Certain Video Security Equipment and Systems, Related Software, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice of a Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions on Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding; Extension of Target Date, 3435-3437 [2023-00907]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2023 / Notices
such as embarrassment, injury, or other
harm.
Even if BOEM withholds your
information in the context of its BAP
modification process, your submission
is subject to FOIA, and if your
submission is requested under FOIA,
your information will be withheld only
if a determination is made that one of
FOIA’s exemptions to disclosure
applies. Such a determination will be
made in accordance with the
Department’s FOIA regulations and
applicable law.
BOEM will make available for public
inspection, in their entirety, all
comments submitted by organizations
and businesses, or by individuals
identifying themselves as
representatives of organizations or
businesses.
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.
(Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as
amended) and 30 CFR part 556.
Amanda Lefton,
Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1281]
Certain Video Security Equipment and
Systems, Related Software,
Components Thereof, and Products
Containing Same; Notice of a
Commission Determination To Review
in Part a Final Initial Determination
Finding a Violation of Section 337;
Request for Written Submissions on
Issues Under Review and on Remedy,
the Public Interest, and Bonding;
Extension of Target Date
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in part a final initial determination
(‘‘FID’’) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’),
finding a violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, in the
above-captioned investigation. The
Commission requests briefing from the
parties on certain issues under review,
as indicated in this notice. The
Commission also requests written
submissions from the parties, interested
government agencies, and interested
persons on the issues of remedy, the
public interest, and bonding. The
Commission has further determined to
extend the target date in the abovecaptioned investigation to March 23,
2023.
SUMMARY:
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[USITC SE–23–005]
Sunshine Act Meetings
United
States International Trade Commission.
TIME AND DATE: January 23, 2023 at 11:00
a.m.
PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, Telephone:
(202) 205–2000.
STATUS: Open to the public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1. Agendas for future meetings: none.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Commission vote on Inv. Nos. 731–
TA–1578–1579 (Final)(Lemon Juice
from Brazil and South Africa). The
Commission currently is scheduled to
complete and file its determinations and
views of the Commission on February 2,
2023.
5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Tyrell Burch, Management Analyst,
202–205–2595.
The Commission is holding the
meeting under the Government in the
Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b). In
accordance with Commission policy,
subject matter listed above, not disposed
of at the scheduled meeting, may be
carried over to the agenda of the
following meeting.
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
BILLING CODE 4340–98–P
17:49 Jan 18, 2023
[FR Doc. 2023–01104 Filed 1–17–23; 4:15 pm]
AGENCY:
[FR Doc. 2023–00842 Filed 1–18–23; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
By order of the Commission.
Issued: January 17, 2023.
Katherine Hiner,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
Jkt 259001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lynde Herzbach, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3228. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3435
Commission’s TDD terminal on (202)
205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
September 14, 2021, the Commission
instituted this investigation under
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section
337’’), based on a complaint filed by
Motorola Solutions, Inc. of Chicago,
Illinois (‘‘Motorola Solutions’’);
Avigilon Corporation of British
Columbia, Canada; Avigilon Fortress
Corporation of British Columbia,
Canada; Avigilon Patent Holding 1
Corporation of British Columbia,
Canada (‘‘Avigilon Patent Holding’’);
and Avigilon Technologies Corporation
of British Columbia, Canada
(collectively, ‘‘Complainants’’). See 86
FR 51182–83 (Sept. 14, 2021). The
complaint alleges a violation of section
337 based upon the importation into the
United States, sale for importation, or
sale after importation into the United
States of certain video security
equipment and systems, related
software, components thereof, and
products containing same by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 7,868,912 (‘‘the ’912
patent’’); 10,726,312 (‘‘the ’312 patent’’);
and 8,508,607 (‘‘the ’607 patent’’)
(collectively, ‘‘the Asserted Patents’’).
Id. The complaint further alleges that a
domestic industry exists. Id. The notice
of investigation (‘‘NOI’’) names Verkada
Inc. of San Mateo, California as the only
respondent. Id.
