Certain Integrated Circuits, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination; Request for Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review, Remedy, Bond, and the Public Interest, 51366-51370 [2024-13218]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
51366
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 2024 / Notices
complainant requests that the
Commission issue a general exclusion
order, cease and desist orders, and
impose a bond upon respondent alleged
infringing articles during the 60-day
Presidential review period pursuant to
19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other
interested parties, and members of the
public are invited to file comments on
any public interest issues raised by the
complaint or § 210.8(b) filing.
Comments should address whether
issuance of the relief specifically
requested by the complainant in this
investigation would affect the public
health and welfare in the United States,
competitive conditions in the United
States economy, the production of like
or directly competitive articles in the
United States, or United States
consumers.
In particular, the Commission is
interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially
subject to the requested remedial orders
are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety,
or welfare concerns in the United States
relating to the requested remedial
orders;
(iii) identify like or directly
competitive articles that complainant,
its licensees, or third parties make in the
United States which could replace the
subject articles if they were to be
excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant,
complainant’s licensees, and/or third
party suppliers have the capacity to
replace the volume of articles
potentially subject to the requested
exclusion order and/or a cease and
desist order within a commercially
reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested
remedial orders would impact United
States consumers.
Written submissions on the public
interest must be filed no later than by
close of business, eight calendar days
after the date of publication of this
notice in the Federal Register. There
will be further opportunities for
comment on the public interest after the
issuance of any final initial
determination in this investigation. Any
written submissions on other issues
must also be filed by no later than the
close of business, eight calendar days
after publication of this notice in the
Federal Register. Complainant may file
replies to any written submissions no
later than three calendar days after the
date on which any initial submissions
were due, notwithstanding § 201.14(a)
of the Commission’s Rules of Practice
and Procedure. No other submissions
will be accepted, unless requested by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Jun 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
the Commission. Any submissions and
replies filed in response to this Notice
are limited to five (5) pages in length,
inclusive of attachments.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines
stated above. Submissions should refer
to the docket number (‘‘Docket No.
3754’’) in a prominent place on the
cover page and/or the first page. (See
Handbook for Electronic Filing
Procedures, Electronic Filing
Procedures 1).
Please note the Secretary’s Office will
accept only electronic filings during this
time. Filings must be made through the
Commission’s Electronic Document
Information System (EDIS, https://
edis.usitc.gov.) No in-person paperbased filings or paper copies of any
electronic filings will be accepted until
further notice. Persons with questions
regarding filing should contact the
Secretary at EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. Any
person desiring to submit a document to
the Commission in confidence must
request confidential treatment. All such
requests should be directed to the
Secretary to the Commission and must
include a full statement of the reasons
why the Commission should grant such
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. 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
personnel,2 solely for cybersecurity
purposes. All nonconfidential written
submissions will be available for public
inspection at the Office of the Secretary
and on EDIS.3
This action is taken under the
authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),
and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the
1 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures:
https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_
filing_procedures.pdf.
2 All contract personnel will sign appropriate
nondisclosure agreements.
3 Electronic Document Information System
(EDIS): https://edis.usitc.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: June 12, 2024.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024–13267 Filed 6–14–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1350]
Certain Integrated Circuits,
Components Thereof, and Products
Containing the Same; Notice of
Commission Determination To Review
in Part a Final Initial Determination;
Request for Written Submissions on
the Issues Under Review, Remedy,
Bond, and the Public Interest
International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has
determined to review in part the final
initial determination (‘‘FID’’) issued by
the presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’) in the above-captioned
investigation. The Commission is
soliciting briefing from the parties on
the issues under review, as well as
briefing from the parties, interested
government agencies, and interested
persons on 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
January 24, 2023, the Commission
instituted the present section 337
investigation based on a complaint filed
by Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
of Hsinchu, Taiwan (‘‘Realtek’’). See 88
FR 4205–06 (Jan. 24, 2023). The
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17JNN1.SGM
17JNN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 2024 / Notices
complaint, as supplemented, alleges
violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C
1337), due to the importation into the
United States, sale for importation, or
sale within the United States after
importation of certain integrated
circuits, components thereof, and
products containing the same that
infringe one or more asserted claims of
U.S. Patent Nos. 7,936,245 (‘‘the ’245
patent’’); 8,006,218 (‘‘the ’218 patent’’);
or 9,590,582 (‘‘the ’582 patent’’)
(collectively, the ‘‘Asserted Patents’’).
Id. The complaint alleges that a
domestic industry exists. Id. The notice
of investigation names Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. of Santa Clara, CA
(‘‘AMD’’) as the respondent. Id. The
Office of Unfair Import Investigations is
not participating in this investigation.
Id.
The presiding ALJ held a claim
construction (Markman) hearing on June
5, 2023. The ALJ issued the claim
construction order on July 25, 2023.
Order No. 21 (July 25, 2023).
On June 20, 2023, AMD moved to
preclude Mr. Steve Baik, Realtek’s
outside counsel, from testifying as a fact
witness in the evidentiary hearing. On
July 7, 2023, the ALJ issued Order No.
