Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (II); Commission Determination To Modify the Remedial Orders To Suspend Enforcement as to U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668, 15626-15627 [2018-07412]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
15626
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2018 / Notices
Section 304 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470w–3(a))
BOEM is required, after consultation
with the Secretary of the Department of
the Interior, to withhold the location,
character, or ownership of historic
resources if it determines that disclosure
may, among other things, cause a
significant invasion of privacy, risk
harm to the historic resources or impede
the use of a traditional religious site by
practitioners. Tribal entities and other
interested parties should designate
information that they wish to be held as
confidential and provide the reasons
why BOEM should do so.
Dated: April 5, 2018.
Walter D. Cruickshank,
Acting Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management.
[FR Doc. 2018–07379 Filed 4–10–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–945]
Certain Network Devices, Related
Software and Components Thereof (II);
Commission Determination To Modify
the Remedial Orders To Suspend
Enforcement as to U.S. Patent No.
7,224,668
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to modify
the limited exclusion order (‘‘LEO’’) and
cease and desist order (‘‘CDO’’)
(collectively, ‘‘the remedial orders’’)
issued in the above-captioned
investigation to suspend enforcement of
those orders as to the claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 7,224,668 (‘‘the ’668
patent’’) that the Commission found to
be infringed. The Commission has
further determined to deny Arista’s
motion for stay as moot in view of the
suspension of the remedial orders as to
the ’668 patent.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Megan M. Valentine, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–2301. 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
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Apr 10, 2018
Jkt 244001
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, in the sale for importation,
importation, and sale within the United
States after importation of certain
network devices, related software and
components thereof by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 7,023,853; the ’577 patent;
7,460,492; 7,061,875; the ’668 patent;
and 8,051,211. The Complaint further
alleges the existence of a domestic
industry. The Commission’s Notice of
Investigation named Arista Networks
Inc. (‘‘Arista’’) as respondent. The Office
of Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’)
was also named as a party to the
investigation. The Commission
previously terminated the investigation
in part as to certain claims of the
asserted patents. Order No. 38 (Oct. 27,
2015), unreviewed Notice (Nov. 18,
2015); Order No. 47 (Nov. 9, 2015),
unreviewed Notice (Dec. 1, 2015).
On June 11, 2016, the Patent Trial and
Appeal Board (‘‘PTAB’’) of the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office instituted
separate inter partes review (‘‘IPR’’)
proceedings concerning the ’577 and
’668 patents. Arista Networks, Inc. v.
Cisco Systems, Inc., Case IPR2016–
00303 (regarding the ’577 patent); Arista
Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
Case IPR2016–00309 (regarding the ’668
patent).
On May 4, 2017, the Commission
found a violation of section 337 as to
certain claims of the ’577 and ’668
patents. Notice (May 4, 2017); 82 FR
21827–29 (May 10, 2017). Specifically,
the Commission issued an LEO
prohibiting the unlicensed entry of
network devices, related software and
components thereof that infringe any of
claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 15 of the ’577
patent; and claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10,
13, 18, 56, and 64 of the ’668 patent, and
a CDO that prohibits Arista from
importing, selling, marketing,
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
advertising, distributing, transferring
(except for exportation), soliciting
United States agents or distributors, and
aiding or abetting other entities in the
importation, sale for importation, sale
after importation, transfer (except for
exportation), or distribution of certain
network devices, related software and
components thereof that infringe any of
claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 15 of the ’577
patent; and claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10,
13, 18, 56, and 64 of the ’668 patent.
On May 25, 2017, the PTAB issued its
final written decision finding claims 1,
7–10, 12–16, 18–22, 25, and 28–31 of
the ’577 patent unpatentable based on
prior art not presented in the
Commission investigation. On June 1,
2017, the PTAB issued its final written
decision finding claims 1–10, 12, 13,
15–28, 30, 33–36, 55–64, 66, 67, and 69–
72 of the ’668 patent unpatentable based
on certain combinations of prior art not
presented in the Commission
investigation.
On February 14, 2018, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
summarily affirmed the PTAB’s
decision finding the claims of the ’668
patent unpatentable. Cisco Systems, Inc.
v. Arista Networks, Inc., Appeal No. 17–
2384 (Feb. 14, 2018). The Court issued
the mandate on March 23, 2018. Id.,
Dkt. No. 54. The PTAB’s decision
concerning the ’577 is currently still
pending before the Court.
