Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products Containing the Same; Commission's Final Determination of No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the Investigation, 48455-48456 [2018-20778]

Download as PDF daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 25, 2018 / Notices withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Abstract: The regulations at 30 CFR 254 establish requirements for spillresponse plans for oil-handling facilities seaward of the coast line, including associated pipelines, and are the subject of this collection. This request also covers any related Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) that BSEE issues to clarify, supplement, or provide additional guidance on some aspects of our regulations. BSEE uses the information collected under 30 CFR 254 to determine compliance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) by lessees/operators. Specifically, BSEE needs the information to: • Determine that lessees/operators have an adequate plan and are sufficiently prepared to implement a quick and effective response to a discharge of oil from their facilities or operations. • Review plans prepared under the regulations of a State and submitted to BSEE to satisfy the requirements in 30 CFR 254 to ensure that they meet minimum requirements of OPA. • Verify that personnel involved in oil-spill response are properly trained and familiar with the requirements of the spill-response plans and to lead and witness spill-response exercises. • Assess the sufficiency and availability of contractor equipment and materials. • Verify that sufficient quantities of equipment are available and in working order. • Oversee spill-response efforts and maintain official records of pollution events. • Assess the efforts of lessees/ operators to prevent oil spills or prevent substantial threats of such discharges. Title of Collection: 30 CFR part 254, Oil-Spill Response Requirements for Facilities Located Seaward of the Coast Line. OMB Control Number: 1014–0007. Form Number: None. Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection. Respondents/Affected Public: Potential respondents comprise Federal oil, gas, or sulphur lessees or operators of facilities located in both State and Federal waters seaward of the coast line and oil-spill response companies. Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: Varies, not all of the potential respondents will submit information in any given year and some may submit multiple times. Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,675. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Sep 24, 2018 Jkt 244001 Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from 10 minutes to 338 hours, depending on activity. Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 60,989. Respondent’s Obligation: Most responses are mandatory, while others are required to obtain or retain benefits. Frequency of Collection: On occasion, monthly, annually, biennially, and varies by section. Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: We have not identified any non-hour cost burdens associated with this collection of information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Dated: August 3, 2018. Doug Morris, Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs. [FR Doc. 2018–20800 Filed 9–24–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–VH–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–1047] Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products Containing the Same; Commission’s Final Determination of No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the Investigation U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has found no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, by respondents Sigma Designs, Inc. and Vizio, Inc. The investigation is terminated. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Needham, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–5468. 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 SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 48455 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 April 12, 2017, based on a complaint filed by Broadcom Corporation (‘‘Broadcom’’) of Irvine, California. 82 FR 17688. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain semiconductor devices and consumer audiovisual products containing the same that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,310,104 (‘‘the ’104 patent’’); 7,342,967 (‘‘the ’967 patent’’); 7,590,059 (‘‘the ’059 patent’’); 8,068,171 (‘‘the ’171 patent’’); and 8,284,844 (‘‘the ’844 patent’’). Id. The Commission’s notice of investigation named as respondents MediaTek Inc. of Hsinchu City, Taiwan, MediaTek USA Inc. of San Jose, California, and MStar Semiconductor Inc. of ChuPei Hsinchu Hsien, Taiwan (together, ‘‘MediaTek’’); Sigma Designs, Inc. of Fremont, California (‘‘Sigma’’); LG Electronics Inc. of Seoul, Republic of Korea and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (together, ‘‘LG’’); Funai Electric Company, Ltd., of Osaka, Japan, Funai Corporation, Inc. of Rutherford, New Jersey, and P&F USA, Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia (together, ‘‘Funai’’); and Vizio, Inc., of Irvine, California (‘‘Vizio’’). Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not participating in this investigation. Id. Several parties were terminated from the investigation based on settlement. Specifically, the Commission terminated the investigation with respect to Funai, Order No. 31 (Nov. 7, 2017), not reviewed Notice (Dec. 12, 2017); MediaTek, Order No. 35 (Nov. 29, 2017), not reviewed Notice (Dec. 19, 2017); and LG, Order No. 42 (Apr. 9, 2018), not reviewed Notice (May 4, 2018). Accordingly, only respondents Sigma and Vizio (together, ‘‘Respondents’’) remained in the investigation at the time of the final ID. The Commission also terminated two patents and several claims of the remaining patents based on Broadcom’s partial withdrawal of the complaint. Specifically, the Commission terminated the investigation with E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES 48456 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 25, 2018 / Notices respect to the ’967 patent, the ’171 patent, claims 21–30 of the ’059 patent, and claim 14 of the ’844 patent. Order No. 24 (Oct. 10, 2017), not reviewed Notice (Oct. 24, 2017). Broadcom also elected to withdraw claims 5 and 11–13 of the ’844 patent in its post-hearing brief. ID at 7. Accordingly, at the time of the final ID, the only remaining claims were claims 1, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 22 of the ’104 patent; claims 1–4, 6–10, of the ’844 patent; and claims 11–20 of the ’059 patent. On May 11, 2018, the ALJ issued a final ID finding no violation of section 337. Specifically, he found that Respondents did not infringe any claim, that the asserted claims of the ’844 patent are invalid, and that Broadcom did not satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the ’104 patent. On May 29, 2018, Broadcom and Respondents each petitioned for review of the ID. On June 6, 2018, the parties opposed each other’s petitions. On