Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products Containing Same Commission Decision To Review In Part an Enforcement Initial Determination; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions, 12221-12223 [2014-04678]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 2014 / Notices of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)). By order of the Commission. Issued: February 27, 2014. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer. [FR Doc. 2014–04746 Filed 3–3–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Background [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–511 and 731– TA–1246–1247 (Preliminary)] Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From China And Taiwan tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Determinations On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines,2 pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)) (the Act), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports from China and Taiwan of certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products, provided for in subheadings 8541.40.60 (statistical reporting numbers 8541.40.6020 and 8541.40.6030) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) and are allegedly subsidized by the Government of China. Commencement of Final Phase Investigations Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission’s rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in section 207.21 of the Commission’s rules, upon notice from the Department of Commerce (Commerce) of affirmative preliminary determinations in the investigations under sections 703(b) or 733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary determinations are negative, upon notice of affirmative final determinations in those investigations under sections 705(a) or 735(a) of the 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). 2 Commissioners Shara L. Aranoff and F. Scott Kieff are recused from these investigations. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 03, 2014 Jkt 232001 Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the investigations. 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 the investigations. On December 31, 2013, a petition was filed with the Commission and Commerce by SolarWorld Industries America, Hillsboro, Oregon, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV and subsidized imports of certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China and LTFV imports of certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China and Taiwan. Accordingly, effective December 31, 2013, the Commission instituted countervailing duty investigation No. 701–TA–511 and antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731–TA–1246–1247 (Preliminary). Notice of the institution of the Commission’s investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of January 8, 2014 (79 FR 1388). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on January 22, 2014, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission transmitted its determinations in these investigations to the Secretary of Commerce on February 26, 2014.3 The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4454 (February 2014), entitled Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from China and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 701–TA–511 and 731–TA–1246– 1247 (Preliminary). By order of the Commission. 3 The Commission has the authority to toll statutory deadlines during a period when the government is closed. Because the Commission was closed on January 21, 2014 and February 13, 2014 due to inclement weather in Washington, DC, the statutory deadlines reflect the tolling of deadlines by two days. PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 12221 Issued: February 26, 2014. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2014–04677 Filed 3–3–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–830 (Enforcement/Modification)] Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products Containing Same Commission Decision To Review In Part an Enforcement Initial Determination; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part an enforcement initial determination (‘‘EID’’) of the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in the above-captioned proceeding finding a violation of a consent order. The Commission is requesting briefing on the issues under review and on the amount of civil penalties for violation of the order. 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 an investigation on February 27, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Andrzej Bobel and Neptun Light, Inc., both of Lake Forest, Illinois (collectively, ‘‘Neptun’’). 