Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof; Commission Determination Not To Review a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the Investigation, 74479-74480 [2016-25829]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2016 / Notices
as the requestor’s Social Security
Number, is needed to identify records
unique to the requestor. Failure to
provide the required information may
result in the NPS being unable to take
any action on the request.
The NPS plans to implement the use
of Form 10–945, ‘‘Certification of
Identity and Consent’’ to collect the
minimal information necessary to verify
the identity of first-party requesters
request information about themselves
and document if and when they
authorized the NPS to release their
information to a third party. NPS Form
10–945 requires for the following
information to verify the identity of the
requester:
• Full name of Requester;
• Case Number;
• Social Security Number;
• Current Address;
• Date of Birth; and
• Place of birth.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
II. Data
OMB Control Number: 1024—New.
Title: Certification of Identity and
Consent Form.
Service Form Numbers: NPS Form
10–945, ‘‘Certification of Identity and
Consent’’.
Type of Request: Existing collection in
use without OMB approval.
Description of Respondents:
Individuals requesting copies of law
enforcement case incident reports
maintained within the Department of
Interior’s Incident Management and
Reporting System (IMARS).
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain or retain a benefit.
Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 2,000.
Estimated Completion Time per
Response: 3 minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 100.
Estimated Annual Nonhour Cost
Burden: None.
III. Comments
On January 15, 2016, we published in
the Federal Register (81 FR 2233) a
Notice of our intent to request that OMB
approval of this information collection.
In that Notice, we solicited comments
for 60 days, ending on March 15, 2016.
No comments were received in response
to that Notice.
We again invite comments concerning
this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary, including
whether or not the information will
have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:25 Oct 25, 2016
Jkt 241001
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents.
Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of
public record. Before including your
address, phone number, email address,
or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
comment, including your personal
identifying information, may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask OMB in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that it will be done.
Dated: October 21, 2016.
Madonna L. Baucum,
Information Collection Clearance Officer,
National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 2016–25847 Filed 10–25–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–EH–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–963]
Certain Activity Tracking Devices,
Systems, and Components Thereof;
Commission Determination Not To
Review a Final Initial Determination
Finding No Violation of Section 337;
Termination of the Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to
review the final initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on
August 23, 2016, finding no violation of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, in connection with alleged
misappropriation of certain trade
secrets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–
205–3042. 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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
74479
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
Internet server (https://www.usitc.gov).
The public record for this investigation
may be viewed on the Commission’s
electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired
persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on 202–205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission instituted Inv. No. 337–
TA–963 on August 21, 2015, based on
a complaint filed by AliphCom d/b/a
Jawbone of San Francisco, California
and BodyMedia, Inc. of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania (collectively, ‘‘Jawbone’’).
80 FR 50870–71 (Aug. 21, 2015). The
complaint alleges violations of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain activity tracking devices,
systems, and components thereof by
reason of infringement of certain claims
of U.S. Patent No. 8,529,811 (‘‘the ’811
patent); U.S. Patent No. 8,398,546 (‘‘the
’546 patent); U.S. Patent No. 8,793,522
(‘‘the ’522 patent); U.S. Patent No.
8,446,275 (‘‘the ’275 patent); U.S. Patent
No. 8,961,413 (‘‘the ’413 patent); and
U.S. Patent No. 8,073,707 (‘‘the ’707
patent’’). The complaint further alleges
misappropriation of trade secrets, the
threat or effect of which is to destroy or
substantially injure an industry in the
United States. The notice of
investigation named the following
respondents: Fitbit, Inc. of San
Francisco, California (‘‘Fitbit’’);
Flextronics International Ltd. of San
Jose, California; and Flextronics Sales &
Marketing (A–P) Ltd. of Port Louis,
Mauritius (collectively, ‘‘Flextronics’’);
Fitbit and Flextronics are collectively
referred to as ‘‘Respondents.’’ The Office
of Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’)
is a party to the investigation.
On February 22, 2016, the ALJ granted
Jawbone’s unopposed motion to
terminate the investigation as to the ’522
patent; claims 8–10, 13, 14, and 18 of
the ’275 patent; claim 6 of the ’811
patent; and claims 5 and 8 of the ’413
patent. See Order No. 32. The
Commission determined not to review
the ID. See Comm’n Notice of Nonreview (Mar. 21, 2016).
