Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (II) Institution of Modification Proceeding, 50678 [2017-23785]

Download as PDF 50678 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–945 (Modification Proceeding)] Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (II) Institution of Modification Proceeding U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to institute a modification proceeding in the abovecaptioned investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda P. Fisherow, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2737. 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 January 27, 2015, based on a Complaint filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. of San Jose, California (‘‘Cisco’’). 80 FR 4313–14 (Jan. 27, 2015). The Complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’), by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,023,853 (‘‘the ’853 patent’’); 6,377,577 (‘‘the ’577 patent’’); 7,460,492 (‘‘the ’492 patent’’); 7,061,875 (‘‘the ’875 patent’’); 7,224,668 (‘‘the ’668 patent’’); and 8,051,211 (‘‘the ’211 patent’’). The Complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. The Commission’s Notice of Investigation named Arista Networks, Inc. of Santa Clara, California (‘‘Arista’’) as the respondent. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) was also named as a party to the investigation. The Commission terminated the investigation in part as to certain claims sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:16 Oct 31, 2017 Jkt 244001 of the asserted patents. Notice (Nov. 18, 2015) (see Order No. 38 (Oct. 27, 2015)); Notice (Dec. 1, 2015) (see Order No. 47 (Nov. 9, 2015)). On May 4, 2017, the Commission found a violation of section 337 with respect to certain of the asserted claims of the ’577 and ’668 patents. Notice (May 4, 2017); 82 FR 21827–29 (May 10, 2017); see also Notice of Correction (May 30, 2017); 82 FR 25811 (June 5, 2017). The Commission issued a limited exclusion order (‘‘LEO’’) and a cease and desist order (‘‘CDO’’) against Arista. Id. The Commission did not find a violation with respect to the ’853, ’875, ’492, and ’211 patents. Id. On June 30, 2017, Cisco filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’), seeking review of the Commission’s finding of no violation. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Appeal No. 17–2289. On July 21, 2017, Arista filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit, seeking review of the Commission’s finding of violation. Arista Networks, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Appeal No. 17–2336. On August 3, 2017, the Federal Circuit consolidated the Arista and Cisco appeals. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Appeal No. 17–2289, Dkt. No. 20. The consolidated appeal is currently pending before the Federal Circuit. On August 25, 2017, Arista filed a motion with the Federal Circuit seeking to stay the Commission’s remedial orders pending resolution of the appeal on the merits. On September 22, 2017, the Federal Circuit denied this request ‘‘subject to the condition that the product redesign on which Cisco relies to deny irreparable harm must be permitted to enter the country, without being blocked by the Commission order under review in this case, unless and until Commission proceedings are initiated and completed to produce an enforceable determination that such a redesign is barred by the order here under review or by a new or amended order.’’ Cisco Sys, Inc. v. ITC; Arista Networks, Inc. v. ITC, Appeal Nos. 2017–2289, –2351, Order at 3 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 22, 2017). On September 27, 2017, Cisco petitioned for a modification proceeding to determine whether Arista’s redesigned switches infringe the patent claims that are the subject of the LEO and CDO issued in this investigation and for modification of the remedial orders to specify the status of these redesigned products. On October 10, 2017, Arista filed its opposition to Cisco’s petition. On October 17, 2017, Cisco filed a Motion for Leave to Submit a Reply in Support of Its Petition for a PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Modification Proceeding. The Commission grants Cisco’s motion to file a reply. The Commission has determined that the request complies with the requirements for institution of a modification proceeding under Commission Rule 210.76. Accordingly, the Commission has determined to institute a modification proceeding and has delegated the proceeding to the Chief Administrative Law Judge to designate a presiding Administrative Law Judge. Cisco, Arista, and OUII are named as parties to the proceeding. 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 27, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2017–23785 Filed 10–31–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1186–1187 (Review)] Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From China and Taiwan; Determinations On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States International Trade Commission (‘‘Commission’’) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain stilbenic optical brightening agents from China and Taiwan 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 these reviews on April 3, 2017 (82 FR 16226) and determined on July 7, 2017 that it would conduct expedited reviews (82 FR 37237, August 9, 2017). The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM 01NON1

