Certain Semiconductor Devices, and Methods of Manufacturing Same and Products Containing the Same; Notice of a Commission Determination To Review a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding, 73719-73721 [2024-20514]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 11, 2024 / Notices
POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETENTION AND
DISPOSAL OF RECORDS:
Records are maintained and disposed
of in accordance with NARA approved
record schedules, specifically, General
Records Schedule (GRS) 1.2 ‘‘Grant and
Cooperative Agreement Records’’, Item
10 and DAA–GRS2013–0008–0007, Item
20 and DAA–GRS2013–0008–0001, Item
21 and DAA–GRS–2013–0008–0006,
Item 22 and DAA–GRS2103–0008–0002,
and Item 30 and DAA–GRS–2013–0008–
0003.
IAF otherwise maintains records in
GovGrants on an indefinite basis for
reference purposes.
ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL
SAFEGUARDS:
The Salesforce Government Cloud
Plus system achieved a provisional
Authority to Operate (ATO) at the
‘‘High’’ impact level issued by the
Federal Risk and Authorization
Management Program (FedRAMP) Joint
Authorization Board (JAB). System
access is limited to IAF authorized users
utilizing multi-factor authentication.
IAF GovGrants has configurable,
layered data sharing and permissions
features to ensure users have proper
access. Authorized users have access
only to the data and functions required
to perform their job functions. Role
based access is managed via IAF
GovGrants administrators using
Salesforce system administration, user,
and security functions. PII information
in the system will be encrypted in
transit and at rest, and HTTPS protocol
will be employed in accessing
GovGrants.
Multi-factor authentication is required
to access the system and data stored in
the system of record is also protected by
a firewall and intrusion detection.
RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:
An individual requesting records on
themselves must send a signed, written
inquiry to the System Manager at
PrivacyActRequests@iaf.gov or the
physical address above. The request
envelope and letter should both be
clearly marked ‘‘PRIVACY ACT
REQUEST FOR ACCESS’’ and must: (1)
be signed by the individual, (2) name or
otherwise clearly describe the system of
records in which the individual is
seeking records.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:
An individual requesting the
correction or removal of material from
their records should send a signed,
written request to the System Manager
at PrivacyActRequests@iaf.gov or the
physical address above. The request
envelope and letter should both be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Sep 10, 2024
Jkt 262001
clearly marked ‘‘PRIVACY ACT
REQUEST FOR CORRECTION’’ and
must: (1) be signed by the individual, (2)
name or otherwise clearly describe the
system of records in which a change is
requested, and (3) clearly state the
correction requested and provide any
supporting information available.
NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES:
An individual requesting notification
of the existence of records on
themselves should send a signed,
written inquiry to the System Manager
at PrivacyActRequests@iaf.gov or the
physical address above. The request
envelope and letter should both be
clearly marked ‘‘PRIVACY ACT
REQUEST INQUIRY’’ and (1) must be
signed by the individual, (2) must name
or otherwise clearly describe the system
of records on which the individual is
seek information about, and (3) should
clearly state the requester’s relationship
with the IAF and timeframe (ex. former
IAF employee from 2020–2021) to
facilitate the location of any applicable
records.
EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM:
None.
Not Applicable.
Natalia Mandrus,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2024–20583 Filed 9–10–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7025–01–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
By order of the Commission.
Issued: September 6, 2024.
Sharon Bellamy,
Supervisory Hearings and Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024–20601 Filed 9–10–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
Plastic Decorative Ribbon From China
Determinations
On the basis of the record 1 developed
in the subject five-year reviews, the
United States International Trade
Commission (‘‘Commission’’)
determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of
1930 (‘‘the Act’’), that revocation of the
antidumping and countervailing duty
orders on plastic decorative ribbon from
China would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the United
States within a reasonably foreseeable
time.2
1 The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 207.2(f)).
2 Commissioner Karpel did not participate.
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Certain Semiconductor Devices, and
Methods of Manufacturing Same and
Products Containing the Same; Notice
of a Commission Determination To
Review a Final Initial Determination
Finding a Violation of Section 337;
Request for Written Submissions on
the Issues Under Review and on
Remedy, the Public Interest, and
Bonding
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–592 and 731–
TA–1400 (Review)]
Frm 00099
Background
The Commission instituted these
reviews on February 1, 2024 (89 FR
6540, February 1, 2024) and determined
on May 6, 2024 that it would conduct
expedited reviews (89 FR 56902, July
11, 2024).
