Certain Robotic Vacuum Cleaning Devices and Components Thereof Such as Spare Parts; Commission Determination To Review a Final Initial Determination in Part; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding; Extension of the Target Date, 47188-47190 [2018-20189]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
47188
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 18, 2018 / Notices
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.8(c)(2)).
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 § 210.4(f)
of the Commission’s Rules of Practice
and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)).
Submissions should refer to the docket
number (‘‘Docket No. 3341’’) in a
prominent place on the cover page and/
or the first page. (See Handbook for
Electonic Filing Procedures, Electronic
Filing Procedures 1). 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 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,2 solely for cybersecurity
purposes. All nonconfidential written
submissions will be available for public
inspection at the Office of the Secretary
and on EDIS.3
This action is taken under the
authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),
1 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures:
https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_
filing_procedures.pdf.
2 All contract personnel will sign appropriate
nondisclosure agreements.
3 Electronic Document Information System
(EDIS): https://edis.usitc.gov
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 Sep 17, 2018
Jkt 244001
and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: September 13, 2018.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018–20236 Filed 9–17–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1057]
Certain Robotic Vacuum Cleaning
Devices and Components Thereof
Such as Spare Parts; Commission
Determination To Review a Final Initial
Determination in Part; Schedule for
Filing Written Submissions on the
Issues Under Review and on Remedy,
the Public Interest, and Bonding;
Extension of the Target Date
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to reviewin-part the presiding administrative law
judge’s final initial determination,
finding a violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended with
respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,600,553
and 9,038,233 and no violation with
respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,809,490
and 8,474,090. The Commission has
also determined to extend the target
date for completion of the abovecaptioned investigation until November
20, 2018. 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:
Lucy Grace D. Noyola, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–
205–3438. 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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
under section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on
May 23, 2017, based on a complaint
filed by iRobot Corporation of Bedford,
Massachusetts (‘‘iRobot’’). 82 FR 23592
(May 23, 2017). The complaint alleges a
violation of section 337 by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 6,809,490 (‘‘the ’490
patent’’); 7,155,308 (‘‘the ’308 patent’’);
8,474,090 (‘‘the ’090 patent’’); 8,600,553
(‘‘the ’553 patent’’); 9,038,233 (‘‘the ’233
patent’’); and 9,486,924 (‘‘the ’924
patent’’). The complaint names as
respondents Bissell Homecare, Inc. of
Grand Rapids, Michigan (‘‘Bissell’’);
Hoover, Inc. of Glenwillow, Ohio and
Royal Appliance Manufacturing Co.,
Inc. d/b/a TTI Floor Care North
America, Inc. of Glenwillow, Ohio
(collectively, ‘‘Hoover’’); bObsweep, Inc.
of Toronto, Canada and bObsweep USA
of Henderson, Nevada (collectively,
‘‘bObsweep’’); The Black & Decker
Corporation of Towson, Maryland and
Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. of Towson,
Maryland (collectively, ‘‘Black &
Decker’’); Shenzhen ZhiYi Technology
Co., Ltd., d/b/a iLife of Shenzhen, China
(‘‘iLife’’); Matsutek Enterprises Co., Ltd.
of Taipei City, Taiwan (‘‘Matsutek’’);
Suzhou Real Power Electric Appliance
Co., Ltd. of Suzhou, China (‘‘Suzhou’’);
and Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent
Technology Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen,
China (‘‘SSSIT’’). The Office of Unfair
Import Investigations is not a party in
this investigation.
The investigation has been terminated
with respect to respondents Suzhou,
Black & Decker, Bissell, and Matsutek.
Notice (Oct. 18, 2017) (determining not
to review Order No. 23 (Sept. 26, 2017));
Notice (Jan. 31, 2018) (determining not
to review Order No. 31 (Jan. 9, 2018));
Notice (Feb. 16, 2018) (determining not
to review Order No. 34 (Jan. 25, 2018)).
The ’924 and the ’308 patents are also
no longer part of the investigation.
Notice (Jan. 16, 2018) (determining not
to review Order No. 29 (Dec. 14, 2017));
Notice (Mar. 15, 2018) (determining not
to review Order No. 40 (Feb. 21, 2018)).
On July 16, 2018, the Commission
determined that iRobot satisfied the
economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement under 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(3)(B). Notice (July 16, 2018)
(determining to affirm with
E:\FR\FM\18SEN1.SGM
18SEN1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 18, 2018 / Notices
modifications Order No. 39 (Feb. 13,
2018)).
