Certain Mobile Electronic Devices Incorporating Haptics (Including Smartphones and Smartwatches) and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation, 14889-14890 [2016-06112]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Notices
Commencement of Final Phase
Investigations
Pursuant to section 207.18 of the
Commission’s rules, the Commission
also gives notice of the commencement
of the final phase of its investigations.
The Commission will issue a final phase
notice of scheduling, which will be
published in the Federal Register as
provided in section 207.21 of the
Commission’s rules, upon notice from
the Department of Commerce
(‘‘Commerce’’) of affirmative
preliminary determinations in the
investigations under sections 703(b) or
733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary
determinations are negative, upon
notice of affirmative final
determinations in those investigations
under sections 705(a) or 735(a) of the
Act. Parties that filed entries of
appearance in the preliminary phase of
the investigations need not enter a
separate appearance for the final phase
of the investigations. Industrial users,
and, if the merchandise under
investigation is sold at the retail level,
representative consumer organizations
have the right to appear as parties in
Commission antidumping and
countervailing duty investigations. The
Secretary will prepare a public service
list containing the names and addresses
of all persons, or their representatives,
who are parties to the investigations.
Background
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
On January 29, 2016, the United Steel,
Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, Pittsburgh, PA
filed a petition with the Commission
and Commerce, alleging that an industry
in the United States is materially
injured or threatened with material
injury by reason of LTFV and
subsidized imports of truck and bus
tires from China. Accordingly, effective
January 29, 2016, the Commission,
pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), instituted
countervailing duty investigation No.
701–TA–556 and antidumping duty
investigation No. 731–TA–1311
(Preliminary).
K. Schmidtlein determine that there is a reasonable
indication that the domestic industry is materially
injured by reason of subject imports.
3 Commissioner David S. Johanson determines
that there is a reasonable indication that the
domestic industry is threatened with material
injury by reason of subject imports.
4 Chairman Meredith M. Broadbent and
Commissioner F. Scott Kieff determine that there is
no reasonable indication that a domestic industry
is materially injured or threatened with material
injury by reason of subject imports.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:50 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
Notice of the institution of the
Commission’s investigations and of a
public conference to be held in
connection therewith was given by
posting copies of the notice in the Office
of the Secretary, U.S. International
Trade Commission, Washington, DC,
and by publishing the notice in the
Federal Register of February 4, 2016 (81
FR 6042). The conference was held in
Washington, DC, on February 19, 2016,
and all persons who requested the
opportunity were permitted to appear in
person or by counsel.
The Commission made these
determinations pursuant to sections
703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)).
It completed and filed its
determinations in these investigations
on March 14, 2016. The views of the
Commission are contained in USITC
Publication 4601 (March 2016), entitled
Truck and Bus Tires from China:
Investigation Nos. 701–TA–556 and
731–TA–1311 (Preliminary).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 15, 2016.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016–06122 Filed 3–17–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337–TA–990]
Certain Mobile Electronic Devices
Incorporating Haptics (Including
Smartphones and Smartwatches) and
Components Thereof; Institution of
Investigation
14889
U.S. Patent No. 8,619,051 (‘‘the ’051
patent’’); and U.S. Patent No. 8,659,571
(‘‘the ’571 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, as
supplemented, 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.
AGENCY:
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).
Notice is hereby given that a
complaint was filed with the U.S.
International Trade Commission on
February 11, 2016, under section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Immersion
Corporation of San Jose, California. A
supplement to the complaint was filed
on February 24, 2016. 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 mobile electronic devices
incorporating haptics (including
smartphones and smartwatches) and
components thereof by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent No. 8,773,356 (‘‘the ’356 patent’’);
Scope of investigation: Having
considered the complaint, the U.S.
International Trade Commission, on
March 14, 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 mobile electronic
devices incorporating haptics (including
smartphones and smartwatches) and
components thereof by reason of
infringement of one or more of claims
1–3, 5, 7, 9–13, 15, 17, 19–23, 25, and
26 of the ’356 patent; claims 1–3 and 5–
15 of the ’051 patent; and claims 1–7,
12–18, and 23–29 of the ’571 patent, and
whether an industry in the United
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
14890
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Notices
States exists as required by subsection
(a)(2) of section 337;
(2) 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);
(3) 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:
Immersion Corporation, 50 Rio
Robles, San Jose, CA 95134.
(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:
Apple Inc., 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino,
CA 95014.
AT&T Inc., 208 South Akard Street,
Dallas, TX 75202.
AT&T Mobility LLC, 1025 Lenox Park
Boulevard NE., Atlanta, GA 30319.