19, ordering AMD to show cause why
Winston & Strawn (‘‘Winston’’) should
not be disqualified in this investigation
due to an alleged conflict of interest.
Order No. 19 at 2 (July 7, 2023).
On August 4, 2023, the ALJ held a
teleconference with the parties
regarding Mr. Baik and Winston. On
August 17, 2023, the ALJ issued Order
No. 23, which granted AMD’s motion to
preclude Mr. Baik from testifying on
behalf of Realtek but did not disqualify
Winston. Order No. 23 at 1 (Aug. 17,
2023). On August 24, 2023, the ALJ
denied Realtek’s motions for
reconsideration and for interlocutory
review of Order No. 23. Order No. 24
(Aug. 24, 2023). On September 6, 2023,
Realtek filed a petition in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(‘‘Federal Circuit’’) seeking a writ of
mandamus to order the ALJ to vacate
the ruling striking Mr. Baik. The Federal
Circuit denied the petition on
September 25, 2023. In re Realtek
Semiconductor Corp., Appeal No. 2023–
147, On Petition and Motion (Sept. 25,
2023).
On October 16, 2023, the ALJ issued
an order regarding AMD’s motion to
sanction Realtek for failing to accurately
answer certain interrogatories and
produce relevant documents regarding
Realtek’s earlier litigations against
Avago Techns. General IP (Singapore)
Pte., Ltd and Broadcom Corp. in the
U.S. District Court for the District of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Jun 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
Delaware. Order No. 39 at 1–6 (Oct. 16,
2023). Order No. 39 determined Realtek
had engaged in sanctionable acts during
discovery, but otherwise deferred ruling
on the motion until after the evidentiary
hearing. Id.
The ALJ proceeded to hold an
evidentiary hearing from October 16–20,
2023.
On November 14, 2023, the
Commission terminated the
investigation as to claim 9 of the ’582
patent and claim 14 of the ’218 patent,
based on Realtek’s withdrawal of those
claims. Order No. 40 (Oct. 20, 2023),
unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Nov. 14,
2023).
On January 19, 2024, the presiding
ALJ issued the combined FID and
Recommended Determination on
Remedy and Bond (‘‘RD’’). The FID
finds no violation of section 337 for any
of the three patents at issue because: (i)
asserted claims 1, 2, and 8 of the ’245
patent are infringed but invalid as
anticipated; (ii) asserted claims 12, 13,
and 15–18 of the ’218 patent are
infringed but invalid as obvious; (iii)
regarding the ’582 patent, asserted
claims 1–4 are not infringed and claims
1–3 (but not claim 4) are invalid as
anticipated; and (iv) Realtek failed to
satisfy the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement for any
of the three asserted patents. FID at 252.
The FID also finds that Realtek has
satisfied the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement for each
asserted patent. Id.
The RD recommends, if the
Commission finds a violation, issuing a
limited exclusion order barring entry of
AMD products that infringe any of the
asserted claims of the ’218, ’582, or ’245
patents. Id. at 254–256. The RD also
recommends issuing a cease and desist
order directed to AMD. Id. at 256. The
RD further recommends issuing no (0%)
bond against any covered products
imported during the period of
Presidential review. Id. at 256–257.
On January 30, 2024, the Commission
issued a notice requesting submissions
on the public interest, if a violation is
found. 89 FR 5933 (Jan. 30, 2024). The
Commission did not receive any public
interest submission from the public or
any other agency in response to this
notice. Id. On February 20, 2024, AMD
filed its public interest statement,
pursuant to Commission Rule
210.50(a)(4). 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4). On
February 26, 2024, Realtek filed a
motion for leave to file its public
interest statement out of time. The
Commission denied Realtek’s motion on
the same date.
On February 2, 2024, Realtek filed a
petition for review of the FID’s findings
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51367
regarding: (i) invalidity of the ’218
patent claims; (ii) regarding the ’582
patent, non-infringement of the asserted
claims and invalidity of asserted claims
1–3; (iii) failure to satisfy the economic
prong of the domestic industry
requirement, including the ALJ’s
decision to preclude Mr. Baik from
testifying but not disqualify Winston;
and (iv) the sanction levied against
Realtek for discovery misconduct.
Realtek is not seeking review of the ’245
patent.
Also on February 2, 2024, AMD filed
a contingent petition for review of the
FID’s findings regarding: (i) for the ’218
patent, claim construction,
infringement, the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement, the
asserted claims are not invalid for lack
of written description or enablement,
and that a certain cited reference
(Jiang3) is not prior art; and (ii) for the
’582 patent, that claims 1–4 are not
invalid as anticipated by the Qualcomm
RFR6122 chip, that claim 4 is not
anticipated by the Qualcomm RBR1000
chip, and that asserted claims 1–4 of the
’582 patent are not obvious over certain
cited prior art references (including
Muh); and (iii) certain findings relating
to the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement.
On February 12, 2024, Realtek and
AMD filed their respective responses to
the opposing petitions for review.