On March 3, 2016, the ALJ granted
Fitbit’s motion for summary
determination that the asserted claims
of the ’546 and ’275 patents are directed
to ineligible subject matter under 35
U.S.C. 101. See Order No. 40. The
Commission determined to review the
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
74480
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2016 / Notices
ID, and on review to affirm the ID with
certain modifications. See Comm’n
Notice affirming the ID with
modification (Apr. 4, 2016).
On March 11, 2016, the ALJ granted
Jawbone’s unopposed motion to
terminate the investigation as to the
remaining claims of the ’811 patent. See
Order No. 42. The Commission
determined not to review the ID. See
Comm’n Notice of Non-review (Apr. 4,
2016).
On April 27, 2016, the ALJ granted
Fitbit’s motion for summary
determination that the asserted claims
of the ’413 and ’707 patents (the two
patents remaining in the investigation),
are directed to ineligible subject matter
under 35 U.S.C. 101. See Order No. 54.
The Commission determined not to
review the ID. See Comm’n Notice of
Non-review (Jun. 2, 2016). Thus, all the
patent infringement allegations were
terminated from the investigation. Only
the allegations of trade secret
misappropriation remain at issue in the
investigation.
The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing
from May 9, 2016 through May 17, 2016,
and thereafter received post-hearing
briefing from the parties. During
discovery, Jawbone identified 154 trade
secrets allegedly misappropriated by
Respondents (Trade Secret Nos. 1–144,
including Nos. 1.A–1.G, 92–A, 139–A,
and 141–A.). ID at 3. Yet at the hearing,
Jawbone presented evidence and
argument on only 38 of the alleged trade
secrets (Trade Secret Nos. 1, 1A–G, 2–
4, 12–14, 17, 18, 33, 52, 53, 55, 58, 91,
92, 92–A, 93–102, 128, 129, 141, 141–
A). Jawbone’s post-hearing briefs
addressed only five of the alleged trade
secrets (Trade Secret Nos. 92, 92–A, 98,
128, and 129). Specifically, Jawbone
argued that Fitbit misappropriated
alleged Trade Secret Nos. 98 and 128,
and Flextronics misappropriated alleged
Trade Secret Nos. 92, 92–A, and 129. ID
at 3–4.
On June 15, 2016, Jawbone moved to
terminate the investigation as to all of
the trade secrets except for the five
alleged trade secrets addressed in its
post-hearing briefing. ID at 4 (citing
Mot. Docket No. 963–072). Respondents
opposed the motion, arguing that they
are ‘‘entitled to a determination that
Jawbone failed to present sufficient
evidence showing actual
misappropriation as to all of the trade
secrets that Jawbone now seeks to
abandon. . . .’’ See id. at 23 (quoting
Mot. 072 Rsp. at 8) (emphasis in
original). The ALJ denied Jawbone’s
motion as outside the scope of
Commission Rule 210.21(a). She also
denied Fitbit’s request for a
determination on whether the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:25 Oct 25, 2016
Jkt 241001
withdrawn trade secrets were
misappropriated. Id. at 20, 23–24. The
ALJ stated that ‘‘[p]arties are free to
waive arguments’’ and that Fitbit failed
to provide ‘‘any support for the
proposition that arguments that have
been waived and abandoned should be
considered on their merits.’’ Id. The ALJ
also granted Jawbone’s June 30, 2016
motion to strike Section V.A. of Fitbit’s
post-hearing reply brief for improperly
raising a new argument based on news
articles that are not in the record of the
investigation. Id. at 25. No party
petitioned for review of the ALJ’s
determinations as to these motions.
On August 23, 2016, the ALJ issued
her final ID finding no violation of
section 337 by Respondents in
connection with the alleged trade
secrets misappropriation. Specifically,
the ALJ found that the Commission has
subject matter jurisdiction, in rem
jurisdiction over the accused products,
and in personam jurisdiction over
Respondents. ID at 15–16. The ALJ
further found that Jawbone satisfied the
importation requirement of section 337,
noting that Respondents have stipulated
that the accused products have been
imported into the United States. Id. at
16. The ALJ, however, found that
Jawbone failed to show that the alleged
trade secrets constitute actual trade
secrets, and that Respondents did not
misappropriate any of Jawbone’s alleged
trade secrets. ID at 28, 38, 45–46.