(c) The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite
401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:50 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
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: March 14, 2016.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016–06112 Filed 3–17–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 16–5]
Kristen Lee Raines, A.P.R.N.; Decision
and Order
On September 16, 2015, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Kristen Lee Raines,
A.P.R.N. (hereinafter, Respondent), of
Little Rock, Arkansas. The Show Cause
Order proposed the revocation of
Respondent’s DEA Certificate of
Registration MR1972632, pursuant to
which she is authorized to dispense
controlled substances in schedules III
through V, as a mid-level practitioner,
as well as the denial of any pending
applications to renew or modify her
registration, on the ground that she does
not have authority to dispense
controlled substances in Arkansas, the
State in which she holds her
registration. Show Cause Order at 1.
The Show Cause Order alleged that
Respondent’s registration will not
expire until April 30, 2018. Id. The
Show Cause Order then alleged that the
Arkansas State Board of Nursing had
issued an Order, which summarily
suspended Respondent’s nursing and
advance practice nursing licenses
effective on June 19, 2015. Id. The Show
Cause Order thus alleged that
Respondent is ‘‘without authority to
handle controlled substances in
Arkansas,’’ and as a consequence, her
DEA registration is subject to
revocation. Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21),
823(f), and 824(a)(3)).
Following service of the Show Cause
Order, Respondent, through her
counsel, requested a hearing on the
allegations. In her hearing request,
Respondent did not dispute that her
registration does not expire until April
30, 2018. Resp. Hearing Req., at 1. Nor
did she dispute that the Arkansas State
Board of Nursing had summarily
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
suspended her nursing and advance
practice nursing licenses. Id. Instead,
Respondent objected to the proposed
action ‘‘on the grounds that the Show
Cause Order and suspension of her
Arkansas nursing license and advance
practice nursing license stem from
unfounded and unsubstantiated
allegations that she violated . . . 21
U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(e) by the U.S.
Attorney in’’ a criminal case brought
against her in the Eastern District of
Arkansas. Id. Respondent further
asserted that ‘‘she did not knowingly or
intentionally distribute [h]ydrocodone
and [a]lprazolam . . . without an
effective prescription.’’ Id. Respondent
further stated that she has pled not
guilty to the charges and believes that
she will be acquitted. Id.
Thereafter, the matter was placed on
the docket of the Office of
Administrative Law Judges and assigned
to Chief Administrative Law Judge John
J. Mulrooney, II (hereinafter, CALJ). On
October 20, 2015, the CALJ issued an
order directing the Government to file
evidence to support the allegation and
any motion for summary disposition by
October 30, 2015; the order also
provided that Respondent should
respond to the Government’s expected
motion no later than November 13,
2015.
On October 26, 2015, the Government
filed its Motion for Summary
Disposition. As support for the Motion,
the Government attached a copy of the
decision and order of the Arkansas State
Board of Nursing, which summarily
suspended Respondent’s advance
practice nursing license and nursing
license effective June 19, 2015. Mot. for
Summ. Disp., at Attachment 3, at 3
(Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
and Order, at 3; In re Kristen Lee Raines
Plant Raines (Ark. Bd. of Nursing, June
19, 2015) (hereinafter, Nursing Board
Order). The Government also provided
a printout from the Nursing Board’s
Web site (dated September 4, 2015)
showing that both Respondent’s RN and
Certified Nurse Practitioner licenses
were suspended. Mot. for Summ. Disp.,
at Attachment 4.
Respondent opposed the
Government’s Motion. In her
opposition, Respondent asserted that
she has been wrongly accused, and that
the State Board’s suspension of her
licenses is the ‘‘result of her wrongful
indictment.’’ Resp. Reply to Govt’s Mot.
for Summ. Disp., at 3. She further
argued that the DEA may exercise
discretion in determining the
appropriate sanction and that revocation
of her registration ‘‘is an unjust and
overly severe punishment given the
circumstances, particularly that the
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14889-14890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06112]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337-TA-990]
Certain Mobile Electronic Devices Incorporating Haptics
(Including Smartphones and Smartwatches) 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 February 11, 2016, under section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of
Immersion Corporation of San Jose, California. A supplement to the
complaint was filed on February 24, 2016. 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 mobile
electronic devices incorporating haptics (including smartphones and
smartwatches) and components thereof by reason of infringement of
certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,773,356 (``the '356 patent''); U.S.
Patent No. 8,619,051 (``the '051 patent''); and U.S. Patent No.
8,659,571 (``the '571 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, as supplemented, 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 March 14, 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 mobile
electronic devices incorporating haptics (including smartphones and
smartwatches) and components thereof by reason of infringement of one
or more of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-13, 15, 17, 19-23, 25, and 26 of the
'356 patent; claims 1-3 and 5-15 of the '051 patent; and claims 1-7,
12-18, and 23-29 of the '571 patent, and whether an industry in the
United
[[Page 14890]]
States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) 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);
(3) 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:
Immersion Corporation, 50 Rio Robles, San Jose, CA 95134.
(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:
Apple Inc., 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014.
AT&T Inc., 208 South Akard Street, Dallas, TX 75202.
AT&T Mobility LLC, 1025 Lenox Park Boulevard NE., Atlanta, GA
30319.
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436;
and
(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: March 14, 2016.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-06112 Filed 3-17-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