Having reviewed the record in this
investigation, including the final ID, the
parties’ petitions, and responses thereto,
the Commission has determined to
review the FID in part with respect to
the following issues:
(A) The Commission has determined
not to review, and thereby adopts, the
FID’s findings that the asserted claims
the ’245 patent are invalid and thus
there is no violation of section 337 with
respect to that patent.
(B) With respect to the ’218 patent,
the Commission has determined to
review claim construction,
infringement, the technical prong of
domestic industry, and invalidity with
respect to the so-named Jiang, Jiang2,
and Li prior art references. The
Commission has also determined to
review whether Jiang3 is prior art to the
’218 patent. The Commission has
determined not to review the FID’s
finding that the asserted claims are not
invalid for lack of written description or
lack of enablement.
(C) With respect to the ’582 patent,
the Commission has determined to
review the FID’s construction of
‘‘capacitor component[ ] arranged
corresponding to a first region,’’ and its
findings that asserted claims 1–4 are not
infringed. The Commission has also
E:\FR\FM\17JNN1.SGM
17JNN1
51368
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 2024 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
determined to review the FID’s findings
that claims 1–3 are anticipated by the
prior art Qualcomm RBR1000
semiconductor device, but that claim 4
is not anticipated by the same device.
The Commission has also determined to
review the FID’s findings that claims 1–
4 are not anticipated by the Qualcomm
RFR6122 device. The Commission has
also determined to review the FID’s
findings that the Muh reference is not
prior art. The Commission has
determined not to review the FID’s
findings that claims 1–4 are not invalid
for lack of adequate written description.
(D) The Commission has determined
not to review the presiding ALJ’s
decisions: (i) to preclude Mr. Baik,
outside trial counsel for Realtek, from
testifying as a fact witness at the
evidentiary hearing; and (ii) not to
disqualify Winston & Strawn.
(E) The Commission has determined
to review the FID’s findings that Realtek
has failed to satisfy the economic prong
of the domestic industry requirement.
(F) The Commission has determined
to review the sanction award against
Realtek.
The parties are asked to provide
additional briefing on the following
issues under review:
A. The ’218 Patent
(1) With respect to claim 12,
limitations 12[e] and [f] of the ’218
patent, explain whether these
limitations allow both horizontal power
supply wires and vertical power supply
wires of the claimed ‘‘global power
mesh’’ to be on the same metal layer and
identify the intrinsic evidence in
support. With respect to each of the
accused AMD products, the asserted
domestic industry products, and the
asserted prior art references, explain
whether the ‘‘global power mesh’’
includes: (i) at least one metal layer in
which all of the power supply wires on
that metal layer are horizontal; and (ii)
at least a second, different metal layer
in which all of the power supply wires
on that layer are vertical.
(2) With respect to limitations 12[a]–
[c], explain how the intrinsic evidence
distinguishes a ‘‘first [partial] local
power mesh’’ from a ‘‘second [partial]
local power mesh,’’ and how it
distinguishes a ‘‘global power mesh’’
from two local power meshes, e.g.,
whether those different local power
meshes must be insulated from each
other, comprise different wire networks,
or have different power levels. With
respect to each accused AMD product,
asserted domestic industry product, and
asserted prior art reference, explain
whether that product or reference
discloses two or more local power
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Jun 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
meshes and how it distinguishes a
‘‘global power mesh’’ from two local
power meshes. In particular, explain on
what basis the images relied upon in the
final initial determination identify two
partial meshes vs. a single global power
mesh. See FID at 109–10; see also id. at
117–18.
(3) With respect to limitations 12[a]–
[c], explain how the intrinsic evidence
distinguishes a ‘‘first power domain’’
from a ‘‘second power domain,’’ e.g.,
whether those different power domains
must be insulated from each other or
have different power requirements,
either temporarily or at all times. With
respect to each accused AMD product,
asserted domestic industry product, and
asserted prior art reference, explain
whether that product or reference
discloses two or more power domains
that are distinguished by that feature.
(4) Explain whether the intrinsic
evidence supports or precludes reading
the limitation ‘‘provide the power
needed’’ recited in limitation 12[c] to
include zero power, or zero voltage.
Assuming arguendo that ‘‘power’’ could
include zero power or zero voltage,
explain whether this construction
impacts the FID’s findings on
infringement, the technical prong of
domestic industry, or invalidity.
(5) Explain whether or how claims
15–18 of the ’582 patent can be invalid
over Li with Jiang (as defined in the
FID) but not over Jiang with Li.
(6) Explain whether there is any
evidence to rebut Dr. Hall-Ellis’
testimony that the so-called Jiang3
reference was publicly available prior to
November 15, 2007, or that Jiang3 is not
prior art to the ’218 patent. Explain how
Jiang3 relates to Jiang and Jiang2 and
whether it contributes to the issue of
obviousness.
(7) Explain whether Complainant has
challenged the prior art status of Jiang3
in the currently pending proceeding
concerning the ’218 patent before the
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
(‘‘PTAB’’), IPR2023–00920.