On March 15, 2018, Arista filed a
motion before the Commission to stay
the Commission’s remedial orders as to
the ’668 patent. On March 26, 2018,
Cisco filed its response stating that it
takes no position on and, thus, does not
oppose Arista’s motion. OUII did not
file a response to Arista’s motion.
The Commission has determined,
pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(k)(1) and 19
CFR 210.76(a)(1), to modify the
remedial orders to suspend enforcement
of those orders with respect to the ’668
patent pending rescission of the orders
upon the cancellation of the asserted
claims or pending reversal or vacatur of
the Federal Circuit’s decision in Cisco
Systems, Inc. v. Arista Networks, Inc.,
Appeal No. 17–2384.
The Commission has further
determined to deny Arista’s motion as
moot in view of the suspension of the
remedial orders as to the ’668 patent.
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.
E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM
11APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2018 / Notices
Issued: April 5, 2018.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018–07412 Filed 4–10–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1102]
Certain Light Engines and
Components Thereof; Commission
Determination Not To Review an Initial
Determination Granting a Joint Motion
To Terminate the Investigation in Its
Entirety Based Upon a Consent Order
Stipulation; Issuance of Consent Order
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 presiding administrative law
judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 2) granting a joint
motion to terminate the investigation in
its entirety based upon a consent order
stipulation; entry of consent order and
termination of investigation.
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 this investigation
on March 16, 2018, based on a
complaint filed by Lumencor, Inc. of
Beaverton, Oregon (‘‘Lumencor’’). 83 FR
11789 (Mar. 16, 2018). 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,
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Apr 10, 2018
Jkt 244001
and the sale within the United States
after importation of certain light engines
and components thereof by reason of
infringement of one or more of claims
1–6, 10, 11, and 16–19 of U.S. Patent
No. 9,574,722 (‘‘the ’722 patent’’);
claims 1–3, 5, 7, 9, 11–13, 15, 17, and
20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,395,055 (‘‘the
’055 patent’’); and claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9,
16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,493,564
(‘‘the ’564 patent’’). The notice of
investigation named the following
respondents: Excelitas Technologies
Corp. of Waltham, Massachusetts and
Lumen Dynamics Group, Inc. of
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
(collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’). The
Office of Unfair Import Investigations is
not a party to the investigation.
On March 15, 2018, Lumencor and
Respondents filed a joint motion to
terminate the investigation in its
entirety based upon consent order
stipulation. No responses to the motion
were filed. We note that the
Commission issued its notice to
institute this investigation on March 12,
2018, but the notice did not appear in
the Federal Register until March 16,
2018.
On March 20, 2018, the ALJ issued
the subject ID, granting the motion. On
March 26, 2018, the ALJ issued errata
correcting a typographical error on page
2 of the ID (changing ‘‘Lumencor also
agrees to’’ to ‘‘Respondents also agree
to’’). The ALJ found that the consent
order stipulation complies with the
requirements of Commission Rule
210.21(c)(3) (19 CFR 210.21(c)(3)), and
that terminating the investigation in its
entirety would not be contrary to the
public interest. None of the parties
petitioned for review of the ID.
The Commission has determined not
to review the ID and to issue consent
order herewith.
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: April 6, 2018.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Notice Pursuant to the National
Cooperative Research and Production
Act of 1993—ASTM International
Standards
Notice is hereby given that, on
February 21, 2018, pursuant to Section
6(a) of the National Cooperative
Research and Production Act of 1993,
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’),
ASTM International (‘‘ASTM’’) has filed
written notifications simultaneously
with the Attorney General and the
Federal Trade Commission disclosing
additions or changes to its standards
development activities. 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,
ASTM has provided an updated list of
current, ongoing ASTM standards
activities originating between December
2017 and February 2018 designated as
work items. A complete listing of ASTM
Work Items along with a brief
description of each, is available at
https://www.astm.org.
On September 15, 2004, ASTM 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 November 10, 2004
(69 FR 65226).
The last notification with the
Department was filed on December 14,
2017. A notice was filed in the Federal
Register on February 12, 2018 (83 FR
6050).
Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust
Division.
