Certain Semiconductor Devices, Semiconductor Packages, and Products Containing Same: Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding in Part a Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding; and Denial of a Motion To Modify the Administrative Protective Order, 46519-46522 [2017-21426]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Notices
to the local FMSC, however, because we
do have an obligation to ensure that a
specific number of members have the
prerequisite maritime security
experience, we encourage the
submission of resumes highlighting
experience in the maritime and security
industries.
Dated: September 22, 2017.
J. S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Maritime
Security Coordinator, Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2017–21486 Filed 10–4–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
Steel Nails From the United Arab
Emirates
Determination
On the basis of the record 1 developed
in the subject five-year review, the
United States International Trade
Commission (‘‘Commission’’)
determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of
1930 (‘‘the Act’’), that revocation of the
antidumping duty order on steel nails
from the United Arab Emirates would be
likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of material injury to an
industry in the United States within a
reasonably foreseeable time.
Background
The Commission, pursuant to section
751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)),
instituted this review on April 3, 2017
(82 FR 16229) and determined on July
7, 2017 that it would conduct an
expedited review (82 FR 37112, August
8, 2017).
The Commission made this
determination pursuant to section
751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It
completed and filed its determination in
this review on September 29, 2017. The
views of the Commission are contained
in USITC Publication 4729 (September
2017), entitled Steel Nails from the
United Arab Emirates: Investigation No.
731–TA–1185 (Review).
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Certain Semiconductor Devices,
Semiconductor Packages, and
Products Containing Same:
Commission Determination To Review
in Part a Final Initial Determination
Finding in Part a Violation of Section
337; Schedule for Filing Written
Submissions on the Issues Under
Review and on Remedy, the Public
Interest, and Bonding; and Denial of a
Motion To Modify the Administrative
Protective Order
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
[Investigation No. 731–TA–1185 (Review)]
By order of the Commission.
Issued: September 29, 2017.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017–21427 Filed 10–4–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 207.2(f)).
19:52 Oct 04, 2017
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1010]
AGENCY:
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
VerDate Sep<11>2014
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
Jkt 244001
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in part the final initial determination
(‘‘final ID’’) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on
June 30, 2017, finding in part a violation
of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
in the above-captioned investigation.
The Commission has also determined to
deny the motion filed on August 1,
2017, to amend the administrative
protective order. The Commission
requests certain briefing from the parties
on the issues under review, as indicated
in this notice. The Commission also
requests briefing from the parties and
interested persons on the issues of
remedy, the public interest, and
bonding.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Esq., Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–2532. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46519
on June 24, 2016, based on a complaint
filed on behalf of Tessera Technologies,
Inc.; Tessera, Inc.; and Invensas
Corporation, all of San Jose, California
(collectively, ‘‘Tessera’’). 81 FR 41344
(Jun. 24, 2016). The complaint alleged
violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C.
1337, by reason of infringement of
certain claims of U.S. Patent No.
6,856,007 (‘‘the ’007 patent’’); U.S.
Patent No. 6,849,946 (‘‘the ’946 patent’’);
and U.S. Patent No. 6,133,136 (‘‘the ’136
patent’’). The complaint further alleged
that a domestic industry exists. The
Commission’s notice of investigation
named 24 respondents. Those
respondents are Broadcom Limited of
Singapore and Broadcom Corporation of
Irvine, California (collectively,
‘‘Broadcom’’), and 22 manufacturers and
importers of products containing
Broadcom’s semiconductor devices:
Avago Technologies Limited of
Singapore, and Avago Technologies U.S.
Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively,
‘‘Avago’’); Arista Networks, Inc. of Santa
Clara, California; ARRIS International
plc, ARRIS Group, Inc., ARRIS
Solutions, Inc., ARRIS Enterprises, and
Pace Ltd., all of Suwanee, Georgia, as
well as Pace Americas LLC and Pace
USA LLC, both of Boca Raton, Florida,
and ARRIS Technology, Inc. of
Horsham, Pennsylvania (collectively,
‘‘ARRIS’’); ASUSTek Computer, Inc. of
Taipei, Taiwan, and ASUS Computer
International of Fremont, California
(collectively, ‘‘ASUS’’); Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC, Comcast Cable
Communications Management, LLC,
and Comcast Business Communications,
LLC, each of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(collectively, ‘‘Comcast’’); HTC
Corporation of Taoyuan, Taiwan and
HTC America Inc. of Bellevue,
Washington (collectively, ‘‘HTC’’);
NETGEAR, Inc. of San Jose, California;
Technicolor S.A. of Issy-LesMoulineaux, France, as well as
Technicolor USA, Inc. and Technicolor
Connected Home USA LLC, both of
Indianapolis, Indiana (collectively,
‘‘Technicolor’’). The Office of Unfair
Import Investigations is not
participating in the investigation.
