Certain Electronic Devices, Including Streaming Players, Televisions, Set Top Boxes, Remote Controllers, and Components Thereof; Commission Determination To Review the Final Initial Determination in Part and To Request Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review, Remedy, Bonding, and the Public Interest, 51381-51384 [2021-19849]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 15, 2021 / Notices ACTION: Notice. The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. DATES: July 7, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Duffy (202–708–2579), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background.—On July 7, 2021, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (86 FR 17203, April 1, 2021) of the subject five-year review was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)).2 For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207). Please note the Secretary’s Office will accept only electronic filings at this time. Filings must be made through the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS, https:// khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: 1 A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission’s website. 2 Vice Chair Stayin did not participate in this proceeding. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 Sep 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 edis.usitc.gov). No in-person paperbased filings or paper copies of any electronic filings will be accepted until further notice. Staff report.—A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the review has been placed in the nonpublic record, and will be made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for this review on September 10, 2021. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. Written submissions.—As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s rules, interested parties that are parties to the review and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution,3 and any party other than an interested party to the review may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the review. Comments are due on or before September 17, 2021 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the fiveyear review nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the review by September 17, 2021. However, should the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its review, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce’s final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce’s results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s Handbook on Filing Procedures, available on the Commission’s website at https:// www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_ on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates upon the Commission’s procedures with respect to filings. In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. 3 The Commission has found the response to its notice of institution filed by the National Candle Association, a trade association whose 36 members are either producers or wholesalers of U.S. produced petroleum wax candles, to be adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 51381 Determination.—The Commission has determined this review is extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B). Authority: This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: September 9, 2021. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2021–19827 Filed 9–14–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–1200] Certain Electronic Devices, Including Streaming Players, Televisions, Set Top Boxes, Remote Controllers, and Components Thereof; Commission Determination To Review the Final Initial Determination in Part and To Request Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review, Remedy, Bonding, and the Public Interest U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has determined to review in part certain findings in a final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) and to solicit briefing on the issues under review, as well as remedy, bonding, and the public interest. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl P. Bretscher, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2382. 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. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\15SEN1.SGM 15SEN1 51382 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 15, 2021 / Notices The Commission instituted this investigation on May 22, 2020, based on a complaint filed by Universal Electronics, Inc. (‘‘UEI’’) of Scottsdale, Arizona. 85 FR 31211–212 (May 22, 2020). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘Section 337’’), in the importation into the United States, sale for importation, or sale in the United States after importation of certain electronic devices, including streaming players, televisions, set top boxes, remote controllers, and components thereof, by reason of infringement of one or more of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,696,514 (‘‘the ’514 patent’’); 9,911,325 (‘‘the ’325 patent’’); 9,716,853 (‘‘the ’853 patent’’); 7,589,642 (‘‘the ’642 patent’’); 10,593,196 (‘‘the ’196 patent’’); and 10,600,317 (‘‘the ’317 patent’’). Id. The complaint alleges that a domestic industry exists. Id. The Commission’s notice of investigation names the following respondents: Roku Inc. of Los Gatos, California (‘‘Roku’’); TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. of New Territories, Hong Kong; Shenzhen TCL New Technology Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; TCL King Electrical Appliances Co. Ltd. of Huizhou, China; TTE Technology Inc. of Corona, California; TCL Corp. of Huizhou City, China; TCL Moka Int’l Ltd. of New Territories, Hong Kong; TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd. of New Territories, Hong Kong; TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. of New Territories, Hong Kong; and TCL Smart Device Co. of Bac Tan Uyen District, Vietnam (collectively, ‘‘the TCL Respondents’’); Hisense Co. Ltd. of Qingdao, China; Hisense Electronics Manufacturing Co. of America Corp. of Suwanee, Georgia; Hisense Import & Export Co. Ltd. of Qingdao, China; Qingdao Hisense Electric Co., Ltd. of Qingdao, China; and Hisense International Co., Ltd. of Shen Wang, Hong Kong (collectively, ‘‘the Hisense Respondents’’); Funai Electric Co., Ltd. of Osaka, Japan; Funai Corp. Inc. of Rutherford, New Jersey; and Funai Co., Ltd. of Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand (collectively, ‘‘the Funai Respondents’’). Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not participating in this investigation. Id. The Commission partially terminated the investigation with respect to certain patents and patent claims that were withdrawn by UEI, including all of the asserted claims of the ’514 patent, ’325 patent, and ’853 patent. See Order No. 27 (Dec. 2, 2020), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Dec. 23, 2020); Order No. 32 (Dec. 21, 2020), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Jan. 5, 2021); Order No. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 Sep 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 33 (Dec. 29, 2020), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Jan. 13, 2021); Order No. 34 (Jan. 4, 2021), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Jan. 21, 2021); Order No. 44 (Feb. 2, 2021), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Feb. 19, 2021); Order No. 49 (Feb. 9, 2021), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Feb. 24, 2021); Order No. 66 (March 23, 2021), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (April 8, 2021); Order No. 67 (Apr. 6, 2021), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Apr. 22, 2021). The Commission also terminated the investigation with respect to the Hisense Respondents, the TCL Respondents, and the Funai Respondents. Order No. 67 (Apr. 6, 2021), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Apr. 22, 2021). On February 18, 2021, the Commission determined not to review an ID entering summary determination that claim 19 of the ’642 patent is practiced by the domestic industry products and infringed by the accused ‘‘Elk’’ series of products. Order No. 38 (Jan. 19, 2021), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Feb. 18, 2021). On February 24, 2021, the Commission determined not to review an ID entering summary determination that the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement is satisfied for claims 1–3, 5–8, and 16 of the ’325 patent. Order No. 41 (Jan. 25, 2021), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Feb. 24, 2021). On February 24, 2021, the Commission determined to review and reverse an ID granting Roku’s motion for summary determination that UEI lacks standing to assert the ’196 patent and to remand the standing question to the ALJ for further consideration. Order No. 40 (Jan. 25, 2021), reviewed by Comm’n Notice (Feb. 24, 2021); see also Comm’n Op. (Mar. 3, 2021). The ALJ held on evidentiary hearing from April 19–23, 2021. By the time of the hearing, the only remaining respondent was Roku and the only remaining claims at issue for infringement or domestic industry purposes were claim 19 of the ’642 patent; claims 3, 6, 9, and 11 of the ’347 patent; and claims 1–3, 11, and 13–15 of the ’196 patent. On July 9, 2021, the ALJ issued the subject final ID, finding a violation of Section 337 as to the ’196 patent but no violation with respect to either the ’642 patent or ’317 patent. On July 23, 2021, both UEI and Roku filed petitions for review of certain findings in the final ID, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.43(a) (19 CFR 210.43(a)). On August 2, 2021, the parties filed their respective replies, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.43(c) (19 CFR 210.43(c)). PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the final ID, the parties’ petitions, and responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review all issues relating to the ’196 patent, whether UEI satisfied the technical prong for the ’317 patent, and the ID’s conclusion that UEI satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under Section 337(a)(3)(B) with respect to the ’196 patent, the ’317 patent, and the ’642 patent. The Commission further notes that the parties have agreed that Roku’s Alice-5 remote control is not among the accused products. See ID at 23. The Commission has determined not to review any of the ID’s other findings. The parties are asked to provide additional briefing on the following issues under review: (A) Does the limitation ‘‘for use in configuring the remote control device to transmit’’ in the final clause of claim 1 of the ’196 patent require construction? See ’196 patent at 17:23–25 (emphasis added). If so, how should it be construed? (B) In view of the response to Question (A), supra, do the accused Roku products infringe claim 1 of the ’196 patent, with particular attention to: (i) Whether converting a radiofrequency (‘‘RF’’) signal to an infrared (‘‘IR’’) signal in the accused remote control devices satisfies the limitation ‘‘for use in configuring the remote control device to transmit a second command’’; and (ii) whether the accused products use the same ‘‘first data’’ to indicate whether the ‘‘second media device’’ will be ‘‘responsive’’ or ‘‘unresponsive’’ to the ‘‘first command,’’ as set forth in the final clause of claim 1. See ’196 patent at 17:13–32. (C) Does your response to Question (A), supra, affect the ID’s invalidity analysis? Would the ID’s invalidity analysis with respect to the ’196 patent be affected if the term ‘‘for use in configuring the remote control device to transmit’’ in the final clause of claim 1 was found not to cover converting an RF signal to an IR signal? (D) With respect to the ID’s invalidity analysis for the ’196 patent, explain whether or how Chardon (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2012/0249890) or Mishra (U.S. Patent Application No. 2001/0005197), singly or in combination, discloses to a person of ordinary skill in the art a ‘‘first media device’’ that either ‘‘cause[s] the first media device to be configured to transmit a first command directly to the second media device [via HDMI]’’ or ‘‘transmit[s] a second data to a remote control device . . . for use in configuring the remote control device to E:\FR\FM\15SEN1.SGM 15SEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 15, 2021 / Notices transmit a second command directly to the second media device,’’ depending on whether the ‘‘second media device’’ is ‘‘responsive’’ or ‘‘unresponsive’’ to a ‘‘first command,’’ respectively, as set forth in the final clause of claim 1. See ’196 patent at 17:13–32. Explain whether there is a motivation to combine the references and clear and convincing evidence of obviousness. (E) Do the Samsung televisions that UEI identified as satisfying the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement practice the asserted claims of the ’317 patent, with particular attention to: (i) Whether the term ‘‘a display device coupled to the controlled device’’ in claim 1 can cover an electronic component (e.g., LCD display screen) contained within an electronic device (e.g., an LCD television) (see ’317 patent at 8:55–56 (emphasis added)); and (ii) identify the ‘‘controlled device,’’ ‘‘receiver,’’ ‘‘transmitter,’’ ‘‘display device,’’ ‘‘processing device,’’ and other components recited in the asserted claims of the ’317 patent to the extent the asserted claims read on UEI’s domestic industry products. (F) Given that the domestic industry products for the ’196 and ’317 patents include downstream products, such as televisions (ID at 6, 51, 102), to what extent should an evaluation of the significance of investments in labor and capital under Section 337(a)(3)(B) take into account labor and capital associated with the downstream products? The parties are requested to brief only the discrete issues identified above, with reference to the applicable law and evidentiary record. The parties are not to brief any other issues on review, which have already been adequately presented in the parties’ previous filings. In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the statute authorizes issuance of: (1) An order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) cease-anddesist 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 Sep 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 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). The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of any remedy upon the public interest. The public interest factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease-and-desist 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, disapprove, or take no action on 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 this investigation are requested to file written submissions on the issues identified above in this notice. In addition, the parties, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties are requested to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such initial submissions should include views on the recommended determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. Explain whether your views on public interest or bonding would differ if the redesigned products (or redesigned components of a product) put forward by Respondents were excluded from any remedy. In its initial submission, Complainant is requested to identify the remedy sought and to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission’s consideration. Complainant is also requested to provide the HTSUS subheadings 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. PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 51383 Complainant is also requested to identify and explain, from the record, articles that it contends are ‘‘components of’’ the subject products, and thus potentially covered by the proposed remedial orders, if imported separately from the subject products. See 85 FR at 31211. Failure to provide this information may result in waiver of any remedy directed to ‘‘components of’’ the subject products, in the event any violation may be found. The parties’ written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than the close of business on September 24, 2021. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on October 1, 2021. Opening submissions are limited to 40 pages. Reply submissions are limited to 35 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. The Commission’s paper filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 (Mar. 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 337–TA–1200’’) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/ 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 by marking each document with a header indicating that the document contains confidential information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 210.5(e)(2)). 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 E:\FR\FM\15SEN1.SGM 15SEN1 51384 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 15, 2021 / Notices personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. All non-confidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS. The Commission vote for this determination took place on September 9, 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 part 210). By order of the Commission. Issued: September 9, 2021. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2021–19849 Filed 9–14–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Granting of Requests for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification Rules Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the Federal Register. The following transaction was granted early termination—on the date indicated—of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The listing includes the transaction number and the parties to the transaction. The Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice made the grants. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to this proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period. EARLY TERMINATION GRANTED 08/26/2021 20212939 ........................... G Alight, Inc.; Alight Solutions LLC; Aon plc; Aon Hewitt Health Market Insurance Solutions Inc. Suzanne Morris, Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice. [FR Doc. 2021–19943 Filed 9–14–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–11–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA–893] Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Cambridge Isotope Laboratories Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice. ACTION: Notice of application. AGENCY: Cambridge Isotope Laboratories has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION listed below for further drug information. DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before October 15, 2021. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before October 15, 2021. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 Sep 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on July 29, 2021, Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, 50 Frontage Road, Andover, Massachusetts 01810–5413, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s): Controlled substance Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid. Tetrahydrocannabinols .... Morphine .......................... Drug code Schedule 2010 I 7370 9300 I II The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for analytical research. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant’s business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or nonapproved finished dosage forms for commercial sale. Brian S. Besser, Acting Assistant Administrator. [FR Doc. 2021–19944 Filed 9–14–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act On September 9, 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a Complaint and lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in United States of America and Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy v. Arbor Hills Energy LLC No. 5:21–cv– 12098. The proposed Consent Decree resolves several Clean Air Act and State law claims against Arbor Hills Energy LLC (AHE), including for exceedances of permitted SO2 emissions limits, at AHE’s landfill gas-to-energy facility in Northville, Michigan. The AHE facility converts landfill gas (LFG), which is generated by decomposition of waste from an adjacent landfill, into electricity by burning it as fuel in four gas turbines. E:\FR\FM\15SEN1.SGM 15SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51381-51384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19849]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-1200]


Certain Electronic Devices, Including Streaming Players, 
Televisions, Set Top Boxes, Remote Controllers, and Components Thereof; 
Commission Determination To Review the Final Initial Determination in 
Part and To Request Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review, 
Remedy, Bonding, and the Public Interest

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission (``Commission'') has determined to review in part certain 
findings in a final initial determination (``ID'') issued by the 
presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') and to solicit briefing on 
the issues under review, as well as remedy, bonding, and the public 
interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl P. Bretscher, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2382. 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.

[[Page 51382]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on May 22, 2020, based on a complaint filed by Universal Electronics, 
Inc. (``UEI'') of Scottsdale, Arizona. 85 FR 31211-212 (May 22, 2020). 
The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``Section 337''), 
in the importation into the United States, sale for importation, or 
sale in the United States after importation of certain electronic 
devices, including streaming players, televisions, set top boxes, 
remote controllers, and components thereof, by reason of infringement 
of one or more of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,696,514 
(``the '514 patent''); 9,911,325 (``the '325 patent''); 9,716,853 
(``the '853 patent''); 7,589,642 (``the '642 patent''); 10,593,196 
(``the '196 patent''); and 10,600,317 (``the '317 patent''). Id. The 
complaint alleges that a domestic industry exists. Id.
    The Commission's notice of investigation names the following 
respondents: Roku Inc. of Los Gatos, California (``Roku''); TCL 
Electronics Holdings Ltd. of New Territories, Hong Kong; Shenzhen TCL 
New Technology Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; TCL King Electrical 
Appliances Co. Ltd. of Huizhou, China; TTE Technology Inc. of Corona, 
California; TCL Corp. of Huizhou City, China; TCL Moka Int'l Ltd. of 
New Territories, Hong Kong; TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd. of New 
Territories, Hong Kong; TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. of New 
Territories, Hong Kong; and TCL Smart Device Co. of Bac Tan Uyen 
District, Vietnam (collectively, ``the TCL Respondents''); Hisense Co. 
Ltd. of Qingdao, China; Hisense Electronics Manufacturing Co. of 
America Corp. of Suwanee, Georgia; Hisense Import & Export Co. Ltd. of 
Qingdao, China; Qingdao Hisense Electric Co., Ltd. of Qingdao, China; 
and Hisense International Co., Ltd. of Shen Wang, Hong Kong 
(collectively, ``the Hisense Respondents''); Funai Electric Co., Ltd. 
of Osaka, Japan; Funai Corp. Inc. of Rutherford, New Jersey; and Funai 
Co., Ltd. of Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand (collectively, ``the Funai 
Respondents''). Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not 
participating in this investigation. Id.
