Certain Color Intraoral Scanners and Related Hardware and Software; Notice of a Commission Determination To Review In-Part the Final Initial Determination; Request for Briefing, 35688-35690 [2019-15684]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
35688
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2019 / Notices
Employees, rather than being appointed
to represent a particular interest.
The Committee meets approximately
3–4 times per year. The Committee
members will serve without
compensation but travel and per diem
costs will be provided by USGS. The
USGS will also provide necessary
support services to the Committee. The
Committee meetings are open to the
public. Notice of Committee meetings
are published in the Federal Register at
least 15 days before the date of the
meeting. The public will have an
opportunity to provide input at these
meetings.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.
Signed: ___
Kenneth M. Shaffer,
Deputy Executive Director, Federal
Geographic Data Committee.
[FR Doc. 2019–15640 Filed 7–23–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4311–AM–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Geological Survey
[GX19GG00995TR00]
Call for Nominations for the Scientific
Earthquake Studies Advisory
Committee
U.S. Geological Survey,
Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Call for nominations.
AGENCY:
The Department of the
Interior is seeking nominations to serve
on the Scientific Earthquake Studies
Advisory Committee (SESAC). The
SESAC advises the Director of the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) on matters
relating to the USGS’s participation in
the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program.
DATES: Nominations to participate on
the SESAC must be received by August
26, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Send nominations
electronically to SESAC_FACA_
Resumes@usgs.gov or by mail to Linda
Huey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
Department of the Interior, 12201
Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 905,
Reston, VA 20192.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Michael Blanpied, U.S. Geological
Survey, MS 905, 12201 Sunrise Valley
Drive, Reston, Virginia 20192; 703–648–
6696; mblanpied@usgs.gov
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
SESAC conducts its operations in
accordance with the provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act. The
SESAC provides recommendations and
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Jul 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
advice to the Director of the USGS
(Director), and functions solely as an
advisory body. The SESAC reviews the
current activities of the USGS
Earthquake Hazards Program and
discusses future priorities.
The SESAC includes up to 10
members, who are qualified in the
seismic sciences and other appropriate
fields involved in national earthquake
research activities. Selection of
individuals for the SESAC shall be
based solely on established records of
distinguished service, and the Director
shall ensure that a reasonable crosssection of views and expertise is
represented. In selecting individuals to
serve on the SESAC, the Director shall
seek and give due consideration to
recommendations from the National
Academy of Sciences, professional
societies, and other appropriate
organizations. SESAC members are
appointed for staggered terms to ensure
continuity. Nominations received
through this call may be used to fill
future vacancies on the SESAC.
Nominations will be reviewed by the
USGS and additional information may
be requested from nominees. Final
selection and appointment of SESAC
members will be made by the Director.
The SESAC meets approximately 1–2
times per year. SESAC members will
serve without compensation, but travel
and per diem costs will be provided by
the USGS. The USGS will also provide
necessary support services to the
SESAC. SESAC meetings are open to the
public.
Nominations may come from
individuals, employers, associations,
professional organizations, or other
geospatial organizations. Nominations
should include a resume or curriculum
vitae providing an adequate description
of the nominee’s qualifications
sufficient for the USGS to make an
informed decision regarding meeting the
membership requirements of the SESAC
and permit the nominated person to be
contacted. Nominations may optionally
include supporting letters from
employers, associations, professional
organizations, and/or other
organizations.
Additional information about the
SESAC and the nomination process is
posted on the SESAC webpage at
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/aboutus/
sesac/.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.
Trent Richardson,
Deputy Associate Director, Natural Hazards
Mission Area.
[FR Doc. 2019–15725 Filed 7–23–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4338–11–P
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1091]
Certain Color Intraoral Scanners and
Related Hardware and Software; Notice
of a Commission Determination To
Review In-Part the Final Initial
Determination; Request for Briefing
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
the final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) inpart and requests briefing from the
parties.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amanda Pitcher Fisherow, Esq., Office
of the General Counsel, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street SW, Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205–2737. 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 the underlying
investigation on December 20, 2017,
based on a complaint filed on behalf of
Align Technology, Inc. of San Jose,
California (‘‘Align’’). 82 FR (Dec. 20,
2017). The complaint alleged violations
of section 337 based upon the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain color intraoral scanners and
related hardware and software by reason
of infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 8,363,228 (‘‘the ’228
patent’’); 8,451,456 (‘‘the ’456 patent’’);
8,675,207 (‘‘the ’207 patent’’); 9,101,433
(‘‘the ’433 patent’’); 948,931; and
6,685,470. See id. The complaint named
3Shape A/S and 3Shape Inc. as the
respondents. On March 15, 2018, the
ALJ granted Align’s unopposed motion
to amend the complaint and notice of
E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM
24JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2019 / Notices
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
investigation to add 3Shape Trios A/S of
Copenhagen, Denmark as an additional
respondent in this investigation. See 83
FR 13781–82 (March 30, 2018),
unreviewed, Notice (March 27, 2018).
