Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same; Commission Determination To Adopt a Recommended Remand Determination; Issuance of Modified Civil Penalty Order and Termination of Remand Enforcement Proceeding, 1204-1205 [2016-288]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
1204
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Notices
Dated: January 4, 2016.
Madonna L. Baucum,
Information Collection Clearance Officer,
National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 2016–333 Filed 1–8–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–EH–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–698 (Remand)]
Certain DC–DC Controllers and
Products Containing Same;
Commission Determination To Adopt a
Recommended Remand
Determination; Issuance of Modified
Civil Penalty Order and Termination of
Remand Enforcement Proceeding
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to adopt a
remand recommended determination
(‘‘RRD’’) of the presiding administrative
law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) adding eleven (11)
days to the total number of days
enforcement respondent uPI
Semiconductor Corporation (‘‘uPI’’) of
Hsinchu, Taiwan, violated the August
13, 2010 consent order (‘‘the Consent
Order’’). The Commission has adopted
the RRD as a final determination of the
Commission, issued a modified civil
penalty order in the amount of $650,000
directed against uPI, and has terminated
the remand enforcement proceeding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clint Gerdine, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–2310. 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 ordered this remand
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Jan 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
enforcement proceeding on April 8,
2015, in view of the Federal Circuit’s
decision in uPI Semiconductor Corp. v.
ITC and Richtek Technology Corp. v.
ITC, 767 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See
Comm’n Order (Apr. 8, 2015). The
Commission instituted the original
enforcement proceeding on September
6, 2011, based on an enforcement
complaint filed by Richtek Technology
Corp. of Hsinchu, Taiwan, and Richtek
USA, Inc. of San Jose, California
(collectively ‘‘Richtek’’). 76 FR 55109–
10. The complaint alleged violations of
the August 13, 2010, consent orders
issued in the underlying investigation
by the continued practice of prohibited
activities such as importing, offering for
sale, and selling for importation into the
United States DC–DC controllers or
products containing the same that
infringe one or more of U.S. Patent Nos.
7,315,190 (‘‘the ’190 patent’’); 6,414,470
(‘‘the ’s ’470 patent’’); and 7,132,717
(‘‘the ’717 patent’’); or that contain or
use Richtek’s asserted trade secrets. The
Commission’s notice of institution of
enforcement proceedings named uPI
and Sapphire Technology Limited
(‘‘Sapphire’’) of Shatin, Hong Kong as
respondents. The Office of Unfair
Import Investigations participated in the
enforcement proceeding. Sapphire was
later terminated from the enforcement
proceeding based on a settlement
agreement.
On June 8, 2012, the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued
his enforcement initial determination
(‘‘EID’’) finding a violation of the
Consent Order by uPI. The ALJ found
importation and sale of accused
products that infringe all asserted
claims of the patents at issue, and
importation and sale of formerly
accused products that contain or use
Richtek’s asserted trade secrets. He
found that uPI’s products developed
after the consent order issued (‘‘postConsent Order products’’) did not
misappropriate Richtek’s asserted trade
secrets. Also, he recommended
enforcement measures for uPI’s
violation that included the following:
(1) Modifying the Consent Order to
clarify that the Order applies (and has
always applied) to all uPI affiliates, past,
present, or future; and (2) imposing a
civil penalty of $750,000 against uPI.
The Commission did not review the
EID with respect to the trade secret
allegations, but did review the EID as to
certain patent infringement allegations
and the number of violation days. On
November 14, 2012, after review, the
Commission determined to affirm-inpart, reverse-in-part, modify-in-part, and
vacate-in-part the EID’s findings under
review. The Commission affirmed the
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ALJ’s finding that uPI violated the
consent order, and imposed a civil
penalty of $620,000 on respondent uPI
for violation of the Consent Order on 62
days. The Commission also affirmed the
ALJ’s finding of direct infringement of
claims 1–11 and 26–27 of the ’190
patent with respect to uPI’s formerly
accused products. The Commission also
vacated the ALJ’s finding that uPI does
not induce infringement of claims 1–11
and 26–27 of the 190 patent. The
Commission also determined to reverse
the ALJ’s finding that claims 29 and 34
of the 470 patent are directly infringed
by respondent uPI’s accused DC–DC
controllers and products containing the
same, and determined that Richtek
waived any allegations of indirect
infringement with respect to the ’470
patent. This action resulted in a finding
of no violation of the Consent Order
with respect to the ’470 patent. Further,
the Commission vacated as moot the
portion of the EID relating to the ’717
patent because the asserted claims 1–3
and 6–9 were cancelled by issuance of
Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate No.
