Certain Mobile Devices With Multifunction Emulators; Notice of Commission Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Termination of Investigation, 38762-38763 [2021-15552]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
38762
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 138 / Thursday, July 22, 2021 / Notices
Native Hawaiian organizations stated in
this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or
representatives of any Indian Tribe or
Native Hawaiian organization not
identified in this notice that wish to
claim this cultural item should submit
a written request with information in
support of the claim to the University of
Denver Museum of Anthropology at the
address in this notice by August 23,
2021.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anne Amati, University of Denver
Museum of Anthropology, 2000 E
Asbury Avenue, Sturm Hall 146,
Denver, CO 80208, telephone (303) 871–
2687, email anne.amati@du.edu.
Notice is
here given in accordance with the
Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C.
3005, of the intent to repatriate a
cultural item under the control of the
University of Denver Museum of
Anthropology, Denver, CO, that meets
the definition of an object of cultural
patrimony under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the
National Park Service’s administrative
responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25
U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in
this notice are the sole responsibility of
the museum, institution, or Federal
agency that has control of the Native
American cultural item. The National
Park Service is not responsible for the
determinations in this notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
History and Description of the Cultural
Item
At an unknown date, one cultural
item was removed from the state of
Arizona. In 1951, the item was
accessioned by the University of Denver
Museum of Anthropology. The one
object of cultural patrimony is a tripod
bowl (DU#1691). The form and
decoration of this object is consistent
with items attributable to the Maricopa
culture of the Gila River Indian
Community of the Gila River Indian
Reservation, Arizona and the Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of
the Salt River Indian Reservation,
Arizona. The object of cultural
patrimony has ongoing historical,
traditional, or cultural importance
central to the Gila River Indian
Community of the Gila River Indian
Reservation, Arizona and the Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of
the Salt River Indian Reservation,
Arizona rather than being property
owned by an individual.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:10 Jul 21, 2021
Jkt 253001
Determinations Made by the University
of Denver Museum of Anthropology
Officials of the University of Denver
Museum of Anthropology have
determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(D),
the one cultural item described above
has ongoing historical, traditional, or
cultural importance central to the
Native American group or culture itself,
rather than property owned by an
individual.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there
is a relationship of shared group
identity that can be reasonably traced
between the object of cultural patrimony
and the Gila River Indian Community of
the Gila River Indian Reservation,
Arizona and the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community of the Salt
River Indian Reservation, Arizona
(hereafter referred to as ‘‘The Tribes’’).
Additional Requestors and Disposition
Lineal descendants or representatives
of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian
organization not identified in this notice
that wish to claim this cultural item
should submit a written request with
information in support of the claim to
Anne Amati, University of Denver
Museum of Anthropology, 2000 E
Asbury Avenue, Sturm Hall 146,
Denver, CO 80208, telephone (303) 871–
2687, email anne.amati@du.edu, by
August 23, 2021. After that date, if no
additional claimants have come
forward, transfer of control of the object
of cultural patrimony to The Tribes may
proceed.
The University of Denver Museum of
Anthropology is responsible for
notifying The Tribes that this notice has
been published.
Dated: July 14, 2021.
Melanie O’Brien,
Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
[FR Doc. 2021–15567 Filed 7–21–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1170]
Certain Mobile Devices With
Multifunction Emulators; Notice of
Commission Determination Finding No
Violation of Section 337; Termination
of Investigation
International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to affirm,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
with modifications, the Administrative
Law Judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) final initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) issued on March
16, 2021, finding no violation of section
337 in the above-referenced
investigation. The investigation is
terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3042. 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: On August
16, the Commission instituted this
investigation based on a complaint filed
by Dynamics Inc. (‘‘Dynamics’’) of
Cheswick, Pennsylvania. 84 FR 42009–
10 (Aug. 16, 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, or the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain mobile devices with
multifunction emulators by reason of
infringement of one or more of claims 1
and 5–8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,827,153
(‘‘the ’153 patent’’); claims 1–20 of U.S.
