Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices, System, and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination To Deny a Petition To Rescind or Modify a Civil Penalty Order; Termination of Remand Proceeding, 47812-47813 [2020-17139]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
47812
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 152 / Thursday, August 6, 2020 / Notices
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1187]
Certain Electronic Devices With
Optical Filters and Optical Sensor
Systems and Components Thereof;
Notice of Commission Determination
Not To Review an Initial Determination
Terminating the Investigation Based
on Settlement; Termination of the
Investigation
International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has
determined not to review an initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 23) of
the presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’) granting a joint motion to
terminate the investigation in its
entirety based on settlement.
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 may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help
accessing EDIS, please email
EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
internet server at https://www.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 December 27, 2019, based on a
complaint filed by Viavi Solutions Inc.
of San Jose, California (‘‘Viavi’’). 84 FR
71464 (Dec. 27, 2019). The complaint, as
supplemented, alleges violations of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain electronic devices with optical
filters and optical sensor systems and
components thereof by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 9,588,269; 9,945,995; and
10,222,526. Id. The Commission’s notice
of investigation named as respondents
Optrontec Inc. of Changwon, Republic
of Korea (‘‘Optrontec’’); and LG
Electronics, Inc. of Seoul, Republic of
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Aug 05, 2020
Jkt 250001
Korea; LG Innotek Co., Ltd. of Seoul,
Republic of Korea; and LG Electronics
U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey (collectively, ‘‘LG’’). Id. The
Office of Unfair Import Investigations
(‘‘OUII’’) is participating in this
investigation. Id.
The Commission previously
terminated the investigation with
respect to LG based on settlement. Order
No. 9 (Feb. 27, 2020), not reviewed
Notice (Mar. 18, 2020). Optrontec was
thus the sole remaining respondent in
the investigation.
On June 19, 2020, Viavi and Optronic
jointly moved to terminate the
investigation based on settlement. On
June 25, 2020, OUII filed a response in
support of the motion.
On July 13, 2020, the ALJ issued the
subject ID, granting the motion and
terminating the investigation based on
settlement. No petitions for review of
the ID were filed.
The Commission has determined not
to review the subject ID. The
investigation is hereby terminated in its
entirety.
The Commission vote for this
determination took place on July 31,
2020.
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 31, 2020.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2020–17140 Filed 8–5–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–854 (Remand)]
Certain Two-Way Global Satellite
Communication Devices, System, and
Components Thereof; Notice of
Commission Determination To Deny a
Petition To Rescind or Modify a Civil
Penalty Order; Termination of Remand
Proceeding
International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to (1) deny
a petition to rescind, or in the
alternative, modify a civil penalty order;
and (2) terminate the proceeding on
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–2310. Copies of non-confidential
documents filed in connection with this
investigation may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help
accessing EDIS, please email
EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
internet server at https://www.usitc.gov.
Hearing-impaired persons are advised
that information on this matter can be
obtained by contacting the
Commission’s TDD terminal, telephone
202–205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission instituted Inv. No. 337–
TA–854 (Enforcement Proceeding) on
May 24, 2013, based on an enforcement
complaint filed on behalf of BriarTek IP,
Inc. (‘‘BriarTek’’) of Alexandria,
Virginia. 78 FR 31576–77 (May 24,
2013). The complaint alleged violations
of the April 5, 2013, consent order (‘‘the
Consent Order’’) issued in the
underlying investigation by the
continued practice of prohibited
activities such as selling or offering for
sale within the United States after
importation any two–way global
satellite communication devices,
system, or components thereof that
infringe one or more claims of U.S.
Patent No. 7,991,380 (‘‘the ’380 patent’’).
The Commission’s notice of institution
of the enforcement proceeding named as
respondents DeLorme Publishing
Company, Inc. and DeLorme InReach
LLC (collectively, ‘‘DeLorme’’), now
known as DBN Holding, Inc. and BDN
LLC, all of Yarmouth, Maine. The Office
of Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’)
was also a party to the enforcement
proceeding. Id.
On June 10, 2014, following review of
the presiding administrative law judge’s
enforcement initial determination in the
enforcement proceeding, the
Commission issued a civil penalty order
in the amount of $6,242,500 for
DeLorme’s violation of the Consent
Order on 227 separate days. DeLorme
appealed the Commission’s final
determination to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit. During
the pendency of the appeal, the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia (‘‘EDVA’’) granted summary
judgment in a declaratory judgment
action filed by DeLorme against the
patentee, finding the relevant claims of
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 152 / Thursday, August 6, 2020 / Notices
the ’380 patent to be invalid. After
requesting and receiving supplemental
briefing on the issue of the effect, if any,
of affirming the EDVA summary
judgment on the Commission’s final
determination, the Federal Circuit, on
the same date, affirmed both the
$6,242,500 Commission civil penalty
order and the EDVA summary judgment
of invalidity. See DeLorme v. ITC, 805
F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘DeLorme
I’’); DeLorme Publishing Co. v. BriarTek
IP, Inc., 622 Fed.Appx. 912 (Fed. Cir.
