Certain Lidar (Light Detection and Ranging) Systems and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination To Review and, on Review, To Affirm With Modification an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation in Its Entirety Based on an Arbitration Agreement; Termination of Investigation, 71377-71378 [2023-22754]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 198 / Monday, October 16, 2023 / Notices
ALABAMA
Baldwin County
Jenkins Farm and House (Boundary Increase),
29040 Jenkins Farm Rd., Loxley,
BC100009548
Lowndes County
Campsite 2: Rosie Steele Property, 5892–5876
Highway 80 W, White Hall vicinity,
SG100009549
Douglas County
Lone Star Lake Civilian Conservation Corps
(CCC) Camp, (New Deal-Era Resources of
Kansas MPS), 660 E 665 Road, Lawrence
vicinity, MP100009545
WEST VIRGINIA
Morgan County
Paw Paw Old Mayor’s Office and Jail, 93 Lee
Street, Paw Paw, SG100009542
Randolph County
Davis & Elkins College Historic District
Portions of Campus Drive, Harpertown Road,
Graceland Drive, Allen Street & Residential
Drive, and College Drive, Elkins,
SG100009540
Wayne County
Stark, Henry and Julia Hoard, House, 359 B
Street, Ceredo, SG100009543
Wood County
Downtown Parkersburg Historic District,
Portions of Juliana, Market, Avery, and
Second through Eighth Streets and
Williams Court Alley and Phillips Court
Alley, Parkersburg, SG100009541
WISCONSIN
Dane County
Willard and Fern Tompkins House, 110
Henuah Circle, Monona, SG100009539
A request for removal has been made
for the following resource(s):
NORTH DAKOTA
Golden Valley County
Sentinel Butte Public School, Byron St.,
Sentinel Butte, OT82001313
Additional documentation has been
received for the following resource(s):
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
ILLINOIS
Kane County
Aurora Broadway Historic District
(Additional Documentation), Roughly
bounded by the Fox R., East New York St.,
the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe
Railroad tracks, and East Benton St.,
Aurora, AD100008483
MISSISSIPPI
Panola County
Como Commercial Historic District, (Johnson,
Andrew, Architecture in North Mississippi
Jkt 262001
Sherry A. Frear,
Chief, National Register of Historic Places/
National Historic Landmarks Program.
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P
KANSAS
17:03 Oct 13, 2023
Authority: Section 60.13 of 36 CFR
part 60.
[FR Doc. 2023–22771 Filed 10–13–23; 8:45 am]
Morgan County
Simpson’s Florist, 902 6th Avenue SE,
Decatur, SG100009550
VerDate Sep<11>2014
TR), Roughly bounded by Elder Frank
Ward St. on the W and N Main St. on the
E. On the N bounded by Church Ave.,
Como, AD08000675
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1363]
Certain Lidar (Light Detection and
Ranging) Systems and Components
Thereof; Notice of Commission
Determination To Review and, on
Review, To Affirm With Modification an
Initial Determination Terminating the
Investigation in Its Entirety Based on
an Arbitration Agreement; Termination
of Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
and, on review, to affirm with
modification an initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 10) of the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’)
granting a motion to terminate the
investigation in its entirety based upon
an arbitration agreement. The
investigation is terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Namo Kim, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3459. 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 May
17, 2023, 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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
71377
complaint filed by Ouster, Inc. of San
Francisco, CA (‘‘Ouster’’). See 88 FR
31519–20 (May 17, 2023). The
complaint alleges violations of section
337 based upon the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation,
and the sale within the United States
after importation of certain LiDAR
(Light Detection and Ranging) systems
and components thereof by reason of the
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 11,175,405; 11,178,381;
11,190,750; 11,287,515; and 11,422,236.
Id. The notice of investigation names as
respondents Hesai Group of Shanghai,
China; Hesai Technology Co., Ltd. of
Shanghai, China; and Hesai Inc. of Palo
Alto, CA (collectively, ‘‘Hesai’’). Id. The
Office of Unfair Import Investigations
(‘‘OUII’’) is also participating in this
investigation. Id.
