Certain Graphics Processing Chips, Systems on a Chip, and Products Containing the Same Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding, 10654-10656 [2016-04406]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10654
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2016 / Notices
Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), the John DaySnake Resource Advisory Council (RAC)
will meet as indicated below:
DATES: The John Day-Snake and
Southeast Oregon RACs will hold a
meeting Thursday and Friday, March
17th and 18th, 2016, in The Dalles,
Oregon. The Thursday meeting, March
17th, will run from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00
p.m. On Friday, March 18th, the
meeting will run from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.
A public comment period will be
offered the second day, March 18th.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Larry Moore, Public Affairs Specialist,
BLM Vale District Office, 100 Oregon
St., Vale, Oregon 97918, phone (541)
473–6218, or email l2moore@blm.gov.
Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 1(800) 877–8339 to contact the
above individual during normal
business hours. The FIRS is available 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a
message or question with the above
individual. You will receive a reply
during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The John
Day-Snake RAC consists of 15 members,
chartered and appointed by the
Secretary of the Interior. Their diverse
perspectives are represented in
commodity, conservation, and general
interests. They provide advice to BLM
and Forest Service resource managers
regarding management plans and
proposed resource actions on public
land in central and eastern Oregon.
Agenda items for the meeting include
the Blue Mountain Plan revision,
updates on John Day Basin
implementation, Deschutes and Snake
River fee projects, and National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
activity related to invasive species in
the Vale and Prineville BLM Districts.
Other topics will be posted along with
the agenda on the John Day Snake RAC
Web site at: https://www.blm.gov/or/rac/
jdrac_meetingnotes.php.
All meetings are open to the public.
Information to be distributed to the John
Day-Snake RAC is requested prior to the
start of each meeting. A public comment
period will be offered on March 18th, at
a time to be determined. Unless
otherwise approved by the John DaySnake RAC Chairs, the public comment
period in each meeting will last no
longer than 30 minutes. Each speaker
may address the John Day-Snake RAC
for a maximum of 5 minutes. A public
call-in number for both meeting
locations is provided on the John DaySnake RAC Web site at https://
www.blm.gov/or/rac/jdrac.php.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:18 Feb 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Meeting times and the duration
scheduled for public comment periods
may be extended or altered when the
authorized representative considers it
necessary to accommodate business and
all who seek to be heard regarding
matters before the John Day-Snake or
Southeast Oregon RAC.
Don Gonzalez,
Vale District Manager.
[FR Doc. 2016–04414 Filed 2–29–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–33–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–941]
Certain Graphics Processing Chips,
Systems on a Chip, and Products
Containing the Same Commission
Determination To Review in Part a
Final Initial Determination Finding a
Violation of Section 337; Schedule for
Filing Written Submissions on the
Issues Under Review and on Remedy,
the Public Interest, and Bonding
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in part the final initial determination
(ID) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (ALJ) on
December 22, 2015, finding a violation
of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), as to
certain asserted patent claims in this
investigation.
SUMMARY:
Ron
Traud, Office of the General Counsel,
U.S. International Trade Commission,
500 E Street SW., Washington, DC
20436, telephone (202) 205–3427.
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. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that
information on this matter can be
obtained by contacting the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Commission’s TDD terminal on (202)
205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission instituted this investigation
on December 30, 2014 based on a
complaint filed by Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. of Gyeonggi-do, Republic of
Korea; and Samsung Austin
Semiconductor, LLC of Austin, Texas
(collectively, Complainants). 79 FR
78477–78 (Dec. 30, 2014). 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 graphics processing chips
(GPUs), systems on a chip (SoCs), and
products containing the same by reason
of infringement of one or more of claims
1–4, 6, and 19–21 of U.S. Patent No.
