Certain Earpiece Devices and Components Thereof; Commission Determination To Review In Part an Initial Determination Granting In Part a Motion for Summary Determination of a Section 337 Violation; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions, 43159-43161 [2019-17851]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2019 / Notices
complaint filed by FUJIFILM
Corporation of Tokyo, Japan and
FUJIFILM Recording Media U.S.A., Inc.
of Bedford, Massachusetts (collectively,
‘‘Fujifilm’’). 82 FR 49421 (Oct. 25,
2017). The complaint alleged violations
of 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘Section 337’’)
through the importation into the United
States, sale for importation, or sale in
the United States after importation of
certain magnetic data storage tapes and
cartridges that infringe one or more of
the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
6,630,256 (‘‘the ′256 patent’’), 6,835,451
(‘‘the ′451 patent’’), 7,011,899 (‘‘the ′899
patent’’), 6,462,905 (‘‘the ′905 patent’’),
and 6,783,094 (‘‘the ′094 patent’’). Id.
The ′094 patent was later withdrawn
and terminated from the investigation.
See Order No. 11 (Mar. 19, 2018), not
rev’d, Comm’n Notice (Apr. 17, 2018).
The notice of investigation named
Sony Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; Sony
Storage Media Solutions Corporation of
Tokyo, Japan; Sony Storage Media
Manufacturing Corporation of Miyagi,
Japan; Sony DADC US Inc. of Terre
Haute, Indiana; and Sony Latin America
Inc. of Miami, Florida (collectively,
‘‘Sony’’) as respondents. 82 FR at
49421–22. The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) was also named
a party to the investigation. Id.
The presiding administrative law
judge (‘‘ALJ’’) held an evidentiary
hearing on June 25–29, 2018, and issued
his final initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
and recommended determination
(‘‘RD’’) on October 25, 2018. The ID
finds that Sony violated Section 337
with respect to the ′256 and ′899 patents
but not the ′905 or ′451 patents. The RD
recommends that the Commission issue
a limited exclusion order and cease and
desist orders accordingly.
The Commission determined to
review the subject ID in part. 84 FR
10532 (Mar. 21, 2019). On June 6, 2019,
the Commission issued its final
determination, in which it concluded
that Sony violated Section 337 by
infringing the ′256 and ′899 patents and
issued a limited exclusion order and
cease and desist orders accordingly.
Comm’n Op. (June 6, 2019); 84 FR
27358 (June 12, 2019).
On July 25, 2019, Fujifilm and Sony
filed a Joint Petition of Complainants
and Respondents to Rescind Limited
Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist
Orders in the above-referenced
investigation. The parties assert that
rescission is warranted due to a
settlement agreement and patent crosslicense, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(k)
and 19 CFR 210.76(a). On August 5,
2019, OUII filed a response in support
of the joint petition and rescission of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:49 Aug 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
remedial orders in the above-captioned
investigation.
Upon review of the parties’
submissions, the Commission has
determined to grant the subject joint
petition and rescind the limited
exclusion order and cease and desist
orders issued in this investigation. The
Commission finds that the settlement
fully resolves the dispute between the
parties concerning the subject matter of
the investigation. The Commission also
finds that the joint petition complies
with the requirements of Commission
Rule 210.76, 19 CFR 210.76.
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: August 14, 2019.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2019–17864 Filed 8–19–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1121]
Certain Earpiece Devices and
Components Thereof; Commission
Determination To Review In Part an
Initial Determination Granting In Part a
Motion for Summary Determination of
a Section 337 Violation; Schedule for
Filing Written Submissions
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in part the presiding administrative law
judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 16) granting in part a
summary determination on violation of
section 337 by certain defaulting and
non-participating respondents in the
above-captioned investigation. The
Commission is requesting written
submissions from the parties on an issue
under review, and requests briefing
from the parties, interested government
agencies, and interested persons on the
issues of remedy, the public interest,
and bonding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cathy Chen, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43159
205–2392. 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 June 29, 2018, based on a complaint
filed on behalf of Bose Corporation of
Framingham, Massachusetts (‘‘Bose’’).