Finally, the ALJ found that Jawbone
failed to prove a threat of substantial
injury to a domestic industry as
required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(A)(i).
See ID at 79–80. In that regard, the ALJ
referenced her finding of no
misappropriation of trade secrets and
added that ‘‘even if Jawbone had proven
misappropriation of the five asserted
trade secrets, there is no way to decide
on this record what specific injury is
attributable to these trade secrets, and
whether the injury is substantial.’’ Id. at
80.
On September 6, 2016, Jawbone filed
a petition for review of the ID,
challenging only the ALJ’s findings as to
alleged Trade Secret Nos. 92, 92–A, and
98. On September 14, 2016,
Respondents and the Commission
investigative attorney filed responses to
the petition for review. Having
examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the petition for review, and the
responses thereto, the Commission has
determined not to review the final ID.
This investigation is therefore
terminated.
The authority for the Commission’s
determination is contained in section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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: October 20, 2016.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016–25829 Filed 10–25–16; 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—Advanced Media
Workflow Association, Inc.
Notice is hereby given that, on
September 21, 2016, pursuant to Section
6(a) of the National Cooperative
Research and Production Act of 1993,
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’),
Advanced Media Workflow Association,
Inc. 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, NHK (Japan Broadcasting
Corporation), Tokyo, Japan; STORDIS
GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany; The Telos
Alliance, Cleveland, OH; and Mark
Franken (individual member), Winston
Hills, Australia, have been added as
parties to this venture.
Also, Encompass Digital Media,
Stanford, CT; Malooba, Launceston,
United Kingdom; Tektronix, Beaverton,
OR; and Yangaroo, Inc., Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, have withdrawn as
parties 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 Advanced
Media Workflow Association, Inc.
intends to file additional written
notifications disclosing all changes in
membership.
On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media
Workflow Association, Inc. 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 June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40127).
The last notification was filed with
the Department on June 22, 2016. A
notice was published in the Federal
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74479-74480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25829]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-963]
Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components
Thereof; Commission Determination Not To Review a Final Initial
Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the
Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to review the final initial determination
(``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') on
August 23, 2016, finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended, in connection with alleged misappropriation of
certain trade secrets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3042. 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 (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 Inv. No. 337-TA-
963 on August 21, 2015, based on a complaint filed by AliphCom d/b/a
Jawbone of San Francisco, California and BodyMedia, Inc. of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania (collectively, ``Jawbone''). 80 FR 50870-71 (Aug. 21,
2015). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), in the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United
States after importation of certain activity tracking devices, systems,
and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of
U.S. Patent No. 8,529,811 (``the '811 patent); U.S. Patent No.
8,398,546 (``the '546 patent); U.S. Patent No. 8,793,522 (``the '522
patent); U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275 (``the '275 patent); U.S. Patent No.
8,961,413 (``the '413 patent); and U.S. Patent No. 8,073,707 (``the
'707 patent''). The complaint further alleges misappropriation of trade
secrets, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially
injure an industry in the United States. The notice of investigation
named the following respondents: Fitbit, Inc. of San Francisco,
California (``Fitbit''); Flextronics International Ltd. of San Jose,
California; and Flextronics Sales & Marketing (A-P) Ltd. of Port Louis,
Mauritius (collectively, ``Flextronics''); Fitbit and Flextronics are
collectively referred to as ``Respondents.'' The Office of Unfair
Import Investigations (``OUII'') is a party to the investigation.
On February 22, 2016, the ALJ granted Jawbone's unopposed motion to
terminate the investigation as to the '522 patent; claims 8-10, 13, 14,
and 18 of the '275 patent; claim 6 of the '811 patent; and claims 5 and
8 of the '413 patent. See Order No. 32. The Commission determined not
to review the ID. See Comm'n Notice of Non-review (Mar. 21, 2016).
On March 3, 2016, the ALJ granted Fitbit's motion for summary
determination that the asserted claims of the '546 and '275 patents are
directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. See Order
No. 40. The Commission determined to review the
[[Page 74480]]
ID, and on review to affirm the ID with certain modifications. See
Comm'n Notice affirming the ID with modification (Apr. 4, 2016).
On March 11, 2016, the ALJ granted Jawbone's unopposed motion to
terminate the investigation as to the remaining claims of the '811
patent. See Order No. 42. The Commission determined not to review the
ID. See Comm'n Notice of Non-review (Apr. 4, 2016).