6,147,385 (the ’385 patent); claim 10 of
U.S. Patent No. 6,173,349 (the ’349
patent); claims 1, 2, 4, 19, 20, and 22 of
U.S. Patent No. 7,056,776 (the ’776
patent); and claims 1–3, 7–9, 12–15, 17,
and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,734 (the
’734 patent), and whether an industry in
the United States exists as required by
subsection (a)(2) of section 337. Id. The
notice of investigation named the
following respondents: NVIDIA
Corporation (NVIDIA) of Santa Clara,
California; Biostar Microtech
International Corp. of New Taipei,
Taiwan; Biostar Microtech U.S.A. Corp.
of City of Industry, California;
Elitegroup Computer Systems Co. Ltd.
of Taipei, Taiwan; Elitegroup Computer
Systems, Inc. of Newark, California;
EVGA Corp. of Brea, California; Fuhu,
Inc. of El Segundo, California; Jaton
Corp. of Fremont, California; Mad Catz,
Inc. of San Diego, California; OUYA,
Inc. of Santa Monica, California; Sparkle
Computer Co., Ltd. of New Taipei City,
Taiwan; Toradex, Inc. of Seattle,
Washington; Wikipad, Inc. of Westlake
Village, California; ZOTAC International
(MCO) Ltd of New Territories, Hong
Kong; and ZOTAC USA, Inc. of Chino,
California (collectively, Respondents).
Id. The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations (OUII) is also a party to
this investigation. Id.
On May 1, 2015, the Commission
determined not to review an initial
determination terminating the
investigation as to respondent Wikipad,
Inc. See Notice of Commission
Determination Not to Review an Initial
Determination Terminating the
Investigation as to Respondent Wikipad,
Inc. Based on a Consent Order
Stipulation, Consent Order, and
Settlement Agreement; Issuance of
Consent Order (May 1, 2015). On May
E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM
01MRN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2016 / Notices
13, 2015, the Commission determined
not to review an initial determination
granting intervention by Taiwan
Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
for a limited purpose. See Notice of
Commission Determination Not to
Review an Initial Determination
Granting Intervention by Taiwan
Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
for a Limited Purpose (May 13, 2015).
On September 17, 2015, the
Commission determined not to review
an initial determination terminating the
investigation as to respondent ZOTAC
International (MCO) Ltd. See Notice of
Commission Decision Not to Review
Two Initial Determinations That
Terminated the Investigation as to
Certain Asserted Patent Claims and as to
One Respondent (Sept. 17, 2015).
On July 1, 2015, the Commission
determined not to review an initial
determination terminating the
investigation as to the ’776 patent. See
Notice of Commission Determination
Not to Review an Initial Determination
Terminating the Investigation with
Respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,056,776
(July 1, 2015). On August 13, 2015, the
Commission determined not to review
an initial determination finding that the
economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement has been satisfied.
See Notice of a Commission
Determination Not to Review an Initial
Determination That the Economic Prong
of the Domestic Industry Requirement
Has Been Satisfied (Aug. 13, 2015). On
September 17, 2015, the Commission
determined not to review an initial
determination terminating claims 19–21
of the ‘385 patent and claims 7–9, 12–
15, 17, and 19 of the ’734 patent. See
Notice of Commission Decision Not to
Review Two Initial Determinations That
Terminated the Investigation as to
Certain Asserted Patent Claims and as to
One Respondent (Sept. 17, 2015).
On December 22, 2015, the ALJ issued
his ID. Regarding the ‘385 patent, the ID
concludes: (1) The accused products
infringe claims 1–4 and 6, ID at 61–91;
(2) there is a domestic industry, ID at
93–108; (3) claims 1–4 and 6 are not
invalid for anticipation, obviousness, or
lack of written description, ID at 114–
64; and (4) NVIDIA’s Tegra X1 chip is
outside the scope of the investigation.
ID at 91–93. Regarding the ’349 patent,
the ID concludes: (1) Certain accused
products infringe claim 10, ID at 198–
235; (2) there is a domestic industry, ID
at 235–52; and (3) claim 10 is not
invalid for anticipation, obviousness, or
lack of written description, ID at 253–
74. Regarding the ’734 patent, the ID
concludes: (1) Certain accused products
infringe claims 1 and 3, ID at 307–35; (2)
there is a domestic industry, ID at 336–
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:18 Feb 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
48; and (3) claims 1 and 3 are not
invalid for anticipation or obviousness.
ID at 348–77.
On January 4, 2016, Respondents and
OUII filed petitions for review of the ID.