The Commission made these
determinations pursuant to section
751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It
completed and filed its determinations
in these reviews on September 6, 2024.
The views of the Commission are
contained in USITC Publication 5541
(September 2024), entitled Plastic
Decorative Ribbon from China:
Investigation Nos. 701–TA–592 and 731
TA 1400 (Review).
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1366]
HISTORY:
PO 00000
73719
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has
determined to review a final initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) of the presiding
chief administrative law judge (‘‘CALJ’’),
finding a violation of section 337 as to
one asserted patent and no violation as
to the other asserted patent. The
Commission requests written
submissions from the parties on the
issues under review and submissions
from the parties, interested government
agencies, and other interested persons
on the issues of remedy, the public
interest, and bonding, under the
schedule set forth below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM
11SEN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
73720
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 11, 2024 / Notices
205–3042. Copies of non-confidential
documents filed in connection with this
investigation may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help
accessing EDIS, please email
EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
internet server at https://www.usitc.gov.
Hearing-impaired persons are advised
that information on this matter can be
obtained by contacting the
Commission’s TDD terminal on (202)
205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission instituted this investigation
on July 3, 2023, based on a complaint
filed by Efficient Power Conversion
Corporation of El Segundo, California
(‘‘EPC’’). 88 FR 42756–77 (Jul. 3, 2023).
The complaint alleged violations of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based on the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, or sale within the
United States after importation of
certain semiconductor devices, and
methods of manufacturing same, and
products containing the same by reason
of the infringement of one or more
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,312,335
(‘‘the ’335 patent’’); 8,350,294 (‘‘the ’294
patent’’); 8,404,508 (‘‘the ’508 patent’’);
and 9,748,347 (‘‘the ’347 patent’’). Id.
The complaint further alleged that a
domestic industry exists. Id. The
Commission’s notice of investigation
named as respondents Innoscience
(Zhuhai) Technology, Company, Ltd., of
Zhuhai, Guangdong, China; and
Innoscience America, Inc. of Santa
Clara, California (together
‘‘Innoscience’’ or ‘‘Respondents’’). The
Office of Unfair Import Investigations
was also named as a party in this
investigation. Id.
On October 13, 2023, Chief
Administrative Law Judge (‘‘CALJ’’)
held a Markman hearing.
On December 13, 2023, the CALJ
issued an initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
granting a motion to terminate the
investigation as to all asserted claims of
the ’347 patent. Order No. 9 (Dec. 13,
2023), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice
(Jan. 11, 2024).
On February 12, 2024, the CALJ
issued an ID granting a motion to
terminate the investigation as to all
asserted claims of the ’335 patent. Order
No. 12 (Feb. 12, 2024), unreviewed by
Comm’n Notice (Mar. 12, 2024).
The CALJ held an evidentiary hearing
from February 26, 2024 to March 1,
2024, and received post-hearing briefs
thereafter.
On July 5, 2024, the CALJ issued the
final ID finding a violation of section
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Sep 10, 2024
Jkt 262001
337 as to claims 2 and 3 of the ’294
patent and no violation of section 337
as to claim 1 of the ’294 patent. The
CALJ also found no violation of section
337 as to the only asserted claim of the
’508 patent, claim 1. Specifically, the ID
found that by appearing and
participating in the investigation, the
parties have consented to personal
jurisdiction at the Commission. ID at
10–11. The ID found that EPC
established the importation requirement
under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B), noting
that Innoscience does not dispute
importing the accused products. Id. at
11–12. The ID found that because the
accused products have been imported
into the United States, the Commission
has in rem jurisdiction over them. Id. at
12. The ID found that EPC owns the
patents and thus has standing to assert
the patents in this investigation. Id. The
ID found that EPC successfully proved
that the accused products infringe the
asserted claims of the ’294 patent
(claims 1–3) but that unlike claims 2
and 3, claim 1 has been shown to be
invalid for obviousness. ID at 30–51,
85–100. The ID found that EPC failed to
prove that the accused products infringe
claim 1 of the ’508 patent and that
Respondents failed to prove the claim
invalid for obviousness. Id. at 52–68,
103–117. Finally, the ID found that EPC
established the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement for both
the ’294 and ’508 patents but failed to
establish the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement for the
’508 patent. ID at 120–151. Thus, the ID
found the existence of a domestic
industry that practices the ’294 patent as
required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2) but not
one that practices the ’508 patent.