July 17, 2018, the Commission determined to review the following issues: (1) The construction of ‘‘a processor adapted to control a decoding process’’ in claim 1 of the ’844 patent, as well as related issues of infringement, invalidity, and the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the limitation; (2) the finding that the prior art reference Fandrianto anticipates the limitation ‘‘adapted to perform a decoding function on a digital media stream’’ of claim 1 of the ’844 patent; (3) the construction of ‘‘the blended graphics image’’ in claim 1 of the ’104 patent, as well as related issues of infringement, invalidity, and the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the limitation; (4) the construction of ‘‘blend the blended graphics image with the video image using the alpha values and/or at least one value derived from the alpha values’’ limitation in claim 1 of the ’104 patent, as well as related issues of infringement, invalidity, and the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the limitation; and (5) the finding that claims 1 and 10 of the ’104 patent are invalid as obvious if certain claim constructions are modified. The Commission determined not to review the ID’s finding of no violation with respect to the ’059 patent. Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID, the petitions, responses, and other submissions from the parties and the public, the Commission has determined that Broadcom has not proven a violation of section 337 by Sigma and Vizio. Specifically, the Commission has VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Sep 24, 2018 Jkt 244001 determined to modify the ID’s construction of ‘‘a processor adapted to control a decoding process,’’ and, under the modified construction, finds that the limitation is satisfied for the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement and invalidity, but is not satisfied for infringement. The Commission also has determined to affirm under modified reasoning that Fandrianto satisfies the limitation ‘‘adapted to perform a decoding function on a digital media stream.’’ The Commission has additionally determined to modify the ID’s construction of ‘‘the blended graphics image,’’ and, under the modified construction, finds that the limitation is satisfied for infringement and the technical prong. The Commission has further determined to affirm under modified reasoning the ID’s construction of ‘‘blend the blended graphic image with the video image using the alpha values and/or at least one value derived from the alpha values,’’ and affirms the ID’s findings on infringement, invalidity, and the technical prong with respect to the limitation. Finally, the Commission has determined to take no position on the ID’s finding that claims 1 and 10 of the ’104 patent are obvious. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that Broadcom has failed to show a violation of section 337 with respect to both the ’844 and ’104 patents. For the ’844 patent, the Commission finds that Broadcom failed to establish infringement, but did satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. The Commission further finds that the Respondents showed by clear and convincing evidence that claims 1–10 are invalid as anticipated. For the ’104 patent, the Commission finds that Broadcom failed to show both infringement and the satisfaction of the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. The Commission’s determinations are explained more fully in the accompanying Opinion. All other findings in the ID under review that are consistent with the Commission’s determinations are affirmed. 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. PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Issued: September 19, 2018. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2018–20778 Filed 9–24–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standard Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: This notice is a summary of a petition for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed below. DATES: All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA’s Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before October 25, 2018. ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments, identified by ‘‘docket number’’ on the subject line, by any of the following methods: 1. Email: zzMSHA-comments@ dol.gov. Include the docket number of the petition in the subject line of the message. 2. Facsimile: 202–693–9441. 3. Regular Mail or Hand Delivery: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia 22202–5452, Attention: Sheila McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances. Persons delivering documents are required to check in at the receptionist’s desk in Suite 4E401. Individuals may inspect a copy of the petition and comments during normal business hours at the address listed above. MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202–693– 9447 (voice), barron.barbara@dol.gov (email), or 202–693–9441 (fax). [These are not toll-free numbers.] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48455-48456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20778]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-1047]


Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products 
Containing the Same; Commission's Final Determination of No Violation 
of Section 337; Termination of the Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has found no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended, by respondents Sigma Designs, Inc. and Vizio, Inc. 
The investigation is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Needham, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. 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 April 12, 2017, based on a complaint filed by Broadcom Corporation 
(``Broadcom'') of Irvine, California. 82 FR 17688. The complaint 
alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''), in the importation into the 
United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United 
States after importation of certain semiconductor devices and consumer 
audiovisual products containing the same that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 
7,310,104 (``the '104 patent''); 7,342,967 (``the '967 patent''); 
7,590,059 (``the '059 patent''); 8,068,171 (``the '171 patent''); and 
8,284,844 (``the '844 patent''). Id. The Commission's notice of 
investigation named as respondents MediaTek Inc. of Hsinchu City, 
Taiwan, MediaTek USA Inc. of San Jose, California, and MStar 
Semiconductor Inc. of ChuPei Hsinchu Hsien, Taiwan (together, 
``MediaTek''); Sigma Designs, Inc. of Fremont, California (``Sigma''); 
LG Electronics Inc. of Seoul, Republic of Korea and LG Electronics 
U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (together, ``LG''); Funai 
Electric Company, Ltd., of Osaka, Japan, Funai Corporation, Inc. of 
Rutherford, New Jersey, and P&F USA, Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia 
(together, ``Funai''); and Vizio, Inc., of Irvine, California 
(``Vizio''). Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not 
participating in this investigation. Id.
