Certain Electronic Imaging Devices; Commission Determination To Reverse the Finding of Violation of Section 337; Termination of the Investigation, 15610-15611 [2014-06121]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
15610
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 54 / Thursday, March 20, 2014 / Notices
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
under section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on June 26, 2013,
based on a complaint filed by Nokia
Corporation of Espoo, Finland and
Nokia Inc., of Sunnyvale, California
(collectively, ‘‘Nokia’’). The complaint,
as supplemented, alleges a violation of
section 337 by reason of infringement of
certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
6,035,189 (‘‘the ‘189 patent’’); 6,373,345;
6,711,211 (‘‘the ‘211 patent’’); 7,187,945;
8,140,650 (‘‘the ‘650 patent’’); and
8,363,824. 78 FR 38362 (Jun. 26, 2013).
The respondents are HTC Corporation of
Taoyuan City, Taiwan, and HTC
America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington
(collectively, ‘‘HTC’’). Subsequently,
third party Google Inc. (‘‘Google’’)
intervened as a party in this
investigation with respect to three of the
six patents, namely the ‘189, ‘211 and
‘650 patents. 78 FR 49764 (Aug. 15,
2013). The complaint was amended to
add U.S. Patent No. 7,366,529 and to
add Nokia’s recently launched domestic
industry products. 78 FR 56737 (Sept.
13, 2013).
On February 10, 2014, complainants
Nokia and respondents HTC
(collectively, ‘‘the Moving Parties’’) filed
a joint motion to terminate the
investigation in its entirety. On
February 25, 2014, the Moving Parties
filed a corrected public version of the
motion and corrected exhibits in
support of the motion, including
redacted public versions of the
settlement agreements. The Moving
Parties aver that intervenor Google does
not oppose the motion to terminate the
investigation.
On February 25, 2014, the ALJ issued
an ID (Order No. 23). The ALJ found
that termination of this investigation
does not impose any undue burdens on
the public health and welfare,
competitive conditions in the United
States economy, the production of like
or directly competitive articles in the
United States, and United States
consumers. Order No. 23 at 5. The ALJ
granted the motion to terminate. No
party petitioned for review of the ID,
and the Commission has determined not
to review it.
The authority for the Commission’s
determination is contained in section
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:48 Mar 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 to the Commission.
Issued: March 14, 2014.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014–06122 Filed 3–19–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–850]
Certain Electronic Imaging Devices;
Commission Determination To Reverse
the Finding of Violation of Section 337;
Termination of the Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to reverse
the final initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
issued by the presiding administrative
law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on September 30,
2013, finding a violation of section 337
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,
19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘Section 337’’) in the
above-captioned investigation. The
Commission finds no violation of
Section 337. The investigation is
terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jia
Chen, Office of the General Counsel,
U.S. International Trade Commission,
500 E Street SW., Washington, DC
20436, telephone (202) 708–4737.
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 June 29, 2012, based on a complaint
filed by Flashpoint Technology, Inc.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(‘‘Flashpoint’’) of Peterborough, New
Hampshire, alleging violation of Section
337 in the importation into the United
States, the sale for importation, and the
sale within the United States after
importation of certain electronic
imaging devices by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 6,504,575 (‘‘the ’575
patent’’), 6,222,538 (‘‘the ’538 patent’’),
6,400,471 (‘‘the ’471 patent’’), and
6,223,190 (‘‘the ’190 patent’’). The
notice of investigation named the
following respondents: HTC
Corporation of Taoyuan, Taiwan and
HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue,
Washington (collectively, ‘‘HTC’’);
Pantech Co., Ltd. of Seoul, Republic of
Korea and Pantech Wireless, Inc. of
Atlanta, Georgia (collectively,
‘‘Pantech’’); Huawei Technologies Co.,
Ltd. of Shenzhen, China and FutureWei
Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei
Technologies (USA) of Plano, Texas
(collectively ‘‘Huawei’’); and ZTE
Corporation of Shenzhen, China and
ZTE (USA) Inc. of Richardson, Texas
(collectively ‘‘ZTE’’). The ’575 patent
and respondent Pantech have been
terminated from the investigation. The
Commission Office of Unfair Import
Investigations did not participate in this
investigation.