[FR Doc. 2018–07514 Filed 4–10–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–11–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. DEA–392]
Importer of Controlled Substances
Application: Lipomed
ACTION:
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of
the affected basic classes, and
applicants therefore, may file written
comments on or objections to the
issuance of the proposed registration on
or before May 11, 2018. Such persons
may also file a written request for a
DATES:
[FR Doc. 2018–07452 Filed 4–10–18; 8:45 am]
15627
E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM
11APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15626-15627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07412]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-945]
Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof
(II); Commission Determination To Modify the Remedial Orders To Suspend
Enforcement as to U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to modify the limited exclusion order
(``LEO'') and cease and desist order (``CDO'') (collectively, ``the
remedial orders'') issued in the above-captioned investigation to
suspend enforcement of those orders as to the claims of U.S. Patent
Nos. 7,224,668 (``the '668 patent'') that the Commission found to be
infringed. The Commission has further determined to deny Arista's
motion for stay as moot in view of the suspension of the remedial
orders as to the '668 patent.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan M. Valentine, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2301. 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, in the sale for importation, importation,
and sale within the United States after importation of certain network
devices, related software and components thereof by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,023,853; the '577
patent; 7,460,492; 7,061,875; the '668 patent; and 8,051,211. The
Complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. The
Commission's Notice of Investigation named Arista Networks Inc.
(``Arista'') as respondent. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations
(``OUII'') was also named as a party to the investigation. The
Commission previously terminated the investigation in part as to
certain claims of the asserted patents. Order No. 38 (Oct. 27, 2015),
unreviewed Notice (Nov. 18, 2015); Order No. 47 (Nov. 9, 2015),
unreviewed Notice (Dec. 1, 2015).
On June 11, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (``PTAB'') of
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office instituted separate inter partes
review (``IPR'') proceedings concerning the '577 and '668 patents.
Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case IPR2016-00303
(regarding the '577 patent); Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems,
Inc., Case IPR2016-00309 (regarding the '668 patent).
On May 4, 2017, the Commission found a violation of section 337 as
to certain claims of the '577 and '668 patents. Notice (May 4, 2017);
82 FR 21827-29 (May 10, 2017). Specifically, the Commission issued an
LEO prohibiting the unlicensed entry of network devices, related
software and components thereof that infringe any of claims 1, 7, 9,
10, and 15 of the '577 patent; and claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 18,
56, and 64 of the '668 patent, and a CDO that prohibits Arista from
importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, transferring
(except for exportation), soliciting United States agents or
distributors, and aiding or abetting other entities in the importation,
sale for importation, sale after importation, transfer (except for
exportation), or distribution of certain network devices, related
software and components thereof that infringe any of claims 1, 7, 9,
10, and 15 of the '577 patent; and claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 18,
56, and 64 of the '668 patent.
On May 25, 2017, the PTAB issued its final written decision finding
claims 1, 7-10, 12-16, 18-22, 25, and 28-31 of the '577 patent
unpatentable based on prior art not presented in the Commission
investigation. On June 1, 2017, the PTAB issued its final written
decision finding claims 1-10, 12, 13, 15-28, 30, 33-36, 55-64, 66, 67,
and 69-72 of the '668 patent unpatentable based on certain combinations
of prior art not presented in the Commission investigation.
On February 14, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit summarily affirmed the PTAB's decision finding the claims of
the '668 patent unpatentable. Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Arista Networks,
Inc., Appeal No. 17-2384 (Feb. 14, 2018). The Court issued the mandate
on March 23, 2018. Id., Dkt. No. 54. The PTAB's decision concerning the
'577 is currently still pending before the Court.
On March 15, 2018, Arista filed a motion before the Commission to
stay the Commission's remedial orders as to the '668 patent. On March
26, 2018, Cisco filed its response stating that it takes no position on
and, thus, does not oppose Arista's motion. OUII did not file a
response to Arista's motion.
The Commission has determined, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(k)(1) and
19 CFR 210.76(a)(1), to modify the remedial orders to suspend
enforcement of those orders with respect to the '668 patent pending
rescission of the orders upon the cancellation of the asserted claims
or pending reversal or vacatur of the Federal Circuit's decision in
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Arista Networks, Inc., Appeal No. 17-2384.
The Commission has further determined to deny Arista's motion as
moot in view of the suspension of the remedial orders as to the '668
patent.
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.
[[Page 15627]]
Issued: April 5, 2018.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-07412 Filed 4-10-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