77 FR 11587 (Feb. 27, 2012). The complaint SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 12222 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 2014 / Notices alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 19 U.S.C. 1337. More specifically, the complaint alleged that the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain dimmable compact fluorescent lamps (‘‘CFLs’’) and products containing the same infringe, inter alia, claim 9 of United States Patent No. 5,434,480 (‘‘the ’480 patent’’). The complaint named numerous respondents, including MaxLite, Inc. of Fairfield, New Jersey (‘‘MaxLite’’). On July 25, 2012, the Commission terminated the investigation with respect to MaxLite and entered a consent order preventing MaxLite from importing dimmable CFLs that infringe claim 9 of the ’480 patent. On February 6, 2013, MaxLite petitioned the Commission under Commission Rule 210.76 for modification of the consent order on the basis of certain district court proceedings regarding a covenant not to sue. On February 18, 2013, complainants filed a complaint requesting that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding under Commission Rule 210.75(b) to investigate a violation of the consent order. On April 12, 2013, the Commission determined to institute consolidated formal enforcement and modification proceedings to determine whether MaxLite is in violation of the July 25, 2012 consent order issued in the investigation; what, if any, enforcement measures are appropriate; and whether to modify the consent order. 78 FR 24233 (Apr. 24, 2013). On January 10, 2014, the ALJ issued his enforcement ID (‘‘EID’’) in the combined enforcement and modification proceeding. Prior to the hearing, MaxLite effectively withdrew its request for modification. EID at 52. The ALJ therefore found MaxLite’s modification request to be ‘‘moot’’ in view of ‘‘the parties’ agreed interpretation of the Consent Order.’’ Id. The EID in all other respects dealt entirely with Neptun’s enforcement complaint. At issue for enforcement of the consent order were two accused types of products: CFL bulbs (‘‘accused CFL bulbs’’); and ‘‘dimmable CFL Faux Cans’’ (‘‘Faux Cans’’). The ALJ found that the accused CFL bulbs infringe claim 9 of the ’480 patent. The ALJ found that Neptun had not demonstrated infringement by the Faux Cans. On January 23, 2014, Neptun filed a petition for review regarding claim construction and noninfringement by the Faux Cans. On January 30, 2014, VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:07 Mar 03, 2014 Jkt 232001 MaxLite and the Commission investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed oppositions to Neptun’s petition. MaxLite subsequently filed a revised opposition that removed certain material that Neptun had contended was beyond the scope of the record of this investigation. The Commission accepts the tendered revised opposition. Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final EID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the ID in part. In particular, the Commission has determined to review the ALJ’s construction of the ‘‘resonant boosting circuit’’ limitation, and the ALJ’s findings that Neptun did not demonstrate infringement by the Faux Cans because Neptun failed adequately to show that (i) there is resonance between the accused boosting capacitor and boosting inductor, EID at 39–43; and (ii) ‘‘the boosting capacitor stores and releases energy to improve the power factor,’’ id. at 45. The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the EID. In connection with the Commission’s review, the parties are asked to provide further briefing. The briefing should address the following issues, and should cite the evidence of record in support of the party’s arguments: (1) Discuss whether and why a ‘‘bidirectionality’’ requirement for the ‘‘resonant boosting circuit’’ limitation is consistent with or inherent in the construction of ‘‘resonant boosting circuit’’ agreed to by Dr. Habetler (See Tr. 117–18, CX–54C, at Q/A 6) and, if not, whether it is required by the claim term in view of the specification. (2) Discuss whether and why the passage in the ’480 patent specification at column 4 lines 2–6, see EID at 31, serves to limit claim scope for claim 9 given that it appears to recite claim language for certain unasserted claims. Compare col. 3 line 8 – col. 4 line 20 with unasserted claim 1; see also unasserted claims 2–3. Also discuss relevant court decisions including Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG, 318 F.3d 1081, 1094–95 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, 669 F.3d 1365–67 (Fed. Cir. 2012), regarding the role of the specification in construing patent claims. (3) Assuming for this question that the specification at column 4 lines 2–6 does limit the scope of claim 9, discuss whether the EID’s interpretation of ‘‘interaction’’ (i.e., ‘‘mutual or reciprocal action or influence,’’ EID at 31), is correct. PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 (4) In connection with the ’480 patent’s preferred embodiment of Figure 11’s boosting and rectifying bridge substituted into Figure 1, discuss whether C1 and C3 in Figure 11 are boosting capacitors that meet the claim limitations required by the EID, even if C5 does not. (5) If claim 9 does not impose a ‘‘bidirectionality’’ requirement, discuss whether Neptun demonstrated that the Faux Cans infringe claim 9. (6) Discuss whether and why a requirement for the ‘‘resonant boosting circuit’’ limitation that the boosting capacitor ‘‘store and release energy to improve power factor,’’ EID at 45, is consistent with or inherent in the construction of ‘‘resonant boosting circuit’’ agreed to by Habetler (See Tr. 117–18, CX–54C, at Q/A 6) and, if not, whether it is required by the claim term in view of the specification. (7) Discuss whether the Faux Cans infringe claim 9 if the ‘‘to improve the power factor’’ is not a requirement of claim 9. The Commission may levy civil penalties for violation of the consent order. When calculating a proportionate penalty, the Commission considers, inter alia, six factors set forth in Certain Erasable Programmable Read Only Memories (‘‘EPROMs’’), Inv. No. 337– TA–276 (Enforcement), Comm’n Op. at 23–24, 26 (July 19, 1991). See generally Certain DC–DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337–TA– 698 (Enforcement), Comm’n Op. at 36– 37 (Jan. 4, 2013). Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested to file written submissions on the issues under review as set forth above. In addition, the parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the amount of civil penalties to be imposed for the accused CFL bulbs, the Faux Cans, or both. The parties’ submissions should cite all evidence in the record in support of such amounts, and shall address the factors set forth in EPROMs, supra. The written submissions should be filed no later than close of business on March 10, 2014, and should not exceed 60 pages. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on March 17, 2014, and should not exceed 40 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 E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 2014 / Notices 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–830 enforcement/ modification’’) 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 Part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Part 210). By order of the Commission. Issued: February 26, 2014. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—OpenDaylight Project, Inc. Notice is hereby given that, on February 5, 2014, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), OpenDaylight Project, Inc. (‘‘OpenDaylight’’) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 19:07 Mar 03, 2014 Jkt 232001 Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division. [FR Doc. 2014–04672 Filed 3–3–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—AllSeen Alliance, Inc. [FR Doc. 2014–04678 Filed 3–3–14; 8:45 am] VerDate Mar<15>2010 filed for the purpose of extending the Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ZTE Corporation, Richardson, TX; Coriant GmbH, Munich, Germany; and Contextream Inc., Mountain View, CA, have been added as parties to this venture. 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 OpenDaylight intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership. On May 23, 2013, OpenDaylight 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 1, 2013 (78 FR 39326). The last notification was filed with the Department on November 13, 2013. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on December 30, 2013 (78 FR 79498). Notice is hereby given that, on January 29, 2014, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), AllSeen Alliance, Inc. (‘‘AllSeen Alliance’’) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: 2lemetry LLC, Denver, CO; Affinegy, Austin, TX; Canary Connect, Inc., New York, NY; Cisco Systems, Inc., Lawrenceville, GA; D-Link Systems, Inc., Fountain Valley, CA; DoubleTwist PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 12223 Corporation, San Francisco, CA; Fon Wireless Limited, London, UNITED KINGDOM; Haier Group, Qingdao, PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Harman International, Stamford, CT; HTC Corporation, Taoyuan City, PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; iControl Networks, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Le Shi Zhi XIn Electronic Technology (Tianjin) Limited, Chaoyang District, Beijing, PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; LG Electronics, Inc., Youngdungo-gu, Seoul, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; LiFi Labs Inc. (LIFX), San Francisco, CA; LiteOn Technology Corporation, New Taipei City, TAIWAN; Moxtreme Corporaton, Saratoga, CA; Musaic Ltd., London, UNITED KINGDOM; Muzzley, S.A., Lisboa, PORTUGAL; Panasonic Corporation, Kadoma-shi, Osaka, JAPAN; Qualcomm Connected Experiences, Inc., San Diego, CA; Sears Brands Management Corporation, Hoffman Estates, IL; Sharp Corporation, Abeno-ku, Osaka, JAPAN; Silicon Image, Sunnyvale, CA; Sproutling, San Francisco, CA; The Sprosty Network, Fort Lauderdale, FL; TP–LINK Technologies Co., Ltd., Nanshan, Shenzhen, PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Tuxera Inc., Helsinki, FINLAND; Weaved, Inc. (formerly Yoics, Inc.), Palo Alto, CA; and Wilocity, Sunnyvale, CA. The general areas of AllSeen Alliance’s planned activity are: (a) To advance the creation, evolution, promotion, and support of an opensource software platform for device intercommunication and associated device-based services, (b) to promote such platform and services worldwide, and (c) to undertake such other activities as may from time to time be appropriate to further the purposes and achieve the goals set forth above. Membership in AllSeen Alliance remains open and AllSeen Alliance intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership. Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division. [FR Doc. 2014–04670 Filed 3–3–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–11–P E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12221-12223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04678]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-830 (Enforcement/Modification)]


Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products 
Containing Same Commission Decision To Review In Part an Enforcement 
Initial Determination; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions

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 part an enforcement initial 
determination (``EID'') of the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ'') in the above-captioned proceeding finding a violation of a 
consent order. The Commission is requesting briefing on the issues 
under review and on the amount of civil penalties for violation of the 
order.

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 an investigation 
on February 27, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Andrzej Bobel and 
Neptun Light, Inc., both of Lake Forest, Illinois (collectively, 
``Neptun''). 77 FR 11587 (Feb. 27, 2012). The complaint

[[Page 12222]]

alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
19 U.S.C. 1337. More specifically, the complaint alleged that the 
importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the 
sale within the United States after importation of certain dimmable 
compact fluorescent lamps (``CFLs'') and products containing the same 
infringe, inter alia, claim 9 of United States Patent No. 5,434,480 
(``the '480 patent''). The complaint named numerous respondents, 
including MaxLite, Inc. of Fairfield, New Jersey (``MaxLite''). On July 
25, 2012, the Commission terminated the investigation with respect to 
MaxLite and entered a consent order preventing MaxLite from importing 
dimmable CFLs that infringe claim 9 of the '480 patent.
    On February 6, 2013, MaxLite petitioned the Commission under 
Commission Rule 210.76 for modification of the consent order on the 
basis of certain district court proceedings regarding a covenant not to 
sue. On February 18, 2013, complainants filed a complaint requesting 
that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding under 
Commission Rule 210.75(b) to investigate a violation of the consent 
order.
    On April 12, 2013, the Commission determined to institute 
consolidated formal enforcement and modification proceedings to 
determine whether MaxLite is in violation of the July 25, 2012 consent 
order issued in the investigation; what, if any, enforcement measures 
are appropriate; and whether to modify the consent order. 78 FR 24233 
(Apr. 24, 2013).
    On January 10, 2014, the ALJ issued his enforcement ID (``EID'') in 
the combined enforcement and modification proceeding. Prior to the 
hearing, MaxLite effectively withdrew its request for modification. EID 
at 52. The ALJ therefore found MaxLite's modification request to be 
``moot'' in view of ``the parties' agreed interpretation of the Consent 
Order.'' Id. The EID in all other respects dealt entirely with Neptun's 
enforcement complaint. At issue for enforcement of the consent order 
were two accused types of products: CFL bulbs (``accused CFL bulbs''); 
and ``dimmable CFL Faux Cans'' (``Faux Cans'').
    The ALJ found that the accused CFL bulbs infringe claim 9 of the 
'480 patent. The ALJ found that Neptun had not demonstrated 
infringement by the Faux Cans.
    On January 23, 2014, Neptun filed a petition for review regarding 
claim construction and noninfringement by the Faux Cans. On January 30, 
2014, MaxLite and the Commission investigative attorney (``IA'') filed 
oppositions to Neptun's petition. MaxLite subsequently filed a revised 
opposition that removed certain material that Neptun had contended was 
beyond the scope of the record of this investigation. The Commission 
accepts the tendered revised opposition.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final EID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, 
the Commission has determined to review the ID in part. In particular, 
the Commission has determined to review the ALJ's construction of the 
``resonant boosting circuit'' limitation, and the ALJ's findings that 
Neptun did not demonstrate infringement by the Faux Cans because Neptun 
failed adequately to show that (i) there is resonance between the 
accused boosting capacitor and boosting inductor, EID at 39-43; and 
(ii) ``the boosting capacitor stores and releases energy to improve the 
power factor,'' id. at 45. The Commission has determined not to review 
the remainder of the EID.
    In connection with the Commission's review, the parties are asked 
to provide further briefing. The briefing should address the following 
issues, and should cite the evidence of record in support of the 
party's arguments:
    (1) Discuss whether and why a ``bi-directionality'' requirement for 
the ``resonant boosting circuit'' limitation is consistent with or 
inherent in the construction of ``resonant boosting circuit'' agreed to 
by Dr. Habetler (See Tr. 117-18, CX-54C, at Q/A 6) and, if not, whether 
it is required by the claim term in view of the specification.
    (2) Discuss whether and why the passage in the '480 patent 
specification at column 4 lines 2-6, see EID at 31, serves to limit 
claim scope for claim 9 given that it appears to recite claim language 
for certain unasserted claims. Compare col. 3 line 8 - col. 4 line 20 
with unasserted claim 1; see also unasserted claims 2-3. Also discuss 
relevant court decisions including Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG, 
318 F.3d 1081, 1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and Thorner v. Sony Computer 
Entertainment America LLC, 669 F.3d 1365-67 (Fed. Cir. 2012), regarding 
the role of the specification in construing patent claims.
    (3) Assuming for this question that the specification at column 4 
lines 2-6 does limit the scope of claim 9, discuss whether the EID's 
interpretation of ``interaction'' (i.e., ``mutual or reciprocal action 
or influence,'' EID at 31), is correct.
    (4) In connection with the '480 patent's preferred embodiment of 
Figure 11's boosting and rectifying bridge substituted into Figure 1, 
discuss whether C1 and C3 in Figure 11 are boosting capacitors that 
meet the claim limitations required by the EID, even if C5 does not.
    (5) If claim 9 does not impose a ``bi-directionality'' requirement, 
discuss whether Neptun demonstrated that the Faux Cans infringe claim 
9.
    (6) Discuss whether and why a requirement for the ``resonant 
boosting circuit'' limitation that the boosting capacitor ``store and 
release energy to improve power factor,'' EID at 45, is consistent with 
or inherent in the construction of ``resonant boosting circuit'' agreed 
to by Habetler (See Tr. 117-18, CX-54C, at Q/A 6) and, if not, whether 
it is required by the claim term in view of the specification.
    (7) Discuss whether the Faux Cans infringe claim 9 if the ``to 
improve the power factor'' is not a requirement of claim 9.
    The Commission may levy civil penalties for violation of the 
consent order. When calculating a proportionate penalty, the Commission 
considers, inter alia, six factors set forth in Certain Erasable 
Programmable Read Only Memories (``EPROMs''), Inv. No. 337-TA-276 
(Enforcement), Comm'n Op. at 23-24, 26 (July 19, 1991). See generally 
Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 
337-TA-698 (Enforcement), Comm'n Op. at 36-37 (Jan. 4, 2013).
    Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested 
to file written submissions on the issues under review as set forth 
above. In addition, the parties to the investigation, interested 
government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to 
file written submissions on the amount of civil penalties to be imposed 
for the accused CFL bulbs, the Faux Cans, or both. The parties' 
submissions should cite all evidence in the record in support of such 
amounts, and shall address the factors set forth in EPROMs, supra. The 
written submissions should be filed no later than close of business on 
March 10, 2014, and should not exceed 60 pages. Reply submissions must 
be filed no later than the close of business on March 17, 2014, and 
should not exceed 40 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

[[Page 12223]]

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-830 enforcement/
modification'') 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 Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 
Part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: February 26, 2014.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-04678 Filed 3-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.