On June 25, 2018, the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued
a final initial determination (‘‘ID’’),
finding a violation of section 337 with
respect to the ’553 and ’233 patents and
no violation with respect to the ’490 and
’090 patents. Specifically, with respect
to the ’553 patent, the ALJ found that:
(1) iLife directly infringes claim 42, but
not claims 1, 12, 13, and 22; (2) iLife has
not induced or contributed to
infringement of the patent; (3) iRobot
has satisfied the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement; (4)
claim 1, but not claims 11 and 12, is
invalid for anticipation; and (5) claims
4, 12, 13, and 22 are not invalid for
obviousness. With respect to the ’490
patent, the ALJ found that: (1) iLife and
bObsweep directly infringe claim 42,
but not claims 1 and 12, and Hoover
directly infringes claim 42; (2) iLife,
Hoover, bObsweep, and SSSIT have not
induced or contributed to infringement
of the patent; (3) iRobot has satisfied the
technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement; (4) claim 1, but not claim
12, is invalid for anticipation; (5) claims
12 and 42 are invalid for obviousness;
and (6) claims 1 and 42 are not invalid
for indefiniteness. With respect to the
’090 patent, the ALJ found that: (1) iLife,
Hoover, SSSIT and bObsweep directly
infringe claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 17;
(2) iLife, Hoover, bObsweep, and SSSIT
have not induced or contributed to
infringement of the patent; (3) iRobot
has satisfied the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement; (4)
claims 1, 5, 7, 10, and 17 are not invalid
for anticipation; and (5) claims 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 7, 10, and 17 are invalid for
obviousness in view of certain prior art
combinations, but not others. With
respect to the ’233 patent, the ALJ found
that: (1) iLife and bObsweep directly
infringe claims 1, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16
and Hoover directly infringes the same
claims with respect to the Hoover Quest
1000 products, but not the Hoover
Rogue/Y1 and Hoover Y2 products; (2)
iLife, Hoover, bObsweep, and SSSIT
have not induced or contributed to
infringement of the patent; (3) iRobot
has satisfied the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement; and (4)
claims 1, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16 of the
’233 patent are not invalid for
anticipation, obviousness, nor lack of
written description.
The ALJ also issued a Recommended
Determination on Remedy and Bond
(‘‘RD’’), recommending, if the
Commission finds a section 337
violation, the issuance of (1) a limited
exclusion order against certain robotic
vacuum cleaning devices and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 Sep 17, 2018
Jkt 244001
components thereof that are imported,
sold for importation, and/or sold after
importation by Hoover, bObsweep,
SSSIT, and iLife, (2) cease and desist
orders against Hoover and iLife, and (3)
imposition of a bond of 18.89 percent
for iLife products, 48.65 percent for
bObsweep products, and 41.35 percent
for Hoover products that are imported
during the period of Presidential review.
On July 25, 2018, iRobot filed post-RD
statements on the public interest under
Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4). The
Commission did not receive any postRD public interest comments from
Respondents pursuant to Commission
Rule 210.50(a)(4). The Commission did
not receive comments from the public in
response to the Commission notice
issued on July 10, 2018. 83 FR 31977
(July 10, 2018).
On July 9, 2018, iRobot and
Respondents each filed a petition for
review challenging various findings in
the final ID. On July 17, 2018, iRobot
and Respondents each filed responses to
the other party’s petition for review.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the final ID, the
Commission has determined to review
in part the ALJ’s determination of a
section 337 violation. Specifically, the
Commission has determined to review
the ALJ’s findings on: (1) Induced and
contributory infringement with respect
to the ’553, ’490, ’090, and ’233 patents;
(2) anticipation with respect to the
asserted claims of the ’553 patent; (3)
obviousness with respect to the asserted
claims of the ’553 patent; (4) direct
infringement of the ’090 patent by
Respondents; (5) anticipation with
respect to the asserted claims of the ’090
patent; (6) obviousness with respect to
the asserted claims of the ’090 patent;
(7) anticipation with respect to the
asserted claims of the ’233 patent; and
(8) consideration of U.S. Patent No.
6,594,844 as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
102(a) and concerning obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The Commission has determined not
to review the remaining issues decided
in the final ID.
The Commission has also determined
to extend the target date for completion
of the investigation until November 20,
2018.