On June 30, 2017, the presiding
administrative law judge issued the
final ID. The final ID finds a violation
of section 337 as to claims 16, 17, 20,
and 22 of the ’946 patent. ID at 262. The
final ID finds that for claims 1, 2, 11, 12,
16, 24–26, and 34 of the ’136 patent, the
claims are infringed and not invalid, but
that the existence of a domestic industry
was not shown. Id. at 262–63. For the
’007 patent, the final ID finds that
infringement was shown only as to
E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM
05OCN1
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
46520
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Notices
claim 18, but that for all of the asserted
claims (claims 13, 16, and 18), the
claims are invalid, and a domestic
industry was not shown. Id. at 263.
On July 17, 2017, Tessera and the
respondents each filed a petition for
Commission review of the ID. On July
25, 2017, each responded to the other’s
petition. In addition, Tessera,
Broadcom, Comcast, Arista, ARRIS,
ASUS, HTC, Netgear, and Technicolor
each filed statements on the public
interest. A number of public interest
submissions were submitted by the
public. In particular, the Commission
received submissions from: Rep. Susan
Brooks (R–IN); Rep. Tony Cardenas
(D–CA); Rep. Darrell Issa (R–CA); Rep.
Doug Lamborn (R–CO); Rep. Edward
Royce (R–CA); Rep. Mimi Walters
(R–CA); Rep. Rod Woodall (R–GA);
Under Armour, Inc.; Sprint Spectrum
LLC; Cable Television Laboratories, Inc.;
Public Knowledge and the Open
Technology Institute at New America;
the Multimedia over Coax Alliance; the
WiFi Alliance; and the Innovation
Alliance.
On August 1, 2017, the respondents
moved to modify the administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) issued in this
investigation (Order No. 1 as modified
by Order Nos. 38 and 42). The
Commission has determined to deny
that motion, and to deny the
respondents’ motion to file a reply. As
the Commission recently reiterated, a
supplier of confidential business
information ‘‘may consent to the
disclosure of their confidential business
information to persons other than those
qualified under the protective order to
receive confidential business
information.’’ Certain Digital Video
Receivers & Hardware & Software
Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337–TA–
1001, Comm’n Order at 2 (June 30,
2017); accord Certain Doxorubicin &
Preparations Containing Same, Inv. No.
337–TA–300, Comm’n Mem. Op., 1991
WL 788724, at * 6 (June 3, 1991).
However, neither the supplier of
information (here, International
Business Machines Corporation), nor a
party (here, the respondents) may seek
to amend the APO to allow only
carefully circumscribed usage of
information in certain specified
European patent proceedings. To
modify the APO in this manner would
require the Commission to police the
use of information outside the scope of
Commission proceedings, which would
be unduly burdensome for the
Commission and unfair to other
tribunals whose proceedings may be
governed by different laws and rules.
Having reviewed the record of the
investigation, including the ALJ’s orders
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:52 Oct 04, 2017
Jkt 244001
and the final ID, as well as the parties’
petitions and responses thereto, the
Commission has determined to review
the final ID in part.
As to the ’007 patent, the Commission
has determined as follows. The
Commission has determined to review,
and on review, to take no position on
the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement, and infringement
of claim 18. The Commission has
determined not to review the remainder
of the ID as to the ’007 patent, including
the ID’s findings concerning
anticipation by, or obviousness over, the
prior art.
As to the ’946 patent and ’136 patent,
the Commission has determined not to
review the ID’s findings concerning the
level of skill in the art. The Commission
has determined to review all other
issues for the ’946 patent and the ’136
patent.
In connection with the Commission’s
review, the Commission will rely upon
the issues and arguments presented in
the parties’ petitions and responses
thereto. The Commission notes that
‘‘[a]ny issue not raised in a petition for
review will be deemed to have been
abandoned by the petitioning party and
may be disregarded by the Commission
in reviewing the initial determination.’’
