Certain Wireless Headsets; Commission Determination To Review an Initial Determination Granting Respondents' Motion for Summary Determination of Patent Invalidity Due to Indefiniteness, 76038-76040 [2015-30734]

Download as PDF 76038 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Notices individual covered by the system, or the heir of such individual if the covered individual is deceased, has made to the office. (5) To any criminal, civil or regulatory law enforcement authority (whether federal, state, territorial, local, tribal or foreign) when a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law—criminal, civil or regulatory in nature, and the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled. (6) To an official of another Federal agency to provide information needed in the performance of official duties related to reconciling or reconstructing data files or to enable that agency to respond to an inquiry by the individual to whom the record pertains. (7) To Federal, state, territorial, local, tribal or foreign agencies that have requested information relevant or necessary to the hiring, firing or retention of an employee or contractor, or the issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant or other benefit, when the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled. (8) To representatives of the National Archives and Records Administration to conduct records management inspections under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. (9) To state and local governments and tribal organizations to provide information needed in response to court order and/or for discovery purposes related to litigation, when the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled. (10) To an expert, consultant or contractor (including employees of the contractor) of DOI that performs services requiring access to these records on DOI’s behalf to carry out the purposes of the system. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Records maintained in the Datamart are electronic and contain information from source systems. They are stored in magnetic media at the central computer processing center. All NIST guidelines, as well as Departmental and OMB guidance are followed concerning the storage of the records. RETRIEVABILITY: Records may be retrieved by entries reflecting the various categories of records in the system including name of individual, name of emergency contact, Social Security Number, Tax 18:36 Dec 04, 2015 Jkt 238001 SAFEGUARDS: Electronic records are maintained with safeguards meeting all appropriate statutory and regulatory guidelines, as well as Departmental guidance addressing the security requirements of Departmental Privacy Act Regulations (43 CFR 2.51) for automated records, and with Office of Management and Budget, and NIST. Further, agency officials only have access to records pertaining to their agencies. (1) Physical security: Computer systems are maintained in locked rooms housed within secure USIBWC buildings. (2) Technical Security: Electronic records are maintained in conformity with Office of Management and Budget and USIBWC guidelines reflecting the implementation of the Federal Information Security Management Act. The electronic data are protected through user identification, passwords, database permissions, encryption and software controls. Such security measures establish different degrees of access for different types of users. An audit trail is maintained and reviewed periodically to identify unauthorized access. A Privacy Impact Assessment was completed to ensure that Privacy Act requirements and personally identifiable information safeguard requirements are met. (3) Administrative Security: All USIBWC and contractor employees with access to Datamart are required to complete Privacy Act, Federal Records Act and IT Security Awareness training prior to being given access to the system, and on an annual basis thereafter. In addition, Federal employees supervise and monitor the use of Datamart. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: STORAGE: VerDate Sep<11>2014 Identification Number, vendor code or number, date of birth, organizational code, etc. Records contained in this system are documented as items 1400 and 7554 of the Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary’s pending records schedule. SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS: Chief, Applications Management and Technical Services Branch, Interior Business Center, U.S. Department of the Interior, 7301 West Mansfield Avenue, Denver, CO 80235–2230. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES: Inquiries regarding the existence of records should be addressed to the System Manager. The request must be in writing, signed by the requester, and PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 meet the requirements of 43 CFR 2.60, which requires writing PRIVACY ACT INQUIRY prominently on your envelope and correspondence. RECORDS ACCESS PROCEDURES: A request for access should be submitted to the System Manager at the above address. It must be submitted in writing, signed by the requester, and meet the requirements of 43 CFR 2.63, which requires writing PRIVACY ACT REQUEST FOR ACCESS prominently on the envelope and the front of the request. CONTESTING RECORDS PROCEDURES: A petition for amendment should be addressed to the System Manager. The request must be in writing, signed by the requester, and meet the content requirements of 43 CFR 2.71, which include stating the reasons why the petitioner believes the record is in error, and the changes sought. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: The source data for the system comes from FPPS and FFS. EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: None. [FR Doc. 2015–29531 Filed 12–4–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–943] Certain Wireless Headsets; Commission Determination To Review an Initial Determination Granting Respondents’ Motion for Summary Determination of Patent Invalidity Due to Indefiniteness U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 17) granting respondents’ motion for summary determination of patent invalidity due to indefiniteness. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202– 708–2301. 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. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Notices 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 (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 January 13, 2015, based on a complaint filed by One-E-Way, Inc. of Pasadena, California (‘‘One-E-Way’’). 80 FR 1663 (Jan. 13, 2015). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain wireless headsets by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,865,258 (‘‘the ’258 patent’’) and 8,131,391 (‘‘the ’391 patent’’). Id. The notice of investigation named several respondents, including Sony Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; Sony Corporation of America of New York, New York; and Sony Electronics, Inc. of San Diego, California (collectively, ‘‘Sony’’); Beats Electronics, LLC of Culver City, California and Beats Electronics International Ltd. of Dublin, Ireland (collectively, ‘‘Beats’’); Sennheiser Electronic GmbH & Co. KG of Wedemark, Germany and Sennheiser Electronic Corporation of Old Lyme, Connecticut (collectively, ‘‘Sennheiser’’); BlueAnt Wireless Pty, Ltd. of Richmond, Australia and BlueAnt Wireless, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois (collectively, ‘‘BlueAnt’’); Creative Technology Ltd. of Singapore and Creative Labs, Inc. of Milpitas, California (collectively, ‘‘Creative Labs’’); and GN Netcom A/S d/b/a Jabra of Ballerup, Denmark (‘‘GN Netcom’’). Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) also was named as a party to the investigation. Id. The Commission previously terminated the investigation with respect to Beats and Sennheiser. See Notice (Apr. 29, 2015); Notice (June 11, 2015). The Commission also previously terminated the investigation with respect to certain claims of the ’258 and ’391 patents. See Notice (May 26, 2015); Notice (Aug. 26, 2015). On August 10, 2015, respondents Sony, BlueAnt, Creative Labs, and GN Netcom (collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’) VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:36 Dec 04, 2015 Jkt 238001 filed a motion for summary determination that asserted claim 8 of the ’258 patent and asserted claims 1, 3– 6, and 10 of the ’391 patent are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 2. On August 20, 2015, the Commission investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed a response in support of the motion. Also on August 20, 2015, One-E-Way filed an opposition to the motion. On August 27, 2015, Respondents moved for leave to file a reply to One-E-Way’s opposition, which the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) granted that same day. See Order No. 16 (Aug. 27, 2015). On September 21, 2015, the ALJ issued the subject initial determination (‘‘ID’’), granting Respondents’ motion for summary determination that all of the asserted claims of the ’258 and ’391 patents are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 2 and terminating the investigation with a finding of no violation of section 337. On October 2, 2015, One-E-Way filed a petition for review of the subject ID. On October 9, 2015, Respondents and the IA each filed responses to the petition. Having examined the record of this investigation, including the subject ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the subject ID. In connection with its review, the Commission requests responses to the following questions: 1. Please point to the specific areas in the record where the putative indefiniteness of the clause ‘‘virtually free from interference’’ was a significant topic of substantive discussion among the parties and the ALJ. 2. Please explain how the clause ‘‘virtually free from interference’’ is material to a position any party has taken in this Investigation with respect to validity under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, or 112(a) (formerly 112 ¶1), or infringement under section 271. Please provide citations to specific areas in the record (including document name and page number) in which this materiality was raised or discussed. 3. Please explain how the materiality discussed in Q2 turns on the degree of freedom from interference. Please provide citations to specific areas in the record (including document name and page number) in which this turning was raised or discussed. 4. Please explain in detail what lead to the difference in outcomes on the issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (formerly 112 ¶2) of the Federal Circuit decisions in Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1369– 74 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and DDR Holdings LLC v. Hotelscom LP, 773 F.3d 1245, PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 76039 1260–61 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In these two cases, to what extent did the indefiniteness determinations turn on the materiality of the potentially indefinite clauses to other arguments that had been raised in those cases regarding validity under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, or 112(a) (formerly 112 ¶1), or infringement under section 271? Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested to file written submissions on the issues identified in this notice. The written submissions must be filed no later than close of business on December 11, 2015. Initial submissions are limited to 30 pages. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on December 18, 2015. Reply submissions are limited to 15 pages. The parties may not incorporate by reference their prior filings before the ALJ or the Commission. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 337–TA–943’’) 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 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). E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1 76040 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Notices By order of the Commission. Issued: December 1, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2015–30734 Filed 12–4–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–973] Certain Wearable Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on November 2, 2015, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Fitbit, Inc. of San Francisco, California. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain wearable activity tracking devices, systems, and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,920,332 (‘‘the ’332 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 8,868,377 (‘‘the ’377 patent’’); and U.S. Patent No. 9,089,760 (‘‘the ’760 patent’’). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is 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., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (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 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:36 Dec 04, 2015 Jkt 238001 for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205–2560. Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2015). Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on December 1, 2015, ordered that— (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain wearable activity tracking devices, systems, and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 4, 5, and 13–17 of the ’332 patent; claims 1–4, 7–11, 16, 25, 27, and 28 of the ’377 patent; claims 1–15 and 18–21 of the ’760 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337; (2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served: (a) The complainant is: Fitbit, Inc., 405 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. (b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served: AliphCom d/b/a Jawbone, 99 Rhode Island Street, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103. BodyMedia, Inc., Union Trust Building, 501 Grant Street, Suite 1075, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. (c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and (3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge. Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown. Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent. By order of the Commission. Issued: December 1, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2015–30732 Filed 12–4–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–921] Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan and Sidescan Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof; Commission’s Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and a Cease and Desist Order; Termination of the Investigation U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has found a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation and has issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting respondents Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc., both of Olathe, Kansas, and Garmin (Asia) Corporation of New Taipei City, Taiwan (collectively, ‘‘Garmin’’), from importing certain marine sonar imaging devices, including SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1

Agencies

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 234 (Monday, December 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76038-76040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30734]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-943]


Certain Wireless Headsets; Commission Determination To Review an 
Initial Determination Granting Respondents' Motion for Summary 
Determination of Patent Invalidity Due to Indefiniteness

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to review an initial determination (``ID'') 
(Order No. 17) granting respondents' motion for summary determination 
of patent invalidity due to indefiniteness.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan M. Valentine, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-708-2301. 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.