The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations did not participate in the
investigation.
On March 1, 2019, the ALJ issued his
final ID finding that no violation of
section 337 has occurred. On March 18,
2019, Align filed a petition for review
and 3Shape filed a contingent petition
for review of the ID. On March 26, 2019,
all of the parties filed responses to the
respective petitions for review.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the petitions for review, and the
responses thereto, the Commission has
determined to review the final ID inpart. Specifically, the Commission has
determined to review the ID’s findings
on (1) importation; (2) the construction
of ‘‘processor’’; (3) the construction of
‘‘confocal imaging techniques’’; (4) all
findings concerning infringement; (5) all
findings concerning invalidity; (6) all
findings concerning whether Align’s
products practice one or more claims of
the asserted patents; and (7) all findings
concerning whether Align’s financial
investments and activities relating to
Align’s products meet the domestic
industry requirement.
In connection with its review, the
Commission is interested in responses
to the following questions from the
parties:
1. Discuss whether the ‘‘processor’’ term of
the asserted claims is understood by persons
of ordinary skill in the art to have a
sufficiently definite meaning as the name for
structure? Is the ‘‘processor’’ of the asserted
claims a general purpose processor? Please
discuss and identify any expert testimony
addressing these questions.
2. If the Commission determines that the
claimed ‘‘processor’’ of the asserted claims is
subject to means-plus-function treatment
under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6, please identify the
corresponding structure(s) in the
specification and the proper construction for
each of the asserted patents.
3. Did Respondents show by clear and
convincing evidence that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not find, from
reading the specification, that the inventor
had ‘‘possession’’ of a hand-held device
having the claimed processor for the ’228,
’456, and ’207 patents? See Ariad Pharm.,
Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Include citations
to expert testimony in your response.
4. Does the language of claim 1 of the ’228,
’456, and ’207 patents require that the ‘‘depth
data’’ be the depth of the scanned threedimensional object? See 3Shape Pet. at 13–
14.
5. Did Align waive its argument that its
domestic industry products practice the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Jul 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
asserted patents by introducing a new theory/
evidence for the first time in its petition for
review? See Align Pet. at 43–45; 3Shape
Resp. at 19–20.
6. For the ’228, ’456, and ’207 patents, is
the evidence relied on by the parties before
the ALJ sufficient to establish that the
domestic industry products ‘‘associate the
depth data with the color image data’’? Please
discuss all relevant evidence.
7. Did Respondents waive their challenge
to the specific percentages used to determine
the significance of Align’s domestic industry
investments? Align Resp. at 45.
8. In analyzing domestic industry, did the
ID improperly credit expenses that were
incurred after the filing of the complaint in
this investigation or expenses that were
unrelated to the domestic industry products?
See 3Shape Pet. at 53–54. If certain expenses
were improperly included in the analysis,
please discuss whether Align’s investments
without the improper expenses were
significant.
The parties are requested to brief only
the discrete issues above, with reference
to the applicable law and evidentiary
record. The parties are not to brief other
issues on review, which are adequately
presented in the parties’ existing filings.
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 one or
more cease and desist orders that could
result in the respondents 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, Comm’n Op. at 7–10
(December 1994).
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
orders 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
subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving written
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35689
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 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
requested to submit proposed remedial
orders for the Commission’s
consideration. Complainant is also
requested to state the date that the
subject patents expire and the HTSUS
numbers under which the accused
products are imported. Complainant is
further requested to supply the names of
known importers of the Respondents’
products at issue in this investigation.
The written submissions and
proposed remedial orders must be filed
no later than close of business on
Tuesday, July 30, 2019. Reply
submissions must be filed no later than
the close of business on Tuesday,
August 6, 2019. Opening submissions
are limited to 75 pages. Reply
submissions are limited to 50 pages. No
further submissions on any of 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 eight 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
2.10.4(f)). Submissions should refer to
the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No.
337–TA–1091’’) in a prominent place on
the cover page and/or the first page. (See
Handbook for Electronic Filing
Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/
secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/
E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM
24JYN1
35690
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2019 / Notices
handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf).
