Certain Power Converter Modules and Computing Systems Containing the Same; Notice of a Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding, 99278-99280 [2024-28935]

Download as PDF khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES 99278 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Notices opposition to the motion. OUII filed its reply on October 1, 2024. On October 18, 2024, the ALJ issued Order No. 19 granting-in-part OUII’s motion for summary determination and finding no violation. On October 25, 2024, Complainant filed a petition for review of the ID in Order No. 19. On November 1, 2024, OUII filed a response to Complainant’s petition for review of the ID in Order No. 19. On October 18, 2024, the ALJ also issued Order No. 20, asking the parties to brief whether the investigation should be terminated in its entirety and whether all remaining motions are moot and/or withdrawn in light of Order No. 19. On October 28, 2024, Complainant responded to Order No. 20, opposing terminating the investigation. On October 28, 2024, OUII responded to Order No. 20 supporting termination of the investigation and Xenogenic responded requesting the ALJ to grant its motion to intervene. On November 4, 2024, Complainant filed a reply regarding Order No. 20, opposing terminating the investigation. On November 8, 2024, the ALJ issued Order No. 23 granting Xenogenic’s motion to intervene and terminating the investigation. On November 9, 2024, Complainant filed a petition to review the ID in Order No. 23. On November 18, 2024, OUII filed a response in opposition to Complainant’ petition to review of Order No. 23. Having considered the record in this investigation, including the complaint, the filings before the ALJ and the Commission, the Commission has determined to review Order No. 19. On review, the Commission affirms Order No. 19 finding no infringement of the asserted patents with the following supplementation: (1) on page 18 of the ID, the Commission supplements the citation to 19 CFR 210.18(a)–(b) to also include 19 CFR 210.18(c); and (2) on page 26 of the ID, the Commission adds a citation to Exhibit 14 of OUII’s motion for summary determination, which is RFC 7950 entitled ‘‘The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language’’ (in addition to already cited Exhibits 13, 15, and 16 from OUII’s motion for summary determination). The Commission has further determined to review and vacate Order No. 23. Order No. 19 finds that there is no infringement of the Asserted Patents and that no violation of section 337 has occurred. Affirmance of Order No. 19 would result in termination of the investigation, and thereby, the Commission finds that as of the time of issuance of Order No. 23 the investigation was already pending before the Commission. However, the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:28 Dec 09, 2024 Jkt 265001 Commission has determined to grant third party Xenogenic’s motion to intervene for the limited purpose of addressing ownership of the Asserted Patents. Regardless of ownership, the Commission’s finding of no infringement results in a finding of no violation and the investigation is terminated. The Commission vote for this determination took place on December 4, 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: December 4, 2024. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2024–28925 Filed 12–9–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–1370] Certain Power Converter Modules and Computing Systems Containing the Same; Notice of a Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part a final initial determination (‘‘final ID’’) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on September 24, 2024, finding a violation of section 337 in the above referenced investigation. The Commission requests written submissions from the parties on certain issues under review, as indicated in this notice, 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: Joelle Justus, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 205–2593. 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 August 17, 2023, the Commission instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’), based on a complaint filed by Vicor Corporation (‘‘Complainant’’ or ‘‘Vicor’’) of Andover, Massachusetts. See 88 FR 56050 through 56051 (Aug. 17, 2023). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges a violation of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain power converter modules and computing systems containing the same by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,166,481; 9,516,761; and 10,199,950. See id. The notice of investigation names the following respondents: Delta Electronics, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; Delta Electronics (Americas) Ltd. of Fremont, California; Delta Electronics (USA) Inc. of Plano, Texas; Cyntec Co., Ltd. of Hsinchu, Taiwan; Quanta Computer Inc. and Quanta Cloud Technology Inc., both of Taoyuan City, Taiwan; Quanta Cloud Technology USA LLC of San Jose, California; Quanta Computer USA Inc. of Fremont, California; Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd. (d/b/a, Foxconn Technology Group) of Taipei City, Taiwan; Foxconn Industrial internet Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; FII USA Inc. (a/k/a Foxconn Industrial, internet USA Inc.) of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Ingrasys