On January 5, 2016, the ALJ issued his
recommended determination on remedy
and bonding. On January 12, 2016,
Complainants and OUII filed responses
to the petitions.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s ID,
the petitions for review, and the
responses thereto, the Commission has
determined to review the final ID in
part. Specifically, the Commission has
determined to review (1) the ID’s
construction of ‘‘mode’’ and ‘‘the
receiver further configured’’ of claim 1
of the ’734 patent; (2) the ID’s
conclusion that the accused products
infringe the ’734 patent; (3) the ID’s
conclusion that there is a domestic
industry for the ’734 patent; (4) the ID’s
conclusion that claim 1 of the ’734
patent is not invalid for anticipation by
U.S. Patent No. 7,032,092 (Lai); (5) the
ID’s conclusion that claim 3 of the ’734
patent is not invalid for obviousness
over Lai in view of U.S. Patent No.
6,853,213 (Funaba); (6) whether the
accused Tegra X1 products are within
the scope of the investigation; and (7)
whether Complainants proved that the
AP20 products infringe the ’349 patent.
The parties are requested to brief their
positions with reference to the
applicable law and the evidentiary
record. In connection with its review,
the Commission is particularly
interested in responses to the following:
1. With regard to the construction of
‘‘mode’’ in claim 1 of the ’734 patent,
please discuss the significance of the
repeated use of the permissive term
‘‘may’’ in the specification. E.g., col. 4,
lns. 28–29, 37–39, 48–51.
2. With regard to the construction of
‘‘mode’’ in claim 1 of the ’734 patent,
please discuss the significance of the
recent Federal Circuit decision in The
Trustees of Columbia University in the
City of New York v. Symantec
Corporation, No. 2015–1146 (Fed. Cir.
Feb. 2, 2016).
3. With regard to the interpretation of
Figure 4 of the ’734 patent, please
discuss the significance of the use of the
term ‘‘mode signal’’ in the specification.
Col. 5, lns. 13–16, 28–30.
4. With regard to the construction of
‘‘the receiver further configured’’ in
claim 1 of the ’734 patent, please
discuss the significance of the cases
cited in the ID at pages 302–04, and any
other relevant case law.
5. With respect to the ’734 patent, if
the Commission were (1) to construe the
claim term ‘‘mode’’ in claim 1 to mean
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10655
‘‘a configuration required by the
memory-device type’’; and (2) to
interpret the phrase ‘‘the receiver
further configured’’ in claim 1 to require
the capability of the receiver to operate
in one mode or the other, but not both,
when connected to a particular memory
device; please discuss any impact this
construction may have on the ID’s
findings and conclusions.
6. What portion of the accused
devices is allegedly covered by the
asserted claims? Do the patents in
question relate to relatively minor
features of the accused devices?
7. How would remedial orders barring
the entry and further distribution of the
products alleged to infringe the asserted
claims of the ’385, ’349 and/or ’734
patents affect the public interest as
identified in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1) and
(f)(1)? The Commission is particularly
interested in the commercial availability
of alternatives to the potentially
excluded products as well as any
differences, including qualitative
differences, between those alternatives
and the potentially excluded products.
In connection with the final
disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may (1) issue an order that
could result in the exclusion of the
subject articles from entry into the
United States, and/or (2) issue one or
more cease and desist orders that could
result in the respondent being required
to cease and desist from engaging in
unfair acts in the importation and sale
of such articles. Accordingly, the
Commission is interested in receiving
written submissions that address the
form of remedy, if any, that should be
ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an
article from entry into the United States
for purposes other than entry for
consumption, the party should so
indicate and provide information
establishing that activities involving
other types of entry either are adversely
affecting it or likely to do so. For
background, see Certain Devices for
Connecting Computers via Telephone
Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC
Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994)
(Commission Opinion).
If the Commission contemplates some
form of remedy, it must consider the
effects of that remedy upon the public
interest. The factors the Commission
will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease and desist
orders would have on (1) the public
health and welfare, (2) competitive
conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S.
production of articles that are like or
directly competitive with those that are
subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving written
E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM
01MRN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10656
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2016 / Notices
submissions that address the
aforementioned public interest factors
in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form
of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the
President, has 60 days to approve or
disapprove the Commission’s action.