The complaint and NOI were
previously amended to reflect the
transfer of all right, title, and interest in:
(1) the ’312 patent from Avigilon
Corporation to Motorola Solutions; (2)
the ’912 patent from Avigilon Fortress
Corporation to Motorola Solutions; and
(3) the ’607 patent from Avigilon Patent
Holding to Motorola Solutions. Order
No. 7 (Dec. 28, 2021), unreviewed by 87
FR 4658–59 (Jan. 28, 2022). The
complaint and NOI were further
amended to add a new licensee,
Avigilon USA Corporation of Dallas,
Texas, as an additional complainant. Id.
The Commission previously
terminated the investigation as to claims
4 and 10–12 of the ’312 patent based on
Complainants’ partial withdrawal of the
complaint. Order No. 58 (June 14, 2022),
unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (June 30,
2022). The Commission also previously
terminated the investigation as to claims
6, 15, 25, and 26 of the ’607 patent
based on Complainants’ partial
withdrawal of the complaint. Order No.
59 (July 13, 2022), unreviewed by
Comm’n Notice (Aug. 4, 2022).
On October 24, 2022, the presiding
ALJ issued the FID, finding that a
E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM
19JAN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3436
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2023 / Notices
violation of section 337 has occurred in
the importation into the United States,
the sale for importation, or the sale
within the United States after
importation, of certain video security
equipment and systems, related
software, components thereof, and
products containing same that infringe
claims 6–11 of the ’912 patent. The FID
further finds no violation of section 337
with respect to the remaining asserted
claims of the ’912 patent, or as to the
’312 patent or the ’607 patent. The FID
includes the ALJ’s recommended
determination on remedy, the public
interest, and bonding should the
Commission find a violation of section
337.
On November 7, 2022, Complainants
filed a contingent petition requesting
review of the FID’s findings of noninfringement as to asserted claims 1–4,
12–22, 26–28, 30 of the ’912 patent, the
asserted claims of the ’312 patent, and
the asserted claims of the ’607 patent, as
well as Verkada’s proposed redesigns.
That same day, respondent Verkada
filed a combined petition and
contingent petition requesting review of
the FID’s findings that the accused
products include an imported ‘‘article’’
that infringes asserted claims 6–11 of
the ’912 patent, certain accused
products infringe asserted claims 6–11
of the ’912 patent, and asserted claims
6–11 of the ’912 patent are not
anticipated or rendered obvious by the
prior art. Verkada also seeks contingent
review of the FID’s findings that the
accused products include an imported
‘‘article’’ that infringes claims 24–25,
27–28, 32–33, and 35–36 of the ’912
patent; additional non-infringement
bases for the asserted claims of the ’912
patent; claims 1–4 and 12–36 of the ’912
patent are not anticipated or rendered
obvious by the asserted prior art; claims
1, 5, 6, 9, 13, and 16 of the ’312 patent
are not anticipated or rendered obvious
by the asserted prior art; additional noninfringement bases for the asserted
claims of the ’607 patent; and claims 1–
4, 7, 10–13, 16, 19–21, and 29 of the
’607 patent are not rendered obvious by
the asserted prior art. On November 15,
2022, Complainants and Verkada filed
their respective responses to the
petitions for review.
On November 23, 2022, Complainants
and Verkada each filed a submission on
the public interest pursuant to
Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4) (19 CFR
210.50(a)(4)). No submissions were
received in response to the Commission
notice seeking public interest
submissions. 87 FR 65827–28 (Nov. 1,
2022).
Having reviewed the record of the
investigation, including the FID, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:49 Jan 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
parties’ submissions to the ALJ, the
petitions for review, and the responses
thereto, the Commission has determined
to review the FID in part. Specifically,
the Commission has determined to
review: (1) the FID’s findings regarding
‘‘subject matter jurisdiction’’; (2) the
FID’s findings that certain accused
products infringe claims 6–11 of the
’912 patent and finding a violation of
section 337 as to those claims; and (3)
the FID’s finding that asserted claims 6–
11 of the ’912 patent are not invalid as
anticipated or obvious. The Commission
has determined not to review any other
findings presented in the FID.