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 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: July 18, 2019.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2019–15684 Filed 7–23–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1067]
Certain Road Milling Machines and
Components Thereof; Issuance of a
Limited Exclusion Order and Two
Cease and Desist Orders; Termination
of Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
1 All contract personnel will sign appropriate
nondisclosure agreements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Jul 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to issue: A
limited exclusion order (‘‘LEO’’)
prohibiting the unlicensed entry of
infringing road-milling machines and
components thereof covered by one or
more of claim 29 of U.S. Patent No.
7,828,309 (‘‘the ’309 patent’’) or claims
2, 5, 16, or 23 of U.S. Patent No.
9,656,530 (‘‘the ’530 patent’’) that are
manufactured abroad for or on behalf of,
or imported by or on behalf of, any of
Caterpillar Prodotti Stradali S.r.L. of
Minerbio, Italy; Caterpillar Americas CV
of Geneva, Switzerland; Caterpillar
Paving Products, Inc. of Minneapolis,
MN; and Caterpillar Inc. of Peoria, IL
(‘‘Caterpillar,’’ or ‘‘Respondents’’) or any
of their affiliated companies, parents,
subsidiaries, or other related business
entities, or their successors or assigns;
and a cease and desist order (‘‘CDO’’)
directed against respondents Caterpillar
Paving Products, Inc. and Caterpillar
Inc., and their affiliated companies,
parents, subsidiaries, or other related
business entities, or their successors or
assigns. The Commission has
terminated this investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3115. 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
under section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337
(‘‘section 337’’), on August 25, 2017,
based on a complaint filed by Wirtgen
America, Inc. of Antioch, Tennessee
(‘‘Wirtgen’’). 82 FR 40596–97 (Aug. 25,
2017). The complaint alleges a violation
of section 337 by reason of infringement
of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
9,644,340 (‘‘the ’340 patent’’); 9,624,628
(‘‘the ’628 patent’’); 7,530,641 (‘‘the ’641
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
patent’’); and the ’309 and ’530 patents.
The complaint named Caterpillar Bitelli
SpA of Minerbio, Italy (‘‘Caterpillar
Bitelli’’) and Caterpillar as respondents.
Id. at 40596. The Commission’s Office of
Unfair Import Investigations was named
as a party, but later withdrew from the
investigation. Subsequently, the
investigation was terminated as to
respondent Caterpillar Bitelli. ALJ Order
No. 11 dated December 19, 2017
(unreviewed January 18, 2018). The
investigation was also terminated with
respect to the ’628 patent. ALJ Order No.
30 dated March 27, 2018 (unreviewed
April 27, 2018).
The evidentiary hearing on the
question of violation of section 337 was
held April 20–24, 2018. The ALJ issued
a final ID on violation on October 1,
2018. The ALJ found that a violation of
section 337 has occurred in this
investigation with respect to the ’530
and ’309 patents, and no violation of
section 337 has occurred with respect to
the ’641 and ’340 patent. The ALJ issued
his recommended determination on
remedy, the public interest and bonding
on October 18, 2018. The ALJ
recommended that if the Commission
finds a violation of section 337 in the
present investigation, the Commission
should: (1) Issue an LEO covering
products that infringe the patent claims
as to which a violation of section 337
has been found; (2) issue a CDO; and (3)
require no bond during the period of
Presidential review.
Both parties to the investigation filed
timely petitions for review of various
portions of the final ID, as well as timely
responses to the petitions. The parties
also timely filed their respective public
interest statements pursuant to 19 CFR
210.50(a)(4). Responses from public
were likewise received by the
Commission pursuant to notice. 83 FR
53296–97 (Oct. 22, 2018).
On April 17, 2019, the Commission
issued a notice in which it determined
to review-in-part the final ID. See 84 FR
16882–84 (Apr. 23, 2019). In its notice,
the Commission determined not to
review any issues relating to the ’340,
’641, and ’530 patents and reversed the
finding of no invalidity as to claim 36
of the ’309 patent. See 84 FR 16882–84
(Apr. 23, 2019). The Commission
requested written submissions on
remedy, the public interest, and
bonding. Id. at 1683. On May 8, 2019,
Wirtgen and Caterpillar filed their
opening briefs in response to the notice,
and on May 15—their responsive briefs.
No other submissions were received by
the Commission.
Having examined the record in this
investigation, including the parties’
submissions on remedy, the public
E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM
24JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35688-35690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15684]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1091]
Certain Color Intraoral Scanners and Related Hardware and
Software; Notice of a Commission Determination To Review In-Part the
Final Initial Determination; Request for Briefing
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review the final initial determination
(``ID'') in-part and requests briefing from the parties.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda Pitcher Fisherow, Esq., Office
of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. 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 the underlying
investigation on December 20, 2017, based on a complaint filed on
behalf of Align Technology, Inc. of San Jose, California (``Align'').