See Presidential Memorandum of July
21, 2005. 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005).
During this period, the subject articles
would be entitled to enter the United
States under bond, in an amount
determined by the Commission and
prescribed by the Secretary of the
Treasury. The Commission is therefore
interested in receiving submissions
concerning the amount of the bond that
should be imposed if a remedy is
ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to
the investigation are requested to file
written submissions on the issues
identified in this notice. Parties to the
investigation, interested government
agencies, and any other interested
parties are encouraged to file written
submissions on the issues of remedy,
the public interest, and bonding. Such
submissions should address the
recommended determination by the ALJ
on remedy and bonding. Complainants
are requested to submit proposed
remedial orders for the Commission’s
consideration. Complainants are also
requested to state the date that the
patents expire and the HTSUS numbers
under which the accused products are
imported. Complainants are further
requested to supply the names of known
importers of the products at issue in this
investigation. The written submissions
and proposed remedial orders must be
filed no later than close of business on
March 7, 2016. Reply submissions must
be filed no later than the close of
business on March 14, 2016. Such
submissions should address the ALJ’s
recommended determinations on
remedy and bonding. No further
submissions on any of 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 eight 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–941’’) 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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:18 Feb 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
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).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: February 24, 2016.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016–04406 Filed 2–29–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–308–310 and
520–521 (Fourth Review)]
Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings
From Brazil, China, Japan, Taiwan, and
Thailand; Institution of Five-Year
Reviews
United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Commission hereby gives
notice that it has instituted reviews
pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the
Act’’), as amended, to determine
whether revocation of the antidumping
duty orders on carbon steel butt-weld
pipe fittings from Brazil, China, Japan,
Taiwan, and Thailand would be likely
to lead to continuation or recurrence of
material injury. Pursuant to the Act,
interested parties are requested to
respond to this notice by submitting the
information specified below to the
Commission; 1 to be assured of
SUMMARY:
1 No response to this request for information is
required if a currently valid Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the
OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 16–5–351,
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
consideration, the deadline for
responses is March 31, 2016. Comments
on the adequacy of responses may be
filed with the Commission by May 13,
2016.
DATES: Effective: March 1, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of
Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain
information on this matter 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 (https://
www.usitc.gov). The public record for
this proceeding may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background.—On December 12, 1986,
the Department of Commerce
(‘‘Commerce’’) issued antidumping duty
orders on imports of carbon steel buttweld pipe fittings from Brazil and
Taiwan (51 FR 45152). On February 10,
1987, Commerce issued an antidumping
duty order on imports of carbon steel
butt-weld pipe fittings from Japan (52
FR 4167). On July 6, 1992, Commerce
issued antidumping duty orders on
imports of carbon steel butt-weld pipe
fittings from China and Thailand (57 FR
29702). Following the first five-year
reviews by Commerce and the
Commission, effective January 6, 2000,
Commerce issued a notice of the
continuation of the antidumping duty
orders on imports of carbon steel buttweld pipe fittings from Brazil, China,
Japan, Taiwan, and Thailand (65 FR
753). Following second five-year
reviews by Commerce and the
Commission, effective November 21,
2005, Commerce issued a notice of the
continuation of the antidumping duty
orders on imports of carbon steel buttweld pipe fittings from Brazil, China,
Japan, Taiwan, and Thailand (70 FR
70059). Following the third five-year
reviews by Commerce and the
Commission, effective April 15, 2011,
Commerce issued a notice of the
continuation of the antidumping duty
expiration date June 30, 2017. Public reporting
burden for the request is estimated to average 15
hours per response. Please send comments
regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to
the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC
20436.