In connection with its review, the
Commission requests responses to the
following questions. The parties are
requested to brief their positions with
reference to the applicable law and the
existing evidentiary record.
1. Before the ALJ, did Respondents
assert invalidity of claims 1 and 12 of
the ’553 patent under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)
based on a theory that the invention was
‘‘described in a printed publication’’ or
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47189
that the invention was ‘‘in public use’’?
See ID at 57.
2. What is the theory under section
102(b) (i.e., ‘‘described in a printed
publication’’ or ‘‘in public use’’)
addressed by the final ID to find claim
1 of the ’553 patent invalid as
anticipated by Suckmaster and to find
claim 12 not invalid as anticipated by
Suckmaster? See ID at 57–70.
3. Assuming Respondents argued
before the ALJ invalidity of claim 12 of
the ’553 patent based on ‘‘public use’’
under section 102(b):
a. Does there need to be a showing
that the Suckmaster robot was used in
public to practice the steps of claim 12
to find anticipation of that claim based
on a public use theory?
b. Does the record evidence show that
the Suckmaster robot performed the
steps of claim 12 during the Atlanta
Hobby Robot Club Vacuum Contest?
4. Describe the principle of operation
of U.S. Patent No. 5,995,884 (‘‘Allen’’)
and discuss whether modifying Allen
with a ‘‘control module’’ as required by
the asserted claims of the ’090 patent
would change that principle of
operation.
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 a cease
and desist order that could result in the
respondents Hoover and iLife 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 (Dec. 1994), Comm’n
Opinion.
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
order 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
E:\FR\FM\18SEN1.SGM
18SEN1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
47190
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 18, 2018 / Notices
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.
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 and
prescribed by the Secretary of the
Treasury. 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 all of the issues
identified in this notice. 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. Complainant is
also requested to submit proposed
remedial orders for the Commission’s
consideration. Complainant is also
requested to state the date that the
asserted patents expire and the HTSUS
numbers under which the accused
products are imported, and provide
identification information for all known
importers of the subject articles. Initial
written submissions and proposed
remedial orders must be filed no later
than close of business on Monday,
September 24, 2018. Reply submissions
must be filed no later than the close of
business on Monday, October 1, 2018.
No further submissions on these issues
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–
1057) in a prominent place on the cover
page and/or the first page. (See
Handbook for Electronic Filing
Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/
secretary/documents/handbook_on_
filing_procedures.pdf). Persons with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 Sep 17, 2018
Jkt 244001
questions regarding filing should
contact the Secretary at (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,1 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 12, 2018.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018–20189 Filed 9–17–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
[Docket No. OSHA–2012–0012]
Temporary Labor Camps; Extension of
the Office of Management and
Budget’s (OMB) Approval of
Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Request for public comments.
AGENCY:
[1] All contract personnel will sign appropriate
nondisclosure agreements.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
OSHA is soliciting public
comments concerning the proposal to
extend OMB approval of the
information collection requirements
contained in the Temporary Labor
Camps Standard.
DATES: Comments must be submitted
(postmarked, sent, or received) by
November 19, 2018.
ADDRESSES:
Electronically: You may submit
comments and attachments
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov, which is the
Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the
instructions online for submitting
comments.
Facsimile: If your comments,
including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the
OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693–1648.
Mail, hand delivery, express mail,
messenger, or courier service: When
using this method, you must submit a
copy of your comments and attachments
to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No.
OSHA–2012–0012, Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room N–3653,
200 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries
(hand, express mail, messenger, and
courier service) are accepted during the
Docket Office’s normal business hours,
10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and the OSHA
docket number (OSHA–2012–0012) for
the Information Collection Request
(ICR). All comments, including any
personal information you provide, are
placed in the public docket without
change, and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov.
For further information on submitting
comments see the ‘‘Public
Participation’’ heading in the section of
this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
Docket: To read or download
comments or other material in the
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov
or the OSHA Docket Office at the above
address. All documents in the docket
(including this Federal Register notice)
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index; however,
some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to
read or download from the website. All
submissions, including copyrighted
material, are available for inspection
and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
You may also contact Christie Garner at
the address below to obtain a copy of
the ICR.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom
Mockler or Christie Garner, Directorate
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18SEN1.SGM
18SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47188-47190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20189]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1057]
Certain Robotic Vacuum Cleaning Devices and Components Thereof
Such as Spare Parts; Commission Determination To Review a Final Initial
Determination in Part; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the
Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding;
Extension of the Target Date
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 presiding
administrative law judge's final initial determination, finding a
violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended with
respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,600,553 and 9,038,233 and no violation
with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,809,490 and 8,474,090. The
Commission has also determined to extend the target date for completion
of the above-captioned investigation until November 20, 2018. 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: Lucy Grace D. Noyola, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3438. 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
under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C.