U.S. 7,132,717 C1 on October 3, 2012.
The Commission also affirmed the ALJ’s
finding that uPI’s formerly accused
products contained or used Richtek’s
asserted trade secrets to violate the
Consent Order, but that uPI’s postConsent Order products did not
misappropriate Richtek’s asserted trade
secrets.
Both uPI and Richtek timely appealed
the Commission’s final determination.
The Federal Circuit issued its opinion in
the two appeals on September 25, 2014.
See 767 F.3d 1372. The Court affirmed
the Commission’s findings regarding
uPI’s appeal with a slight modification,
but regarding Richtek’s appeal, the
Court reversed the Commission’s
determination that uPI did not violate
the Consent Order based on trade secret
misappropriation with respect to uPI’s
post-Consent Order products. Id.
Specifically, the Court found that, on
the record provided, substantial
evidence did not support the
Commission’s conclusion that uPI’s
post-Consent Order products were
independently developed. Id. at 1383.
Also specifically, regarding uPI’s appeal
and before deciding Richtek’s appeal,
the Court reduced the number of days
of violation by eight (8) days to fifty-four
(54) days. Id. at 1380. The Court
remanded the case to the Commission
for further proceedings with respect to
violation of the Consent Order. Id. at
1383. On December 1, 2014, the Court
denied uPI’s petition for rehearing of the
Court’s finding of no independent
development of uPI’s post-Consent
E:\FR\FM\11JAN1.SGM
11JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Notices
Order products. The mandate of the
Court issued on November 17, 2014,
with respect to uPI’s appeal (Appeal No.
13–1157) and on December 8, 2014,
with respect to Richtek’s appeal (Appeal
No. 13–1159).
In its order of April 8, 2015, the
Commission remanded the case to a
presiding administrative law judge and
ordered the presiding ALJ to:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
make findings and issue a remand
recommended determination (‘‘RRD’’)
concerning the total number of days an
importation or sale in the United States
occurred in violation of the Consent Order in
accordance with the Federal Circuit decision
in uPI Semiconductor Corp. v. ITC and
Richtek Technology Corp. v. ITC, 767 F.3d
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014), taking into account (1)
any additional violation days with respect to
the post-Consent Order products Richtek
specifically accused (see EID at 9 n.6); and
(2) the subtraction of eight (8) violation days
with respect to the formerly accused
products. The RRD will also recommend a
total civil penalty amount based on the
previous daily penalty of $10,000 per day of
violation.
Comm’n Order. On April 20, 2015,
Richtek filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Commission’s
Remand Order with respect to the
amount of the daily penalty and on May
7, 2015, the motion was denied. See
Comm’n Order Denying Motion. On
October 8, 2015, the presiding ALJ
issued his RRD finding that after the
eight-day subtraction, eleven (11) days,
associated with post-Consent Order
products, should be added to the
number of days (54) uPI violated the
Consent Order to make the total sixtyfive (65) days in violation, and
accordingly increased the total civil
penalty amount to $650,000 based on
the daily penalty of $10,000. On October
19, 2015, Richtek submitted comments
regarding the RRD which reiterated the
same arguments made in its denied
motion for reconsideration. Id. On
October 26, 2015, uPI and the
Commission investigative attorney each
filed a reply to Richtek’s comments.
The Commission has determined to
adopt the RRD as a final determination
of the Commission and has issued a
modified civil penalty order in the
amount of $650,000 directed against
uPI. The Commission has rejected the
arguments regarding the amount of the
daily penalty made by Richtek in its
submitted comments for the same
reasons given in the Commission’s
Order denying Richtek’s motion for
reconsideration. The Commission has
terminated the remand enforcement
proceeding.
The authority for the Commission’s
determination is contained in section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Jan 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
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: January 6, 2016.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016–288 Filed 1–8–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–979]
Certain Radio Frequency Identification
(‘‘RFID’’) Products 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
December 4, 2015, under section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Neology, Inc.
of Poway, California. A supplement to
the complaint was filed on December
22, 2015. The complaint, as
supplemented, 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 radio frequency identification
(‘‘RFID’’) products and components
thereof by reason of infringement of
certain claims of U.S. Patent No.