B. The ’582 Patent
(8) With respect to the arrangement of
the ‘‘capacitor component’’ relative to
the ‘‘inductor component’’ in claim 1 of
the ’582 patent, explain whether ‘‘a
capacitor component’’ requires that
substantially all of the capacitor
components lie between the ‘‘extensionconductor segments’’ that define the
‘‘first region,’’ or whether there may be
additional capacitor components
outside those ‘‘extension-conductor
segments’’ (but not under the ‘‘coilconductor segment’’), provided there is
at least one ‘‘capacitor component’’ in
the ‘‘first region.’’ Explain whether the
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
intrinsic or extrinsic evidence indicates
that the presence of capacitors outside
the ‘‘extension-conductor segments’’
(but not under the ‘‘coil-conductor
segment’’) will tend to increase
unwanted phase noise, parasitic
circuits, or otherwise degrade the
invention or impair the effectiveness of
the claimed LC resonant circuit. Explain
whether each of the accused products
and the asserted prior art Qualcomm
RFR1000 and RBR6122 contains at least
one ‘‘capacitor component’’
substantially within the ‘‘first region,’’
as defined by claim 1, regardless of
whether there are additional capacitors
outside the extension-conductor
segments.
(9) With respect to the ’582 patent,
explain whether there is any difference
in claim construction or scope between
‘‘wherein a first region is defined by the
two extension-conductor segments,’’ as
recited in claim 1, limitation 1[c] and
‘‘wherein the first region is defined
between the two extension-conductor
segments,’’ as recited in dependent
claim 4. Explain whether, or how, the
prior art Qualcomm RBR1000 reads on
claim 1 but not claim 4, based on this
difference, if any.
(10) With respect to the asserted prior
art Qualcomm RFR6122 chip, explain
whether claim 1, limitations 1[e], [f]
covers an arrangement in which the
‘‘electrode segments’’ can comprise the
metal plates of one set of capacitors
while the claimed ‘‘connecting
segments’’ belong to a different set of
capacitors. Explain whether the
RFR6122 discloses a single set of
capacitors (or ‘‘capacitor component’’)
that satisfies both the ‘‘electrode
segments’’ and the ‘‘connecting
segments’’ of limitations 1[e], [f].
(11) Address the arguments and
evidence presented before PTAB
concerning the prior art status of Muh
in IPR2023–00788. How is the evidence
presented before the PTAB different
from the evidence of record in this
investigation? Should the Commission
consider any additional arguments and
evidence presented before PTAB at this
stage? Based on the record in this
proceeding, and the different
evidentiary standards involved, can the
Commission reach a different
conclusion than PTAB on the prior art
status of Muh? See Nobel Biocare Servs.
AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d
1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
(12) If the Commission determines
that Muh qualifies as prior art, is a
remand appropriate to allow the ALJ to
consider the obviousness argument
based on Muh in the first instance?
E:\FR\FM\17JNN1.SGM
17JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 2024 / Notices
C. Economic Prong
(13) With respect to Broadcom
Corporation’s asserted labor and capital
investments under 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(3)(B) and (C) (see FID at 240–
42), what evidence of record supports a
finding that these investments were
properly allocated to the asserted
domestic industry products (i.e., the
Broadcom BCM4387 and BCM 4389
chips) (‘‘DI products’’) and limited to
investments in the United States that
were directed to the asserted DI
products?
(14) Identify the evidence of record in
support of Realtek’s contention that the
requisite nexus exists between its
asserted investments under 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(3)(C) and the asserted patents.
(15) Identify the evidence of record
with respect to whether Realtek has
shown that the investments upon which
it relies are significant or substantial.
See 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(B), (C).
(16) Please address the meaning of
articles ‘‘protected by the patent’’ in
subsections 337(a)(2) and (a)(3) and
whether that language requires that
Broadcom hold a license to the asserted
patents, or that the Broadcom BCM4387
and BCM 4389 chips are otherwise
protected by the asserted patents, for
Realtek to be able to rely on Broadcom’s
domestic investments to establish a
domestic industry.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
D. Sanction
(17) Assuming the Commission
determines to affirm the imposition of
the monetary sanction but decides to
impose it on Realtek’s ‘‘outside
counsel’’ consistent with the argument
made in Realtek’s petition for review
(Realtek Pet. at 100), identify which
‘‘outside counsel’’ would be subject to
the sanction.
The parties are invited to brief only
the discrete issues requested above. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Jun 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
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).
Assuming AMD is requesting that the
remedial orders contain an exemption
related to service or repair, please
address: (i) with reference to any factual
evidence in support, including any not
currently on record, the rationale for
providing such an exemption, including
under the public interest factors as
stated in section 337(d) (19 U.S.C.
137(d)); (ii) the warranty terms, if any,
for the merchandise in question; (iii)
whether the exemption should apply
only to merchandise under warranty, or
to all needed service and repair; and (iv)
what should be the temporal cutoff for
the exemption, e.g., should the
operative date be the issuance of the
Commission’s final determination or the
end of the Presidential review period,
and should it apply to merchandise sold
or imported prior to such date.
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 cease and desist
orders 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.
Written Submissions: The parties to
the investigation are requested to file
written submissions on the issues
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51369
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 its initial submission, Complainant
is also requested to identify the remedy
sought and to submit proposed remedial
orders for the Commission’s
consideration. Complainant is 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 June 28, 2024.