Agencies

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 50678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23785]



[[Page 50678]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-945 (Modification Proceeding)]


Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof 
(II) Institution of Modification Proceeding

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to institute a modification proceeding in the 
above-captioned investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda P. Fisherow, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. 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 January 27, 2015, based on a Complaint filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. 
of San Jose, California (``Cisco''). 80 FR 4313-14 (Jan. 27, 2015). The 
Complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''), by reason of infringement 
of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,023,853 (``the '853 patent''); 
6,377,577 (``the '577 patent''); 7,460,492 (``the '492 patent''); 
7,061,875 (``the '875 patent''); 7,224,668 (``the '668 patent''); and 
8,051,211 (``the '211 patent''). The Complaint further alleges the 
existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's Notice of 
Investigation named Arista Networks, Inc. of Santa Clara, California 
(``Arista'') as the respondent. The Office of Unfair Import 
Investigations (``OUII'') was also named as a party to the 
investigation. The Commission terminated the investigation in part as 
to certain claims of the asserted patents. Notice (Nov. 18, 2015) (see 
Order No. 38 (Oct. 27, 2015)); Notice (Dec. 1, 2015) (see Order No. 47 
(Nov. 9, 2015)).
    On May 4, 2017, the Commission found a violation of section 337 
with respect to certain of the asserted claims of the '577 and '668 
patents. Notice (May 4, 2017); 82 FR 21827-29 (May 10, 2017); see also 
Notice of Correction (May 30, 2017); 82 FR 25811 (June 5, 2017). The 
Commission issued a limited exclusion order (``LEO'') and a cease and 
desist order (``CDO'') against Arista. Id. The Commission did not find 
a violation with respect to the '853, '875, '492, and '211 patents. Id.
    On June 30, 2017, Cisco filed a notice of appeal with the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``Federal Circuit''), 
seeking review of the Commission's finding of no violation. Cisco Sys., 
Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, Appeal No. 17-2289. On July 21, 2017, 
Arista filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit, seeking 
review of the Commission's finding of violation. Arista Networks, Inc. 
v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, Appeal No. 17-2336. On August 3, 2017, the 
Federal Circuit consolidated the Arista and Cisco appeals. Cisco Sys., 
Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, Appeal No. 17-2289, Dkt. No. 20. The 
consolidated appeal is currently pending before the Federal Circuit.
    On August 25, 2017, Arista filed a motion with the Federal Circuit 
seeking to stay the Commission's remedial orders pending resolution of 
the appeal on the merits. On September 22, 2017, the Federal Circuit 
denied this request ``subject to the condition that the product 
redesign on which Cisco relies to deny irreparable harm must be 
permitted to enter the country, without being blocked by the Commission 
order under review in this case, unless and until Commission 
proceedings are initiated and completed to produce an enforceable 
determination that such a redesign is barred by the order here under 
review or by a new or amended order.'' Cisco Sys, Inc. v. ITC; Arista 
Networks, Inc. v. ITC, Appeal Nos. 2017-2289, -2351, Order at 3 (Fed. 
Cir. Sept. 22, 2017).
    On September 27, 2017, Cisco petitioned for a modification 
proceeding to determine whether Arista's redesigned switches infringe 
the patent claims that are the subject of the LEO and CDO issued in 
this investigation and for modification of the remedial orders to 
specify the status of these redesigned products. On October 10, 2017, 
Arista filed its opposition to Cisco's petition. On October 17, 2017, 
Cisco filed a Motion for Leave to Submit a Reply in Support of Its 
Petition for a Modification Proceeding. The Commission grants Cisco's 
motion to file a reply.
    The Commission has determined that the request complies with the 
requirements for institution of a modification proceeding under 
Commission Rule 210.76. Accordingly, the Commission has determined to 
institute a modification proceeding and has delegated the proceeding to 
the Chief Administrative Law Judge to designate a presiding 
Administrative Law Judge. Cisco, Arista, and OUII are named as parties 
to the proceeding.
    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 27, 2017.
 Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-23785 Filed 10-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.