Certain Computers and Computer Peripheral Devices, and Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Commission Determination Terminating the Investigation With a Finding of No Violation of Section 337, 78382-78383 [2013-30753]
Download as PDF
78382
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 248 / Thursday, December 26, 2013 / Notices
other personal indentifying information
in your comment, you should be aware
that your entire comment-including
your personal identifying informationmay be made publicly available at any
time. While you can 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. All comments will
be made part of the public record and
will be electronically distributed to all
Commission members.
[FR Doc. 2013–30786 Filed 12–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–WV–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS–NERO–GATE–14426; PPNEGATEB0,
PPMVSCS1Z.Y00000]
Notice of January 10, 2014, Meeting of
the Fort Hancock 21st Century
Advisory Committee
National Park Service, Interior.
Meeting notice.
AGENCY:
This notice sets forth the date
of the seventh meeting of the Fort
Hancock 21st Century Advisory
Committee.
SUMMARY:
The public meeting of the Fort
Hancock 21st Century Advisory
Committee will be held on January 10,
2014, at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn 5:30 p.m.
(Eastern) or earlier if meeting objectives
are met.
ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet at
The Chapel at Sandy Hook, Hartshorne
Drive, Middletown, NJ 07732. Please
check www.forthancock21stcentury.org
for additional information. Written
comments may be sent to John Warren,
Park Ranger, Gateway National
Recreation Area, 26 Hudson Road, Fort
Hancock, NJ 07732, or submitted by
email to: forthancock21stcentury@
yahoo.com.
Agenda: Committee meeting will
consist of the following:
1. Welcome and Introductory Remarks
2. Update on Working Group Progress
3. Assessment of Committee Needs
4. Potential Frameworks and Reuse
Scenarios
5. Development of Committee Work
Plan
6. Future Committee Activities and
Meeting Schedule
7. Public Comment
8. Adjournment
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:06 Dec 24, 2013
Jkt 232001
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 731–TA–1114 (Review)]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Further information concerning the
meeting may be obtained from John
Warren, Park Ranger, Gateway National
Recreation Area, 26 Hudson Road, Fort
Hancock, NJ 07732, at (732) 872–5908 or
email: forthancock21stcentury@
yahoo.com, or visit the Committee Web
site at www.forthancock21stcentury.org.
In
accordance with section 9(a)(2) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. Appendix 1–16), the purpose of
the Committee is to provide advice to
the Secretary of the Interior, through the
Director of the National Park Service, on
the development of a reuse plan and on
matters relating to future uses of certain
buildings at Fort Hancock within
Gateway National Recreation Area.
The meeting is open to the public.
Interested members of the public may
present, either orally or through written
comments, information for the
Committee to consider during the public
meeting. Attendees and those wishing to
provide comment are strongly
encouraged to preregister through the
contact information provided. The
public will be able to comment on
January 10, 2014, from 1:00 p.m.to 1:45
p.m. Written comments will be accepted
prior to, during, or after the meeting.
Due to time constraints during the
meeting, the Committee is not able to
read written public comments
submitted into the record. Individuals
or groups requesting to make oral
comments at the public committee
meeting will be limited to no more than
5 minutes per speaker.
Before including your address,
telephone number, email address, or
other personal indentifying information
in your written comments, you should
be aware that your entire comment
including your personal identifying
information may be made publicly
available. While you can 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. All comments will
be made part of the public record and
will be electronically distributed to all
committee members.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: December 16, 2013.
Alma Ripps,
Chief, Office of Policy
ACTION:
The final agenda will be posted on
www.forthancock21stcentury.org prior
to each meeting.
Dated: December 16, 2013.
Alma Ripps,
Chief, Office of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013–30791 Filed 12–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–WV–P
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Steel Nails From China; Determination
On the basis of the record 1 developed
in the subject five-year review, the
United States International Trade
Commission (Commission) determines,
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that
revocation of the antidumping duty
order on steel nails from China would
be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of material injury to an
industry in the United States within a
reasonably foreseeable time.