Patent No. 10,032,100 (‘‘the ’100
patent’’); claims 1–7, 9–13, 19, 21, and
22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,223,631 (‘‘the
’631 patent’’); and claims 1–16 of U.S.
Patent No. 10,255,545 (‘‘the ’545
patent’’). Id. at 42010. The
Commission’s notice of investigation
named as respondents Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd of Gyeonggi,
Republic of Korea and Samsung
Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield
Park, New Jersey (collectively,
‘‘Samsung’’). Id. The Office of Unfair
Import Investigations is not
participating in this investigation.
On September 3, 2019, the ALJ set a
sixteen-month target date of December
16, 2020 for completion of the
investigation. Order No. 3 (Sept. 3,
2019). The Order set an evidentiary
hearing for May 11–15, 2020.
On November 26, 2019, the ALJ held
a Markman hearing, and on January 31,
2020, issued Order No. 7, construing
E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM
22JYN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 138 / Thursday, July 22, 2021 / Notices
certain claim terms of the asserted
patents.
On May 20, 2020, the ALJ issued an
initial determination granting
Dynamics’ unopposed motion for partial
termination of the investigation as to
claims 5, 6, and 8 of the ’153 patent,
claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 9–11, 13–17, 19, and
20 of the ’100 patent, claims 2, 3, 5, 7,
9–13, 19, and 21 of the ’631 patent, and
claims 2, 4, and 6–16 of the ’545 patent.
Order No. 15 (May 20, 2020),
unreviewed by Notice (June 15, 2020).
Due to the COVID–19 pandemic, the
ALJ amended the procedural schedule
several times. On March 12, 2020, the
Commission postponed all in-person
hearings under section 337 scheduled
within the next sixty days. See 85 FR
15498 (Mar. 18, 2020). Thus, the ALJ
issued Order No. 10, rescheduling the
evidentiary hearing for June 22–26,
2020.
On April 6, 2020, the ALJ issued
Order No. 12, resetting the target date to
February 23, 2021 due to the COVID–19
pandemic. Order No. 12 (Apr. 6, 2020),
unreviewed by Notice (Apr. 24, 2020).
On May 14, 2020, the Commission
extended the postponement of all
section 337 hearings. See 85 FR 30734–
5 (May 20, 2020). On June 22, 2020, the
Commission further extended the
postponement of all in-person section
337 hearings. 85 FR 38388–9 (June 26,
2020).
On August 11, 2020, the ALJ
scheduled a virtual hearing for
November 16–20, 2020 and reset the
target date for July 16, 2021. Order No.
24 (Aug. 11, 2020), unreviewed by
Notice (Sept. 8, 2020).
On March 16, 2021, the ALJ issued
the final ID, finding no violation of
section 337. The ID found that the
importation requirement under 19
U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B) is satisfied. ID at 28.
Specifically, the ID found that ‘‘[t]he
parties stipulated to facts establishing
the importation requirement is met for
both respondents’’ and that ‘‘Samsung
does not dispute the Commission’s
jurisdiction over this investigation or
that the requisite importation or sale in
connection with importation has taken
place for each Accused Product.’’ Id.
Accordingly, the ID found that the
Commission has jurisdiction over this
investigation and that the importation
requirement has been satisfied. Id.
With respect to the domestic industry
requirement, the ID found that
Dynamics had satisfied the domestic
industry requirement for the ’100
patent, but not the ’153, ’631, and ’545
patents. ID at 183–84. For the ’153
patent, the ID found that Dynamics
failed to show it practiced any claim of
the patent, but had shown it made
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:10 Jul 21, 2021
Jkt 253001
significant investments under section
337(a)(3)(A) and (B), 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(3)(A)–(B). Id. at 60–64, 158–79.
Likewise, as to the ’631 patent, the ID
found that Dynamics failed to show it
practiced any claim of the patent, but
had made significant investments for
purposes of subsections (a)(3)(A) and
(B). Id. at 127–31, 158–79. For the ’545
patent, the ID found that Dynamics had
shown it was ‘‘in the process’’ of
practicing claim 1, but had not shown
it was ‘‘in the process’’ of establishing
a U.S. industry. Id. at 148–52, 180–83;
see also 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2).