    The Commission partially terminated the investigation with respect 
to certain patents and patent claims that were withdrawn by UEI, 
including all of the asserted claims of the '514 patent, '325 patent, 
and '853 patent. See Order No. 27 (Dec. 2, 2020), unreviewed by Comm'n 
Notice (Dec. 23, 2020); Order No. 32 (Dec. 21, 2020), unreviewed by 
Comm'n Notice (Jan. 5, 2021); Order No. 33 (Dec. 29, 2020), unreviewed 
by Comm'n Notice (Jan. 13, 2021); Order No. 34 (Jan. 4, 2021), 
unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Jan. 21, 2021); Order No. 44 (Feb. 2, 
2021), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Feb. 19, 2021); Order No. 49 (Feb. 
9, 2021), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Feb. 24, 2021); Order No. 66 
(March 23, 2021), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (April 8, 2021); Order 
No. 67 (Apr. 6, 2021), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Apr. 22, 2021).
    The Commission also terminated the investigation with respect to 
the Hisense Respondents, the TCL Respondents, and the Funai 
Respondents. Order No. 67 (Apr. 6, 2021), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice 
(Apr. 22, 2021).
    On February 18, 2021, the Commission determined not to review an ID 
entering summary determination that claim 19 of the '642 patent is 
practiced by the domestic industry products and infringed by the 
accused ``Elk'' series of products. Order No. 38 (Jan. 19, 2021), 
unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Feb. 18, 2021). On February 24, 2021, the 
Commission determined not to review an ID entering summary 
determination that the technical prong of the domestic industry 
requirement is satisfied for claims 1-3, 5-8, and 16 of the '325 
patent. Order No. 41 (Jan. 25, 2021), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Feb. 
24, 2021).
    On February 24, 2021, the Commission determined to review and 
reverse an ID granting Roku's motion for summary determination that UEI 
lacks standing to assert the '196 patent and to remand the standing 
question to the ALJ for further consideration. Order No. 40 (Jan. 25, 
2021), reviewed by Comm'n Notice (Feb. 24, 2021); see also Comm'n Op. 
(Mar. 3, 2021).
    The ALJ held on evidentiary hearing from April 19-23, 2021. By the 
time of the hearing, the only remaining respondent was Roku and the 
only remaining claims at issue for infringement or domestic industry 
purposes were claim 19 of the '642 patent; claims 3, 6, 9, and 11 of 
the '347 patent; and claims 1-3, 11, and 13-15 of the '196 patent.
    On July 9, 2021, the ALJ issued the subject final ID, finding a 
violation of Section 337 as to the '196 patent but no violation with 
respect to either the '642 patent or '317 patent.
    On July 23, 2021, both UEI and Roku filed petitions for review of 
certain findings in the final ID, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.43(a) 
(19 CFR 210.43(a)). On August 2, 2021, the parties filed their 
respective replies, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.43(c) (19 CFR 
210.43(c)).
    Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the 
final ID, the parties' petitions, and responses thereto, the Commission 
has determined to review all issues relating to the '196 patent, 
whether UEI satisfied the technical prong for the '317 patent, and the 
ID's conclusion that UEI satisfied the economic prong of the domestic 
industry requirement under Section 337(a)(3)(B) with respect to the 
'196 patent, the '317 patent, and the '642 patent. The Commission 
further notes that the parties have agreed that Roku's Alice-5 remote 
control is not among the accused products. See ID at 23. The Commission 
has determined not to review any of the ID's other findings.
    The parties are asked to provide additional briefing on the 
following issues under review:
    (A) Does the limitation ``for use in configuring the remote control 
device to transmit'' in the final clause of claim 1 of the '196 patent 
require construction? See '196 patent at 17:23-25 (emphasis added). If 
so, how should it be construed?
    (B) In view of the response to Question (A), supra, do the accused 
Roku products infringe claim 1 of the '196 patent, with particular 
attention to: (i) Whether converting a radiofrequency (``RF'') signal 
to an infrared (``IR'') signal in the accused remote control devices 
satisfies the limitation ``for use in configuring the remote control 
device to transmit a second command''; and (ii) whether the accused 
products use the same ``first data'' to indicate whether the ``second 
media device'' will be ``responsive'' or ``unresponsive'' to the 
``first command,'' as set forth in the final clause of claim 1. See 
'196 patent at 17:13-32.