Background
The Commission instituted this
review on July 1, 2013 (78 FR 40172)
and determined on October 21, 2013
that it would conduct an expedited
review (78 FR 68472, November 14,
2013).
The Commission completed and filed
its determination in this review on
December 19, 2013. The views of the
Commission are contained in USITC
Publication 4442 (December 2013),
entitled Steel Nails from China:
Investigation No. 731–TA–1114
(Review).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: December 19, 2013.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–30754 Filed 12–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–841]
Certain Computers and Computer
Peripheral Devices, and Components
Thereof, and Products Containing
Same; Commission Determination
Terminating the Investigation With a
Finding of No Violation of Section 337
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to
terminate the above-captioned
investigation with a finding of no
violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337.
SUMMARY:
1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 207.2(f)).
E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM
26DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 248 / Thursday, December 26, 2013 / Notices
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
alleged 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 alleged 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; Canon Inc. of Toyko,
Japan; Hewlett-Packard Company of
Palo Alto, California; HiTi Digital, Inc.
of New Taipei City, Taiwan; Kingston
Technology Company, Inc. of Fountain
Valley, California; Newegg, Inc. and
Rosewill Inc., both of City of Industry,
California; 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 an evidentiary
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:06 Dec 24, 2013
Jkt 232001
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 domestic-industry
showing based upon OnSpec Electronic,
Inc.’s research and development, and
engineering investments under 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 the four
respondents accused of infringing these
apparatus claims.
On August 19, 2013, the parties filed
petitions for review, and on August 27,
2013, the parties filed responses to each
other’s petitions.
On October 24, 2013, the Commission
issued a notice that determined to
review the ID in its entirety. The
Commission notice invited briefing from
the parties on five enumerated topics,
and briefing from the parties and
written submissions on remedy, the
public interest, and bonding. On
November 7, 2013, the parties filed
opening briefs and written submissions,
and non-party Intel Corp. filed a
submission on remedy and the public
interest. On November 15, 2013, the
parties filed responses to each other’s
filings.
On December 11, 2013, TPL and Acer
filed a joint motion to terminate the
investigation as to Acer on the basis of
a settlement agreement. Having
examined the record of this
investigation, including the December
11, 2013 motion and exhibits thereto,
the Commission has determined to grant
the motion to terminate the
investigation as to Acer. See 19 CFR
210.21. The Commission finds that
settlements are generally within the
public interest and that terminating
Acer will not cause an adverse effect on
the public health and welfare,
competitive conditions in the U.S.
economy, the production of like or
directly competitive articles in the
United States, or U.S. consumers. See 19
CFR 210.50(b)(2).
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the petitions for review, and the
responses thereto, and the briefing in
response to the notice of review, the
Commission has determined to
terminate the investigation with a
finding of no violation of section 337.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
78383
The Commission has determined to
find no violation of section 337 for the
following reasons. For the ’623 patent,
the Commission adopts the respondents’
proposed construction of ‘‘accessible in
parallel.’’ The Commission therefore
reverses the ID’s finding of infringement
as to that patent. Based upon that claim
construction, the Commission also finds
that TPL has not demonstrated the
existence of an article protected by the
’623 patent. The Commission finds that
the Federal Circuit’s decisions in
InterDigital Communications, LLC v.
ITC, 690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012), 707
F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013) and Microsoft
Corp. v. ITC, 731 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir.
2013), require a complainant to make
such a demonstration regardless of
whether the domestic industry is
alleged to exist under 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(3)(A), (B), or (C).
For the ’443, ‘424, and ’847 patents,
the Commission affirms the ID’s
determination that TPL failed to
demonstrate that the accused products
infringe the asserted claims. The
Commission also finds for these three
patents that TPL failed to demonstrate
the existence of a domestic industry
because it failed to demonstrate the
existence of articles practicing these
patents.
TPL did not raise the ’549 patent in
its petition for review. 19 CFR
210.43(b)(2). The Commission affirms
the ID’s noninfringement finding, and
its finding that TPL failed to show that
its domestic industry products meet
certain claim limitations.