The ID included the CALJ’s
recommended determination on remedy
and bonding (‘‘RD’’). The RD
recommended, should the Commission
find a violation, issuance of a limited
exclusion order and cease and desist
orders against the Respondents. ID/RD
at 154–157. The RD also recommended
imposing a bond in the amount of five
percent of entered value for infringing
products imported during the period of
Presidential review. Id. at 158–159.
On July 19, 2024, EPC and
Innoscience filed respective petitions
for review of the ID. On July 29, 2024,
the parties, including OUII, filed
responses to the petitions.
Having reviewed the record of the
investigation, including the final ID, the
parties’ submissions to the CALJ, the
petitions for review, and the responses
thereto, the Commission has determined
to review the ID in its entirety.
In connection with its review, the
Commission requests responses to the
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
following questions. The parties are
requested to brief their positions with
reference to the applicable law and the
existing evidentiary record.
(1) If the Commission were to adopt
the construction, proposed by OUII, of
the limitation ‘‘compensated GaN layer’’
recited in claim 1 of the ’294 patent to
mean ‘‘a GaN layer in which one type
of impurity cancels the electric effects of
another type of impurity,’’ how does
that construction affect the ID’s
infringement, invalidity, and technical
prong of the domestic industry
analyses?
(2) Did the CALJ correctly find that
Uemoto fails to disclose element [1b] ‘‘a
set of III–N transition layers above the
substrate’’ recited in claim 1 of the ’294
patent, even though neither EPC nor
OUII disputed Respondents’ assertion
that Uemoto disclosed this limitation?
See ID at 73.
(3) Please explain whether claim 1 of
the ’508 patent is limited to using a
single mask to etch both the gate contact
and doped GaN layer based on the ’508
patent’s description of the ‘‘present
invention.’’ Please also explain whether
performance of the claimed steps in the
order [1f]–[1g]–[1i]–[ih] (as permitted
under the ID’s construction of the order
of steps) requires the use of a single
mask to perform both etching steps or
otherwise allows the use of two separate
masks. If the Commission were to
construe claim 1 of the ’508 patent to
require the claimed steps be performed
in the recited order ([1f]–[1g]–[1h]–[1i]),
how does that affect the ID’s
infringement, invalidity, and technical
prong of the domestic industry
analyses?
(4) Please clarify whether EPC’s ‘‘total
operating expenditures’’ identified on
page 129 of the ID includes foreign
manufacturing expenses for the
domestic industry products.
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) cease and desist orders that could
result in the respondents being required
to cease and desist from engaging in
unfair acts in the importation and sale
of such articles. Accordingly, the
Commission is interested in receiving
written submissions that address the
form of remedy, if any, that should be
ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an
article from entry into the United States
E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM
11SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 11, 2024 / Notices
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 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. In
addition, the Commission requests
responses to the following question
regarding the public interest:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Please provide specific facts and data with
respect to Respondents’ assertion that ‘‘an
exclusion order would have significant
impacts on U.S. consumers and economy at
large’’ and that ‘‘[w]ithout a delay in the
effective date of an exclusion order, an
immediate and potentially multi-year
shortage across a wide variety of industries
could not be averted given alternative
suppliers’ existing production capacities and
a lack of readily available GaN
semiconductor devices.’’ Resp. PI Stmt. at 2.
Please include in your discussion, the shares
of the U.S. market for EPC and Respondents,
as well as other suppliers and whether these
suppliers have the capability to supply U.S.
demand in the event of an exclusion order
and/or cease and desist orders.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Sep 10, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
CALJ on remedy and bonding.