Reply submissions must be filed no later
than the close of business on July 8,
2024. No further submissions on these
issues will be permitted unless
otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Opening submissions are limited to 100
pages. Reply submissions are limited to
50 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
(March 19, 2020). Submissions should
refer to the investigation number (Inv.
No. 337–TA–1350) 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
E:\FR\FM\17JNN1.SGM
17JNN1
51370
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 2024 / Notices
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 June 11,
2024.
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: June 11, 2024.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024–13218 Filed 6–14–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
Notice of Receipt of Amended
Complaint; Solicitation of Comments
Relating to the Public Interest
International Trade
Commission.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has received an amended
complaint entitled Certain Eye
Cosmetics and Packaging Therefor, DN
3747; the Commission is soliciting
comments on any public interest issues
raised by the amended complaint or
complainant’s filing pursuant to the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Jun 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
Lisa
R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission,
U.S. International Trade Commission,
500 E Street SW, Washington, DC
20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. The
public version of the complaint can be
accessed on the Commission’s
Electronic Document Information
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 United
States International Trade Commission
(USITC) at https://www.usitc.gov. The
public record for this investigation may
be viewed on the Commission’s
Electronic Document Information
System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.
Hearing-impaired persons are advised
that information on this matter can be
obtained by contacting the
Commission’s TDD terminal on (202)
205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission has received an amended
complaint and a submission pursuant to
§ 210.8(b) of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure filed on behalf
of Amarte USA Holdings, Inc. on June
10, 2024. The original complaint was
filed on May 20, 2024 and a notice of
receipt of complaint; solicitation of
comments relating to the public interest
published in the Federal Register on
May 24, 2024. The amended complaint
alleges violations of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in
the importation into the United States,
the sale for importation, and the sale
within the United States after
importation of certain eye cosmetics and
packaging therefor. The amended
complaint names as respondents:
Unilever PLC of United Kingdom;
Unilever United States, Inc. of
Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Carver Korea Co.,
Ltd. of South Korea; Bourne & Morgan
Ltd. of United Kingdom; MZ Skin Ltd.
of United Kingdom; Kaibeauty of
Taiwan; I’ll Global Co., Ltd. of South
Korea; Hikari Laboratories Ltd. of Israel;
Iman Cosmetics of United Kingdom;
Iman Cosmetics of New York, NY; Strip
Lashed of United Kingdom; and Kelz
Beauty of Hungary. The complainant
requests that the Commission issue a
general exclusion order, a limited
exclusion order, cease and desist orders
and impose a bond upon respondents’
alleged infringing articles during the 60day Presidential review period pursuant
to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other
interested parties, members of the
public, and interested government
agencies are invited to file comments on
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
any public interest issues raised by the
amended complaint or § 210.8(b) filing.
Comments should address whether
issuance of the relief specifically
requested by the complainant in this
investigation would affect the public
health and welfare in the United States,
competitive conditions in the United
States economy, the production of like
or directly competitive articles in the
United States, or United States
consumers.
In particular, the Commission is
interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially
subject to the requested remedial orders
are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety,
or welfare concerns in the United States
relating to the requested remedial
orders;
(iii) identify like or directly
competitive articles that complainant,
its licensees, or third parties make in the
United States which could replace the
subject articles if they were to be
excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant,
complainant’s licensees, and/or third
party suppliers have the capacity to
replace the volume of articles
potentially subject to the requested
exclusion order and/or a cease and
desist order within a commercially
reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested
remedial orders would impact United
States consumers.
Written submissions on the public
interest must be filed no later than by
close of business, eight calendar days
after the date of publication of this
notice in the Federal Register. There
will be further opportunities for
comment on the public interest after the
issuance of any final initial
determination in this investigation. Any
written submissions on other issues
must also be filed by no later than the
close of business, eight calendar days
after publication of this notice in the
Federal Register. Complainant may file
replies to any written submissions no
later than three calendar days after the
date on which any initial submissions
were due, notwithstanding § 201.14(a)
of the Commission’s Rules of Practice
and Procedure. No other submissions
will be accepted, unless requested by
the Commission. Any submissions and
replies filed in response to this Notice
are limited to five (5) pages in length,
inclusive of attachments.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines
stated above. Submissions should refer
to the docket number (‘‘Docket No.
3747’’) in a prominent place on the
E:\FR\FM\17JNN1.SGM
17JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51366-51370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-13218]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1350]
Certain Integrated Circuits, Components Thereof, and Products
Containing the Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review in
Part a Final Initial Determination; Request for Written Submissions on
the Issues Under Review, Remedy, Bond, and the Public Interest
AGENCY: International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission (``Commission'') has determined to review in part the final
initial determination (``FID'') issued by the presiding administrative
law judge (``ALJ'') in the above-captioned investigation. The
Commission is soliciting briefing from the parties on the issues under
review, as well as briefing from the parties, interested government
agencies, and interested persons on 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 24, 2023, the Commission
instituted the present section 337 investigation based on a complaint
filed by Realtek Semiconductor Corporation of Hsinchu, Taiwan
(``Realtek''). See 88 FR 4205-06 (Jan. 24, 2023). The
[[Page 51367]]
complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C 1337), due to the importation
into the United States, sale for importation, or sale within the United
States after importation of certain integrated circuits, components
thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more
asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,936,245 (``the '245 patent'');
8,006,218 (``the '218 patent''); or 9,590,582 (``the '582 patent'')
(collectively, the ``Asserted Patents''). Id. The complaint alleges
that a domestic industry exists. Id. The notice of investigation names
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. of Santa Clara, CA (``AMD'') as the
respondent. Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not
participating in this investigation. Id.