On September 30, 2013, the ALJ
issued a final ID finding a violation of
Section 337 by HTC. Specifically, the
ALJ concluded that two of the accused
HTC smartphones, i.e., the HTC Vivid
and HTC Droid Incredible 4G LTE,
infringe the asserted claims of the ’538
patent. The ALJ found, however, that
none of the other accused HTC
smartphones infringes the asserted
claims of the ’538 patent and that none
of the accused HTC, Huawei, or ZTE
smartphones infringes the asserted
claims of the ’471 patent or the ’190
patent. The ALJ found that the
smartphones of Flashpoint’s licensees
Apple Inc. (‘‘Apple’’) and Motorola
Mobility Holdings, Inc. (‘‘Motorola’’)
meet the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement with
respect to the ’538 patent, but that none
of the licensed Motorola or Apple
smartphones meet the technical prong
of the domestic industry requirement
with respect to either the ’471 or ’190
patents. The ALJ found that Flashpoint
established the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement under
Sections 337(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C) with
respect to all of the asserted patents.
The ALJ also found that HTC has not
established that the asserted patents are
invalid in view of the prior art or the onsale bar. The ALJ further found that the
’190 and ’538 patents are not
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 54 / Thursday, March 20, 2014 / Notices
unenforceable for failure to name an
inventor.
On October 31, 2013, Flashpoint filed
a petition for review challenging the
ALJ’s findings. On the same day,
respondents filed a joint petition for
review challenging the ALJ’s findings.
On the same day, HTC filed a separate
petition for review challenging the ALJ’s
findings with respect to issues affecting
only HTC. The parties submitted
responses to the petitions on November
8, 2013.
On December 16, 2013, the
Commission determined to review the
ALJ’s findings regarding the following
issues: (1) Infringement of the asserted
claims of the ’538 patent by the HTC
Vivid and HTC Droid Incredible 4G LTE
smartphones; (2) the technical prong of
the domestic industry requirement for
the ’538 patent; (3) obviousness of the
asserted claims of the ’538 patent over
U.S. Patent No. 5,835,772 to Thurlo,
U.S. Patent No. 5,740,801 to Branson,
the ‘‘Admitted Prior Art,’’ U.S. Patent
No. 5,638,501 to Gough et al., and U.S.
Patent No. 5,898,434 to Small; (4) claim
construction of the term ‘‘operating
system’’ in the asserted claims of the
’471 patent; (5) infringement of the ’471
patent by the accused HTC, Huawei,
and ZTE products; (6) the technical
prong of the domestic industry
requirement for the ’471 patent; (7)
anticipation of the asserted claims of the
’471 patent in view of U.S. Patent No.
5,687,376 to Celi, Jr. et al.; (8)
infringement of the asserted claim of the
’190 patent; (9) technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement for the
’190 patent; (10) anticipation and
obviousness of the ’190 patent in view
of U.S. Provisional Patent Application
60/037,963 to Parulski (‘‘Parulsi-963’’);
(11) anticipation and obviousness of the
’190 patent in view of the Color Zaurus
Reference (‘‘Zaurus’’); (12) anticipation
and obviousness of the ’190 patent in
view of the Japanese Laid-Open Patent
Application No. H09–298678 to Saito;
(13) validity of the ’538, ’471, and ’190
patents in view of the on-sale bar; (14)
enforceability of claim 19 of the ’538
patent with respect to joint
inventorship; and (15) the economic
prong of the domestic industry
requirement with respect to the ’538,
’471, and ’190 patents. The Commission
requested briefing from the parties on
fourteen (14) questions. The parties
submitted their opening responses on
January 3, 2014 and their reply
responses on January 10, 2014.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the parties’ petitions for review, and
the submissions of the parties on
review, the Commission has determined
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:48 Mar 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
15611
to reverse the ALJ’s determination of
violation of Section 337 and to find no
violation of Section 337 with respect to
the asserted patents. Specifically, the
Commission finds that: (1) The HTC
Vivid and HTC Droid Incredible 4G LTE
smartphones do not infringe the
asserted claims of the ’538 patent; (2)
complainant has met the technical
prong of the domestic industry
requirement for the ’538 patent; (3)
respondents have not shown that the
asserted claims of the ’538 patent are
obvious; (4) the ALJ correctly construed
the term ‘‘operating system’’ in the
asserted claims of the ’471 patent, (5)
the accused HTC, Huawei, and ZTE
products do not infringe the asserted
claims of the ’471 patent; (6)
complainant has not proved the
technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement for the ’471 patent; (7)
respondents have not shown that the
asserted claims of the ’471 patent are
anticipated; (8) the accused HTC,
Huawei, and ZTE products do not
infringe the asserted claim of the ’190
patent; (9) complainant has not proved
the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement for the ’190
patent; (10) respondents have not shown
that the asserted claim of the ’190 patent
is anticipated or rendered obvious; (13)
respondents have not shown that the
asserted claims of the ’538, ’471, and
’190 patents are invalid in view of the
on-sale bar; (14) respondents have not
shown that claim 19 of the ’538 patent
is unenforceable due to failure to name
an inventor; and (15) complainant has
proved that the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement with
respect to the ’538, ’471, and ’190
patents. The Commission has furthered
determined to take no position on
whether the asserted claim of the ’190
patent is anticipated or rendered
obvious by Parulski-963 or Zaurus. A
Commission opinion will issue
promptly.