83 FR 30,776 (Jun. 29, 2018). The
complaint alleges violations of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘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 earpiece devices and
components thereof by reason of
infringement of one or more claims of
U.S. Patent Nos. 9,036,852 (‘‘the ’852
patent’’); 9,036,853 (‘‘the ’853 patent’’);
9,042,590 (‘‘the ’590 patent’’); 8,311,253
(‘‘the ’253 patent’’); 8,249,287 (‘‘the ’287
patent’’); and 9,398,364 (‘‘the ’364
patent’’). The ’852, ’853, ’590, ’253, and
’287 patents are herein referred to as the
StayHear® Patents. The complaint
further alleges that an industry in the
United States exists as required by
section 337.
The notice of investigation named
fourteen respondents: (1) 1MORE USA,
Inc. of San Diego, California; (2)
APSkins of Seattle, Washington; (3)
Beeebo Online Limited (‘‘Beeebo’’) of
North Las Vegas, Nevada; (4) iHip of
Edison, New Jersey; (5) LMZT LLC of
Brooklyn, New York; (6) Misodiko of
ShenZhen, GuangDong, China; (7)
Phaiser LLC of Houston, Texas; (8)
Phonete of Shenzhen, China; (9)
REVJAMS of New York, New York; (10)
SMARTOMI Products, Inc. of Ontario,
California; (11) Spigen, Inc. of Irvine,
California; (12) Sudio AB of Stockholm,
Sweden; (13) Sunvalley Tek
International, Inc. of Fremont,
California; and (14) TomRich of
Shenzhen, China. The Office of Unfair
Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) was also
named as a party in this investigation.
E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM
20AUN1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
43160
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2019 / Notices
On October 4, 2018, Bose moved to
amend the notice of investigation and
for leave to file an amended complaint
in order, among other things, (i) to
correct the name of respondent iHip to
Zeikos, Inc.; and (ii) to correct the name
and address of respondent SMARTOMI
Products, Inc. to V4ink, Inc. On October
29, 2018, the ALJ granted the motion.
See Order No. 10 (Oct. 29, 2018), not
rev’d by Comm’n Notice (Nov. 23, 2018);
83 FR 61168 (Nov. 28, 2018); 83 FR
62900 (Dec. 6, 2018). Bose filed and
served its amended complaint on
February 21, 2019.
During the course of the investigation,
Bose settled with the following
respondents: APSkins; Zeikos, Inc.;
LMZT LLC; Spigen, Inc.; Sudio AB; and
Sunvalley Tek International, Inc. See
Order Nos. 8 and 9 (Oct. 19, 2018), not
rev’d by Comm’n Notice (Nov. 9, 2018);
Order No. 11 (Oct. 29, 2018), not rev’d
by Comm’n Notice (Nov. 27, 2018);
Order No. 12 (Nov. 26, 2018), not rev’d
by Comm’n Notice (Dec. 19, 2018);
Order Nos. 14 and 15 (Feb. 21, 2019),
not rev’d by Comm’n Notice (Mar. 11,
2019). In addition, with the exception of
Spigen, Inc., consent orders were issued
against all of these respondents. Id.
Thus, the investigation has been
terminated with respect to these six
respondents.
Five other respondents have been
found in default pursuant to
Commission Rule 210.16, 19 CFR
210.16: Beeebo; Misodiko; Phaiser LLC;
V4ink, Inc.; and TomRich (collectively,
‘‘the Defaulting Respondents’’). See
Order No. 7 (Sep. 20, 2018); Order No.
13 (Dec. 11, 2018), not rev’d by Comm’n
Notice (Dec. 21, 2018).
On February 8, 2019, Bose moved for
summary determination of a violation of
section 337. Bose filed a corrected
motion on March 1, 2019. Thereafter,
Bose filed several replacement exhibits
and a supplemental index.