    Several parties were terminated from the investigation based on 
settlement. Specifically, the Commission terminated the investigation 
with respect to Funai, Order No. 31 (Nov. 7, 2017), not reviewed Notice 
(Dec. 12, 2017); MediaTek, Order No. 35 (Nov. 29, 2017), not reviewed 
Notice (Dec. 19, 2017); and LG, Order No. 42 (Apr. 9, 2018), not 
reviewed Notice (May 4, 2018). Accordingly, only respondents Sigma and 
Vizio (together, ``Respondents'') remained in the investigation at the 
time of the final ID.
    The Commission also terminated two patents and several claims of 
the remaining patents based on Broadcom's partial withdrawal of the 
complaint. Specifically, the Commission terminated the investigation 
with

[[Page 48456]]

respect to the '967 patent, the '171 patent, claims 21-30 of the '059 
patent, and claim 14 of the '844 patent. Order No. 24 (Oct. 10, 2017), 
not reviewed Notice (Oct. 24, 2017). Broadcom also elected to withdraw 
claims 5 and 11-13 of the '844 patent in its post-hearing brief. ID at 
7. Accordingly, at the time of the final ID, the only remaining claims 
were claims 1, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 22 of the '104 patent; claims 1-4, 
6-10, of the '844 patent; and claims 11-20 of the '059 patent.
    On May 11, 2018, the ALJ issued a final ID finding no violation of 
section 337. Specifically, he found that Respondents did not infringe 
any claim, that the asserted claims of the '844 patent are invalid, and 
that Broadcom did not satisfy the technical prong of the domestic 
industry requirement for the '104 patent. On May 29, 2018, Broadcom and 
Respondents each petitioned for review of the ID. On June 6, 2018, the 
parties opposed each other's petitions.
    On July 17, 2018, the Commission determined to review the following 
issues: (1) The construction of ``a processor adapted to control a 
decoding process'' in claim 1 of the '844 patent, as well as related 
issues of infringement, invalidity, and the technical prong of the 
domestic industry requirement with respect to the limitation; (2) the 
finding that the prior art reference Fandrianto anticipates the 
limitation ``adapted to perform a decoding function on a digital media 
stream'' of claim 1 of the '844 patent; (3) the construction of ``the 
blended graphics image'' in claim 1 of the '104 patent, as well as 
related issues of infringement, invalidity, and the technical prong of 
the domestic industry requirement with respect to the limitation; (4) 
the construction of ``blend the blended graphics image with the video 
image using the alpha values and/or at least one value derived from the 
alpha values'' limitation in claim 1 of the '104 patent, as well as 
related issues of infringement, invalidity, and the technical prong of 
the domestic industry requirement with respect to the limitation; and 
(5) the finding that claims 1 and 10 of the '104 patent are invalid as 
obvious if certain claim constructions are modified. The Commission 
determined not to review the ID's finding of no violation with respect 
to the '059 patent.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID, the petitions, responses, and other submissions from 
the parties and the public, the Commission has determined that Broadcom 
has not proven a violation of section 337 by Sigma and Vizio. 
Specifically, the Commission has determined to modify the ID's 
construction of ``a processor adapted to control a decoding process,'' 
and, under the modified construction, finds that the limitation is 
satisfied for the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement 
and invalidity, but is not satisfied for infringement. The Commission 
also has determined to affirm under modified reasoning that Fandrianto 
satisfies the limitation ``adapted to perform a decoding function on a 
digital media stream.'' The Commission has additionally determined to 
modify the ID's construction of ``the blended graphics image,'' and, 
under the modified construction, finds that the limitation is satisfied 
for infringement and the technical prong. The Commission has further 
determined to affirm under modified reasoning the ID's construction of 
``blend the blended graphic image with the video image using the alpha 
values and/or at least one value derived from the alpha values,'' and 
affirms the ID's findings on infringement, invalidity, and the 
technical prong with respect to the limitation. Finally, the Commission 
has determined to take no position on the ID's finding that claims 1 
and 10 of the '104 patent are obvious.
    Accordingly, the Commission has determined that Broadcom has failed 
to show a violation of section 337 with respect to both the '844 and 
'104 patents. For the '844 patent, the Commission finds that Broadcom 
failed to establish infringement, but did satisfy the technical prong 
of the domestic industry requirement. The Commission further finds that 
the Respondents showed by clear and convincing evidence that claims 1-
10 are invalid as anticipated. For the '104 patent, the Commission 
finds that Broadcom failed to show both infringement and the 
satisfaction of the technical prong of the domestic industry 
requirement. The Commission's determinations are explained more fully 
in the accompanying Opinion. All other findings in the ID under review 
that are consistent with the Commission's determinations are affirmed.
    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 19, 2018.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-20778 Filed 9-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P