With respect to infringement and
validity, the ID found that Samsung
infringes claims 1 and 7 of the ’153
patent and that Samsung failed to
establish that those claims are invalid.
ID at 45–58, 64–69. The ID also found
that Samsung infringes claims 1, 4, 6,
12, and 18 of the ’100 patent (except for
claim 6 as to certain modified products),
but that the asserted claims, except for
claim 4 are invalid as anticipated or
obvious by prior art. Id. at 83–88, 96–
115. The ID further found that Samsung
directly infringes claims 1, 4, 6, and 22
of the ’631 patent, but that those claims
are invalid as anticipated or obvious by
prior art. Id. at 121–127, 131–140. The
ID also found that Samsung directly
infringes claims 1, 3, and 5 of the ’545
patent, but that those claims are invalid
for anticipation. Finally, the ID found
that Samsung failed to carry its burden
with respect to various additional
affirmative defenses under 35 U.S.C.
102(f), 116 (inventorship), or 112
(written description and enablement).
The ALJ recommended that the
Commission should issue a limited
exclusion order and cease and desist
orders if it finds a violation but that no
bond should be imposed on covered
products that may be imported during
the period of Presidential review. ID/RD
at 186–91, 193.
On March 29, 2021, Dynamics filed a
petition for review of the ID, and
Samsung filed a contingent petition for
review. On April 8, 2021, Dynamics and
Samsung submitted responses to each
other’s petitions.
On May 17, 2021, the Commission
determined to review the ID in part. 86
FR 27651–53 (May 21, 2021).
Specifically, the Commission
determined to review the ID with
respect to the following: (1) For the ’153
patent, claim construction of the term
‘‘analog waveform’’ as well as the
related infringement and technical
prong analyses and the ID’s finding that
the combination of Shoemaker and
Gutman fails to render the asserted
claims obvious; (2) for the ’100 patent,
whether Doughty in combination with
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
38763
VivoTech renders obvious claim 4 and
whether such issue was waived,
whether claims 4 and 6 are infringed,
and whether the domestic industry
requirement is satisfied; and (3) for the
’545 patent, the ID’s domestic industry
findings. Id. at 27652. In connection
with its review, the Commission
requested that the parties brief their
positions on certain issues.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ID, the
parties’ submissions and the responses
thereto, the Commission has determined
to affirm, with modifications, the ID’s
finding of no violation of section 337 in
this investigation. With respect to the
issues under review, for the ’153 patent,
the Commission has determined to (1)
adopt Samsung’s proposed construction
of the claim limitation ‘‘analog
waveform’’ to mean ‘‘a wave shape
whose amplitude changes in a
continuous fashion,’’ but clarify that the
construction encompasses so-called
real-world square waves; (2) affirm the
ID’s finding that the accused Samsung
Products infringe the asserted claims;
(3) affirm the ID’s finding that Dynamics
failed to adduce sufficient evidence to
establish that its DI products practice
any claims of the patent; and (4) reverse
the ID’s finding that the combination of
Shoemaker and Gutman fails to render
the asserted claims obvious. For the ’100
patent, the Commission has determined
to (1) reverse the finding that Samsung
failed to show that Doughty in
combination with VivoTech renders
claim 4 obvious; (2) clarify that claims
4 and 6 are infringed; and (3) find the
domestic industry requirement not met
because the domestic industry claim has
been found invalid. For the ’545 patent,
the Commission has determined to take
no position on the ID’s domestic
industry findings related to a domestic
industry in the process of being
established.
Accordingly, the Commission has
determined to terminate the
investigation with a finding of no
violation of section 337.
The Commission’s vote on this
determination took place on July 16,
2021.
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 210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: July 16, 2021.