The Commission has also determined
to extend the target date for completing
this investigation to March 23, 2023.
In connection with its review, the
Commission requests responses to the
following questions. The parties are
requested to brief their positions with
reference to the applicable law and the
existing evidentiary record.
1. Please address whether, under the
framework set forth by Commissioner
Kearns in his Additional Views in
Certain High-Density Fiber Optic
Equipment and Components Thereof,
Inv. No. 337–TA–1194, Comm’n Op. at
98–104 (Aug. 3, 2021), Verkada’s
imported cameras should be considered
‘‘articles that infringe’’ for purposes of
finding a violation of section 337 by
Verkada’s direct infringement of claims
6–11 of the ‘912 patent.
2. Regarding claims 6–11 of the ’912
patent, given the uncontested claim
constructions and differences between
claim 1 and claims 6–11, please address
whether the existing evidentiary record
supports the FID’s finding that ‘‘Event
Detection and Analysis from Video
Streams’’ by Medioni et al., published in
the IEEE Transactions on Pattern
Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol.
23, No. 8 in August 2001 (RX–302) does
not disclose either (1) a processor that
receives detected/determined attributes
over a communications channel, or (2)
attributes which are independent of
events. Please also address whether the
differences between claim 1 and claims
6–11 affect the anticipation analysis,
and if so, please explain how.
3. Please provide a status update
regarding which of the adjudicated
design(s) and/or redesign(s) are
currently implemented in the accused
products that are being sold or offered
for sale by Verkada. In addition, please
address whether, if the Commission
finds a violation as to only the accused
products that the FID finds infringing
with respect to claims 6–11 of the ‘912
patent, a consent order could resolve the
parties’ remaining issues with respect to
that patent.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The parties are invited to brief only
these discrete issues for the specific
claims identified. The parties are not to
brief other issues on review, which are
adequately presented in the parties’
existing filings.
In connection with the final
disposition of this investigation, the
statute authorizes issuance of, inter alia,
(1) an exclusion order that could result
in the exclusion of the subject articles
from entry into the United States; and/
or (2) a cease and desist order that could
result in the respondent being required
to cease and desist from engaging in
unfair acts in the importation and sale
of such articles. Accordingly, the
Commission is interested in receiving
written submissions that address the
form of remedy, if any, that should be
ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an
article from entry into the United States
for purposes other than entry for
consumption, the party should so
indicate and provide information
establishing that activities involving
other types of entry either are adversely
affecting it or likely to do so. For
background, see Certain Devices for
Connecting Computers via Telephone
Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC
Pub. No. 2843, Comm’n Op. at 7–10
(Dec. 1994).
The statute requires the Commission
to consider the effects of that remedy
upon the public interest. The public
interest factors the Commission will
consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and a 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 determination. 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.
E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM
19JAN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2023 / Notices
Written Submissions: The parties to
the investigation are requested to file
written submissions on the issues
identified in this notice. Parties to the
investigation, interested government
agencies, and any other interested
parties are encouraged to file written
submissions on the issues of remedy,
the public interest, and bonding. Such
submissions should address the
recommended determination by the ALJ
on remedy and bonding.
In their initial submission,
Complainants are also requested to
identify the remedy sought and
Complainants are requested to submit
proposed remedial orders for the
Commission’s consideration.
Complainants are further requested to
state the dates that the Asserted Patents
expire, to provide the HTSUS
subheadings under which the accused
products are imported, and to supply
the identification information for all
known importers of the products at
issue in this investigation. The initial
written submissions and proposed
remedial orders must be filed no later
than close of business on January 27,
2023. Reply submissions must be filed
no later than the close of business on
February 3, 2023. No further
submissions on these issues will be
permitted unless otherwise ordered by
the Commission. 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
(March 19, 2020). Submissions should
refer to the investigation number (Inv.