19 CFR 210.43(b)(2).
The parties are asked to provide
additional briefing on the following
issues, with reference to the applicable
law and the existing evidentiary record.
For each argument presented, the
parties’ submissions should set forth
whether and/or how that argument was
presented and preserved in the
proceedings before the ALJ, in
conformity with the ALJ’s Ground Rules
(Order No. 2), with citations to the
record.
a. For the ’946 patent, with regard to
the construction of ‘‘trench(es)’’:
i. Please explain the meaning of the
claim term ‘‘trench(es)’’ to persons
skilled in the art in view of the intrinsic
evidence of the ‘946 patent. In the
context of the ’946 patent, does the
claim term ‘‘trench(es)’’ describe a
specific shape-related property, such as
elongated? Please discuss the relevance,
if any, of Lexington Luminance LLC v.
Amazon.com Inc., 601 Fed. App’x 963,
970–71 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and any other
cases believed to be relevant to
understanding the meaning of
‘‘trench(es)’’ to a skilled artisan for the
’946 patent.
ii. Please explain the relevance, if any,
of the definition of ‘‘trench’’ in the
Applied Materials Glossary as a ‘‘groove
etched in a wafer to be used as part of
a device structure.’’ Applied
Materials Glossary, https://www.applied
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
materials.com/resources/glossary (last
visited Sept. 26, 2017). Is this meaning
consistent with the ’946 patent claims,
specification, and prosecution history as
understood by skilled artisans?
iii. If the Commission were to
construe ‘‘trench’’ as ‘‘a long, narrow
ditch,’’ or as a ‘‘groove etched in a wafer
to be used as part of a device structure,’’
please explain whether any accused
products or domestic industry products
(and if so, specifically identify which)
literally infringe or practice the asserted
claims, and why. Under those same
constructions, please explain whether
any accused products or domestic
industry products (and if so, specifically
identify which), infringe or practice the
asserted claims under the doctrine of
equivalents, and why.
b. With regard to the ALJ’s decision to
allow Tessera to rely upon GDS files to
demonstrate infringement of the ’946
patent, please explain how, if at all, the
respondents were prejudiced by that
decision. Please identify the evidence or
arguments proffered in proceedings
before the ALJ or in their petition for
Commission review by the respondents
in support of that alleged prejudice.
c. For the ’946 patent, in connection
with the IBM PowerPC 750, please
explain:
i. The relevance, if any, of the die
markings on the chips examined in the
ICE report (RX–668) and the SI Report
(RX–0499C).
ii. Whether the IBM PowerPC 750
anticipates the asserted dependent
claims under the ID’s construction of
‘‘trench.’’
d. With regard to the exhaustion issue
for the ’946 patent:
i. Please explain whether the accused
features (including dummy trenches and
dummy conductors) were part of a
design supplied by Broadcom to [CBI
REDACTED] or were added by [CBI
REDACTED] itself, and the resulting
implications for the Commission’s
analysis of [CBI REDACTED] in ¶ 14 of
JX–501C. If the accused features
(including dummy trenches and dummy
conductors) were part of a design
supplied by Broadcom to [CBI
REDACTED], please also explain
whether such features were inserted
into the design with [CBI REDACTED]
in ¶ 14 of JX–501C.
ii. Please discuss the relevant law of
exhaustion and first sale as it applies to
the relationship between a fabless
semiconductor company (Broadcom)
and a fabricator [CBI REDACTED] who
manufactures the fabless company’s
own chips. Please address the specific
provisions of the pertinent agreement,
and the relationship between those
provisions and the law of exhaustion
E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM
05OCN1
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Notices
and first sale. Please also discuss the
relevance, if any, the Federal Circuit
decision in Medicines Company v.
Hospira, Inc., 827 F.3d 1363, 1373–74
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc) concerning
commercial sales, and any related cases.