Katherine Hiner,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021–15552 Filed 7–21–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM
22JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 138 (Thursday, July 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38762-38763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15552]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1170]
Certain Mobile Devices With Multifunction Emulators; Notice of
Commission Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337;
Termination of Investigation
AGENCY: International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to affirm, with modifications, the
Administrative Law Judge's (``ALJ'') final initial determination
(``ID'') issued on March 16, 2021, finding no violation of section 337
in the above-referenced investigation. The investigation is terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. 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
on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 16, the Commission instituted this
investigation based on a complaint filed by Dynamics Inc.
(``Dynamics'') of Cheswick, Pennsylvania. 84 FR 42009-10 (Aug. 16,
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, or the
sale within the United States after importation of certain mobile
devices with multifunction emulators by reason of infringement of one
or more of claims 1 and 5-8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,827,153 (``the '153
patent''); claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,032,100 (``the '100
patent''); claims 1-7, 9-13, 19, 21, and 22 of U.S. Patent No.
10,223,631 (``the '631 patent''); and claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No.
10,255,545 (``the '545 patent''). Id. at 42010. The Commission's notice
of investigation named as respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd of
Gyeonggi, Republic of Korea and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of
Ridgefield Park, New Jersey (collectively, ``Samsung''). Id. The Office
of Unfair Import Investigations is not participating in this
investigation.
On September 3, 2019, the ALJ set a sixteen-month target date of
December 16, 2020 for completion of the investigation. Order No. 3
(Sept. 3, 2019). The Order set an evidentiary hearing for May 11-15,
2020.
On November 26, 2019, the ALJ held a Markman hearing, and on
January 31, 2020, issued Order No. 7, construing
[[Page 38763]]
certain claim terms of the asserted patents.
On May 20, 2020, the ALJ issued an initial determination granting
Dynamics' unopposed motion for partial termination of the investigation
as to claims 5, 6, and 8 of the '153 patent, claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 9-11,
13-17, 19, and 20 of the '100 patent, claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 9-13, 19, and
21 of the '631 patent, and claims 2, 4, and 6-16 of the '545 patent.
Order No. 15 (May 20, 2020), unreviewed by Notice (June 15, 2020).
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ALJ amended the procedural
schedule several times. On March 12, 2020, the Commission postponed all
in-person hearings under section 337 scheduled within the next sixty
days. See 85 FR 15498 (Mar. 18, 2020). Thus, the ALJ issued Order No.
10, rescheduling the evidentiary hearing for June 22-26, 2020.
On April 6, 2020, the ALJ issued Order No. 12, resetting the target
date to February 23, 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Order No. 12
(Apr. 6, 2020), unreviewed by Notice (Apr. 24, 2020).
On May 14, 2020, the Commission extended the postponement of all
section 337 hearings. See 85 FR 30734-5 (May 20, 2020). On June 22,
2020, the Commission further extended the postponement of all in-person
section 337 hearings. 85 FR 38388-9 (June 26, 2020).
On August 11, 2020, the ALJ scheduled a virtual hearing for
November 16-20, 2020 and reset the target date for July 16, 2021. Order
No. 24 (Aug. 11, 2020), unreviewed by Notice (Sept. 8, 2020).
On March 16, 2021, the ALJ issued the final ID, finding no
violation of section 337. The ID found that the importation requirement
under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B) is satisfied. ID at 28. Specifically, the
ID found that ``[t]he parties stipulated to facts establishing the
importation requirement is met for both respondents'' and that
``Samsung does not dispute the Commission's jurisdiction over this
investigation or that the requisite importation or sale in connection
with importation has taken place for each Accused Product.'' Id.
Accordingly, the ID found that the Commission has jurisdiction over
this investigation and that the importation requirement has been
satisfied. Id.
With respect to the domestic industry requirement, the ID found
that Dynamics had satisfied the domestic industry requirement for the
'100 patent, but not the '153, '631, and '545 patents. ID at 183-84.