Technology Inc. of Taoyuan City, Taiwan; and Ingrasys Technology USA Inc. of Fremont, California (collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’). See id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) is also a party to the investigation. See id. On January 25, 2024, the Commission partially terminated the investigation as to respondents Delta Electronics (USA) Inc., Quanta Cloud Technology Inc., and Quanta Cloud Technology USA LLC based on withdrawal of the complaint as to those respondents. See Order No. 16 (Dec. 22, 2023), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Jan. 25, 2024). E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM 10DEN1 khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Notices On January 26, 2024, the Commission amended the complaint and notice of investigation to add DET Logistics (USA) Corporation of Fremont, California as a respondent. See Order No. 18 (Jan. 2, 2024), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Jan. 26, 2024). On March 22, 2024, the ALJ granted in part Respondents’ motion for summary determination, specifically as to no infringement of any patent under the doctrine of equivalents. See Order No. 37. The Commission determined not to review the partial grant of summary determination. See Comm’n Notice (Apr. 23, 2024). On September 27, 2024, the ALJ issued the final ID finding that a violation of section 337 has occurred. The Final ID finds, inter alia: (1) as to the ’481 patent, the accused Cyntec products infringe asserted claim 1 but that the accused Delta products and certain asserted redesign products do not infringe claim 1, asserted claim 1 is not invalid, and certain asserted domestic industry products practice asserted claim 1; (2) as to the ’761 patent, the accused Delta products infringe asserted claims 1–7, claims 1– 3 and 7 are invalid as anticipated, claims 4–6 are not invalid for obviousness or indefiniteness, and the asserted domestic industry products practice claims 1–7; (3) as to the ’950 patent, the accused Delta and Cyntec products do not infringe asserted claims 9, 13, 14, and 33–38, the asserted claims are not invalid for obviousness, and the domestic industry products do not practice any asserted claim; (4) Respondents do not have a license to practice the asserted patents; and (5) Vicor has satisfied the domestic industry requirement of section 337 with respect to each of the asserted patents. The ALJ also issued a Recommended Determination on remedy and bonding (‘‘RD’’). The RD recommends that, if the Commission finds a violation, it should issue a limited exclusion order. The RD also recommends the issuance of cease and desist orders as to all Respondents. The RD further recommended that the Commission set no bond as to Cyntec’s products and various bond amounts as to the other infringing products during the period of Presidential review. On October 29, 2024, Complainant and respondent FII USA submitted public interest comments pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4) (19 CFR 210.50(a)(4)). No submissions were filed in response to the Commission’s Federal Register notice seeking submissions on the public interest. See 89 FR 80604 through 80605 (Oct. 3, 2024). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:28 Dec 09, 2024 Jkt 265001 On October 11, 2024, Vicor filed a petition for review of the Final ID’s findings concerning: (1) as to the ’481 patent, no infringement by the Delta accused products, and certain aspects of the Final ID’s validity analysis; (2) as to the ’761 patent, that certain claims are invalid as anticipated and certain subsidiary aspect of the Final ID’s remaining validity analysis; (3) as to the ’950 patent, no infringement, no technical domestic industry, and certain aspects of the Final ID’s economic prong analysis; and (4) as to all patents, no copying (secondary indicia of nonobviousness). Also on October 11, 2024, Respondents filed a petition for review of the Final ID’s findings concerning: (1) as to the ’481 patent, that claim 1 is not invalid as obvious; (2) as to the ’761 patent, that the accused products infringe the asserted claims and claims 4–6 are not invalid as obvious; (3) as to the ’950 patent, that the asserted claims are not invalid as obvious; (4) certain of the ALJ’s pre-hearing orders; and (5) that Vicor has satisfied the economic prong as to each Asserted Patent. On October 21, 2024, OUII filed a combined response to the petitions. On October 22, 2024, Vicor and Respondents each filed responses to the other party’s petition. Having examined the record in this investigation, including the final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the final ID’s findings regarding: (1) as to the ’481 patent, whether the accused Delta products 1 infringe claim 1 and whether Vicor has demonstrated commercial success to overcome a finding of prima facie obviousness; (2) as to the ’761 patent, whether the accused Delta products infringe asserted claims 1–7 and whether the asserted claims are valid; (3) as to the ’950 patent, whether the accused Delta and Cyntec products and redesigned products infringe asserted claims 9, 13, 14, and 33–36 and whether Vicor has satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement; (4) whether Vicor has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement as to all of the asserted patents; and (5) the license defense asserted by respondents FII USA, Inc., Ingrasys Technology, Inc., and Ingrasys Technology USA Inc. (collectively, ‘‘Foxconn’’). The Commission has determined not to 1 Unless otherwise indicated ‘‘accused products’’ does not include redesigned products. See Final ID at 9–10. PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 99279 review the remainder of the Final ID’s findings. 