In its initial submission, Complainant
is also requested to identify the remedy
sought and Complainant and OUII are
requested 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 September 19,
2024. Reply submissions must be filed
no later than the close of business on
September 26, 2024. No further
submissions on these issues will be
permitted unless otherwise ordered by
the Commission. Opening submissions
are limited to 50 pages. Reply
submissions are limited to 30 pages. No
further submissions on any of these
issues will be permitted unless
otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines
stated above. The Commission’s paper
filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f)
are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 (Mar.
19, 2020). Submissions should refer to
the investigation number (Inv. No. 337–
TA–1366) 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
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73721
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 September
5, 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: September 5, 2024.
Sharon Bellamy,
Supervisory Hearings and Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024–20514 Filed 9–10–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–733–736 and
731–TA–1702–1711 (Preliminary)]
Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products
From Australia, Brazil, Canada,
Mexico, Netherlands, South Africa,
Taiwan, Turkey, United Arab Emirates,
and Vietnam; Institution of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Investigations and Scheduling of
Preliminary Phase Investigations
International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Commission hereby gives
notice of the institution of investigations
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM
11SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73719-73721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20514]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1366]
Certain Semiconductor Devices, and Methods of Manufacturing Same
and Products Containing the Same; Notice of a Commission Determination
To Review a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section
337; Request for Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on
Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission (``Commission'') has determined to review a final initial
determination (``ID'') of the presiding chief administrative law judge
(``CALJ''), finding a violation of section 337 as to one asserted
patent and no violation as to the other asserted patent. The Commission
requests written submissions from the parties on the issues under
review and submissions from the parties, interested government
agencies, and other interested persons on the issues of remedy, the
public interest, and bonding, under the schedule set forth below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
[[Page 73720]]
205-3042. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with
this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email
[email protected]. General information concerning the Commission may
also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal
on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
on July 3, 2023, based on a complaint filed by Efficient Power
Conversion Corporation of El Segundo, California (``EPC''). 88 FR
42756-77 (Jul. 3, 2023). The complaint alleged violations of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based on the
importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or sale
within the United States after importation of certain semiconductor
devices, and methods of manufacturing same, and products containing the
same by reason of the infringement of one or more claims of U.S. Patent
Nos. 10,312,335 (``the '335 patent''); 8,350,294 (``the '294 patent'');
8,404,508 (``the '508 patent''); and 9,748,347 (``the '347 patent'').
Id. The complaint further alleged that a domestic industry exists. Id.
The Commission's notice of investigation named as respondents
Innoscience (Zhuhai) Technology, Company, Ltd., of Zhuhai, Guangdong,
China; and Innoscience America, Inc. of Santa Clara, California
(together ``Innoscience'' or ``Respondents''). The Office of Unfair
Import Investigations was also named as a party in this investigation.
Id.
On October 13, 2023, Chief Administrative Law Judge (``CALJ'') held
a Markman hearing.
On December 13, 2023, the CALJ issued an initial determination
(``ID'') granting a motion to terminate the investigation as to all
asserted claims of the '347 patent. Order No. 9 (Dec. 13, 2023),
unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Jan. 11, 2024).
On February 12, 2024, the CALJ issued an ID granting a motion to
terminate the investigation as to all asserted claims of the '335
patent. Order No. 12 (Feb. 12, 2024), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Mar.
12, 2024).
The CALJ held an evidentiary hearing from February 26, 2024 to
March 1, 2024, and received post-hearing briefs thereafter.
On July 5, 2024, the CALJ issued the final ID finding a violation
of section 337 as to claims 2 and 3 of the '294 patent and no violation
of section 337 as to claim 1 of the '294 patent. The CALJ also found no
violation of section 337 as to the only asserted claim of the '508
patent, claim 1. Specifically, the ID found that by appearing and
participating in the investigation, the parties have consented to
personal jurisdiction at the Commission. ID at 10-11. The ID found that
EPC established the importation requirement under 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(1)(B), noting that Innoscience does not dispute importing the
accused products. Id. at 11-12. The ID found that because the accused
products have been imported into the United States, the Commission has
in rem jurisdiction over them. Id. at 12. The ID found that EPC owns
the patents and thus has standing to assert the patents in this
investigation. Id. The ID found that EPC successfully proved that the
accused products infringe the asserted claims of the '294 patent
(claims 1-3) but that unlike claims 2 and 3, claim 1 has been shown to
be invalid for obviousness. ID at 30-51, 85-100. The ID found that EPC
failed to prove that the accused products infringe claim 1 of the '508
patent and that Respondents failed to prove the claim invalid for
obviousness. Id. at 52-68, 103-117. Finally, the ID found that EPC
established the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for
both the '294 and '508 patents but failed to establish the technical
prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '508 patent. ID at
120-151. Thus, the ID found the existence of a domestic industry that
practices the '294 patent as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2) but not
one that practices the '508 patent.