E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM
01MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10654-10656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04406]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-941]
Certain Graphics Processing Chips, Systems on a Chip, and
Products Containing the Same Commission Determination To Review in Part
a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337;
Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and
on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review in part the final initial
determination (ID) issued by the presiding administrative law judge
(ALJ) on December 22, 2015, finding a violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), as to certain asserted
patent claims in this investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Traud, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3427. 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 December 30, 2014 based on a complaint filed by Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. of Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea; and Samsung Austin
Semiconductor, LLC of Austin, Texas (collectively, Complainants). 79 FR
78477-78 (Dec. 30, 2014). 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 graphics
processing chips (GPUs), systems on a chip (SoCs), and products
containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims
1-4, 6, and 19-21 of U.S. Patent No. 6,147,385 (the '385 patent); claim
10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,173,349 (the '349 patent); claims 1, 2, 4, 19,
20, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,056,776 (the '776 patent); and claims
1-3, 7-9, 12-15, 17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,734 (the '734
patent), and whether an industry in the United States exists as
required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. Id. The notice of
investigation named the following respondents: NVIDIA Corporation
(NVIDIA) of Santa Clara, California; Biostar Microtech International
Corp. of New Taipei, Taiwan; Biostar Microtech U.S.A. Corp. of City of
Industry, California; Elitegroup Computer Systems Co. Ltd. of Taipei,
Taiwan; Elitegroup Computer Systems, Inc. of Newark, California; EVGA
Corp. of Brea, California; Fuhu, Inc. of El Segundo, California; Jaton
Corp. of Fremont, California; Mad Catz, Inc. of San Diego, California;
OUYA, Inc. of Santa Monica, California; Sparkle Computer Co., Ltd. of
New Taipei City, Taiwan; Toradex, Inc. of Seattle, Washington; Wikipad,
Inc. of Westlake Village, California; ZOTAC International (MCO) Ltd of
New Territories, Hong Kong; and ZOTAC USA, Inc. of Chino, California
(collectively, Respondents). Id. The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations (OUII) is also a party to this investigation. Id.
On May 1, 2015, the Commission determined not to review an initial
determination terminating the investigation as to respondent Wikipad,
Inc. See Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial
Determination Terminating the Investigation as to Respondent Wikipad,
Inc. Based on a Consent Order Stipulation, Consent Order, and
Settlement Agreement; Issuance of Consent Order (May 1, 2015). On May
[[Page 10655]]
13, 2015, the Commission determined not to review an initial
determination granting intervention by Taiwan Semiconductor
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. for a limited purpose. See Notice of Commission
Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination Granting
Intervention by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. for a
Limited Purpose (May 13, 2015). On September 17, 2015, the Commission
determined not to review an initial determination terminating the
investigation as to respondent ZOTAC International (MCO) Ltd. See
Notice of Commission Decision Not to Review Two Initial Determinations
That Terminated the Investigation as to Certain Asserted Patent Claims
and as to One Respondent (Sept. 17, 2015).
On July 1, 2015, the Commission determined not to review an initial
determination terminating the investigation as to the '776 patent. See
Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial
Determination Terminating the Investigation with Respect to U.S. Patent
No. 7,056,776 (July 1, 2015). On August 13, 2015, the Commission
determined not to review an initial determination finding that the
economic prong of the domestic industry requirement has been satisfied.
See Notice of a Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial
Determination That the Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry
Requirement Has Been Satisfied (Aug. 13, 2015). On September 17, 2015,
the Commission determined not to review an initial determination
terminating claims 19-21 of the `385 patent and claims 7-9, 12-15, 17,
and 19 of the '734 patent. See Notice of Commission Decision Not to
Review Two Initial Determinations That Terminated the Investigation as
to Certain Asserted Patent Claims and as to One Respondent (Sept. 17,
2015).
On December 22, 2015, the ALJ issued his ID. Regarding the `385
patent, the ID concludes: (1) The accused products infringe claims 1-4
and 6, ID at 61-91; (2) there is a domestic industry, ID at 93-108; (3)
claims 1-4 and 6 are not invalid for anticipation, obviousness, or lack
of written description, ID at 114-64; and (4) NVIDIA's Tegra X1 chip is
outside the scope of the investigation. ID at 91-93. Regarding the '349
patent, the ID concludes: (1) Certain accused products infringe claim
10, ID at 198-235; (2) there is a domestic industry, ID at 235-52; and
(3) claim 10 is not invalid for anticipation, obviousness, or lack of
written description, ID at 253-74. Regarding the '734 patent, the ID
concludes: (1) Certain accused products infringe claims 1 and 3, ID at
307-35; (2) there is a domestic industry, ID at 336-48; and (3) claims
1 and 3 are not invalid for anticipation or obviousness. ID at 348-77.