Please address the specific provisions of
the pertinent agreement or agreements
alleged to give rise to exhaustion, and
the relationship between those
provisions and the law of exhaustion
and first sale.
e. With regard to infringement of the
’136 patent, please explain whether
Broadcom or its fabricators produced
documentary evidence that
demonstrates the cross-sectional
structure of the accused interconnect
structures in all of the accused products,
including the locations of the layer of
copper, barrier layer, layer of AlCu, and
pad-limiting layer of claim 1 and the
layer of copper, layer of isolation,
barrier layer, layer of AlCu, and pad
limiting layer of claim 11. To the extent
that such evidence does not exist in this
field of technology, please explain. To
the extent that it does exist and was not
produced, please explain. To the extent
that it does exist and is part of the
record of this investigation, please
explain its pertinence, if any, to the ID’s
findings concerning infringement.
f. For the ’136 patent, please explain
whether each of the asserted claims is
obvious over Crostini claim 1, under the
relevant law for double patenting, if the
Commission finds that ‘‘the claimed
structure solder 38 is formed directly
atop the AI contact’’ statement
constitutes clear prosecution disavowal.
g. With regard to the exhaustion issue
for the ’136 patent:
i. Please explain whether, on or before
May 23, 2016 (the date the complaint
was filed in the instant Commission
investigation), the party alleged to be
licensed to the ’136 patent was an [CBI
REDACTED] as defined in section 5 of
CX–943C (TSRA1010–00004931).
ii. Please discuss the relevant law of
exhaustion and first sale as it applies to
the relationship between a fabless
semiconductor company (Broadcom)
and a company [CBI REDACTED] who
provides outsourced semiconductor
assembly and testing for the fabless
company’s own chips. Please also
discuss the relevance, if any, the Federal
Circuit decision in Medicines Company
v. Hospira, Inc., 827 F.3d 1363, 1373–
74 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc) concerning
commercial sales, and any related cases.
Please address the specific provisions of
the pertinent agreement or agreements
alleged to give rise to exhaustion, and
the relationship between those
provisions and the law of exhaustion
and first sale.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:52 Oct 04, 2017
Jkt 244001
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(s) 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, Comm’n Op. (December
1994).
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
submissions that address the
aforementioned public interest factors
in the context of this investigation.
Public interest submissions should be
mindful of the ALJ’s statement that the
‘‘parties have made no effort in their
briefing to classify the 2,800 accused
products in a way that would rationalize
different treatment for different
categories of products.’’ ID at 258. The
Commission wishes to develop the
record, as to, inter alia, the following
issues:
(1) Which specific products of the
respondents most directly implicate the
Commission’s public interest factors?
See 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1) (‘‘the
public health and welfare, competitive
conditions in the United States
economy, the production of like or
directly competitive articles in the
United States, and United States
consumers’’).
(2) How are the Commission’s public
interest factors implicated on a patentclaim-by-patent-claim basis for the
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46521
asserted claims of the ’946 patent and
the ’136 patent?
(3) How, if at all, may public interest
concerns be accommodated by the
tailoring of any remedial orders,
including delaying the implementation
of any Commission remedial orders as
to specific products for a specific period
of time?
Any person asserting that the public
interest should be accommodated by
tailoring any Commission remedial
order as to a subset of the accused
products (e.g., to delay implementation
of a Commission remedial order as to
specific accused products) shall append
to its submission one or more
declarations in support of those facts in
compliance with 28 U.S.C. 1746. Each
declaration shall be made on personal
knowledge, and shall show affirmatively
that the declarant is competent to testify
to the matters stated therein. Sworn or
certified copies of all papers or parts
thereof referred to in a declaration shall
be attached thereto or served therewith.
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. 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 under
review. 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.
The parties’ submissions on the issues
under review should not exceed 60
pages per side. Reply submissions on
the issues under review should not
exceed 40 pages per side. The
respondents may allocate the page
limits for the issues under review
amongst themselves as they see fit. The
page limits above are exclusive to
exhibits, but parties are not to
circumvent the page limits by
incorporating material by reference from
the exhibits or from the record.
The parties’ opening and reply
submissions on the issues of remedy,
the public interest and bonding are to be
E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM
05OCN1
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
46522
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Notices
filed separately from the submissions on
the issues under review and are not
governed by the page limitations recited
above. The complainants’ opening
submission on the issues of remedy, the
public interest and bonding is to
include proposed remedial orders for
the Commission’s consideration; the
date that the asserted patents expire; the
HTSUS numbers under which the
accused products are imported; and the
names of known importers of the
products at issue in this investigation.