The remaining three respondents,
1MORE USA, Inc., Phonete, and
REVJAMS (collectively ‘‘the NonParticipating Respondents’’), have not
submitted any response, appeared, or
otherwise participated in the
investigation despite being served with
the complaint or amended complaint,
and the motion for summary
determination of violation. The three
Non-Participating Respondents and the
five Defaulting Respondents were the
subject of Bose’s motion for summary
determination of a violation of section
337. On March 22, 2019, OUII filed a
response supporting Bose’s motion in
substantial part and supporting the
requested remedy of a general exclusion
order.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:49 Aug 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
On June 28, 2019, the ALJ issued the
subject ID and his Recommended
Determination (‘‘RD’’) on remedy and
bonding. The ID grants in part Bose’s
motion for summary determination of a
violation of section 337. Specifically,
the ALJ found, inter alia, that Bose
established that the importation
requirement is satisfied as to each
Defaulting Respondent and NonParticipating Respondent and each
accused product; that other than
infringement of claim 7 of the ’852
patent with respect to the Misodiko,
Phonete, and TomRich products, Bose
established infringement of claims 1 and
7 of the ’852 patent; claims 1 and 8 of
the ’853 patent; claims 1 and 6 of the
’590 patent; claim 1 of the ’253 patent;
claims 1, 7, and 8 of the ’287 patent; and
claims 1 and 11 of the ’364 patent; and
that Bose satisfied the domestic industry
requirement for each asserted patent. In
addition, the ALJ recommended that the
Commission issue a general exclusion
order, cease and desist orders, and
impose a 100 percent bond during the
period of Presidential review.
No petitions for review were filed.
Having reviewed the record of this
investigation, including the ID, the
Commission has determined to review
the ID in part. Specifically, the
Commission has determined to review
the following findings, which were
based on the substantial, reliable, and
probative evidence standard: (1) The
ID’s finding that Bose has established
infringement of claim 7 of the ’852
patent with respect to Beeebo’s
Dodocool Earhooks, and, on review,
reverse that finding; (2) the ID’s finding
that Bose has satisfied the economic
prong of the domestic industry
requirement under sections 337(a)(3)(A)
and (B) with respect to the ’364 patent;
and (3) the ID’s finding that Bose has
satisfied the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement under
section 337(a)(3)(C) with respect to the
asserted patents, and, on review, take no
position on that finding. The
Commission has determined not to
review the remainder of the ID.
Accordingly, the Commission finds a
violation of section 337 by reason of
infringement of claims 1 and 7 of the
’852 patent; claims 1 and 8 of the ’853
patent; claims 1 and 6 of the ’590 patent;
claim 1 of the ’253 patent; and claims
1, 7, and 8 of the ’287 patent; and the
satisfaction of the domestic industry
requirement under sections 337(a)(3)(A)
and (B) with respect to the StayHear®
Patents.
The parties are requested to brief their
positions on only the following issue
under review.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1. The record evidence shows that
Bose aggregated its domestic
investments in Fiscal Year 2018 for
domestic industry products that practice
the StayHear® Patents and the ’364
patent to establish a domestic industry
under sections 337(a)(3)(A) and (B).
Bose, however, relies on a subset of its
domestic industry products to satisfy
the domestic industry requirement with
respect to the ’364 patent. Please
provide an appropriate allocation of the
domestic investments and discuss
whether such allocated investments
establish a domestic industry under
sections 337(a)(3)(A) and (B) with
respect to the ’364 patent.
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 cease and
desist order(s) that could result in the
respondent(s) 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
(Dec. 1994). In addition, if a party seeks
issuance of any cease and desist orders,
the written submissions should address
that request in the context of recent
Commission opinions, including those
in Certain Arrowheads with Deploying
Blades and Components Thereof and
Packaging Therefor, lnv. No. 337–TA–
977, Comm’n Op. (Apr. 28, 2017) and
Certain Electric Skin Care Devices,
Brushes and Chargers Therefor, and Kits
Containing the Same, lnv. No. 337–TA–
959, Comm’n Op. (Feb. 13, 2017).
Specifically, if Complainant seeks a
cease and desist order against a
respondent, the written submissions
should respond to the following
requests:
1. Please identify with citations to the
record any information regarding
commercially significant inventory in
the United States as to each respondent
against whom a cease and desist order
is sought. If Complainant also relies on
other significant domestic operations
that could undercut the remedy
E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM
20AUN1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2019 / Notices
provided by an exclusion order, please
identify with citations to the record
such information as to each respondent
against whom a cease and desist order
is sought.