On January 4, 2016, Respondents and OUII filed petitions for review
of the ID. On January 5, 2016, the ALJ issued his recommended
determination on remedy and bonding. On January 12, 2016, Complainants
and OUII filed responses to the petitions.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the
Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. Specifically,
the Commission has determined to review (1) the ID's construction of
``mode'' and ``the receiver further configured'' of claim 1 of the '734
patent; (2) the ID's conclusion that the accused products infringe the
'734 patent; (3) the ID's conclusion that there is a domestic industry
for the '734 patent; (4) the ID's conclusion that claim 1 of the '734
patent is not invalid for anticipation by U.S. Patent No. 7,032,092
(Lai); (5) the ID's conclusion that claim 3 of the '734 patent is not
invalid for obviousness over Lai in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,853,213
(Funaba); (6) whether the accused Tegra X1 products are within the
scope of the investigation; and (7) whether Complainants proved that
the AP20 products infringe the '349 patent.
The parties are requested to brief their positions with reference
to the applicable law and the evidentiary record. In connection with
its review, the Commission is particularly interested in responses to
the following:
1. With regard to the construction of ``mode'' in claim 1 of the
'734 patent, please discuss the significance of the repeated use of the
permissive term ``may'' in the specification. E.g., col. 4, lns. 28-29,
37-39, 48-51.
2. With regard to the construction of ``mode'' in claim 1 of the
'734 patent, please discuss the significance of the recent Federal
Circuit decision in The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of
New York v. Symantec Corporation, No. 2015-1146 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2,
2016).
3. With regard to the interpretation of Figure 4 of the '734
patent, please discuss the significance of the use of the term ``mode
signal'' in the specification. Col. 5, lns. 13-16, 28-30.
4. With regard to the construction of ``the receiver further
configured'' in claim 1 of the '734 patent, please discuss the
significance of the cases cited in the ID at pages 302-04, and any
other relevant case law.
5. With respect to the '734 patent, if the Commission were (1) to
construe the claim term ``mode'' in claim 1 to mean ``a configuration
required by the memory-device type''; and (2) to interpret the phrase
``the receiver further configured'' in claim 1 to require the
capability of the receiver to operate in one mode or the other, but not
both, when connected to a particular memory device; please discuss any
impact this construction may have on the ID's findings and conclusions.
6. What portion of the accused devices is allegedly covered by the
asserted claims? Do the patents in question relate to relatively minor
features of the accused devices?
7. How would remedial orders barring the entry and further
distribution of the products alleged to infringe the asserted claims of
the '385, '349 and/or '734 patents affect the public interest as
identified in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1) and (f)(1)? The Commission is
particularly interested in the commercial availability of alternatives
to the potentially excluded products as well as any differences,
including qualitative differences, between those alternatives and the
potentially excluded products.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of
the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2)
issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the
respondent being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair
acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the
Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address
the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks
exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes
other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and
provide information establishing that activities involving other types
of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For
background, see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone
Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994)
(Commission Opinion).
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the
public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S.
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly
competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written
[[Page 10656]]
submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in
the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve
or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of
July 21, 2005. 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the
subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under
bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the
Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in
receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be
imposed if a remedy is ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the issues identified in this notice.
Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any
other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on
the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such
submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on
remedy and bonding. Complainants are requested to submit proposed
remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainants are
also requested to state the date that the patents expire and the HTSUS
numbers under which the accused products are imported. Complainants are
further requested to supply the names of known importers of the
products at issue in this investigation. The written submissions and
proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business
on March 7, 2016. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the
close of business on March 14, 2016. Such submissions should address
the ALJ's recommended determinations on remedy and bonding. No further
submissions on any of 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 eight
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-941'') 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).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: February 24, 2016.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-04406 Filed 2-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