1337, on May 23, 2017, based on a complaint filed by iRobot Corporation
of Bedford, Massachusetts (``iRobot''). 82 FR 23592 (May 23, 2017). The
complaint alleges a violation of section 337 by reason of infringement
of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,809,490 (``the '490 patent'');
7,155,308 (``the '308 patent''); 8,474,090 (``the '090 patent'');
8,600,553 (``the '553 patent''); 9,038,233 (``the '233 patent''); and
9,486,924 (``the '924 patent''). The complaint names as respondents
Bissell Homecare, Inc. of Grand Rapids, Michigan (``Bissell''); Hoover,
Inc. of Glenwillow, Ohio and Royal Appliance Manufacturing Co., Inc. d/
b/a TTI Floor Care North America, Inc. of Glenwillow, Ohio
(collectively, ``Hoover''); bObsweep, Inc. of Toronto, Canada and
bObsweep USA of Henderson, Nevada (collectively, ``bObsweep''); The
Black & Decker Corporation of Towson, Maryland and Black & Decker
(U.S.) Inc. of Towson, Maryland (collectively, ``Black & Decker'');
Shenzhen ZhiYi Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a iLife of Shenzhen, China
(``iLife''); Matsutek Enterprises Co., Ltd. of Taipei City, Taiwan
(``Matsutek''); Suzhou Real Power Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. of
Suzhou, China (``Suzhou''); and Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent
Technology Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China (``SSSIT''). The Office of
Unfair Import Investigations is not a party in this investigation.
The investigation has been terminated with respect to respondents
Suzhou, Black & Decker, Bissell, and Matsutek. Notice (Oct. 18, 2017)
(determining not to review Order No. 23 (Sept. 26, 2017)); Notice (Jan.
31, 2018) (determining not to review Order No. 31 (Jan. 9, 2018));
Notice (Feb. 16, 2018) (determining not to review Order No. 34 (Jan.
25, 2018)). The '924 and the '308 patents are also no longer part of
the investigation. Notice (Jan. 16, 2018) (determining not to review
Order No. 29 (Dec. 14, 2017)); Notice (Mar. 15, 2018) (determining not
to review Order No. 40 (Feb. 21, 2018)).
On July 16, 2018, the Commission determined that iRobot satisfied
the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(3)(B). Notice (July 16, 2018) (determining to affirm with
[[Page 47189]]
modifications Order No. 39 (Feb. 13, 2018)).
On June 25, 2018, the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'')
issued a final initial determination (``ID''), finding a violation of
section 337 with respect to the '553 and '233 patents and no violation
with respect to the '490 and '090 patents. Specifically, with respect
to the '553 patent, the ALJ found that: (1) iLife directly infringes
claim 42, but not claims 1, 12, 13, and 22; (2) iLife has not induced
or contributed to infringement of the patent; (3) iRobot has satisfied
the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement; (4) claim 1,
but not claims 11 and 12, is invalid for anticipation; and (5) claims
4, 12, 13, and 22 are not invalid for obviousness. With respect to the
'490 patent, the ALJ found that: (1) iLife and bObsweep directly
infringe claim 42, but not claims 1 and 12, and Hoover directly
infringes claim 42; (2) iLife, Hoover, bObsweep, and SSSIT have not
induced or contributed to infringement of the patent; (3) iRobot has
satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement; (4)
claim 1, but not claim 12, is invalid for anticipation; (5) claims 12
and 42 are invalid for obviousness; and (6) claims 1 and 42 are not
invalid for indefiniteness. With respect to the '090 patent, the ALJ
found that: (1) iLife, Hoover, SSSIT and bObsweep directly infringe
claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 17; (2) iLife, Hoover, bObsweep, and
SSSIT have not induced or contributed to infringement of the patent;
(3) iRobot has satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement; (4) claims 1, 5, 7, 10, and 17 are not invalid for
anticipation; and (5) claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, and 17 are invalid
for obviousness in view of certain prior art combinations, but not
others. With respect to the '233 patent, the ALJ found that: (1) iLife
and bObsweep directly infringe claims 1, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16 and
Hoover directly infringes the same claims with respect to the Hoover
Quest 1000 products, but not the Hoover Rogue/Y1 and Hoover Y2
products; (2) iLife, Hoover, bObsweep, and SSSIT have not induced or
contributed to infringement of the patent; (3) iRobot has satisfied the
technical prong of the domestic industry requirement; and (4) claims 1,
10, 11, 14, 15, and 16 of the '233 patent are not invalid for
anticipation, obviousness, nor lack of written description.