2. ln relation to the infringing
products, please identify any
information in the record, including
allegations in the pleadings, that
addresses the existence of any domestic
inventory, any domestic operations, or
any sales-related activity directed at the
United States for each respondent
against whom a cease and desist order
is sought.
3. Please explain with citation to the
record whether respondents 1MORE
USA, Inc., Phonete, and REVJAMS
satisfy the requirements of subsections
(A)–(E) of section 337(g)(1). See SD at 4.
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 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: 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 and OUII are also
requested to submit proposed remedial
orders for the Commission’s
consideration. Complainant is further
requested to state the dates that the
asserted patents expire, the HTSUS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:49 Aug 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
numbers under which the accused
products are imported, and to supply
the identification information for all
known importers of the products at
issue in this investigation. The written
submissions and proposed remedial
orders must be filed no later than close
of business on August 28, 2019. Reply
submissions must be filed no later than
the close of business on September 5,
2019. 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
Commission Rule 210.4(f), 19 CFR
210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the
investigation number (Inv. No. 337–TA–
1121) 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, (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. A redacted nonconfidential version of the document
must also be filed simultaneously with
any confidential filing. 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, solely for cybersecurity
purposes. All contract personnel will
sign appropriate nondisclosure
agreements. All nonconfidential written
submissions will be available for public
inspection at the Office of the Secretary
and on EDIS.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43161
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: August 14, 2019.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2019–17851 Filed 8–19–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Prohibited
Transaction Class Exemption 1988–59,
Residential Mortgage Financing
Arrangements Involving Employee
Benefit Plans
Notice of availability; request
for comments.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Department of Labor
(DOL) is submitting the Employee
Benefits Security Administration
(EBSA) sponsored information
collection request (ICR) titled,
‘‘Prohibited Transaction Class
Exemption 1988–59, Residential
Mortgage Financing Arrangements
Involving Employee Benefit Plans,’’ to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval for
continued use, without change, in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public
comments on the ICR are invited.
DATES: The OMB will consider all
written comments that agency receives
on or before September 19, 2019.
ADDRESSES: A copy of this ICR with
applicable supporting documentation;
including a description of the likely
respondents, proposed frequency of
response, and estimated total burden
may be obtained free of charge from the
RegInfo.gov website at https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201906-1210-001
(this link will only become active on the
day following publication of this notice)
or by contacting Frederick Licari by
telephone at 202–693–8073 TTY 202–
693–8064, (these are not toll-free
numbers) or by email at DOL_PRA_
PUBLIC@dol.gov.
Submit comments about this request
by mail to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk
Officer for DOL–EBSA, Office of
E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM
20AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43159-43161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17851]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1121]
Certain Earpiece Devices and Components Thereof; Commission
Determination To Review In Part an Initial Determination Granting In
Part a Motion for Summary Determination of a Section 337 Violation;
Schedule for Filing Written Submissions
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 (``ALJ'') initial determination (``ID'')
(Order No. 16) granting in part a summary determination on violation of
section 337 by certain defaulting and non-participating respondents in
the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is requesting written
submissions from the parties on an issue under review, and requests
briefing from the parties, interested government agencies, and
interested persons on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and
bonding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Chen, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2392. 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 June 29, 2018, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Bose
Corporation of Framingham, Massachusetts (``Bose''). 83 FR 30,776 (Jun.
29, 2018). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``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
earpiece devices and components thereof by reason of infringement of
one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,036,852 (``the '852 patent'');
9,036,853 (``the '853 patent''); 9,042,590 (``the '590 patent'');
8,311,253 (``the '253 patent''); 8,249,287 (``the '287 patent''); and
9,398,364 (``the '364 patent''). The '852, '853, '590, '253, and '287
patents are herein referred to as the StayHear[supreg] Patents. The
complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists
as required by section 337.