8,325,044 (‘‘the ’044 patent’’); U.S.
Patent No. 8,587,436 (‘‘the ’436 patent’’);
and U.S. Patent No. 7,119,664 (‘‘the ’664
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1205
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
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
January 5, 2016, 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 radio frequency
identification (‘‘RFID’’) products and
components thereof by reason of
infringement of one or more of claims
13, 14, and 25 of the ’044 patent; claims
1–4, 6–12, and 14–18 of the ’436 patent;
and claims 1, 2, 9–12, 14–18, and 26–
28 of the ’664 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: Neology, Inc.,
12760 Danielson Court, Suite A, Poway,
CA 92064.
(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:
Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS, Inc., 8201
Greensboro Drive, Suite 1002, McLean,
VA 22102.
Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Holding
Corp., 8201 Greensboro Drive, Suite
1002, McLean, VA 22102.
Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS
Technologies Holding Corp., 8201
Greensboro Drive, Suite 1002, McLean,
VA 22102.
Kapsch TrafficCom U.S. Corp., 8201
Greensboro Drive, Suite 1002, McLean,
VA 22102.
E:\FR\FM\11JAN1.SGM
11JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1204-1205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-288]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-698 (Remand)]
Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same;
Commission Determination To Adopt a Recommended Remand Determination;
Issuance of Modified Civil Penalty Order and Termination of Remand
Enforcement Proceeding
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to adopt a remand recommended determination
(``RRD'') of the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') adding
eleven (11) days to the total number of days enforcement respondent uPI
Semiconductor Corporation (``uPI'') of Hsinchu, Taiwan, violated the
August 13, 2010 consent order (``the Consent Order''). The Commission
has adopted the RRD as a final determination of the Commission, issued
a modified civil penalty order in the amount of $650,000 directed
against uPI, and has terminated the remand enforcement proceeding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. 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 ordered this remand
enforcement proceeding on April 8, 2015, in view of the Federal
Circuit's decision in uPI Semiconductor Corp. v. ITC and Richtek
Technology Corp. v. ITC, 767 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See Comm'n
Order (Apr. 8, 2015). The Commission instituted the original
enforcement proceeding on September 6, 2011, based on an enforcement
complaint filed by Richtek Technology Corp. of Hsinchu, Taiwan, and
Richtek USA, Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively ``Richtek'').
76 FR 55109-10. The complaint alleged violations of the August 13,
2010, consent orders issued in the underlying investigation by the
continued practice of prohibited activities such as importing, offering
for sale, and selling for importation into the United States DC-DC
controllers or products containing the same that infringe one or more
of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,315,190 (``the '190 patent''); 6,414,470 (``the
's '470 patent''); and 7,132,717 (``the '717 patent''); or that contain
or use Richtek's asserted trade secrets. The Commission's notice of
institution of enforcement proceedings named uPI and Sapphire
Technology Limited (``Sapphire'') of Shatin, Hong Kong as respondents.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations participated in the
enforcement proceeding. Sapphire was later terminated from the
enforcement proceeding based on a settlement agreement.
On June 8, 2012, the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'')
issued his enforcement initial determination (``EID'') finding a
violation of the Consent Order by uPI. The ALJ found importation and
sale of accused products that infringe all asserted claims of the
patents at issue, and importation and sale of formerly accused products
that contain or use Richtek's asserted trade secrets. He found that
uPI's products developed after the consent order issued (``post-Consent
Order products'') did not misappropriate Richtek's asserted trade
secrets. Also, he recommended enforcement measures for uPI's violation
that included the following: (1) Modifying the Consent Order to clarify
that the Order applies (and has always applied) to all uPI affiliates,
past, present, or future; and (2) imposing a civil penalty of $750,000
against uPI.