[[Page 76039]]

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 (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 January 13, 2015, based on a complaint filed by One-E-Way, Inc. of 
Pasadena, California (``One-E-Way''). 80 FR 1663 (Jan. 13, 2015). The 
complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended, 19 U.S.C. Sec.  1337, in the importation into the United 
States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States 
after importation of certain wireless headsets by reason of 
infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,865,258 (``the 
'258 patent'') and 8,131,391 (``the '391 patent''). Id. The notice of 
investigation named several respondents, including Sony Corporation of 
Tokyo, Japan; Sony Corporation of America of New York, New York; and 
Sony Electronics, Inc. of San Diego, California (collectively, 
``Sony''); Beats Electronics, LLC of Culver City, California and Beats 
Electronics International Ltd. of Dublin, Ireland (collectively, 
``Beats''); Sennheiser Electronic GmbH & Co. KG of Wedemark, Germany 
and Sennheiser Electronic Corporation of Old Lyme, Connecticut 
(collectively, ``Sennheiser''); BlueAnt Wireless Pty, Ltd. of Richmond, 
Australia and BlueAnt Wireless, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois 
(collectively, ``BlueAnt''); Creative Technology Ltd. of Singapore and 
Creative Labs, Inc. of Milpitas, California (collectively, ``Creative 
Labs''); and GN Netcom A/S d/b/a Jabra of Ballerup, Denmark (``GN 
Netcom''). Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) also 
was named as a party to the investigation. Id. The Commission 
previously terminated the investigation with respect to Beats and 
Sennheiser. See Notice (Apr. 29, 2015); Notice (June 11, 2015). The 
Commission also previously terminated the investigation with respect to 
certain claims of the '258 and '391 patents. See Notice (May 26, 2015); 
Notice (Aug. 26, 2015).
    On August 10, 2015, respondents Sony, BlueAnt, Creative Labs, and 
GN Netcom (collectively, ``Respondents'') filed a motion for summary 
determination that asserted claim 8 of the '258 patent and asserted 
claims 1, 3-6, and 10 of the '391 patent are invalid as indefinite 
under 35 U.S.C. 112, ] 2. On August 20, 2015, the Commission 
investigative attorney (``IA'') filed a response in support of the 
motion. Also on August 20, 2015, One-E-Way filed an opposition to the 
motion. On August 27, 2015, Respondents moved for leave to file a reply 
to One-E-Way's opposition, which the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ'') granted that same day. See Order No. 16 (Aug. 27, 2015).
    On September 21, 2015, the ALJ issued the subject initial 
determination (``ID''), granting Respondents' motion for summary 
determination that all of the asserted claims of the '258 and '391 
patents are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, ] 2 and 
terminating the investigation with a finding of no violation of section 
337.
    On October 2, 2015, One-E-Way filed a petition for review of the 
subject ID. On October 9, 2015, Respondents and the IA each filed 
responses to the petition.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
subject ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the 
Commission has determined to review the subject ID.
    In connection with its review, the Commission requests responses to 
the following questions:
    1. Please point to the specific areas in the record where the 
putative indefiniteness of the clause ``virtually free from 
interference'' was a significant topic of substantive discussion among 
the parties and the ALJ.
    2. Please explain how the clause ``virtually free from 
interference'' is material to a position any party has taken in this 
Investigation with respect to validity under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, or 
112(a) (formerly 112 ]1), or infringement under section 271. Please 
provide citations to specific areas in the record (including document 
name and page number) in which this materiality was raised or 
discussed.
    3. Please explain how the materiality discussed in Q2 turns on the 
degree of freedom from interference. Please provide citations to 
specific areas in the record (including document name and page number) 
in which this turning was raised or discussed.
    4. Please explain in detail what lead to the difference in outcomes 
on the issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (formerly 112 ]2) 
of the Federal Circuit decisions in Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, 
Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1369-74 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and DDR Holdings LLC v. 
Hotelscom LP, 773 F.3d 1245, 1260-61 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In these two 
cases, to what extent did the indefiniteness determinations turn on the 
materiality of the potentially indefinite clauses to other arguments 
that had been raised in those cases regarding validity under 35 U.S.C. 
102, 103, or 112(a) (formerly 112 ]1), or infringement under section 
271?
    Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested 
to file written submissions on the issues identified in this notice. 
The written submissions must be filed no later than close of business 
on December 11, 2015. Initial submissions are limited to 30 pages. 
Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on 
December 18, 2015. Reply submissions are limited to 15 pages. The 
parties may not incorporate by reference their prior filings before the 
ALJ or the Commission. No further submissions on these issues will be 
permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document 
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 
true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day 
pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the 
investigation number (``Inv. No. 337-TA-943'') 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 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).


[[Page 76040]]


    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: December 1, 2015.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-30734 Filed 12-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.