The notice of investigation named fourteen respondents: (1) 1MORE
USA, Inc. of San Diego, California; (2) APSkins of Seattle, Washington;
(3) Beeebo Online Limited (``Beeebo'') of North Las Vegas, Nevada; (4)
iHip of Edison, New Jersey; (5) LMZT LLC of Brooklyn, New York; (6)
Misodiko of ShenZhen, GuangDong, China; (7) Phaiser LLC of Houston,
Texas; (8) Phonete of Shenzhen, China; (9) REVJAMS of New York, New
York; (10) SMARTOMI Products, Inc. of Ontario, California; (11) Spigen,
Inc. of Irvine, California; (12) Sudio AB of Stockholm, Sweden; (13)
Sunvalley Tek International, Inc. of Fremont, California; and (14)
TomRich of Shenzhen, China. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations
(``OUII'') was also named as a party in this investigation.
[[Page 43160]]
On October 4, 2018, Bose moved to amend the notice of investigation
and for leave to file an amended complaint in order, among other
things, (i) to correct the name of respondent iHip to Zeikos, Inc.; and
(ii) to correct the name and address of respondent SMARTOMI Products,
Inc. to V4ink, Inc. On October 29, 2018, the ALJ granted the motion.
See Order No. 10 (Oct. 29, 2018), not rev'd by Comm'n Notice (Nov. 23,
2018); 83 FR 61168 (Nov. 28, 2018); 83 FR 62900 (Dec. 6, 2018). Bose
filed and served its amended complaint on February 21, 2019.
During the course of the investigation, Bose settled with the
following respondents: APSkins; Zeikos, Inc.; LMZT LLC; Spigen, Inc.;
Sudio AB; and Sunvalley Tek International, Inc. See Order Nos. 8 and 9
(Oct. 19, 2018), not rev'd by Comm'n Notice (Nov. 9, 2018); Order No.
11 (Oct. 29, 2018), not rev'd by Comm'n Notice (Nov. 27, 2018); Order
No. 12 (Nov. 26, 2018), not rev'd by Comm'n Notice (Dec. 19, 2018);
Order Nos. 14 and 15 (Feb. 21, 2019), not rev'd by Comm'n Notice (Mar.
11, 2019). In addition, with the exception of Spigen, Inc., consent
orders were issued against all of these respondents. Id. Thus, the
investigation has been terminated with respect to these six
respondents.
Five other respondents have been found in default pursuant to
Commission Rule 210.16, 19 CFR 210.16: Beeebo; Misodiko; Phaiser LLC;
V4ink, Inc.; and TomRich (collectively, ``the Defaulting
Respondents''). See Order No. 7 (Sep. 20, 2018); Order No. 13 (Dec. 11,
2018), not rev'd by Comm'n Notice (Dec. 21, 2018).
On February 8, 2019, Bose moved for summary determination of a
violation of section 337. Bose filed a corrected motion on March 1,
2019. Thereafter, Bose filed several replacement exhibits and a
supplemental index.
The remaining three respondents, 1MORE USA, Inc., Phonete, and
REVJAMS (collectively ``the Non-Participating Respondents''), have not
submitted any response, appeared, or otherwise participated in the
investigation despite being served with the complaint or amended
complaint, and the motion for summary determination of violation. The
three Non-Participating Respondents and the five Defaulting Respondents
were the subject of Bose's motion for summary determination of a
violation of section 337. On March 22, 2019, OUII filed a response
supporting Bose's motion in substantial part and supporting the
requested remedy of a general exclusion order.
On June 28, 2019, the ALJ issued the subject ID and his Recommended
Determination (``RD'') on remedy and bonding. The ID grants in part
Bose's motion for summary determination of a violation of section 337.
Specifically, the ALJ found, inter alia, that Bose established that the
importation requirement is satisfied as to each Defaulting Respondent
and Non-Participating Respondent and each accused product; that other
than infringement of claim 7 of the '852 patent with respect to the
Misodiko, Phonete, and TomRich products, Bose established infringement
of claims 1 and 7 of the '852 patent; claims 1 and 8 of the '853
patent; claims 1 and 6 of the '590 patent; claim 1 of the '253 patent;
claims 1, 7, and 8 of the '287 patent; and claims 1 and 11 of the '364
patent; and that Bose satisfied the domestic industry requirement for
each asserted patent. In addition, the ALJ recommended that the
Commission issue a general exclusion order, cease and desist orders,
and impose a 100 percent bond during the period of Presidential review.