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).
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 14, 2014.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
To submit
comments:
Send them to:
By e-mail ......
pubcomment-ees.enrd@
usdoj.gov.
Assistant Attorney General,
U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O.
Box 7611, Washington, DC
20044–7611.
[FR Doc. 2014–06121 Filed 3–19–14; 8:45 am]
Notice of Lodging of Proposed Third
Modified Consent Decree Under the
Clean Water Act
On March 14, 2014, the Department of
Justice lodged a proposed Third
Modified Consent Decree with the
United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana in the
lawsuit entitled United States v. Sewage
and Water Board of New Orleans, Civil
Action No. 2:93–CV–3212–MVL.
In 1998, a Consent Decree was entered
in this Clean Water Act enforcement
action. Among other requirements, that
Consent Decree required the Sewage
and Water Board of New Orleans (‘‘the
Board’’) to perform remedial work on its
sewage system in nine designated
basins. Work in four of those basins was
completed prior to Hurricane Katrina in
2005. A Modified Consent Decree
extending the deadlines for the
remaining five basins was entered in
2010. For two basins of those five
basins, the schedule was further
extended under a Second Modified
Consent Decree entered in 2013. The
proposed Third Modified Consent
Decree would extend the schedule for
the three basins not addressed in the
Second Modified Consent Decree (i.e.,
the MidCity, Carrollton, and South
Shore basins). In addition to the
schedule changes, the proposed Third
Modified Consent Decree also includes
additional requirements related to
funding green infrastructure and to
reporting on coordination between the
Board and the City of New Orleans with
respect to work required under the
Third Modified Consent Decree.
The publication of this notice opens
a period for public comment on the
Third Modified Consent Decree.
Comments should be addressed to the
Assistant Attorney General,
Environment and Natural Resources
Division, and should refer to United
States v. Sewage and Water Board of
New Orleans, D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–1–1–
4032. All comments must be submitted
no later than thirty (30) days after the
publication date of this notice.
Comments may be submitted either by
email or by mail:
By mail .........
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\20MRN1.SGM
20MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 54 (Thursday, March 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15610-15611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06121]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-850]
Certain Electronic Imaging Devices; Commission Determination To
Reverse the Finding of Violation of Section 337; Termination of the
Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to reverse the final initial determination
(``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') on
September 30, 2013, finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``Section 337'') in the above-
captioned investigation. The Commission finds no violation of Section
337. The investigation is terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jia Chen, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4737. 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 June 29, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Flashpoint Technology,
Inc. (``Flashpoint'') of Peterborough, New Hampshire, alleging
violation of Section 337 in the importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after
importation of certain electronic imaging devices by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,504,575 (``the
'575 patent''), 6,222,538 (``the '538 patent''), 6,400,471 (``the '471
patent''), and 6,223,190 (``the '190 patent''). The notice of
investigation named the following respondents: HTC Corporation of
Taoyuan, Taiwan and HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington
(collectively, ``HTC''); Pantech Co., Ltd. of Seoul, Republic of Korea
and Pantech Wireless, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia (collectively,
``Pantech''); Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China and
FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) of Plano,
Texas (collectively ``Huawei''); and ZTE Corporation of Shenzhen, China
and ZTE (USA) Inc. of Richardson, Texas (collectively ``ZTE''). The
'575 patent and respondent Pantech have been terminated from the
investigation. The Commission Office of Unfair Import Investigations
did not participate in this investigation.