Written submissions by the parties
and the public must be filed no later
than close of business on Friday,
October 13, 2017. Reply submissions by
the parties and the public must be filed
no later than the close of business on
Monday, October 23, 2017. No further
submissions 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 8 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–1010’’) 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. All information,
including confidential business
information and documents for which
confidential treatment is properly
sought, submitted to the Commission for
purposes of this Investigation may be
disclosed to and used: (i) By the
Commission, its employees and Offices,
and contract personnel (a) for
developing or maintaining the records
of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in
internal investigations, audits, reviews,
and evaluations relating to the
programs, personnel, and operations of
the Commission including under 5
U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S.
government employees and contract
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:52 Oct 04, 2017
Jkt 244001
personnel, solely for cybersecurity
purposes. 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: September 29, 2017.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017–21426 Filed 10–4–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–576–577 and
731–TA–1362–1367 (Final)]
Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing From
China, Germany, India, Italy, Korea,
and Switzerland; Scheduling of the
Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and
Antidumping Duty Investigations
United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Commission hereby gives
notice of the scheduling of the final
phase of antidumping and
countervailing duty investigation Nos.
701–TA–576–577 and 731–TA–1362–
1367 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act
of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’) to determine
whether an industry in the United
States is materially injured or
threatened with material injury, or the
establishment of an industry in the
United States is materially retarded, by
reason of imports of cold-drawn
mechanical tubing from China,
Germany, India, Italy, Korea, and
Switzerland, provided for in
subheadings 7304.31.30, 7304.31.60,
7304.51.10, 7304.51.50, 7306.30.50, and
7306.50.50 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States,
preliminarily determined by the
Department of Commerce to be
subsidized by the Governments of China
and India. Determinations with respect
to imports of cold-drawn mechanical
tubing alleged to be sold at less than fair
value are pending.
DATES: September 25, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Keysha Martinez (202–205–2136), Office
of Investigations, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436. HearingSUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
impaired 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
these investigations may be viewed on
the Commission’s electronic docket
(EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Scope.—For purposes of these
investigations, the Department of
Commerce has defined the subject
merchandise as cold-drawn mechanical
tubing of carbon and alloy steel (colddrawn mechanical tubing) of circular
cross-section, in actual outside
diameters less than 331 mm, and
regardless of wall thickness, surface
finish, end finish or industry
specification. The subject cold-drawn
mechanical tubing is a tubular product
with a circular cross-sectional shape
that has been cold-drawn or otherwise
cold-finished after the initial tube
formation in a manner that involves a
change in the diameter or wall thickness
of the tubing, or both. The subject colddrawn mechanical tubing may be
produced from either welded (e.g.,
electric resistance welded, continuous
welded, etc.) or seamless (e.g., pierced,
pilgered or extruded, etc.) carbon or
alloy steel tubular products. It may also
be heat treated after cold working. Such
heat treatments may include, but are not
limited to, annealing, normalizing,
quenching and tempering, stress
relieving or finish annealing. Typical
cold-drawing methods for subject
merchandise include, but are not
limited to, drawing over mandrel, rod
drawing, plug drawing, sink drawing
and similar processes that involve
reducing the outside diameter of the
tubing with a die or similar device,
whether or not controlling the inside
diameter of the tubing with an internal
support device such as a mandrel, rod,
plug or similar device.
Subject cold-drawn mechanical
tubing is typically certified to meet
industry specifications for cold-drawn
tubing including but not limited to:
(1) American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) or American Society
of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
specifications ASTM A–512, ASTM
A–513 Type 3 (ASME SA513 Type 3),
ASTM A–513 Type 4 (ASME SA513
Type 4), ASTM A–513 Type 5 (ASME
SA513 Type 5), ASTM A–513 Type 6
E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM
05OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46519-46522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21426]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1010]
Certain Semiconductor Devices, Semiconductor Packages, and
Products Containing Same: Commission Determination To Review in Part a
Final Initial Determination Finding in Part a Violation of Section 337;
Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and
on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding; and Denial of a Motion To
Modify the Administrative Protective Order
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 (``final ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law
judge (``ALJ'') on June 30, 2017, finding in part a violation of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, in the above-captioned
investigation. The Commission has also determined to deny the motion
filed on August 1, 2017, to amend the administrative protective order.
The Commission requests certain briefing from the parties on the issues
under review, as indicated in this notice. The Commission also requests
briefing from the parties and interested persons on the issues of
remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Esq., Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. 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 June 24, 2016, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Tessera
Technologies, Inc.; Tessera, Inc.; and Invensas Corporation, all of San
Jose, California (collectively, ``Tessera''). 81 FR 41344 (Jun. 24,
2016). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of infringement of
certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,856,007 (``the '007 patent''); U.S.
Patent No. 6,849,946 (``the '946 patent''); and U.S. Patent No.
