Certain Radio Frequency Identification (“RFID”) Products and Components Thereof Institution of Investigation, 1205-1206 [2016-289]

Download as PDF 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 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 1206 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Notices Kapsch TrafficCom Holding Corp., 8201 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1002, McLean, VA 22102. Kapsch TrafficCom Canada, Inc., 6020 Ambler Drive, Mississauga, ON L4W 2P1, Canada. Star Systems International, Ltd., Unit A01, 24/F Gold King Industrial Building, 35–41 Tai Lin Pai Road, Kwai Chung, Hong Kong. STAR RFID Co., Ltd., 1 Charoenrat Road, Thung Wat Don, Sathon, Bangkok 10120 Thailand. (c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; (3) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties and other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1); (4) 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 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:17 Jan 08, 2016 Jkt 238001 Issued: January 6, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2016–289 Filed 1–8–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—R Consortium, Inc. Notice is hereby given that, on December 3, 2015, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), R Consortium, Inc. (‘‘R Consortium’’) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, 0965688 BC LTD., Surrey, British Columbia, CANADA, has been added as a party 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 R Consortium intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership. On September 15, 2015, R Consortium 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 October 2, 2015 (80 FR 59815). Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division. [FR Doc. 2016–323 Filed 1–8–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—The Open Group, L.L.C. Notice is hereby given that, on December 8, 2015, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), The Open Group, L.L.C. (‘‘TOG’’) has filed PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, AEGIS.net, Inc., Rockville, MD; Air Force Research Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, NM; Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, JAPAN; Bank of Zambia, Lusaka, ZAMBIA; Dunstan Thomas Consulting, Ltd., Portsmouth, UNITED KINGDOM; Front Metrics Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Pune, INDIA; Geco, Inc., Mesa, AZ; Inspur Co., Ltd., Beijing, PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; IAB BVBA, Boutersem, BELGIUM; Intelligent Training de Columbia, Bogota, COLOMBIA; Joint Tactical Network Center, San Diego, CA; M J Anniss, Ltd., Nairn, UNITED KINGDOM; PLANAD Consultoria em ˜ ˜ Gestao Empreserial Ltda., Sao Paulo, BRAZIL; SIGMAXYZ Inc., Tokyo, JAPAN; S.P. Jain Institute of Management Research, Mumbai, INDIA; Universidad Continental, Huancayo, PERU; University of Dayton Research Institute, Dayton, OH; Vencore, Inc., Lexington Park, MD; Vigillence, Inc., McLean, VA; and White Cloud Software Ltd., Bowen Island, CANADA, have been added as parties to this venture. Also, Architecture Capability Assurance Strategic Group, Palo Alto, CA; ATSI S.A., Zabierzow, POLAND; AXE, Inc., Nakagyo-ku, JAPAN; Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., Fort Worth, TX; CS Interactive Training, Pretoria, SOUTH AFRICA; EXELIS, Inc., Clifton, NJ; Fairchild Controls Corporation, Frederick, MD; Hoople Limited, Hereford, UNITED KINGDOM; Howell Instruments, Inc., Fort Worth, TX; Indra Colombia, Bogota, COLOMBIA; Kamehameha Schools-Trustees of the Estate of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, Honolulu, HI; Korea Software Technology Association, Gyeonggi-Do, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; Mobile Reasoning, Inc., Lenaxa, KS; Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corporation, Tokyo, JAPAN; Online Business Systems, Winnepeg, CANADA; PreterLex Limited, Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM; University of Nordland, Oslo, NORWAY; VIP Apps Consulting Limited, Hertfordshire, UNITED KINGDOM; and World Vision International, Monrovia, CA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture. In addition, Hewlett Packard Company has changed its name to Hewlett Packard Enterprises, Cupertino, CA. E:\FR\FM\11JAN1.SGM 11JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1205-1206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-289]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-979]


Certain Radio Frequency Identification (``RFID'') Products and 
Components Thereof Institution of Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: 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 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.

[[Page 1206]]

    Kapsch TrafficCom Holding Corp., 8201 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1002, 
McLean, VA 22102.
    Kapsch TrafficCom Canada, Inc., 6020 Ambler Drive, Mississauga, ON 
L4W 2P1, Canada.
    Star Systems International, Ltd., Unit A01, 24/F Gold King 
Industrial Building, 35-41 Tai Lin Pai Road, Kwai Chung, Hong Kong.
    STAR RFID Co., Ltd., 1 Charoenrat Road, Thung Wat Don, Sathon, 
Bangkok 10120 Thailand.
    (c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International 
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436;
    (3) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), 
the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other 
information and hear arguments from the parties and other interested 
persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as 
appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a 
recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the 
statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), 
(f)(1), (g)(1);
    (4) 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 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: January 6, 2016.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-289 Filed 1-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.