The ALJ also issued a Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond
(``RD''), recommending, if the Commission finds a section 337
violation, the issuance of (1) a limited exclusion order against
certain robotic vacuum cleaning devices and components thereof that are
imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation by
Hoover, bObsweep, SSSIT, and iLife, (2) cease and desist orders against
Hoover and iLife, and (3) imposition of a bond of 18.89 percent for
iLife products, 48.65 percent for bObsweep products, and 41.35 percent
for Hoover products that are imported during the period of Presidential
review.
On July 25, 2018, iRobot filed post-RD statements on the public
interest under Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4). The Commission did not
receive any post-RD public interest comments from Respondents pursuant
to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4). The Commission did not receive
comments from the public in response to the Commission notice issued on
July 10, 2018. 83 FR 31977 (July 10, 2018).
On July 9, 2018, iRobot and Respondents each filed a petition for
review challenging various findings in the final ID. On July 17, 2018,
iRobot and Respondents each filed responses to the other party's
petition for review.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
final ID, the Commission has determined to review in part the ALJ's
determination of a section 337 violation. Specifically, the Commission
has determined to review the ALJ's findings on: (1) Induced and
contributory infringement with respect to the '553, '490, '090, and
'233 patents; (2) anticipation with respect to the asserted claims of
the '553 patent; (3) obviousness with respect to the asserted claims of
the '553 patent; (4) direct infringement of the '090 patent by
Respondents; (5) anticipation with respect to the asserted claims of
the '090 patent; (6) obviousness with respect to the asserted claims of
the '090 patent; (7) anticipation with respect to the asserted claims
of the '233 patent; and (8) consideration of U.S. Patent No. 6,594,844
as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and concerning obviousness under 35
U.S.C. 103.
The Commission has determined not to review the remaining issues
decided in the final ID.
The Commission has also determined to extend the target date for
completion of the investigation until November 20, 2018.
In connection with its review, the Commission requests responses to
the following questions. The parties are requested to brief their
positions with reference to the applicable law and the existing
evidentiary record.
1. Before the ALJ, did Respondents assert invalidity of claims 1
and 12 of the '553 patent under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) based on a theory that
the invention was ``described in a printed publication'' or that the
invention was ``in public use''? See ID at 57.
2. What is the theory under section 102(b) (i.e., ``described in a
printed publication'' or ``in public use'') addressed by the final ID
to find claim 1 of the '553 patent invalid as anticipated by Suckmaster
and to find claim 12 not invalid as anticipated by Suckmaster? See ID
at 57-70.
3. Assuming Respondents argued before the ALJ invalidity of claim
12 of the '553 patent based on ``public use'' under section 102(b):
a. Does there need to be a showing that the Suckmaster robot was
used in public to practice the steps of claim 12 to find anticipation
of that claim based on a public use theory?
b. Does the record evidence show that the Suckmaster robot
performed the steps of claim 12 during the Atlanta Hobby Robot Club
Vacuum Contest?
4. Describe the principle of operation of U.S. Patent No. 5,995,884
(``Allen'') and discuss whether modifying Allen with a ``control
module'' as required by the asserted claims of the '090 patent would
change that principle of operation.
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 a cease and desist order that could result in the respondents
Hoover and iLife 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 (Dec. 1994),
Comm'n Opinion.
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 order 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
[[Page 47190]]
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.
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 and prescribed by the
Secretary of the Treasury. 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 all of the issues identified in this
notice. 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. Complainant is also requested to submit
proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration.
Complainant is also requested to state the date that the asserted
patents expire and the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products
are imported, and provide identification information for all known
importers of the subject articles. Initial written submissions and
proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business
on Monday, September 24, 2018. Reply submissions must be filed no later
than the close of business on Monday, October 1, 2018. No further
submissions on these issues 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-1057) in a prominent
place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for
Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf). Persons with questions
regarding filing should contact the Secretary at (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,\1\ solely for
cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be
available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on
EDIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[1]\ All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure
agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 12, 2018.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-20189 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