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. With respect to the ’761 patent: a. What is the proper claim construction of the term ‘‘magnetically coupled’’? Applying the proper construction, do the accused products infringe claim 1? b. Do the terms ‘‘dissipate power’’ and ‘‘heat generation’’ as recited in claim 1 have distinct meanings? Do the accused products practice both limitations? c. With reference to Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019), are the domestic industry products ‘‘coextensive’’ with the claimed invention for purposes of commercial success? 2. With respect to the ’950 patent: a. What is the proper claim construction of the terms ‘‘input circuit’’ and ‘‘output circuit’’ as recited in the asserted claims? Applying the proper construction, do the accused and redesigned products infringe the asserted claims? b. How, if at all, is the phase of operation relevant to the determination of whether the accused and redesigned products satisfy the limitation that ‘‘an input voltage VIN is applied to the input circuit’’? 3. With respect to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement: Does the record permit allocation of the overall payments made by Complainant to foreign IC Vendors, see Final ID at 198, to the DI products for each of the Asserted Patents? If so, please provide such allocations. 4. With respect to Foxconn’s license defense: a. With citation to legal authority (binding or persuasive) interpreting Massachusetts General Law (‘‘MGL’’) 106 section 2–207, Uniform Commercial Code section 2–207, or any other relevant provision, is there a binding agreement between Complainant and the Foxconn respondents that includes the license provision set forth in General Term 10 of the Foxconn purchase orders (see RX–1630C.0002; RX–1635C.0002; RX–16359.0002)? If such an agreement exists, does MGL 106 section 2–207(2) or 2–207(3) govern what terms are part of the agreement? b. In addition to any issues the parties deem relevant, the parties should address whether the purported acceptance of the alleged offers was ‘‘sent within a reasonable time’’ (MGL 106 section 2–207(1)) in light of Note 3 E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM 10DEN1 khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES 99280 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Notices of the Foxconn purchase orders (see RX–1630C.0001; RX–1635C.0001; RX– 1639C.0001). c. If there is a binding agreement between Complainant and the Foxconn respondents including the license provision, to which Respondents, Asserted Patents, and accused products does that license apply? 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). 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 order would have on: (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation. If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve, disapprove, or take no action on the Commission’s determination. See Presidential Memorandum of July 21, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:28 Dec 09, 2024 Jkt 265001 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 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 December 18, 2024. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on December 27, 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–1370) 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. PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 December 4, 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: December 4, 2024. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2024–28935 Filed 12–9–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM 10DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 10, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 99278-99280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28935]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-1370]


Certain Power Converter Modules and Computing Systems Containing 
the Same; Notice of a Commission Determination To Review in Part a 
Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Request 
for Written Submissions on 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 has determined to review in part a final initial 
determination (``final ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law 
judge (``ALJ'') on September 24, 2024, finding a violation of section 
337 in the above referenced investigation. The Commission requests 
written submissions from the parties on certain issues under review, as 
indicated in this notice, 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: Joelle Justus, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2593. 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 August 17, 2023, the Commission 
instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''), based on a 
complaint filed by Vicor Corporation (``Complainant'' or ``Vicor'') of 
Andover, Massachusetts. See 88 FR 56050 through 56051 (Aug. 17, 2023). 