2015).
On December 22, 2015, following
issuance of the Federal Circuit’s
decision in DeLorme I, DeLorme filed a
petition to rescind, or in the alternative,
to modify the civil penalty order under
Commission Rule 210.76(a)(1) because
of ‘‘changed conditions,’’ i.e., the EDVA
invalidity judgment and the affirmance
of that judgment. Stating that the
arguments raised by DeLorme involved
issues that could have been raised in
DeLorme I or were raised and rejected
by the Federal Circuit in DeLorme I, the
Commission denied DeLorme’s petition
based on res judicata. DeLorme
appealed the Commission’s final
determination denying its petition to the
Federal Circuit. The Court reversed the
Commission’s final determination and
remanded the case for consideration of
DeLorme’s petition. See DBN Holding,
Inc. v. ITC, 755 Fed.Appx. 993, 2018
WL 6181653 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 27, 2018)
(‘‘DeLorme II’’) (finding that although
there is no requirement that the civil
penalty be rescinded because of the
invalidity finding, the Commission
nevertheless should have considered
DeLorme’s petition). The Federal Circuit
issued its mandate on January 18, 2019.
On March 27, 2019, the Commission
issued an order to the parties requesting
briefing regarding whether the
Commission should rescind or modify
the civil penalty order in light of the
final judgment of invalidity of the
relevant claims of the ’380 patent in
accordance with DeLorme II. DeLorme,
BriarTek, and OUII filed their initial
submissions on April 25, April 26, and
April 26, 2019, respectively. These
parties filed their response submissions
on May 12, May 13, and May 12, 2019,
respectively.
Having reviewed the record in this
investigation, including the parties’
written submissions, the Commission
has determined to deny DeLorme’s
petition to rescind, or in the alternative,
modify the civil penalty order. The
Commission has also issued an opinion
explaining the basis for the
Commission’s action and has terminated
the proceeding on remand from the
Federal Circuit.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Aug 05, 2020
Jkt 250001
The Commission vote for this
determination took place on July 31,
2020.
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 31, 2020.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2020–17139 Filed 8–5–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–89439; File No. SR–
NYSEAMER–2020–60]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE
American LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed
Rule Change To Amend the Rule 6800
Series
July 31, 2020.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
notice is hereby given that on July 27,
2020, NYSE American LLC (‘‘NYSE
American’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed
with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the
proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have
been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of Substance of
the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to amend the
Rule 6800 Series, the Exchange’s
compliance rule (‘‘Compliance Rule’’)
regarding the National Market System
Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit
Trail (the ‘‘CAT NMS Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan’’) 3
to be consistent with an amendment to
the CAT NMS Plan recently approved
by the Commission. The proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange’s
website at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at
1 15
U.S.C. 78a.
CFR 240.19b–4.
3 Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms
used in this rule filing are defined as set forth in
the Compliance Rule.
47813
the Commission’s Public Reference
Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
In its filing with the Commission, the
self-regulatory organization included
statements concerning the purpose of,
and basis for, the proposed rule change
and discussed any comments it received
on the proposed rule change. The text
of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below.
The Exchange has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below,
of the most significant parts of such
statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
1. Purpose
The purpose of this proposed rule
change is to amend the Rule 6800
Series, the Compliance Rule regarding
the CAT NMS Plan, to be consistent
with an amendment to the CAT NMS
Plan recently approved by the
Commission.4 The Commission
approved an amendment to the CAT
NMS Plan to amend the requirements
for Firm Designated IDs in four ways: (1)
To prohibit the use of account numbers
as Firm Designated IDs for trading
accounts that are not proprietary
accounts; (2) to require that the Firm
Designated ID for a trading account be
persistent over time for each Industry
Member so that a single account may be
tracked across time within a single
Industry Member; (3) to permit the use
of relationship identifiers as Firm
Designated IDs in certain circumstances;
and (4) to permit the use of entity
identifiers as Firm Designated IDs in
certain circumstances (the ‘‘FDID
Amendment’’). As a result, the
Exchange proposes to amend the
definition of ‘‘Firm Designated ID’’ in
Rule 6810 to reflect the changes to the
CAT NMS Plan regarding the
requirements for Firm Designated IDs.