6,133,136 (``the '136 patent''). The complaint further alleged that a
domestic industry exists. The Commission's notice of investigation
named 24 respondents. Those respondents are Broadcom Limited of
Singapore and Broadcom Corporation of Irvine, California (collectively,
``Broadcom''), and 22 manufacturers and importers of products
containing Broadcom's semiconductor devices: Avago Technologies Limited
of Singapore, and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. of San Jose, California
(collectively, ``Avago''); Arista Networks, Inc. of Santa Clara,
California; ARRIS International plc, ARRIS Group, Inc., ARRIS
Solutions, Inc., ARRIS Enterprises, and Pace Ltd., all of Suwanee,
Georgia, as well as Pace Americas LLC and Pace USA LLC, both of Boca
Raton, Florida, and ARRIS Technology, Inc. of Horsham, Pennsylvania
(collectively, ``ARRIS''); ASUSTek Computer, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan,
and ASUS Computer International of Fremont, California (collectively,
``ASUS''); Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast Cable
Communications Management, LLC, and Comcast Business Communications,
LLC, each of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (collectively, ``Comcast'');
HTC Corporation of Taoyuan, Taiwan and HTC America Inc. of Bellevue,
Washington (collectively, ``HTC''); NETGEAR, Inc. of San Jose,
California; Technicolor S.A. of Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France, as well as
Technicolor USA, Inc. and Technicolor Connected Home USA LLC, both of
Indianapolis, Indiana (collectively, ``Technicolor''). The Office of
Unfair Import Investigations is not participating in the investigation.
On June 30, 2017, the presiding administrative law judge issued the
final ID. The final ID finds a violation of section 337 as to claims
16, 17, 20, and 22 of the '946 patent. ID at 262. The final ID finds
that for claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 16, 24-26, and 34 of the '136 patent, the
claims are infringed and not invalid, but that the existence of a
domestic industry was not shown. Id. at 262-63. For the '007 patent,
the final ID finds that infringement was shown only as to
[[Page 46520]]
claim 18, but that for all of the asserted claims (claims 13, 16, and
18), the claims are invalid, and a domestic industry was not shown. Id.
at 263.
On July 17, 2017, Tessera and the respondents each filed a petition
for Commission review of the ID. On July 25, 2017, each responded to
the other's petition. In addition, Tessera, Broadcom, Comcast, Arista,
ARRIS, ASUS, HTC, Netgear, and Technicolor each filed statements on the
public interest. A number of public interest submissions were submitted
by the public. In particular, the Commission received submissions from:
Rep. Susan Brooks (R-IN); Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-CA); Rep. Darrell Issa
(R-CA); Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO); Rep. Edward Royce (R-CA); Rep. Mimi
Walters (R-CA); Rep. Rod Woodall (R-GA); Under Armour, Inc.; Sprint
Spectrum LLC; Cable Television Laboratories, Inc.; Public Knowledge and
the Open Technology Institute at New America; the Multimedia over Coax
Alliance; the WiFi Alliance; and the Innovation Alliance.
On August 1, 2017, the respondents moved to modify the
administrative protective order (``APO'') issued in this investigation
(Order No. 1 as modified by Order Nos. 38 and 42). The Commission has
determined to deny that motion, and to deny the respondents' motion to
file a reply. As the Commission recently reiterated, a supplier of
confidential business information ``may consent to the disclosure of
their confidential business information to persons other than those
qualified under the protective order to receive confidential business
information.'' Certain Digital Video Receivers & Hardware & Software
Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1001, Comm'n Order at 2 (June 30,
2017); accord Certain Doxorubicin & Preparations Containing Same, Inv.
No. 337-TA-300, Comm'n Mem. Op., 1991 WL 788724, at * 6 (June 3, 1991).
However, neither the supplier of information (here, International
Business Machines Corporation), nor a party (here, the respondents) may
seek to amend the APO to allow only carefully circumscribed usage of
information in certain specified European patent proceedings. To modify
the APO in this manner would require the Commission to police the use
of information outside the scope of Commission proceedings, which would
be unduly burdensome for the Commission and unfair to other tribunals
whose proceedings may be governed by different laws and rules.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the
ALJ's orders and the final ID, as well as the parties' petitions and
responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the final ID
in part.
As to the '007 patent, the Commission has determined as follows.