The presiding ALJ held a claim construction (Markman) hearing on
June 5, 2023. The ALJ issued the claim construction order on July 25,
2023. Order No. 21 (July 25, 2023).
On June 20, 2023, AMD moved to preclude Mr. Steve Baik, Realtek's
outside counsel, from testifying as a fact witness in the evidentiary
hearing. On July 7, 2023, the ALJ issued Order No. 19, ordering AMD to
show cause why Winston & Strawn (``Winston'') should not be
disqualified in this investigation due to an alleged conflict of
interest. Order No. 19 at 2 (July 7, 2023).
On August 4, 2023, the ALJ held a teleconference with the parties
regarding Mr. Baik and Winston. On August 17, 2023, the ALJ issued
Order No. 23, which granted AMD's motion to preclude Mr. Baik from
testifying on behalf of Realtek but did not disqualify Winston. Order
No. 23 at 1 (Aug. 17, 2023). On August 24, 2023, the ALJ denied
Realtek's motions for reconsideration and for interlocutory review of
Order No. 23. Order No. 24 (Aug. 24, 2023). On September 6, 2023,
Realtek filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit (``Federal Circuit'') seeking a writ of mandamus to order the
ALJ to vacate the ruling striking Mr. Baik. The Federal Circuit denied
the petition on September 25, 2023. In re Realtek Semiconductor Corp.,
Appeal No. 2023-147, On Petition and Motion (Sept. 25, 2023).
On October 16, 2023, the ALJ issued an order regarding AMD's motion
to sanction Realtek for failing to accurately answer certain
interrogatories and produce relevant documents regarding Realtek's
earlier litigations against Avago Techns. General IP (Singapore) Pte.,
Ltd and Broadcom Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware. Order No. 39 at 1-6 (Oct. 16, 2023). Order No. 39 determined
Realtek had engaged in sanctionable acts during discovery, but
otherwise deferred ruling on the motion until after the evidentiary
hearing. Id.
The ALJ proceeded to hold an evidentiary hearing from October 16-
20, 2023.
On November 14, 2023, the Commission terminated the investigation
as to claim 9 of the '582 patent and claim 14 of the '218 patent, based
on Realtek's withdrawal of those claims. Order No. 40 (Oct. 20, 2023),
unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Nov. 14, 2023).
On January 19, 2024, the presiding ALJ issued the combined FID and
Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (``RD''). The FID finds no
violation of section 337 for any of the three patents at issue because:
(i) asserted claims 1, 2, and 8 of the '245 patent are infringed but
invalid as anticipated; (ii) asserted claims 12, 13, and 15-18 of the
'218 patent are infringed but invalid as obvious; (iii) regarding the
'582 patent, asserted claims 1-4 are not infringed and claims 1-3 (but
not claim 4) are invalid as anticipated; and (iv) Realtek failed to
satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for any
of the three asserted patents. FID at 252. The FID also finds that
Realtek has satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement for each asserted patent. Id.
The RD recommends, if the Commission finds a violation, issuing a
limited exclusion order barring entry of AMD products that infringe any
of the asserted claims of the '218, '582, or '245 patents. Id. at 254-
256. The RD also recommends issuing a cease and desist order directed
to AMD. Id. at 256. The RD further recommends issuing no (0%) bond
against any covered products imported during the period of Presidential
review. Id. at 256-257.
On January 30, 2024, the Commission issued a notice requesting
submissions on the public interest, if a violation is found. 89 FR 5933
(Jan. 30, 2024). The Commission did not receive any public interest
submission from the public or any other agency in response to this
notice. Id. On February 20, 2024, AMD filed its public interest
statement, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4). 19 CFR
210.50(a)(4). On February 26, 2024, Realtek filed a motion for leave to
file its public interest statement out of time. The Commission denied
Realtek's motion on the same date.
On February 2, 2024, Realtek filed a petition for review of the
FID's findings regarding: (i) invalidity of the '218 patent claims;
(ii) regarding the '582 patent, non-infringement of the asserted claims
and invalidity of asserted claims 1-3; (iii) failure to satisfy the
economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, including the
ALJ's decision to preclude Mr. Baik from testifying but not disqualify
Winston; and (iv) the sanction levied against Realtek for discovery
misconduct. Realtek is not seeking review of the '245 patent.