On June 22, 2023, Hesai filed a
motion to terminate or alternatively stay
the investigation in its entirety based
upon an arbitration provision in a 2020
Litigation Settlement and Patent CrossLicense Agreement (‘‘Settlement
Agreement’’) between Hesai Photonics
Technology Co. Ltd. (‘‘Hesai Photonics,’’
a subsidiary of respondent Hesai Group)
and Velodyne Lidar, Inc. (‘‘Velodyne,’’
now merged with Ouster). On July 7,
2023, Ouster filed an opposition to the
motion and OUII filed a response in
support of the motion. On July 12, 2023,
a case management conference was held
to give each of the parties an
opportunity to discuss the motion to
terminate or stay.
On July 17, 2023, Ouster filed a
supplemental brief. On July 18, 2023,
OUII filed a sur-reply to Ouster’s
opposition. On July 20, 2023, Hesai filed
a sur-reply to Ouster’s opposition.
On August 24, 2023, the ALJ issued
the subject ID (Order No. 10) pursuant
to Commission Rule 210.21(d), 19 CFR
210.21(d), granting the motion to
terminate the investigation in its
entirety under 19 U.S.C. 1337(c) because
of an arbitration agreement. In
particular, the ID finds that (1) ‘‘a valid
arbitration agreement at ¶ 9.5 exists as
part of the Settlement Agreement that
binds Ouster and Hesai,’’ (2) ‘‘the
arbitrability of the dispute between
Ouster and Hesai . . . rests with
[Judicial Arbitration and Mediation
Services, Inc.], London,’’ and (3) ‘‘Hesai
did not waive its right to arbitrate as
Ouster argues.’’ See ID at 4.
On August 31, 2023, Ouster filed a
petition for review of the ID with the
Commission. On September 8, 2023,
Hesai and OUII filed their responses to
Ouster’s petition.
On September 12, 2023, Ouster filed
a notice of recent developments
explaining that, on September 5, 2023,
E:\FR\FM\16OCN1.SGM
16OCN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
71378
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 198 / Monday, October 16, 2023 / Notices
Hesai filed petitions for inter partes
review before the Patent Trial and
Appeal Board with respect to two of the
patents at issue in this investigation. On
September 14, 2023, Hesai and OUII
filed their responses to Ouster’s notice
of recent developments.
The Commission has determined to
review and, on review, to affirm the
subject ID with modification. In
particular, the Commission strikes the
‘‘wholly groundless’’ legal standard
discussion and analysis at pages 11–12
and 16 of the subject ID, including the
following statements: (1) ‘‘[T]he ALJ
then must make a secondary inquiry to
determine whether the assertion of
arbitrability is ‘wholly groundless.’ If it
is determined that the assertion of
arbitrability is not ‘wholly groundless.’ ’’
ID at 11. (2) ‘‘Therefore, Hesai’s claim
for arbitration is not ‘wholly
groundless.’ ’’ ID at 11–12. (3) ‘‘In other
words, the demand for arbitration is ‘not
wholly groundless.’ ’’ ID at 16. The
Supreme Court previously overruled the
‘‘wholly groundless’’ exception, holding
that ‘‘[w]hen the parties’ contract
delegates the arbitrability question to an
arbitrator, a court may not override the
contract . . . even if the court thinks
that the argument that the arbitration
agreement applies to a particular
dispute is wholly groundless . . . In
sum, we reject the ‘wholly groundless’
exception.’’ Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer
& White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524, 529–
31 (2019).
The Commission also addresses a
typographical error at page 10 of the
subject ID by modifying ‘‘See id. at
¶ 9.5’’ to state ‘‘See id. at ¶ 9.4.’’ This is
a citation for the sentence in the subject
ID that states ‘‘[t]he Choice of Law for
purposes of construing the Settlement
Agreement is designated as California
law,’’ and Section 9.4 of the Settlement
Agreement on ‘‘Governing Law’’ is the
section that determines the choice of
law for the Settlement Agreement.
With regard to Ouster’s notice of
recent developments, the Commission
finds that, under the facts of this
investigation, Hesai’s separately filed
inter partes review petitions do not
prevent the Commission from
determining that the investigation must
be terminated in favor of arbitration.
The Commission also notes that the
Settlement Agreement provides that
‘‘either Party shall have the right to
challenge the validity and enforceability
of any Patent in defense to a suit or
assertion of a claim relating to any such
Patent that is brought against a Party or
alleging infringement by a Licensee
Product or a Velodyne Product.’’
