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 http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on 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 http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed 
on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 
Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter 
can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 
205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on 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