No petitions for review were filed.
Having reviewed the record of this investigation, including the ID,
the Commission has determined to review the ID in part. Specifically,
the Commission has determined to review the following findings, which
were based on the substantial, reliable, and probative evidence
standard: (1) The ID's finding that Bose has established infringement
of claim 7 of the '852 patent with respect to Beeebo's Dodocool
Earhooks, and, on review, reverse that finding; (2) the ID's finding
that Bose has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry
requirement under sections 337(a)(3)(A) and (B) with respect to the
'364 patent; and (3) the ID's finding that Bose has satisfied the
economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under section
337(a)(3)(C) with respect to the asserted patents, and, on review, take
no position on that finding. The Commission has determined not to
review the remainder of the ID. Accordingly, the Commission finds a
violation of section 337 by reason of infringement of claims 1 and 7 of
the '852 patent; claims 1 and 8 of the '853 patent; claims 1 and 6 of
the '590 patent; claim 1 of the '253 patent; and claims 1, 7, and 8 of
the '287 patent; and the satisfaction of the domestic industry
requirement under sections 337(a)(3)(A) and (B) with respect to the
StayHear[supreg] Patents.
The parties are requested to brief their positions on only the
following issue under review.
1. The record evidence shows that Bose aggregated its domestic
investments in Fiscal Year 2018 for domestic industry products that
practice the StayHear[supreg] Patents and the '364 patent to establish
a domestic industry under sections 337(a)(3)(A) and (B). Bose, however,
relies on a subset of its domestic industry products to satisfy the
domestic industry requirement with respect to the '364 patent. Please
provide an appropriate allocation of the domestic investments and
discuss whether such allocated investments establish a domestic
industry under sections 337(a)(3)(A) and (B) with respect to the '364
patent.
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 cease and desist order(s) that could result in the respondent(s)
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 (Dec. 1994). In
addition, if a party seeks issuance of any cease and desist orders, the
written submissions should address that request in the context of
recent Commission opinions, including those in Certain Arrowheads with
Deploying Blades and Components Thereof and Packaging Therefor, lnv.
No. 337-TA-977, Comm'n Op. (Apr. 28, 2017) and Certain Electric Skin
Care Devices, Brushes and Chargers Therefor, and Kits Containing the
Same, lnv. No. 337-TA-959, Comm'n Op. (Feb. 13, 2017). Specifically, if
Complainant seeks a cease and desist order against a respondent, the
written submissions should respond to the following requests:
1. Please identify with citations to the record any information
regarding commercially significant inventory in the United States as to
each respondent against whom a cease and desist order is sought. If
Complainant also relies on other significant domestic operations that
could undercut the remedy
[[Page 43161]]
provided by an exclusion order, please identify with citations to the
record such information as to each respondent against whom a cease and
desist order is sought.
2. ln relation to the infringing products, please identify any
information in the record, including allegations in the pleadings, that
addresses the existence of any domestic inventory, any domestic
operations, or any sales-related activity directed at the United States
for each respondent against whom a cease and desist order is sought.
3. Please explain with citation to the record whether respondents
1MORE USA, Inc., Phonete, and REVJAMS satisfy the requirements of
subsections (A)-(E) of section 337(g)(1). See SD at 4.
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 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: 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 and OUII are also requested to submit proposed remedial
orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainant is further
requested to state the dates that the asserted patents expire, the
HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported, and to
supply the identification information for all known importers of the
products at issue in this investigation. The written submissions and
proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business
on August 28, 2019. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the
close of business on September 5, 2019. 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 Commission Rule 210.4(f), 19 CFR 210.4(f). Submissions
should refer to the investigation number (Inv. No. 337-TA-1121) 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, (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. A
redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed
simultaneously with any confidential filing. 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, solely for cybersecurity purposes.
All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.
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: August 14, 2019.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2019-17851 Filed 8-19-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