The reasons for the Commission’s
determinations will be set forth more
fully in the Commission’s opinion.
Commissioner Aranoff dissents from
the Commission’s finding that TPL was
required to demonstrate the existence of
articles practicing the asserted patents
in order to show a domestic industry
based on licensing under 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(3)(C).
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, 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: December 19, 2013.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–30753 Filed 12–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM
26DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 248 (Thursday, December 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78382-78383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30753]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-841]
Certain Computers and Computer Peripheral Devices, and Components
Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Commission Determination
Terminating the Investigation With a Finding of No Violation of Section
337
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to terminate the above-captioned
investigation with a finding of no violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337.
[[Page 78383]]
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 alleged 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 alleged 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; Canon Inc. of Toyko, Japan; Hewlett-Packard Company of
Palo Alto, California; HiTi Digital, Inc. of New Taipei City, Taiwan;
Kingston Technology Company, Inc. of Fountain Valley, California;
Newegg, Inc. and Rosewill Inc., both of City of Industry, California;
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 an evidentiary 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 domestic-industry
showing based upon OnSpec Electronic, Inc.'s research and development,
and engineering investments under 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 the four respondents accused of infringing these
apparatus claims.
On August 19, 2013, the parties filed petitions for review, and on
August 27, 2013, the parties filed responses to each other's petitions.
On October 24, 2013, the Commission issued a notice that determined
to review the ID in its entirety. The Commission notice invited
briefing from the parties on five enumerated topics, and briefing from
the parties and written submissions on remedy, the public interest, and
bonding. On November 7, 2013, the parties filed opening briefs and
written submissions, and non-party Intel Corp. filed a submission on
remedy and the public interest. On November 15, 2013, the parties filed
responses to each other's filings.
On December 11, 2013, TPL and Acer filed a joint motion to
terminate the investigation as to Acer on the basis of a settlement
agreement. Having examined the record of this investigation, including
the December 11, 2013 motion and exhibits thereto, the Commission has
determined to grant the motion to terminate the investigation as to
Acer. See 19 CFR 210.21. The Commission finds that settlements are
generally within the public interest and that terminating Acer will not
cause an adverse effect on the public health and welfare, competitive
conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of like or directly
competitive articles in the United States, or U.S. consumers. See 19
CFR 210.50(b)(2).
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto,
and the briefing in response to the notice of review, the Commission
has determined to terminate the investigation with a finding of no
violation of section 337.
The Commission has determined to find no violation of section 337
for the following reasons. For the '623 patent, the Commission adopts
the respondents' proposed construction of ``accessible in parallel.''
The Commission therefore reverses the ID's finding of infringement as
to that patent. Based upon that claim construction, the Commission also
finds that TPL has not demonstrated the existence of an article
protected by the '623 patent. The Commission finds that the Federal
Circuit's decisions in InterDigital Communications, LLC v. ITC, 690
F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012), 707 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013) and
Microsoft Corp. v. ITC, 731 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013), require a
complainant to make such a demonstration regardless of whether the
domestic industry is alleged to exist under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A),
(B), or (C).
For the '443, `424, and '847 patents, the Commission affirms the
ID's determination that TPL failed to demonstrate that the accused
products infringe the asserted claims. The Commission also finds for
these three patents that TPL failed to demonstrate the existence of a
domestic industry because it failed to demonstrate the existence of
articles practicing these patents.
TPL did not raise the '549 patent in its petition for review. 19
CFR 210.43(b)(2). The Commission affirms the ID's noninfringement
finding, and its finding that TPL failed to show that its domestic
industry products meet certain claim limitations.
The reasons for the Commission's determinations will be set forth
more fully in the Commission's opinion.
Commissioner Aranoff dissents from the Commission's finding that
TPL was required to demonstrate the existence of articles practicing
the asserted patents in order to show a domestic industry based on
licensing under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C).
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, 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: December 19, 2013.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-30753 Filed 12-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P