82 FR (Dec. 20, 2017). The complaint alleged violations of section 337
based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for
importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of
certain color intraoral scanners and related hardware and software by
reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,363,228
(``the '228 patent''); 8,451,456 (``the '456 patent''); 8,675,207
(``the '207 patent''); 9,101,433 (``the '433 patent''); 948,931; and
6,685,470. See id. The complaint named 3Shape A/S and 3Shape Inc. as
the respondents. On March 15, 2018, the ALJ granted Align's unopposed
motion to amend the complaint and notice of
[[Page 35689]]
investigation to add 3Shape Trios A/S of Copenhagen, Denmark as an
additional respondent in this investigation. See 83 FR 13781-82 (March
30, 2018), unreviewed, Notice (March 27, 2018). The Office of Unfair
Import Investigations did not participate in the investigation.
On March 1, 2019, the ALJ issued his final ID finding that no
violation of section 337 has occurred. On March 18, 2019, Align filed a
petition for review and 3Shape filed a contingent petition for review
of the ID. On March 26, 2019, all of the parties filed responses to the
respective petitions for review.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto,
the Commission has determined to review the final ID in-part.
Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the ID's findings
on (1) importation; (2) the construction of ``processor''; (3) the
construction of ``confocal imaging techniques''; (4) all findings
concerning infringement; (5) all findings concerning invalidity; (6)
all findings concerning whether Align's products practice one or more
claims of the asserted patents; and (7) all findings concerning whether
Align's financial investments and activities relating to Align's
products meet the domestic industry requirement.
In connection with its review, the Commission is interested in
responses to the following questions from the parties:
1. Discuss whether the ``processor'' term of the asserted claims
is understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a
sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure? Is the
``processor'' of the asserted claims a general purpose processor?
Please discuss and identify any expert testimony addressing these
questions.
2. If the Commission determines that the claimed ``processor''
of the asserted claims is subject to means-plus-function treatment
under 35 U.S.C. 112, ] 6, please identify the corresponding
structure(s) in the specification and the proper construction for
each of the asserted patents.
3. Did Respondents show by clear and convincing evidence that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would not find, from reading the
specification, that the inventor had ``possession'' of a hand-held
device having the claimed processor for the '228, '456, and '207
patents? See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336,
1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Include citations to expert
testimony in your response.
4. Does the language of claim 1 of the '228, '456, and '207
patents require that the ``depth data'' be the depth of the scanned
three-dimensional object? See 3Shape Pet. at 13-14.
5. Did Align waive its argument that its domestic industry
products practice the asserted patents by introducing a new theory/
evidence for the first time in its petition for review? See Align
Pet. at 43-45; 3Shape Resp. at 19-20.
6. For the '228, '456, and '207 patents, is the evidence relied
on by the parties before the ALJ sufficient to establish that the
domestic industry products ``associate the depth data with the color
image data''? Please discuss all relevant evidence.
7. Did Respondents waive their challenge to the specific
percentages used to determine the significance of Align's domestic
industry investments? Align Resp. at 45.
8. In analyzing domestic industry, did the ID improperly credit
expenses that were incurred after the filing of the complaint in
this investigation or expenses that were unrelated to the domestic
industry products? See 3Shape Pet. at 53-54. If certain expenses
were improperly included in the analysis, please discuss whether
Align's investments without the improper expenses were significant.
The parties are requested to brief only the discrete issues above,
with reference to the applicable law and evidentiary record. The
parties are not to brief other issues on review, which are adequately
presented in the parties' existing filings.
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 one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the
respondents 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, Comm'n Op. at 7-10
(December 1994).
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 orders 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 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 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 requested to submit proposed
remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainant is also
requested to state the date that the subject patents expire and the
HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported.
Complainant is further requested to supply the names of known importers
of the Respondents' products at issue in this investigation.
The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed
no later than close of business on Tuesday, July 30, 2019. Reply
submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on
Tuesday, August 6, 2019. Opening submissions are limited to 75 pages.
Reply submissions are limited to 50 pages. No further submissions on
any of 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 eight
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 2.10.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the
investigation number (``Inv. No. 337-TA-1091'') in a prominent place on
the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic
Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/
rules/
[[Page 35690]]
handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). 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
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: July 18, 2019.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2019-15684 Filed 7-23-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