On September 30, 2013, the ALJ issued a final ID finding a
violation of Section 337 by HTC. Specifically, the ALJ concluded that
two of the accused HTC smartphones, i.e., the HTC Vivid and HTC Droid
Incredible 4G LTE, infringe the asserted claims of the '538 patent. The
ALJ found, however, that none of the other accused HTC smartphones
infringes the asserted claims of the '538 patent and that none of the
accused HTC, Huawei, or ZTE smartphones infringes the asserted claims
of the '471 patent or the '190 patent. The ALJ found that the
smartphones of Flashpoint's licensees Apple Inc. (``Apple'') and
Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. (``Motorola'') meet the technical
prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '538
patent, but that none of the licensed Motorola or Apple smartphones
meet the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with
respect to either the '471 or '190 patents. The ALJ found that
Flashpoint established the economic prong of the domestic industry
requirement under Sections 337(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C) with respect to
all of the asserted patents. The ALJ also found that HTC has not
established that the asserted patents are invalid in view of the prior
art or the on-sale bar. The ALJ further found that the '190 and '538
patents are not
[[Page 15611]]
unenforceable for failure to name an inventor.
On October 31, 2013, Flashpoint filed a petition for review
challenging the ALJ's findings. On the same day, respondents filed a
joint petition for review challenging the ALJ's findings. On the same
day, HTC filed a separate petition for review challenging the ALJ's
findings with respect to issues affecting only HTC. The parties
submitted responses to the petitions on November 8, 2013.
On December 16, 2013, the Commission determined to review the ALJ's
findings regarding the following issues: (1) Infringement of the
asserted claims of the '538 patent by the HTC Vivid and HTC Droid
Incredible 4G LTE smartphones; (2) the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement for the '538 patent; (3) obviousness of the
asserted claims of the '538 patent over U.S. Patent No. 5,835,772 to
Thurlo, U.S. Patent No. 5,740,801 to Branson, the ``Admitted Prior
Art,'' U.S. Patent No. 5,638,501 to Gough et al., and U.S. Patent No.
5,898,434 to Small; (4) claim construction of the term ``operating
system'' in the asserted claims of the '471 patent; (5) infringement of
the '471 patent by the accused HTC, Huawei, and ZTE products; (6) the
technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '471
patent; (7) anticipation of the asserted claims of the '471 patent in
view of U.S. Patent No. 5,687,376 to Celi, Jr. et al.; (8) infringement
of the asserted claim of the '190 patent; (9) technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement for the '190 patent; (10) anticipation
and obviousness of the '190 patent in view of U.S. Provisional Patent
Application 60/037,963 to Parulski (``Parulsi-963''); (11) anticipation
and obviousness of the '190 patent in view of the Color Zaurus
Reference (``Zaurus''); (12) anticipation and obviousness of the '190
patent in view of the Japanese Laid-Open Patent Application No. H09-
298678 to Saito; (13) validity of the '538, '471, and '190 patents in
view of the on-sale bar; (14) enforceability of claim 19 of the '538
patent with respect to joint inventorship; and (15) the economic prong
of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '538, '471,
and '190 patents. The Commission requested briefing from the parties on
fourteen (14) questions. The parties submitted their opening responses
on January 3, 2014 and their reply responses on January 10, 2014.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the parties' petitions for review, and the submissions
of the parties on review, the Commission has determined to reverse the
ALJ's determination of violation of Section 337 and to find no
violation of Section 337 with respect to the asserted patents.
Specifically, the Commission finds that: (1) The HTC Vivid and HTC
Droid Incredible 4G LTE smartphones do not infringe the asserted claims
of the '538 patent; (2) complainant has met the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement for the '538 patent; (3) respondents have
not shown that the asserted claims of the '538 patent are obvious; (4)
the ALJ correctly construed the term ``operating system'' in the
asserted claims of the '471 patent, (5) the accused HTC, Huawei, and
ZTE products do not infringe the asserted claims of the '471 patent;
(6) complainant has not proved the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement for the '471 patent; (7) respondents have not
shown that the asserted claims of the '471 patent are anticipated; (8)
the accused HTC, Huawei, and ZTE products do not infringe the asserted
claim of the '190 patent; (9) complainant has not proved the technical
prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '190 patent; (10)
respondents have not shown that the asserted claim of the '190 patent
is anticipated or rendered obvious; (13) respondents have not shown
that the asserted claims of the '538, '471, and '190 patents are
invalid in view of the on-sale bar; (14) respondents have not shown
that claim 19 of the '538 patent is unenforceable due to failure to
name an inventor; and (15) complainant has proved that the economic
prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '538,
'471, and '190 patents. The Commission has furthered determined to take
no position on whether the asserted claim of the '190 patent is
anticipated or rendered obvious by Parulski-963 or Zaurus. A Commission
opinion will issue promptly.
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: March 14, 2014.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-06121 Filed 3-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