    (C) Does your response to Question (A), supra, affect the ID's 
invalidity analysis? Would the ID's invalidity analysis with respect to 
the '196 patent be affected if the term ``for use in configuring the 
remote control device to transmit'' in the final clause of claim 1 was 
found not to cover converting an RF signal to an IR signal?
    (D) With respect to the ID's invalidity analysis for the '196 
patent, explain whether or how Chardon (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 
No. 2012/0249890) or Mishra (U.S. Patent Application No. 2001/0005197), 
singly or in combination, discloses to a person of ordinary skill in 
the art a ``first media device'' that either ``cause[s] the first media 
device to be configured to transmit a first command directly to the 
second media device [via HDMI]'' or ``transmit[s] a second data to a 
remote control device . . . for use in configuring the remote control 
device to

[[Page 51383]]

transmit a second command directly to the second media device,'' 
depending on whether the ``second media device'' is ``responsive'' or 
``unresponsive'' to a ``first command,'' respectively, as set forth in 
the final clause of claim 1. See '196 patent at 17:13-32. Explain 
whether there is a motivation to combine the references and clear and 
convincing evidence of obviousness.
    (E) Do the Samsung televisions that UEI identified as satisfying 
the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement practice the 
asserted claims of the '317 patent, with particular attention to: (i) 
Whether the term ``a display device coupled to the controlled device'' 
in claim 1 can cover an electronic component (e.g., LCD display screen) 
contained within an electronic device (e.g., an LCD television) (see 
'317 patent at 8:55-56 (emphasis added)); and (ii) identify the 
``controlled device,'' ``receiver,'' ``transmitter,'' ``display 
device,'' ``processing device,'' and other components recited in the 
asserted claims of the '317 patent to the extent the asserted claims 
read on UEI's domestic industry products.
    (F) Given that the domestic industry products for the '196 and '317 
patents include downstream products, such as televisions (ID at 6, 51, 
102), to what extent should an evaluation of the significance of 
investments in labor and capital under Section 337(a)(3)(B) take into 
account labor and capital associated with the downstream products?
    The parties are requested to brief only the discrete issues 
identified above, with reference to the applicable law and evidentiary 
record. The parties are not to brief any other issues on review, which 
have already been adequately presented in the parties' previous 
filings.
    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the 
statute authorizes issuance of: (1) An order that could result in the 
exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, 
and/or (2) 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).
    The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of any 
remedy upon the public interest. The public interest factors the 
Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order 
and/or cease-and-desist 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, 
disapprove, or take no action on 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 this investigation are requested to 
file written submissions on the issues identified above in this notice. 
In addition, the parties, interested government agencies, and any other 
interested parties are requested to file written submissions on the 
issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such initial 
submissions should include views on the recommended determination by 
the ALJ on remedy and bonding. Explain whether your views on public 
interest or bonding would differ if the redesigned products (or 
redesigned components of a product) put forward by Respondents were 
excluded from any remedy.
    In its initial submission, Complainant is requested to identify the 
remedy sought and to submit proposed remedial orders for the 
Commission's consideration. Complainant is also requested to provide 
the HTSUS subheadings 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. 
Complainant is also requested to identify and explain, from the record, 
articles that it contends are ``components of'' the subject products, 
and thus potentially covered by the proposed remedial orders, if 
imported separately from the subject products. See 85 FR at 31211. 
Failure to provide this information may result in waiver of any remedy 
directed to ``components of'' the subject products, in the event any 
violation may be found.
    The parties' written submissions and proposed remedial orders must 
be filed no later than the close of business on September 24, 2021. 
Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on 
October 1, 2021. Opening submissions are limited to 40 pages. Reply 
submissions are limited to 35 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. The 
Commission's paper filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) are currently 
waived. 85 FR 15798 (Mar. 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to the 
investigation number (``Inv. No. 337-TA-1200'') in a prominent place on 
the cover page and/or first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing 
Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/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 by marking each document 
with a header indicating that the document contains confidential 
information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request 
procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) 
& 210.5(e)(2)). 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

[[Page 51384]]

personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel 
will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. All non-confidential 
written submissions will be available for public inspection at the 
Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.
    The Commission vote for this determination took place on September 
9, 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 
part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 9, 2021.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-19849 Filed 9-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.