Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (II) (Modification 2); Grant of Joint Motion To Terminate the Modification Proceeding Based on a Settlement Agreement; Termination of the Modification Proceeding in Its Entirety, 47350-47351 [2018-20363]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
47350
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2018 / Notices
Application Available for Review and
Comment
We invite local, state, Tribal, and
Federal agencies, and the public to
comment on the following application
under the ICP, for incidentally taking
the Federally-listed American Buryingbeetle. Please refer to the proposed
permit number (TE98456C) when
requesting application documents and
when submitting comments. Documents
and other information the applicant
submitted are available for review,
subject to Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a)
and Freedom of Information Act (5
U.S.C. 552) requirements.
Permit TE98456C
Applicant: Ponderosa Gathering, LLC,
Houston, TX.
Public Availability of Comments
Written comments we receive become
part of the public record associated with
this action. Before including your
address, phone number, email address,
or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware your entire comment—
including your personal identifying
information—may be made publicly
available at any time. While you can
request in your comment that we
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so. All submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, will be
made available for public disclosure in
their entirety.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Authority
We provide this notice under the
ESA, section 10(c) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) and its implementing regulations
(50 CFR 17.22) and the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) and its implementing
regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
17:09 Sep 18, 2018
Jkt 244001
[FR Doc. 2018–20351 Filed 9–18–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–945]
Certain Network Devices, Related
Software and Components Thereof (II)
(Modification 2); Grant of Joint Motion
To Terminate the Modification
Proceeding Based on a Settlement
Agreement; Termination of the
Modification Proceeding in Its Entirety
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Applicant requests a permit for oil
and gas upstream and midstream
production, including oil and gas well
field infrastructure geophysical
exploration (seismic) and construction,
maintenance, operation, repair, and
decommissioning, as well as oil and gas
gathering, transmission, and
distribution pipeline infrastructure
construction, maintenance, operation,
repair, decommissioning, and
reclamation in Oklahoma.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Dated: July 19, 2018.
Amy Lueders,
Regional Director, Southwest Region, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined grant a
joint motion of complainant Cisco
Systems, Inc. of San Jose, California
(‘‘Cisco’’) and respondent Arista
Networks, Inc. of Santa Clara, California
(‘‘Arista’’) to terminate the abovecaptioned modification proceeding
concerning a limited exclusion order
and a cease and desist order issued
against Arista in Inv. No. 337–TA–945.
The modification proceeding is
terminated in its entirety.
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. 80 FR 4313–
14 (Jan. 27, 2015). The Complaint
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 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 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 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 May 25, 2017, the PTAB issued its
final written decision finding certain
claims 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 certain claims of the
’668 patent unpatentable based on
certain combinations of prior art not
presented in the Commission
investigation. Both decisions affected
the claims upon which the Commission
found a violation of section 337.
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 as to the ’853, ’875, ’492, and
’211 patents. 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,
E:\FR\FM\19SEN1.SGM
19SEN1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2018 / Notices
seeking review of the Commission’s
finding of violation as to the ’577 and
’668 patents. 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.
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 November 1, 2017, the
Commission instituted the modification
proceeding. 82 FR 50678 (Nov. 1, 2017).
On November 7, 2018, the Commission
issued a notice clarifying that OUII is
not named as a party in the modification
proceeding. 82 FR 52318 (Nov. 13,
2017).
On February 14, 2018, 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, Order (Feb. 14, 2018). The Court
issued the mandate on March 23, 2018.
Id., Dkt. No. 54.
On March 23, 2018, the ALJ issued a
recommended determination in the
modification proceeding (‘‘MRD’’),
finding that Arista’s redesigned
products infringe the relevant claims of
the ’668 patent but do not infringe the
relevant claims of the ’577 patent. MRD
(Mar. 23, 2018). Also on March 23,
2018, the ALJ issued an order denying
Arista’s motion to stay the modification
proceedings or to stay the remedial
orders with respect to the ’668 patent.
Order No. 20 (Mar. 23, 2018).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Sep 18, 2018
Jkt 244001
On April 5, 2018, the Commission
determined to modify the remedial
orders to suspend enforcement of those
orders with respect to the ’668 patent.
Notice (Apr. 5, 2018); Comm’n Order
(Apr. 5, 2018).
On June 26, 2018, the Commission
accepted the ALJ’s recommended
determination finding no infringement
with respect to the ’577 patent and
determined to modify the remedial
orders to exempt Arista’s redesigned
products that were the subject of the
modification proceeding. The
Commission also determined to suspend
the modification proceeding as to the
’668 patent. The ’577 patent expired on
June 30, 2018.
On August 27, 2018, the Federal
Circuit granted a motion of the parties
to voluntarily dismiss the consolidated
appeal from the Commission’s final
determination on violation. Cisco Sys.,
Inc., Appeal No. 17–2289, Dkt. No. 121
(Aug. 27, 2018).
On August 27, 2018, Cisco and Arista
filed a joint motion to terminate the
modification proceeding in its entirety
pursuant to Commission Rule
210.21(b)(1) (19 CFR 210.21(b)(1)) based
on a settlement agreement between the
parties. The motion indicates that the
Agreement fully resolves the disputed
issues in the modification proceeding,
that there are no other agreements,
written or oral, express or implied,
between them concerning the subject
matter of this proceeding, and that the
motion includes a public version of this
Motion along with an accompanying
public version of the Agreement. The
motion also contends that termination
of the modification proceeding will not
adversely affect the public interest.
The Commission has determined to
grant the joint motion and terminate the
modification proceeding in its entirety.