Also on February 2, 2024, AMD filed a contingent petition for
review of the FID's findings regarding: (i) for the '218 patent, claim
construction, infringement, the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement, the asserted claims are not invalid for lack of
written description or enablement, and that a certain cited reference
(Jiang3) is not prior art; and (ii) for the '582 patent, that claims 1-
4 are not invalid as anticipated by the Qualcomm RFR6122 chip, that
claim 4 is not anticipated by the Qualcomm RBR1000 chip, and that
asserted claims 1-4 of the '582 patent are not obvious over certain
cited prior art references (including Muh); and (iii) certain findings
relating to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.
On February 12, 2024, Realtek and AMD filed their respective
responses to the opposing petitions for review.
Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the
final ID, the parties' petitions, and responses thereto, the Commission
has determined to review the FID in part with respect to the following
issues:
(A) The Commission has determined not to review, and thereby
adopts, the FID's findings that the asserted claims the '245 patent are
invalid and thus there is no violation of section 337 with respect to
that patent.
(B) With respect to the '218 patent, the Commission has determined
to review claim construction, infringement, the technical prong of
domestic industry, and invalidity with respect to the so-named Jiang,
Jiang2, and Li prior art references. The Commission has also determined
to review whether Jiang3 is prior art to the '218 patent. The
Commission has determined not to review the FID's finding that the
asserted claims are not invalid for lack of written description or lack
of enablement.
(C) With respect to the '582 patent, the Commission has determined
to review the FID's construction of ``capacitor component[ ] arranged
corresponding to a first region,'' and its findings that asserted
claims 1-4 are not infringed. The Commission has also
[[Page 51368]]
determined to review the FID's findings that claims 1-3 are anticipated
by the prior art Qualcomm RBR1000 semiconductor device, but that claim
4 is not anticipated by the same device. The Commission has also
determined to review the FID's findings that claims 1-4 are not
anticipated by the Qualcomm RFR6122 device. The Commission has also
determined to review the FID's findings that the Muh reference is not
prior art. The Commission has determined not to review the FID's
findings that claims 1-4 are not invalid for lack of adequate written
description.
(D) The Commission has determined not to review the presiding ALJ's
decisions: (i) to preclude Mr. Baik, outside trial counsel for Realtek,
from testifying as a fact witness at the evidentiary hearing; and (ii)
not to disqualify Winston & Strawn.
(E) The Commission has determined to review the FID's findings that
Realtek has failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement.
(F) The Commission has determined to review the sanction award
against Realtek.
The parties are asked to provide additional briefing on the
following issues under review:
A. The '218 Patent
(1) With respect to claim 12, limitations 12[e] and [f] of the '218
patent, explain whether these limitations allow both horizontal power
supply wires and vertical power supply wires of the claimed ``global
power mesh'' to be on the same metal layer and identify the intrinsic
evidence in support. With respect to each of the accused AMD products,
the asserted domestic industry products, and the asserted prior art
references, explain whether the ``global power mesh'' includes: (i) at
least one metal layer in which all of the power supply wires on that
metal layer are horizontal; and (ii) at least a second, different metal
layer in which all of the power supply wires on that layer are
vertical.
(2) With respect to limitations 12[a]-[c], explain how the
intrinsic evidence distinguishes a ``first [partial] local power mesh''
from a ``second [partial] local power mesh,'' and how it distinguishes
a ``global power mesh'' from two local power meshes, e.g., whether
those different local power meshes must be insulated from each other,
comprise different wire networks, or have different power levels. With
respect to each accused AMD product, asserted domestic industry
product, and asserted prior art reference, explain whether that product
or reference discloses two or more local power meshes and how it
distinguishes a ``global power mesh'' from two local power meshes. In
particular, explain on what basis the images relied upon in the final
initial determination identify two partial meshes vs. a single global
power mesh. See FID at 109-10; see also id. at 117-18.
(3) With respect to limitations 12[a]-[c], explain how the
intrinsic evidence distinguishes a ``first power domain'' from a
``second power domain,'' e.g., whether those different power domains
must be insulated from each other or have different power requirements,
either temporarily or at all times. With respect to each accused AMD
product, asserted domestic industry product, and asserted prior art
reference, explain whether that product or reference discloses two or
more power domains that are distinguished by that feature.
(4) Explain whether the intrinsic evidence supports or precludes
reading the limitation ``provide the power needed'' recited in
limitation 12[c] to include zero power, or zero voltage. Assuming
arguendo that ``power'' could include zero power or zero voltage,
explain whether this construction impacts the FID's findings on
infringement, the technical prong of domestic industry, or invalidity.
(5) Explain whether or how claims 15-18 of the '582 patent can be
invalid over Li with Jiang (as defined in the FID) but not over Jiang
with Li.
(6) Explain whether there is any evidence to rebut Dr. Hall-Ellis'
testimony that the so-called Jiang3 reference was publicly available
prior to November 15, 2007, or that Jiang3 is not prior art to the '218
patent. Explain how Jiang3 relates to Jiang and Jiang2 and whether it
contributes to the issue of obviousness.
(7) Explain whether Complainant has challenged the prior art status
of Jiang3 in the currently pending proceeding concerning the '218
patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (``PTAB''), IPR2023-
00920.