For the '153 patent, the ID found that Dynamics failed to show it
practiced any claim of the patent, but had shown it made significant
investments under section 337(a)(3)(A) and (B), 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(3)(A)-(B). Id. at 60-64, 158-79. Likewise, as to the '631
patent, the ID found that Dynamics failed to show it practiced any
claim of the patent, but had made significant investments for purposes
of subsections (a)(3)(A) and (B). Id. at 127-31, 158-79. For the '545
patent, the ID found that Dynamics had shown it was ``in the process''
of practicing claim 1, but had not shown it was ``in the process'' of
establishing a U.S. industry. Id. at 148-52, 180-83; see also 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(2).
With respect to infringement and validity, the ID found that
Samsung infringes claims 1 and 7 of the '153 patent and that Samsung
failed to establish that those claims are invalid. ID at 45-58, 64-69.
The ID also found that Samsung infringes claims 1, 4, 6, 12, and 18 of
the '100 patent (except for claim 6 as to certain modified products),
but that the asserted claims, except for claim 4 are invalid as
anticipated or obvious by prior art. Id. at 83-88, 96-115. The ID
further found that Samsung directly infringes claims 1, 4, 6, and 22 of
the '631 patent, but that those claims are invalid as anticipated or
obvious by prior art. Id. at 121-127, 131-140. The ID also found that
Samsung directly infringes claims 1, 3, and 5 of the '545 patent, but
that those claims are invalid for anticipation. Finally, the ID found
that Samsung failed to carry its burden with respect to various
additional affirmative defenses under 35 U.S.C. 102(f), 116
(inventorship), or 112 (written description and enablement).
The ALJ recommended that the Commission should issue a limited
exclusion order and cease and desist orders if it finds a violation but
that no bond should be imposed on covered products that may be imported
during the period of Presidential review. ID/RD at 186-91, 193.
On March 29, 2021, Dynamics filed a petition for review of the ID,
and Samsung filed a contingent petition for review. On April 8, 2021,
Dynamics and Samsung submitted responses to each other's petitions.
On May 17, 2021, the Commission determined to review the ID in
part. 86 FR 27651-53 (May 21, 2021). Specifically, the Commission
determined to review the ID with respect to the following: (1) For the
'153 patent, claim construction of the term ``analog waveform'' as well
as the related infringement and technical prong analyses and the ID's
finding that the combination of Shoemaker and Gutman fails to render
the asserted claims obvious; (2) for the '100 patent, whether Doughty
in combination with VivoTech renders obvious claim 4 and whether such
issue was waived, whether claims 4 and 6 are infringed, and whether the
domestic industry requirement is satisfied; and (3) for the '545
patent, the ID's domestic industry findings. Id. at 27652. In
connection with its review, the Commission requested that the parties
brief their positions on certain issues.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ID,
the parties' submissions and the responses thereto, the Commission has
determined to affirm, with modifications, the ID's finding of no
violation of section 337 in this investigation. With respect to the
issues under review, for the '153 patent, the Commission has determined
to (1) adopt Samsung's proposed construction of the claim limitation
``analog waveform'' to mean ``a wave shape whose amplitude changes in a
continuous fashion,'' but clarify that the construction encompasses so-
called real-world square waves; (2) affirm the ID's finding that the
accused Samsung Products infringe the asserted claims; (3) affirm the
ID's finding that Dynamics failed to adduce sufficient evidence to
establish that its DI products practice any claims of the patent; and
(4) reverse the ID's finding that the combination of Shoemaker and
Gutman fails to render the asserted claims obvious. For the '100
patent, the Commission has determined to (1) reverse the finding that
Samsung failed to show that Doughty in combination with VivoTech
renders claim 4 obvious; (2) clarify that claims 4 and 6 are infringed;
and (3) find the domestic industry requirement not met because the
domestic industry claim has been found invalid. For the '545 patent,
the Commission has determined to take no position on the ID's domestic
industry findings related to a domestic industry in the process of
being established.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined to terminate the
investigation with a finding of no violation of section 337.
The Commission's vote on this determination took place on July 16,
2021.
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
210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: July 16, 2021.
Katherine Hiner,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-15552 Filed 7-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