The Commission has determined to review, and on review, to take no
position on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement,
and infringement of claim 18. The Commission has determined not to
review the remainder of the ID as to the '007 patent, including the
ID's findings concerning anticipation by, or obviousness over, the
prior art.
As to the '946 patent and '136 patent, the Commission has
determined not to review the ID's findings concerning the level of
skill in the art. The Commission has determined to review all other
issues for the '946 patent and the '136 patent.
In connection with the Commission's review, the Commission will
rely upon the issues and arguments presented in the parties' petitions
and responses thereto. The Commission notes that ``[a]ny issue not
raised in a petition for review will be deemed to have been abandoned
by the petitioning party and may be disregarded by the Commission in
reviewing the initial determination.'' 19 CFR 210.43(b)(2).
The parties are asked to provide additional briefing on the
following issues, with reference to the applicable law and the existing
evidentiary record. For each argument presented, the parties'
submissions should set forth whether and/or how that argument was
presented and preserved in the proceedings before the ALJ, in
conformity with the ALJ's Ground Rules (Order No. 2), with citations to
the record.
a. For the '946 patent, with regard to the construction of
``trench(es)'':
i. Please explain the meaning of the claim term ``trench(es)'' to
persons skilled in the art in view of the intrinsic evidence of the
`946 patent. In the context of the '946 patent, does the claim term
``trench(es)'' describe a specific shape-related property, such as
elongated? Please discuss the relevance, if any, of Lexington Luminance
LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 601 Fed. App'x 963, 970-71 (Fed. Cir. 2015),
and any other cases believed to be relevant to understanding the
meaning of ``trench(es)'' to a skilled artisan for the '946 patent.
ii. Please explain the relevance, if any, of the definition of
``trench'' in the Applied Materials Glossary as a ``groove etched in a
wafer to be used as part of a device structure.'' Applied Materials
Glossary, https://www.appliedmaterials.com/resources/glossary (last
visited Sept. 26, 2017). Is this meaning consistent with the '946
patent claims, specification, and prosecution history as understood by
skilled artisans?
iii. If the Commission were to construe ``trench'' as ``a long,
narrow ditch,'' or as a ``groove etched in a wafer to be used as part
of a device structure,'' please explain whether any accused products or
domestic industry products (and if so, specifically identify which)
literally infringe or practice the asserted claims, and why. Under
those same constructions, please explain whether any accused products
or domestic industry products (and if so, specifically identify which),
infringe or practice the asserted claims under the doctrine of
equivalents, and why.
b. With regard to the ALJ's decision to allow Tessera to rely upon
GDS files to demonstrate infringement of the '946 patent, please
explain how, if at all, the respondents were prejudiced by that
decision. Please identify the evidence or arguments proffered in
proceedings before the ALJ or in their petition for Commission review
by the respondents in support of that alleged prejudice.
c. For the '946 patent, in connection with the IBM PowerPC 750,
please explain:
i. The relevance, if any, of the die markings on the chips examined
in the ICE report (RX-668) and the SI Report (RX-0499C).
ii. Whether the IBM PowerPC 750 anticipates the asserted dependent
claims under the ID's construction of ``trench.''
d. With regard to the exhaustion issue for the '946 patent:
i. Please explain whether the accused features (including dummy
trenches and dummy conductors) were part of a design supplied by
Broadcom to [CBI REDACTED] or were added by [CBI REDACTED] itself, and
the resulting implications for the Commission's analysis of [CBI
REDACTED] in ] 14 of JX-501C. If the accused features (including dummy
trenches and dummy conductors) were part of a design supplied by
Broadcom to [CBI REDACTED], please also explain whether such features
were inserted into the design with [CBI REDACTED] in ] 14 of JX-501C.
ii. Please discuss the relevant law of exhaustion and first sale as
it applies to the relationship between a fabless semiconductor company
(Broadcom) and a fabricator [CBI REDACTED] who manufactures the fabless
company's own chips. Please address the specific provisions of the
pertinent agreement, and the relationship between those provisions and
the law of exhaustion
[[Page 46521]]
and first sale. Please also discuss the relevance, if any, the Federal
Circuit decision in Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., 827 F.3d 1363,
1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc) concerning commercial sales, and any
related cases. Please address the specific provisions of the pertinent
agreement or agreements alleged to give rise to exhaustion, and the
relationship between those provisions and the law of exhaustion and
first sale.