The Commission did not review the EID with respect to the trade
secret allegations, but did review the EID as to certain patent
infringement allegations and the number of violation days. On November
14, 2012, after review, the Commission determined to affirm-in-part,
reverse-in-part, modify-in-part, and vacate-in-part the EID's findings
under review. The Commission affirmed the ALJ's finding that uPI
violated the consent order, and imposed a civil penalty of $620,000 on
respondent uPI for violation of the Consent Order on 62 days. The
Commission also affirmed the ALJ's finding of direct infringement of
claims 1-11 and 26-27 of the '190 patent with respect to uPI's formerly
accused products. The Commission also vacated the ALJ's finding that
uPI does not induce infringement of claims 1-11 and 26-27 of the 190
patent. The Commission also determined to reverse the ALJ's finding
that claims 29 and 34 of the 470 patent are directly infringed by
respondent uPI's accused DC-DC controllers and products containing the
same, and determined that Richtek waived any allegations of indirect
infringement with respect to the '470 patent. This action resulted in a
finding of no violation of the Consent Order with respect to the '470
patent. Further, the Commission vacated as moot the portion of the EID
relating to the '717 patent because the asserted claims 1-3 and 6-9
were cancelled by issuance of Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate No.
U.S. 7,132,717 C1 on October 3, 2012. The Commission also affirmed the
ALJ's finding that uPI's formerly accused products contained or used
Richtek's asserted trade secrets to violate the Consent Order, but that
uPI's post-Consent Order products did not misappropriate Richtek's
asserted trade secrets.
Both uPI and Richtek timely appealed the Commission's final
determination. The Federal Circuit issued its opinion in the two
appeals on September 25, 2014. See 767 F.3d 1372. The Court affirmed
the Commission's findings regarding uPI's appeal with a slight
modification, but regarding Richtek's appeal, the Court reversed the
Commission's determination that uPI did not violate the Consent Order
based on trade secret misappropriation with respect to uPI's post-
Consent Order products. Id. Specifically, the Court found that, on the
record provided, substantial evidence did not support the Commission's
conclusion that uPI's post-Consent Order products were independently
developed. Id. at 1383. Also specifically, regarding uPI's appeal and
before deciding Richtek's appeal, the Court reduced the number of days
of violation by eight (8) days to fifty-four (54) days. Id. at 1380.
The Court remanded the case to the Commission for further proceedings
with respect to violation of the Consent Order. Id. at 1383. On
December 1, 2014, the Court denied uPI's petition for rehearing of the
Court's finding of no independent development of uPI's post-Consent
[[Page 1205]]
Order products. The mandate of the Court issued on November 17, 2014,
with respect to uPI's appeal (Appeal No. 13-1157) and on December 8,
2014, with respect to Richtek's appeal (Appeal No. 13-1159).
In its order of April 8, 2015, the Commission remanded the case to
a presiding administrative law judge and ordered the presiding ALJ to:
make findings and issue a remand recommended determination (``RRD'')
concerning the total number of days an importation or sale in the
United States occurred in violation of the Consent Order in
accordance with the Federal Circuit decision in uPI Semiconductor
Corp. v. ITC and Richtek Technology Corp. v. ITC, 767 F.3d 1372
(Fed. Cir. 2014), taking into account (1) any additional violation
days with respect to the post-Consent Order products Richtek
specifically accused (see EID at 9 n.6); and (2) the subtraction of
eight (8) violation days with respect to the formerly accused
products. The RRD will also recommend a total civil penalty amount
based on the previous daily penalty of $10,000 per day of violation.
Comm'n Order. On April 20, 2015, Richtek filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Commission's Remand Order with respect to the
amount of the daily penalty and on May 7, 2015, the motion was denied.
See Comm'n Order Denying Motion. On October 8, 2015, the presiding ALJ
issued his RRD finding that after the eight-day subtraction, eleven
(11) days, associated with post-Consent Order products, should be added
to the number of days (54) uPI violated the Consent Order to make the
total sixty-five (65) days in violation, and accordingly increased the
total civil penalty amount to $650,000 based on the daily penalty of
$10,000. On October 19, 2015, Richtek submitted comments regarding the
RRD which reiterated the same arguments made in its denied motion for
reconsideration. Id. On October 26, 2015, uPI and the Commission
investigative attorney each filed a reply to Richtek's comments.
The Commission has determined to adopt the RRD as a final
determination of the Commission and has issued a modified civil penalty
order in the amount of $650,000 directed against uPI. The Commission
has rejected the arguments regarding the amount of the daily penalty
made by Richtek in its submitted comments for the same reasons given in
the Commission's Order denying Richtek's motion for reconsideration.
The Commission has terminated the remand enforcement proceeding.
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: January 6, 2016.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-288 Filed 1-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