B. The '582 Patent
(8) With respect to the arrangement of the ``capacitor component''
relative to the ``inductor component'' in claim 1 of the '582 patent,
explain whether ``a capacitor component'' requires that substantially
all of the capacitor components lie between the ``extension-conductor
segments'' that define the ``first region,'' or whether there may be
additional capacitor components outside those ``extension-conductor
segments'' (but not under the ``coil-conductor segment''), provided
there is at least one ``capacitor component'' in the ``first region.''
Explain whether the intrinsic or extrinsic evidence indicates that the
presence of capacitors outside the ``extension-conductor segments''
(but not under the ``coil-conductor segment'') will tend to increase
unwanted phase noise, parasitic circuits, or otherwise degrade the
invention or impair the effectiveness of the claimed LC resonant
circuit. Explain whether each of the accused products and the asserted
prior art Qualcomm RFR1000 and RBR6122 contains at least one
``capacitor component'' substantially within the ``first region,'' as
defined by claim 1, regardless of whether there are additional
capacitors outside the extension-conductor segments.
(9) With respect to the '582 patent, explain whether there is any
difference in claim construction or scope between ``wherein a first
region is defined by the two extension-conductor segments,'' as recited
in claim 1, limitation 1[c] and ``wherein the first region is defined
between the two extension-conductor segments,'' as recited in dependent
claim 4. Explain whether, or how, the prior art Qualcomm RBR1000 reads
on claim 1 but not claim 4, based on this difference, if any.
(10) With respect to the asserted prior art Qualcomm RFR6122 chip,
explain whether claim 1, limitations 1[e], [f] covers an arrangement in
which the ``electrode segments'' can comprise the metal plates of one
set of capacitors while the claimed ``connecting segments'' belong to a
different set of capacitors. Explain whether the RFR6122 discloses a
single set of capacitors (or ``capacitor component'') that satisfies
both the ``electrode segments'' and the ``connecting segments'' of
limitations 1[e], [f].
(11) Address the arguments and evidence presented before PTAB
concerning the prior art status of Muh in IPR2023-00788. How is the
evidence presented before the PTAB different from the evidence of
record in this investigation? Should the Commission consider any
additional arguments and evidence presented before PTAB at this stage?
Based on the record in this proceeding, and the different evidentiary
standards involved, can the Commission reach a different conclusion
than PTAB on the prior art status of Muh? See Nobel Biocare Servs. AG
v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
(12) If the Commission determines that Muh qualifies as prior art,
is a remand appropriate to allow the ALJ to consider the obviousness
argument based on Muh in the first instance?
[[Page 51369]]
C. Economic Prong
(13) With respect to Broadcom Corporation's asserted labor and
capital investments under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(B) and (C) (see FID at
240-42), what evidence of record supports a finding that these
investments were properly allocated to the asserted domestic industry
products (i.e., the Broadcom BCM4387 and BCM 4389 chips) (``DI
products'') and limited to investments in the United States that were
directed to the asserted DI products?
(14) Identify the evidence of record in support of Realtek's
contention that the requisite nexus exists between its asserted
investments under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C) and the asserted patents.
(15) Identify the evidence of record with respect to whether
Realtek has shown that the investments upon which it relies are
significant or substantial. See 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(B), (C).
(16) Please address the meaning of articles ``protected by the
patent'' in subsections 337(a)(2) and (a)(3) and whether that language
requires that Broadcom hold a license to the asserted patents, or that
the Broadcom BCM4387 and BCM 4389 chips are otherwise protected by the
asserted patents, for Realtek to be able to rely on Broadcom's domestic
investments to establish a domestic industry.
D. Sanction
(17) Assuming the Commission determines to affirm the imposition of
the monetary sanction but decides to impose it on Realtek's ``outside
counsel'' consistent with the argument made in Realtek's petition for
review (Realtek Pet. at 100), identify which ``outside counsel'' would
be subject to the sanction.
The parties are invited to brief only the discrete issues requested
above. 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).
Assuming AMD is requesting that the remedial orders contain an
exemption related to service or repair, please address: (i) with
reference to any factual evidence in support, including any not
currently on record, the rationale for providing such an exemption,
including under the public interest factors as stated in section 337(d)
(19 U.S.C. 137(d)); (ii) the warranty terms, if any, for the
merchandise in question; (iii) whether the exemption should apply only
to merchandise under warranty, or to all needed service and repair; and
(iv) what should be the temporal cutoff for the exemption, e.g., should
the operative date be the issuance of the Commission's final
determination or the end of the Presidential review period, and should
it apply to merchandise sold or imported prior to such date.
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
cease and desist orders 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.
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 its initial submission, Complainant is also requested to
identify the remedy sought and to submit proposed remedial orders for
the Commission's consideration. Complainant is 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 June 28, 2024. Reply submissions must be filed no
later than the close of business on July 8, 2024. No further
submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered
by the Commission. Opening submissions are limited to 100 pages. Reply
submissions are limited to 50 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 (March 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to the
investigation number (Inv. No. 337-TA-1350) 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
[[Page 51370]]
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 June 11,
2024.
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: June 11, 2024.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-13218 Filed 6-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