No. 337–TA–1281) in a prominent place
on the cover page and/or the 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. Any non-party
wishing to submit comments containing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:49 Jan 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
confidential information must serve
those comments on the parties to the
investigation pursuant to the applicable
Administrative Protective Order. A
redacted non-confidential version of the
document must also be filed with the
Commission and served on any parties
to the investigation within two business
days of any confidential filing. All
information, including confidential
business information and documents for
which confidential treatment is properly
sought, submitted to the Commission for
purposes of this investigation may be
disclosed to and used: (i) by the
Commission, its employees and Offices,
and contract personnel (a) for
developing or maintaining the records
of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in
internal investigations, audits, reviews,
and evaluations relating to the
programs, personnel, and operations of
the Commission including under 5
U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S.
government employees and contract
personnel, solely for cybersecurity
purposes. All contract personnel will
sign appropriate nondisclosure
agreements. All nonconfidential written
submissions will be available for public
inspection on EDIS.
The Commission vote for this
determination took place on January 12,
2023.
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: January 12, 2023.
Katherine M. Hiner,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023–00907 Filed 1–18–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1270]
Certain Casual Footwear and
Packaging Thereof; Notice of Request
for Submissions on the Public Interest
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that on
January 9, 2023, the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued
a combined Initial Determination on
Violation of Section 337 and
Recommended Determination on
Remedy and Bond (‘‘RD’’) in this
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3437
investigation. The Commission is
soliciting submissions on public interest
issues raised by the recommended relief
should the Commission find a violation.
This notice is soliciting comments from
the public only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl
P. Bretscher, 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 system
(‘‘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: Section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides
that, if the Commission finds a
violation, it shall exclude the articles
concerned from the United States:
unless, after considering the effect of
such exclusion upon the public health
and welfare, competitive conditions in
the United States economy, the
production of like or directly
competitive articles in the United
States, and United States consumers, it
finds that such articles should not be
excluded from entry.
19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1). A similar
provision applies to cease and desist
orders. 19 U.S.C. 1337(f)(1).
The Commission is soliciting
submissions on public interest issues
raised by the recommended relief
should the Commission find a violation,
specifically: (1) a general exclusion
order excluding imports of all infringing
products, regardless of the source of the
infringing products; (2) a limited
exclusion order excluding importation
of certain casual footwear and packaging
thereof that are sold for importation into
the United States or sold in the United
States after importation by respondents
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (‘‘Hobby
Lobby’’); Quanzhou ZhengDe Network
Corp. d/b/a/Amoji (‘‘Amoji’’); and Orly
Shoe Corp. (‘‘Orly’’); and (3) cease and
desist orders directed to respondents
Hobby Lobby, Amoji, and Orly. Parties
are to file public interest submissions
pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4).
The Commission is interested in
further development of the record on
the public interest in this investigation.
Accordingly, members of the public are
E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM
19JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3435-3437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00907]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1281]
Certain Video Security Equipment and Systems, Related Software,
Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice of a
Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial
Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Request for Written
Submissions on Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest,
and Bonding; Extension of Target Date
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review in part a final initial
determination (``FID'') issued by the presiding administrative law
judge (``ALJ''), finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended, in the above-captioned investigation. The
Commission requests briefing from the parties on certain issues under
review, as indicated in this notice. The Commission also requests
written submissions from the parties, interested government agencies,
and interested persons on the issues of remedy, the public interest,
and bonding. The Commission has further determined to extend the target
date in the above-captioned investigation to March 23, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynde Herzbach, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3228. 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 September 14, 2021, the Commission
instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''), based on a
complaint filed by Motorola Solutions, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois
(``Motorola Solutions''); Avigilon Corporation of British Columbia,
Canada; Avigilon Fortress Corporation of British Columbia, Canada;
Avigilon Patent Holding 1 Corporation of British Columbia, Canada
(``Avigilon Patent Holding''); and Avigilon Technologies Corporation of
British Columbia, Canada (collectively, ``Complainants''). See 86 FR
51182-83 (Sept. 14, 2021). The complaint alleges a violation of section
337 based upon the importation into the United States, sale for
importation, or sale after importation into the United States of
certain video security equipment and systems, related software,
components thereof, and products containing same by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,868,912 (``the
'912 patent''); 10,726,312 (``the '312 patent''); and 8,508,607 (``the
'607 patent'') (collectively, ``the Asserted Patents''). Id. The
complaint further alleges that a domestic industry exists. Id. The
notice of investigation (``NOI'') names Verkada Inc. of San Mateo,
California as the only respondent. Id.
