerri Murray, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and
Planning Staff, Two Constitution
Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 1407B,
Washington, DC 20530.
Dated: October 25, 2013.
Jerri Murray,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S.
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2013–25701 Filed 10–29–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–AT–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Notice of
Law Enforcement Officer’s Injury or
Occupational Disease and Notice of
Law Enforcement Officer’s Death
ACTION:
Notice.
The Department of Labor
(DOL) is submitting the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs
(OWCP) sponsored information
collection request (ICR) revision titled,
‘‘Notice of Law Enforcement Officer’s
Injury or Occupational Disease and
Notice of Law Enforcement Officer’s
Death,’’ to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval for use in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
DATES: Submit comments on or before
November 29, 2013.
ADDRESSES: A copy of this ICR with
applicable supporting documentation;
including a description of the likely
respondents, proposed frequency of
response, and estimated total burden
may be obtained free of charge from the
RegInfo.gov Web site at https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201306-1240-006
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30OCN1.SGM
30OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 210 (Wednesday, October 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64977-64979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25643]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-841]
Certain Computer and Computer Peripheral Devices, and Components
Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Commission Decision to Review an
Initial Determination; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions
Including Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding
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 the entirety the final initial
determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') on August 2, 2013, finding a violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, 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 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 May 2, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Technology Properties
Limited, LLC (``TPL'') of Cupertino, California. 77 FR 26041 (May 2,
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 Nos. 6,976,623 (``the '623 patent''),
7,162,549 (``the '549 patent''), 7,295,443 (``the '443 patent''),
7,522,424 (``the '424 patent''), 6,438,638 (``the '638 patent''), and
7,719,847 (``the '847 patent''). The complaint further alleges the
existence of a domestic industry. The notice of investigation named
twenty-one respondents, some of whom have since settled from the
investigation. As a result of these settlements, the '638 patent is no
longer at issue, as it has not been asserted against the remaining
respondents. The remaining respondents are Acer Inc. of New Taipei
City, Taiwan (``Acer''); Canon Inc. of Toyko, Japan; Hewlett-Packard
Company of Palo Alto, California (``HP''); HiTi Digital, Inc. of New
Taipei City, Taiwan; Kingston Technology Company, Inc. of Fountain
Valley, California (``Kingston''); Newegg, Inc. and Rosewill Inc., both
of City of Industry, California (``Newegg/Rosewill''); and Seiko Epson
Corporation of Nagano, Japan.
On October 4, 2012, the ALJ issued a Markman order construing
disputed claim terms of the asserted patents. Order No. 23. On January
7-11, 2013, the ALJ conducted a hearing, and on August 2, 2013, the ALJ
issued the final ID. The ALJ found that TPL demonstrated the existence
of a domestic industry, as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2), through
TPL's licensing investment under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). ID at 152-55.
The ALJ rejected TPL's showing based upon OnSpec Electronic, Inc.'s
research and development, and engineering investments for section
337(a)(3)(C), as well as subsections (a)(3)(A) and (a)(3)(B). Id. at
155-57.
The ALJ found that the respondents had not shown that any of the
asserted patent claims are invalid. However, the ALJ found that TPL
demonstrated infringement of the '623 patent, and not the other
patents. With respect to the '623 patent, the ALJ found that TPL
demonstrated direct infringement of the asserted apparatus claims
(claims 1-4 and 9-12). Accordingly, the ALJ found a violation of
section 337 by Acer, Kingston and Newegg/Rosewill (collectively, ``the
'623 respondents'') as to these apparatus claims of the ``623 patent.
[[Page 64978]]
On August 19, 2013, the parties filed petitions for review. TPL's
petition challenges the ALJ's noninfringement determinations for the
'443, '424, and '847 patents. TPL did not petition for review of the
ALJ's noninfringement determination for the '549 patent. The '623
respondents challenge one of the ALJ's claim constructions, and
independently challenge the ALJ's finding that the asserted claims of
the '623 patent are not anticipated by, or obvious in view of, three
pieces of prior art. The '623 respondents also challenge the ALJ's
finding that TPL demonstrated the existence of a domestic industry, and
subscribe to the analysis presented by the respondents against whom the
'623 patent was not asserted.
The respondents against whom the '623 patent was not asserted
contingently challenge TPL's evidence of expenditures, as well as the
nexus between those expenditures and the asserted patents, for purposes
of showing a domestic industry under section 337(a)(3)(C). They also
argue that ``[t]here is no evidence that TPL's licensees' efforts
relate to 'an article protected by' any of the asserted patents.''
Resp'ts' Pet. 42, 54-56. The respondents against whom the '623 patent
was not asserted also argue that the four patents asserted against them
are invalid as anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art. They
also make additional non-infringement arguments for the three patents
asserted against them for which TPL has petitioned for review (the
'443, '424 and '847 patents).
Respondent HP filed a short petition for review on its own behalf.
HP argues for a narrow interpretation of articles ``protected by'' an
asserted patent. HP Pet. 5.
On August 27, 2013, the parties filed responses to each other's
petitions.
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 ID in its entirety.
In connection with the Commission's review, the parties are asked
to brief only the issues enumerated below. See 19 CFR 210.43(b)(2).
(1) Discuss, in light of the statutory language, legislative
history, the Commission's prior decisions, and relevant court
decisions, including InterDigital Communications, LLC v. ITC, 690 F.3d
1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012), 707 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013) and Microsoft
Corp. v. ITC, Nos. 2012-1445 & -1535, 2013 WL 5479876 (Fed. Cir. Oct.
3, 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.
(2) Discuss the construction of ``accessible in parallel'' in view
of the prosecution history of the '623 patent (including the Examiner's
Statement of Reasons for Allowance, see Salazar v. Proctor & Gamble
Co., 414 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005)), and whether the asserted
patent claims are infringed and not invalid based upon that
construction. Invalidity arguments not dependent on that claim
construction should not be briefed.
(3) Comment on whether the respondents' invalidity evidence and
analysis as to the Pro II system, the Uno Mas article, the Kaneshiro
patent, and the '928 Publication, and TPL's evidence and analysis as to
the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, were
undisputed. Please cite all evidence in the record that supports your
position.
(4) Discuss whether TPL demonstrated that the products accused of
infringing the '443, '424, and '847 patents receive or interface with
SD cards that operate in a four-bit-bus mode, and if so, whether the
accused products infringe the asserted claims.
(5) If the Commission were to find that the accused products
infringe the '443, '424, and '847 patents, discuss whether the SD
specification invalidates the asserted claims of those 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. Accordingly,
the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that
address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party
seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for
purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate
and provide information establishing that activities involving other
types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so.
For background, see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via
Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843, Comm'n Op.
(December 1994).
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the
public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S.
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly
competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written
submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in
the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve
or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of
July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the
subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under
bond, in an amount determined by the Commission. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of
the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions as set forth above. Parties to the
investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested
parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of
remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such submissions should
address the recommended determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding.
The complainants are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders
for the Commission's consideration. The complainants are also requested
to state the date that the asserted patents expire and the HTSUS
numbers under which the accused products are imported. The written
submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than
close of business on Thursday, November 7, 2013 and responses to the
Commission's questions should not exceed 75 pages. Reply submissions
must be filed no later than the close of business on Friday, November
15, 2013, and such replies should not exceed 50 pages. No further
submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered
by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8
true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day
pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR
[[Page 64979]]
210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (``Inv.
No. 337-TA-841'') 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 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: October 24, 2013.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-25643 Filed 10-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