Settlement Agreement section 3.4
(‘‘Contesting Validity’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Oct 13, 2023
Jkt 262001
The investigation is terminated.
The Commission vote for this
determination took place on October 10,
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: October 11, 2023.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023–22754 Filed 10–13–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
and downloaded at this Justice
Department website: https://
www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees.
We will provide a paper copy of the
consent decree upon written request
and payment of reproduction costs.
Please mail your request and payment
to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—
ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC
20044–7611.
Please enclose a check or money order
for $3.75 (25 cents per page
reproduction cost) payable to the United
States Treasury.
Patricia McKenna,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental
Enforcement Section, Environment and
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2023–22775 Filed 10–13–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Proposed
Consent Decree Under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA)
On October 10, 2023, the Department
of Justice lodged a proposed Consent
Decree with the United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska in the
lawsuit entitled United States of
America v. Dravo Corp., et al., Civ. No.
8:01–cv–00500–JFB–TBT (D. Neb.).
The proposed consent decree resolves
claims against Desco Corporation
pursuant to section 107(a) CERCLA for
response costs incurred and to be
incurred by EPA for Operable Unit 01 of
the Hastings Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Site and
requires the Defendant to make a
payment of $131,067 to EPA.
The publication of this notice opens
a period for public comment on the
consent decree. Comments should be
addressed to the Assistant Attorney
General, Environment and Natural
Resources Division, and should refer to
United States of America v. Dravo
Corp., et al., D.J. Ref. No. 90–11–2–
1260/10. All comments must be
submitted no later than thirty (30) days
after the publication date of this notice.
Comments may be submitted either by
email or by mail:
To submit
comments:
Send them to:
By email .......
pubcomment-ees.enrd@
usdoj.gov.
Assistant Attorney General,
U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O.
Box 7611, Washington, DC
20044–7611.
By mail .........
During the public comment period,
the consent decree may be examined
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Senior Executive Service; Appointment
of Members to the Performance
Review Board
Title 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4) provides that
Notice of the Appointment of the
individual to serve as a member of the
Performance Review Board of the Senior
Executive Service shall be published in
the Federal Register.
The following individuals are hereby
appointed to serve on the Department’s
Performance Review Board:
Permanent Membership
Chair—Nikki McKinney, Associate
Deputy Secretary
Vice-Chair—Carolyn AngusHornbuckle, Assistant Secretary for
Administration and Management
Alternate Vice-Chair—Sydney Rose,
Chief Human Capital Officer
Rotating Membership—Appointments
Expire on 09/30/26
BLS Tony Williams, Associate
Commissioner for Technology and
Survey Processing
EBSA Amber Rivers, Director of
Health Plan Standards and
Compliance Assistance
ETA Nicholas Lalpuis, Regional
Administrator, Dallas
ILAB Molly McCoy, Associate Deputy
Undersecretary
MSHA Brian Goepfert, Administrator
for Mine Safety and Health
Enforcement
OASAM Carl Campbell, Senior
Procurement Executive
ODEP Jennifer Sheehy, Deputy
Assistant Secretary
E:\FR\FM\16OCN1.SGM
16OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71377-71378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22754]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1363]
Certain Lidar (Light Detection and Ranging) Systems and
Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination To Review and,
on Review, To Affirm With Modification an Initial Determination
Terminating the Investigation in Its Entirety Based on an Arbitration
Agreement; Termination of Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review and, on review, to affirm with
modification an initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 10) of the
presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') granting a motion to
terminate the investigation in its entirety based upon an arbitration
agreement. The investigation is terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Namo Kim, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3459. 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 May 17, 2023, 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 Ouster, Inc. of San Francisco, CA (``Ouster''). See 88 FR 31519-20
(May 17, 2023). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based
upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation,
and the sale within the United States after importation of certain
LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) systems and components thereof by
reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
11,175,405; 11,178,381; 11,190,750; 11,287,515; and 11,422,236. Id. The
notice of investigation names as respondents Hesai Group of Shanghai,
China; Hesai Technology Co., Ltd. of Shanghai, China; and Hesai Inc. of
Palo Alto, CA (collectively, ``Hesai''). Id. The Office of Unfair
Import Investigations (``OUII'') is also participating in this
investigation. Id.