e. With regard to infringement of the '136 patent, please explain
whether Broadcom or its fabricators produced documentary evidence that
demonstrates the cross-sectional structure of the accused interconnect
structures in all of the accused products, including the locations of
the layer of copper, barrier layer, layer of AlCu, and pad-limiting
layer of claim 1 and the layer of copper, layer of isolation, barrier
layer, layer of AlCu, and pad limiting layer of claim 11. To the extent
that such evidence does not exist in this field of technology, please
explain. To the extent that it does exist and was not produced, please
explain. To the extent that it does exist and is part of the record of
this investigation, please explain its pertinence, if any, to the ID's
findings concerning infringement.
f. For the '136 patent, please explain whether each of the asserted
claims is obvious over Crostini claim 1, under the relevant law for
double patenting, if the Commission finds that ``the claimed structure
solder 38 is formed directly atop the AI contact'' statement
constitutes clear prosecution disavowal.
g. With regard to the exhaustion issue for the '136 patent:
i. Please explain whether, on or before May 23, 2016 (the date the
complaint was filed in the instant Commission investigation), the party
alleged to be licensed to the '136 patent was an [CBI REDACTED] as
defined in section 5 of CX-943C (TSRA1010-00004931).
ii. Please discuss the relevant law of exhaustion and first sale as
it applies to the relationship between a fabless semiconductor company
(Broadcom) and a company [CBI REDACTED] who provides outsourced
semiconductor assembly and testing for the fabless company's own chips.
Please also discuss the relevance, if any, the Federal Circuit decision
in Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., 827 F.3d 1363, 1373-74 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (en banc) concerning commercial sales, and any related
cases. Please address the specific provisions of the pertinent
agreement or agreements alleged to give rise to exhaustion, and the
relationship between those provisions and the law of exhaustion and
first sale.
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(s) 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, Comm'n Op.
(December 1994).
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
submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in
the context of this investigation. Public interest submissions should
be mindful of the ALJ's statement that the ``parties have made no
effort in their briefing to classify the 2,800 accused products in a
way that would rationalize different treatment for different categories
of products.'' ID at 258. The Commission wishes to develop the record,
as to, inter alia, the following issues:
(1) Which specific products of the respondents most directly
implicate the Commission's public interest factors? See 19 U.S.C.
1337(d)(1), (f)(1) (``the public health and welfare, competitive
conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or
directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States
consumers'').
(2) How are the Commission's public interest factors implicated on
a patent-claim-by-patent-claim basis for the asserted claims of the
'946 patent and the '136 patent?
(3) How, if at all, may public interest concerns be accommodated by
the tailoring of any remedial orders, including delaying the
implementation of any Commission remedial orders as to specific
products for a specific period of time?
Any person asserting that the public interest should be
accommodated by tailoring any Commission remedial order as to a subset
of the accused products (e.g., to delay implementation of a Commission
remedial order as to specific accused products) shall append to its
submission one or more declarations in support of those facts in
compliance with 28 U.S.C. 1746. Each declaration shall be made on
personal knowledge, and shall show affirmatively that the declarant is
competent to testify to the matters stated therein. Sworn or certified
copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in a declaration
shall be attached thereto or served therewith.
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. 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 under review. 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.
The parties' submissions on the issues under review should not
exceed 60 pages per side. Reply submissions on the issues under review
should not exceed 40 pages per side. The respondents may allocate the
page limits for the issues under review amongst themselves as they see
fit. The page limits above are exclusive to exhibits, but parties are
not to circumvent the page limits by incorporating material by
reference from the exhibits or from the record.
The parties' opening and reply submissions on the issues of remedy,
the public interest and bonding are to be
[[Page 46522]]
filed separately from the submissions on the issues under review and
are not governed by the page limitations recited above. The
complainants' opening submission on the issues of remedy, the public
interest and bonding is to include proposed remedial orders for the
Commission's consideration; the date that the asserted patents expire;
the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported; and
the names of known importers of the products at issue in this
investigation.
Written submissions by the parties and the public must be filed no
later than close of business on Friday, October 13, 2017. Reply
submissions by the parties and the public must be filed no later than
the close of business on Monday, October 23, 2017. No further
submissions 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 8
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-1010'') 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. All
information, including confidential business information and documents
for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the
Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and
used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract
personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a
related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews,
and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of
the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S.
government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity
purposes. 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: September 29, 2017.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-21426 Filed 10-4-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