We note that only the ’668 patent
remains in the modification 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: September 14, 2018.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018–20363 Filed 9–18–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47351
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Sharon C. Worosilo, M.D., Decision
and Order
On February 7, 2018, the Acting
Assistant Administrator, Diversion
Control Division, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), issued an Order
to Show Cause to Sharon C. Worosilo,
M.D. (Registrant), who is registered in
Somerset and East Brunswick, New
Jersey. The Show Cause Order proposed
to revoke Registrant’s two DEA
Certificates of Registration, Nos.
BW8636219 and BW4026375, pursuant
to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), on the ground
that she does not have authority to
handle controlled substances in New
Jersey, the state in which she is
registered with the DEA, and to deny
any applications for renewal or
modification and any applications for
any other DEA registrations. GX 2
(Order to Show Cause), at 1.
With respect to the Agency’s
jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order
alleged that Registrant is registered with
the DEA as a practitioner authorized to
handle controlled substances in
schedules II through V under two DEA
Certificate of Registrations: No.
BW4026375 at the registered address of
49 Veronica Avenue, Somerset, New
Jersey, and No. BW8636219, at the
registered address of 620 Cranbury
Road, Suite #115, East Brunswick, New
Jersey. Id. at 2. The Order stated that
both of Registrant’s registrations were
due to expire on May 31, 2018. Id.
Regarding the substantive grounds for
the proceeding, the Show Cause Order
specifically alleged that the New Jersey
State Board of Medical Examiners
issued an Order of Temporary
Suspension ‘‘suspending [her] New
Jersey medical license.’’ ‘‘Consequently,
the DEA must revoke [her] DEA
registrations based on [her] lack of
authority to handle controlled
substances in the State of New Jersey.’’
Id. at 2, citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) and
21 CFR 1301.37(b).
The Show Cause Order then notified
Registrant of her right to request a
hearing on the allegations, or to submit
a written statement in lieu of a hearing,
the procedure for doing either, and the
consequence for failing to elect either
option. Id. at 2, citing 21 CFR 1301.43.
It also notified her of her right to submit
a corrective action plan in accordance
with 21 U.S.C. 824(c). Id. at 2–3.
On February 15, 2018, two DEA
Diversion Investigators, accompanied by
a Task Force Officer, personally served
Registrant with the Order to Show
E:\FR\FM\19SEN1.SGM
19SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47350-47351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20363]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-945]
Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof
(II) (Modification 2); Grant of Joint Motion To Terminate the
Modification Proceeding Based on a Settlement Agreement; Termination of
the Modification Proceeding in Its Entirety
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined grant a joint motion of complainant Cisco
Systems, Inc. of San Jose, California (``Cisco'') and respondent Arista
Networks, Inc. of Santa Clara, California (``Arista'') to terminate the
above-captioned modification proceeding concerning a limited exclusion
order and a cease and desist order issued against Arista in Inv. No.
337-TA-945. The modification proceeding is terminated in its entirety.
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. 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 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 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
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 May 25, 2017, the PTAB issued its final written decision finding
certain claims 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 certain claims of the '668
patent unpatentable based on certain combinations of prior art not
presented in the Commission investigation. Both decisions affected the
claims upon which the Commission found a violation of section 337.
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 as to the
'853, '875, '492, and '211 patents. 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,
[[Page 47351]]
seeking review of the Commission's finding of violation as to the '577
and '668 patents. 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.
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 November 1, 2017, the Commission instituted the modification
proceeding. 82 FR 50678 (Nov. 1, 2017). On November 7, 2018, the
Commission issued a notice clarifying that OUII is not named as a party
in the modification proceeding. 82 FR 52318 (Nov. 13, 2017).
On February 14, 2018, 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, Order
(Feb. 14, 2018). The Court issued the mandate on March 23, 2018. Id.,
Dkt. No. 54.
On March 23, 2018, the ALJ issued a recommended determination in
the modification proceeding (``MRD''), finding that Arista's redesigned
products infringe the relevant claims of the '668 patent but do not
infringe the relevant claims of the '577 patent. MRD (Mar. 23, 2018).
Also on March 23, 2018, the ALJ issued an order denying Arista's motion
to stay the modification proceedings or to stay the remedial orders
with respect to the '668 patent. Order No. 20 (Mar. 23, 2018).
On April 5, 2018, the Commission determined to modify the remedial
orders to suspend enforcement of those orders with respect to the '668
patent. Notice (Apr. 5, 2018); Comm'n Order (Apr. 5, 2018).
On June 26, 2018, the Commission accepted the ALJ's recommended
determination finding no infringement with respect to the '577 patent
and determined to modify the remedial orders to exempt Arista's
redesigned products that were the subject of the modification
proceeding. The Commission also determined to suspend the modification
proceeding as to the '668 patent. The '577 patent expired on June 30,
2018.
On August 27, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted a motion of the
parties to voluntarily dismiss the consolidated appeal from the
Commission's final determination on violation. Cisco Sys., Inc., Appeal
No. 17-2289, Dkt. No. 121 (Aug. 27, 2018).
On August 27, 2018, Cisco and Arista filed a joint motion to
terminate the modification proceeding in its entirety pursuant to
Commission Rule 210.21(b)(1) (19 CFR 210.21(b)(1)) based on a
settlement agreement between the parties. The motion indicates that the
Agreement fully resolves the disputed issues in the modification
proceeding, that there are no other agreements, written or oral,
express or implied, between them concerning the subject matter of this
proceeding, and that the motion includes a public version of this
Motion along with an accompanying public version of the Agreement. The
motion also contends that termination of the modification proceeding
will not adversely affect the public interest.
The Commission has determined to grant the joint motion and
terminate the modification proceeding in its entirety. We note that
only the '668 patent remains in the modification 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: September 14, 2018.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-20363 Filed 9-18-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