On June 22, 2023, Hesai filed a motion to terminate or
alternatively stay the investigation in its entirety based upon an
arbitration provision in a 2020 Litigation Settlement and Patent Cross-
License Agreement (``Settlement Agreement'') between Hesai Photonics
Technology Co. Ltd. (``Hesai Photonics,'' a subsidiary of respondent
Hesai Group) and Velodyne Lidar, Inc. (``Velodyne,'' now merged with
Ouster). On July 7, 2023, Ouster filed an opposition to the motion and
OUII filed a response in support of the motion. On July 12, 2023, a
case management conference was held to give each of the parties an
opportunity to discuss the motion to terminate or stay.
On July 17, 2023, Ouster filed a supplemental brief. On July 18,
2023, OUII filed a sur-reply to Ouster's opposition. On July 20, 2023,
Hesai filed a sur-reply to Ouster's opposition.
On August 24, 2023, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 10)
pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(d), 19 CFR 210.21(d), granting the
motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety under 19 U.S.C.
1337(c) because of an arbitration agreement. In particular, the ID
finds that (1) ``a valid arbitration agreement at ] 9.5 exists as part
of the Settlement Agreement that binds Ouster and Hesai,'' (2) ``the
arbitrability of the dispute between Ouster and Hesai . . . rests with
[Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc.], London,'' and (3)
``Hesai did not waive its right to arbitrate as Ouster argues.'' See ID
at 4.
On August 31, 2023, Ouster filed a petition for review of the ID
with the Commission. On September 8, 2023, Hesai and OUII filed their
responses to Ouster's petition.
On September 12, 2023, Ouster filed a notice of recent developments
explaining that, on September 5, 2023,
[[Page 71378]]
Hesai filed petitions for inter partes review before the Patent Trial
and Appeal Board with respect to two of the patents at issue in this
investigation. On September 14, 2023, Hesai and OUII filed their
responses to Ouster's notice of recent developments.
The Commission has determined to review and, on review, to affirm
the subject ID with modification. In particular, the Commission strikes
the ``wholly groundless'' legal standard discussion and analysis at
pages 11-12 and 16 of the subject ID, including the following
statements: (1) ``[T]he ALJ then must make a secondary inquiry to
determine whether the assertion of arbitrability is `wholly
groundless.' If it is determined that the assertion of arbitrability is
not `wholly groundless.' '' ID at 11. (2) ``Therefore, Hesai's claim
for arbitration is not `wholly groundless.' '' ID at 11-12. (3) ``In
other words, the demand for arbitration is `not wholly groundless.' ''
ID at 16. The Supreme Court previously overruled the ``wholly
groundless'' exception, holding that ``[w]hen the parties' contract
delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, a court may not
override the contract . . . even if the court thinks that the argument
that the arbitration agreement applies to a particular dispute is
wholly groundless . . . In sum, we reject the `wholly groundless'
exception.'' Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S.
Ct. 524, 529-31 (2019).
The Commission also addresses a typographical error at page 10 of
the subject ID by modifying ``See id. at ] 9.5'' to state ``See id. at
] 9.4.'' This is a citation for the sentence in the subject ID that
states ``[t]he Choice of Law for purposes of construing the Settlement
Agreement is designated as California law,'' and Section 9.4 of the
Settlement Agreement on ``Governing Law'' is the section that
determines the choice of law for the Settlement Agreement.
With regard to Ouster's notice of recent developments, the
Commission finds that, under the facts of this investigation, Hesai's
separately filed inter partes review petitions do not prevent the
Commission from determining that the investigation must be terminated
in favor of arbitration. The Commission also notes that the Settlement
Agreement provides that ``either Party shall have the right to
challenge the validity and enforceability of any Patent in defense to a
suit or assertion of a claim relating to any such Patent that is
brought against a Party or alleging infringement by a Licensee Product
or a Velodyne Product.'' Settlement Agreement section 3.4 (``Contesting
Validity'').
The investigation is terminated.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on October
10, 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: October 11, 2023.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-22754 Filed 10-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