On April 27, 2016, the ALJ granted Fitbit's motion for summary
determination that the asserted claims of the '413 and '707 patents
(the two patents remaining in the investigation), are directed to
ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. See Order No. 54. The
Commission determined not to review the ID. See Comm'n Notice of Non-
review (Jun. 2, 2016). Thus, all the patent infringement allegations
were terminated from the investigation. Only the allegations of trade
secret misappropriation remain at issue in the investigation.
The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing from May 9, 2016 through May
17, 2016, and thereafter received post-hearing briefing from the
parties. During discovery, Jawbone identified 154 trade secrets
allegedly misappropriated by Respondents (Trade Secret Nos. 1-144,
including Nos. 1.A-1.G, 92-A, 139-A, and 141-A.). ID at 3. Yet at the
hearing, Jawbone presented evidence and argument on only 38 of the
alleged trade secrets (Trade Secret Nos. 1, 1A-G, 2-4, 12-14, 17, 18,
33, 52, 53, 55, 58, 91, 92, 92-A, 93-102, 128, 129, 141, 141-A).
Jawbone's post-hearing briefs addressed only five of the alleged trade
secrets (Trade Secret Nos. 92, 92-A, 98, 128, and 129). Specifically,
Jawbone argued that Fitbit misappropriated alleged Trade Secret Nos. 98
and 128, and Flextronics misappropriated alleged Trade Secret Nos. 92,
92-A, and 129. ID at 3-4.
On June 15, 2016, Jawbone moved to terminate the investigation as
to all of the trade secrets except for the five alleged trade secrets
addressed in its post-hearing briefing. ID at 4 (citing Mot. Docket No.
963-072). Respondents opposed the motion, arguing that they are
``entitled to a determination that Jawbone failed to present sufficient
evidence showing actual misappropriation as to all of the trade secrets
that Jawbone now seeks to abandon. . . .'' See id. at 23 (quoting Mot.
072 Rsp. at 8) (emphasis in original). The ALJ denied Jawbone's motion
as outside the scope of Commission Rule 210.21(a). She also denied
Fitbit's request for a determination on whether the withdrawn trade
secrets were misappropriated. Id. at 20, 23-24. The ALJ stated that
``[p]arties are free to waive arguments'' and that Fitbit failed to
provide ``any support for the proposition that arguments that have been
waived and abandoned should be considered on their merits.'' Id. The
ALJ also granted Jawbone's June 30, 2016 motion to strike Section V.A.
of Fitbit's post-hearing reply brief for improperly raising a new
argument based on news articles that are not in the record of the
investigation. Id. at 25. No party petitioned for review of the ALJ's
determinations as to these motions.
On August 23, 2016, the ALJ issued her final ID finding no
violation of section 337 by Respondents in connection with the alleged
trade secrets misappropriation. Specifically, the ALJ found that the
Commission has subject matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over
the accused products, and in personam jurisdiction over Respondents. ID
at 15-16. The ALJ further found that Jawbone satisfied the importation
requirement of section 337, noting that Respondents have stipulated
that the accused products have been imported into the United States.
Id. at 16. The ALJ, however, found that Jawbone failed to show that the
alleged trade secrets constitute actual trade secrets, and that
Respondents did not misappropriate any of Jawbone's alleged trade
secrets. ID at 28, 38, 45-46. Finally, the ALJ found that Jawbone
failed to prove a threat of substantial injury to a domestic industry
as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(A)(i). See ID at 79-80. In that
regard, the ALJ referenced her finding of no misappropriation of trade
secrets and added that ``even if Jawbone had proven misappropriation of
the five asserted trade secrets, there is no way to decide on this
record what specific injury is attributable to these trade secrets, and
whether the injury is substantial.'' Id. at 80.
On September 6, 2016, Jawbone filed a petition for review of the
ID, challenging only the ALJ's findings as to alleged Trade Secret Nos.
92, 92-A, and 98. On September 14, 2016, Respondents and the Commission
investigative attorney filed responses to the petition for review.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ's
final ID, the petition for review, and the responses thereto, the
Commission has determined not to review the final ID. This
investigation is therefore terminated.
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: October 20, 2016.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-25829 Filed 10-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