The complaint and NOI were previously amended to reflect the
transfer of all right, title, and interest in: (1) the '312 patent from
Avigilon Corporation to Motorola Solutions; (2) the '912 patent from
Avigilon Fortress Corporation to Motorola Solutions; and (3) the '607
patent from Avigilon Patent Holding to Motorola Solutions. Order No. 7
(Dec. 28, 2021), unreviewed by 87 FR 4658-59 (Jan. 28, 2022). The
complaint and NOI were further amended to add a new licensee, Avigilon
USA Corporation of Dallas, Texas, as an additional complainant. Id.
The Commission previously terminated the investigation as to claims
4 and 10-12 of the '312 patent based on Complainants' partial
withdrawal of the complaint. Order No. 58 (June 14, 2022), unreviewed
by Comm'n Notice (June 30, 2022). The Commission also previously
terminated the investigation as to claims 6, 15, 25, and 26 of the '607
patent based on Complainants' partial withdrawal of the complaint.
Order No. 59 (July 13, 2022), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Aug. 4,
2022).
On October 24, 2022, the presiding ALJ issued the FID, finding that
a
[[Page 3436]]
violation of section 337 has occurred in the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United
States after importation, of certain video security equipment and
systems, related software, components thereof, and products containing
same that infringe claims 6-11 of the '912 patent. The FID further
finds no violation of section 337 with respect to the remaining
asserted claims of the '912 patent, or as to the '312 patent or the
'607 patent. The FID includes the ALJ's recommended determination on
remedy, the public interest, and bonding should the Commission find a
violation of section 337.
On November 7, 2022, Complainants filed a contingent petition
requesting review of the FID's findings of non-infringement as to
asserted claims 1-4, 12-22, 26-28, 30 of the '912 patent, the asserted
claims of the '312 patent, and the asserted claims of the '607 patent,
as well as Verkada's proposed redesigns. That same day, respondent
Verkada filed a combined petition and contingent petition requesting
review of the FID's findings that the accused products include an
imported ``article'' that infringes asserted claims 6-11 of the '912
patent, certain accused products infringe asserted claims 6-11 of the
'912 patent, and asserted claims 6-11 of the '912 patent are not
anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art. Verkada also seeks
contingent review of the FID's findings that the accused products
include an imported ``article'' that infringes claims 24-25, 27-28, 32-
33, and 35-36 of the '912 patent; additional non-infringement bases for
the asserted claims of the '912 patent; claims 1-4 and 12-36 of the
'912 patent are not anticipated or rendered obvious by the asserted
prior art; claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 13, and 16 of the '312 patent are not
anticipated or rendered obvious by the asserted prior art; additional
non-infringement bases for the asserted claims of the '607 patent; and
claims 1-4, 7, 10-13, 16, 19-21, and 29 of the '607 patent are not
rendered obvious by the asserted prior art. On November 15, 2022,
Complainants and Verkada filed their respective responses to the
petitions for review.
On November 23, 2022, Complainants and Verkada each filed a
submission on the public interest pursuant to Commission Rule
210.50(a)(4) (19 CFR 210.50(a)(4)). No submissions were received in
response to the Commission notice seeking public interest submissions.
