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 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