The ID included the CALJ's recommended determination on remedy and
bonding (``RD''). The RD recommended, should the Commission find a
violation, issuance of a limited exclusion order and cease and desist
orders against the Respondents. ID/RD at 154-157. The RD also
recommended imposing a bond in the amount of five percent of entered
value for infringing products imported during the period of
Presidential review. Id. at 158-159.
On July 19, 2024, EPC and Innoscience filed respective petitions
for review of the ID. On July 29, 2024, the parties, including OUII,
filed responses to the petitions.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the
final ID, the parties' submissions to the CALJ, the petitions for
review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to
review the ID in its entirety.
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) If the Commission were to adopt the construction, proposed by
OUII, of the limitation ``compensated GaN layer'' recited in claim 1 of
the '294 patent to mean ``a GaN layer in which one type of impurity
cancels the electric effects of another type of impurity,'' how does
that construction affect the ID's infringement, invalidity, and
technical prong of the domestic industry analyses?
(2) Did the CALJ correctly find that Uemoto fails to disclose
element [1b] ``a set of III-N transition layers above the substrate''
recited in claim 1 of the '294 patent, even though neither EPC nor OUII
disputed Respondents' assertion that Uemoto disclosed this limitation?
See ID at 73.
(3) Please explain whether claim 1 of the '508 patent is limited to
using a single mask to etch both the gate contact and doped GaN layer
based on the '508 patent's description of the ``present invention.''
Please also explain whether performance of the claimed steps in the
order [1f]-[1g]-[1i]-[ih] (as permitted under the ID's construction of
the order of steps) requires the use of a single mask to perform both
etching steps or otherwise allows the use of two separate masks. If the
Commission were to construe claim 1 of the '508 patent to require the
claimed steps be performed in the recited order ([1f]-[1g]-[1h]-[1i]),
how does that affect the ID's infringement, invalidity, and technical
prong of the domestic industry analyses?
(4) Please clarify whether EPC's ``total operating expenditures''
identified on page 129 of the ID includes foreign manufacturing
expenses for the domestic industry products.
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) cease and desist orders that could result
in the respondents being required to cease and desist from engaging in
unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly,
the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that
address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party
seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States
[[Page 73721]]
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
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. In addition, the Commission requests responses
to the following question regarding the public interest:
Please provide specific facts and data with respect to
Respondents' assertion that ``an exclusion order would have
significant impacts on U.S. consumers and economy at large'' and
that ``[w]ithout a delay in the effective date of an exclusion
order, an immediate and potentially multi-year shortage across a
wide variety of industries could not be averted given alternative
suppliers' existing production capacities and a lack of readily
available GaN semiconductor devices.'' Resp. PI Stmt. at 2. Please
include in your discussion, the shares of the U.S. market for EPC
and Respondents, as well as other suppliers and whether these
suppliers have the capability to supply U.S. demand in the event of
an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders.
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 CALJ on
remedy and bonding.
In its initial submission, Complainant is also requested to
identify the remedy sought and Complainant and OUII are requested 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 September 19,
2024. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of
business on September 26, 2024. No further submissions on these issues
will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. Opening
submissions are limited to 50 pages. Reply submissions are limited to
30 pages. No further submissions on any of these issues will be
permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. The
Commission's paper filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) are currently
waived. 85 FR 15798 (Mar. 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to the
investigation number (Inv. No. 337-TA-1366) 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 September
5, 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: September 5, 2024.
Sharon Bellamy,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024-20514 Filed 9-10-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