87 FR 65827-28 (Nov. 1, 2022).
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the FID,
the parties' submissions to the ALJ, the petitions for review, and the
responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the FID in
part. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review: (1) the
FID's findings regarding ``subject matter jurisdiction''; (2) the FID's
findings that certain accused products infringe claims 6-11 of the '912
patent and finding a violation of section 337 as to those claims; and
(3) the FID's finding that asserted claims 6-11 of the '912 patent are
not invalid as anticipated or obvious. The Commission has determined
not to review any other findings presented in the FID.
The Commission has also determined to extend the target date for
completing this investigation to March 23, 2023.
In connection with its review, the Commission requests responses to
the following questions. The parties are requested to brief their
positions with reference to the applicable law and the existing
evidentiary record.
1. Please address whether, under the framework set forth by
Commissioner Kearns in his Additional Views in Certain High-Density
Fiber Optic Equipment and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1194,
Comm'n Op. at 98-104 (Aug. 3, 2021), Verkada's imported cameras should
be considered ``articles that infringe'' for purposes of finding a
violation of section 337 by Verkada's direct infringement of claims 6-
11 of the `912 patent.
2. Regarding claims 6-11 of the '912 patent, given the uncontested
claim constructions and differences between claim 1 and claims 6-11,
please address whether the existing evidentiary record supports the
FID's finding that ``Event Detection and Analysis from Video Streams''
by Medioni et al., published in the IEEE Transactions on Pattern
Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 23, No. 8 in August 2001 (RX-
302) does not disclose either (1) a processor that receives detected/
determined attributes over a communications channel, or (2) attributes
which are independent of events. Please also address whether the
differences between claim 1 and claims 6-11 affect the anticipation
analysis, and if so, please explain how.
3. Please provide a status update regarding which of the
adjudicated design(s) and/or redesign(s) are currently implemented in
the accused products that are being sold or offered for sale by
Verkada. In addition, please address whether, if the Commission finds a
violation as to only the accused products that the FID finds infringing
with respect to claims 6-11 of the `912 patent, a consent order could
resolve the parties' remaining issues with respect to that patent.
The parties are invited to brief only these discrete issues for the
specific claims identified. The parties are not to brief other issues
on review, which are adequately presented in the parties' existing
filings.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
statute authorizes issuance of, inter alia, (1) an exclusion order that
could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into
the United States; and/or (2) a cease and desist order that could
result in the respondent being required to cease and desist from
engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles.
Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written
submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be
ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the
United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party
should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities
involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or
likely to do so. For background, see Certain Devices for Connecting
Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No.
2843, Comm'n Op. at 7-10 (Dec. 1994).
The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of that
remedy upon the public interest. The public interest factors the
Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and
a 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 determination. 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.
[[Page 3437]]
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the issues identified in this notice.
Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any
other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on
the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such
submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on
remedy and bonding.
In their initial submission, Complainants are also requested to
identify the remedy sought and Complainants are requested to submit
proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration.
Complainants are further requested to state the dates that the Asserted
Patents expire, to provide the HTSUS subheadings under which the
accused products are imported, and to supply the identification
information for all known importers of the products at issue in this
investigation. The initial written submissions and proposed remedial
orders must be filed no later than close of business on January 27,
2023. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of
business on February 3, 2023. No further submissions on these issues
will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. 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 (March 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to the
investigation number (Inv. No. 337-TA-1281) in a prominent place on the
cover page and/or the 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. Any non-
party wishing to submit comments containing confidential information
must serve those comments on the parties to the investigation pursuant
to the applicable Administrative Protective Order. A redacted non-
confidential version of the document must also be filed with the
Commission and served on any parties to the investigation within two
business days of any confidential filing. All information, including
confidential business information and documents for which confidential
treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes
of this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the
Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for
developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding,
or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations
relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission
including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government
employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes.
All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.
All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public
inspection on EDIS.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on January
12, 2023.
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: January 12, 2023.
Katherine M. Hiner,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-00907 Filed 1-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