Rule 6810(r) defines the term ‘‘Firm
Designated ID’’ to mean ‘‘a unique
identifier for each trading account
designated by Industry Members for
purposes of providing data to the
Central Repository, where each such
identifier is unique among all identifiers
from any given Industry Member for
each business date.’’
2 17
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89397
(July 24, 2020) (Federal Register publication
pending).
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 152 (Thursday, August 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47812-47813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17139]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-854 (Remand)]
Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices, System,
and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination To Deny a
Petition To Rescind or Modify a Civil Penalty Order; Termination of
Remand Proceeding
AGENCY: International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to (1) deny a petition to rescind, or in the
alternative, modify a civil penalty order; and (2) terminate the
proceeding on remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may
be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email
[email protected]. General information concerning the Commission may
also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD
terminal, telephone 202-205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-
854 (Enforcement Proceeding) on May 24, 2013, based on an enforcement
complaint filed on behalf of BriarTek IP, Inc. (``BriarTek'') of
Alexandria, Virginia. 78 FR 31576-77 (May 24, 2013). The complaint
alleged violations of the April 5, 2013, consent order (``the Consent
Order'') issued in the underlying investigation by the continued
practice of prohibited activities such as selling or offering for sale
within the United States after importation any two-way global satellite
communication devices, system, or components thereof that infringe one
or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,991,380 (``the '380 patent''). The
Commission's notice of institution of the enforcement proceeding named
as respondents DeLorme Publishing Company, Inc. and DeLorme InReach LLC
(collectively, ``DeLorme''), now known as DBN Holding, Inc. and BDN
LLC, all of Yarmouth, Maine. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations
(``OUII'') was also a party to the enforcement proceeding. Id.
On June 10, 2014, following review of the presiding administrative
law judge's enforcement initial determination in the enforcement
proceeding, the Commission issued a civil penalty order in the amount
of $6,242,500 for DeLorme's violation of the Consent Order on 227
separate days. DeLorme appealed the Commission's final determination to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. During the pendency
of the appeal, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia (``EDVA'') granted summary judgment in a declaratory judgment
action filed by DeLorme against the patentee, finding the relevant
claims of
[[Page 47813]]
the '380 patent to be invalid. After requesting and receiving
supplemental briefing on the issue of the effect, if any, of affirming
the EDVA summary judgment on the Commission's final determination, the
Federal Circuit, on the same date, affirmed both the $6,242,500
Commission civil penalty order and the EDVA summary judgment of
invalidity. See DeLorme v. ITC, 805 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(``DeLorme I''); DeLorme Publishing Co. v. BriarTek IP, Inc., 622
Fed.Appx. 912 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
On December 22, 2015, following issuance of the Federal Circuit's
decision in DeLorme I, DeLorme filed a petition to rescind, or in the
alternative, to modify the civil penalty order under Commission Rule
210.76(a)(1) because of ``changed conditions,'' i.e., the EDVA
invalidity judgment and the affirmance of that judgment. Stating that
the arguments raised by DeLorme involved issues that could have been
raised in DeLorme I or were raised and rejected by the Federal Circuit
in DeLorme I, the Commission denied DeLorme's petition based on res
judicata. DeLorme appealed the Commission's final determination denying
its petition to the Federal Circuit. The Court reversed the
Commission's final determination and remanded the case for
consideration of DeLorme's petition. See DBN Holding, Inc. v. ITC, 755
Fed.Appx. 993, 2018 WL 6181653 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 27, 2018) (``DeLorme
II'') (finding that although there is no requirement that the civil
penalty be rescinded because of the invalidity finding, the Commission
nevertheless should have considered DeLorme's petition). The Federal
Circuit issued its mandate on January 18, 2019.
On March 27, 2019, the Commission issued an order to the parties
requesting briefing regarding whether the Commission should rescind or
modify the civil penalty order in light of the final judgment of
invalidity of the relevant claims of the '380 patent in accordance with
DeLorme II. DeLorme, BriarTek, and OUII filed their initial submissions
on April 25, April 26, and April 26, 2019, respectively. These parties
filed their response submissions on May 12, May 13, and May 12, 2019,
respectively.
Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the
parties' written submissions, the Commission has determined to deny
DeLorme's petition to rescind, or in the alternative, modify the civil
penalty order. The Commission has also issued an opinion explaining the
basis for the Commission's action and has terminated the proceeding on
remand from the Federal Circuit.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on July 31,
2020.
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 31, 2020.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2020-17139 Filed 8-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