The complaint, as supplemented, alleges a violation of section 337 
based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for 
importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of 
certain power converter modules and computing systems containing the 
same by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent 
Nos. 9,166,481; 9,516,761; and 10,199,950. See id. The notice of 
investigation names the following respondents: Delta Electronics, Inc. 
of Taipei, Taiwan; Delta Electronics (Americas) Ltd. of Fremont, 
California; Delta Electronics (USA) Inc. of Plano, Texas; Cyntec Co., 
Ltd. of Hsinchu, Taiwan; Quanta Computer Inc. and Quanta Cloud 
Technology Inc., both of Taoyuan City, Taiwan; Quanta Cloud Technology 
USA LLC of San Jose, California; Quanta Computer USA Inc. of Fremont, 
California; Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd. (d/b/a, Foxconn 
Technology Group) of Taipei City, Taiwan; Foxconn Industrial internet 
Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; FII USA Inc. (a/k/a Foxconn Industrial, 
internet USA Inc.) of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Ingrasys Technology Inc. of 
Taoyuan City, Taiwan; and Ingrasys Technology USA Inc. of Fremont, 
California (collectively, ``Respondents''). See id. The Office of 
Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') is also a party to the 
investigation. See id.
    On January 25, 2024, the Commission partially terminated the 
investigation as to respondents Delta Electronics (USA) Inc., Quanta 
Cloud Technology Inc., and Quanta Cloud Technology USA LLC based on 
withdrawal of the complaint as to those respondents. See Order No. 16 
(Dec. 22, 2023), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Jan. 25, 2024).

[[Page 99279]]

    On January 26, 2024, the Commission amended the complaint and 
notice of investigation to add DET Logistics (USA) Corporation of 
Fremont, California as a respondent. See Order No. 18 (Jan. 2, 2024), 
unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Jan. 26, 2024).
    On March 22, 2024, the ALJ granted in part Respondents' motion for 
summary determination, specifically as to no infringement of any patent 
under the doctrine of equivalents. See Order No. 37. The Commission 
determined not to review the partial grant of summary determination. 
See Comm'n Notice (Apr. 23, 2024).
    On September 27, 2024, the ALJ issued the final ID finding that a 
violation of section 337 has occurred. The Final ID finds, inter alia: 
(1) as to the '481 patent, the accused Cyntec products infringe 
asserted claim 1 but that the accused Delta products and certain 
asserted redesign products do not infringe claim 1, asserted claim 1 is 
not invalid, and certain asserted domestic industry products practice 
asserted claim 1; (2) as to the '761 patent, the accused Delta products 
infringe asserted claims 1-7, claims 1-3 and 7 are invalid as 
anticipated, claims 4-6 are not invalid for obviousness or 
indefiniteness, and the asserted domestic industry products practice 
claims 1-7; (3) as to the '950 patent, the accused Delta and Cyntec 
products do not infringe asserted claims 9, 13, 14, and 33-38, the 
asserted claims are not invalid for obviousness, and the domestic 
industry products do not practice any asserted claim; (4) Respondents 
do not have a license to practice the asserted patents; and (5) Vicor 
has satisfied the domestic industry requirement of section 337 with 
respect to each of the asserted patents.
    The ALJ also issued a Recommended Determination on remedy and 
bonding (``RD''). The RD recommends that, if the Commission finds a 
violation, it should issue a limited exclusion order. The RD also 
recommends the issuance of cease and desist orders as to all 
Respondents. The RD further recommended that the Commission set no bond 
as to Cyntec's products and various bond amounts as to the other 
infringing products during the period of Presidential review.
    On October 29, 2024, Complainant and respondent FII USA submitted 
public interest comments pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4) (19 
CFR 210.50(a)(4)). No submissions were filed in response to the 
Commission's Federal Register notice seeking submissions on the public 
interest. See 89 FR 80604 through 80605 (Oct. 3, 2024).
    On October 11, 2024, Vicor filed a petition for review of the Final 
ID's findings concerning: (1) as to the '481 patent, no infringement by 
the Delta accused products, and certain aspects of the Final ID's 
validity analysis; (2) as to the '761 patent, that certain claims are 
invalid as anticipated and certain subsidiary aspect of the Final ID's 
remaining validity analysis; (3) as to the '950 patent, no 
infringement, no technical domestic industry, and certain aspects of 
the Final ID's economic prong analysis; and (4) as to all patents, no 
copying (secondary indicia of non-obviousness). Also on October 11, 
2024, Respondents filed a petition for review of the Final ID's 
findings concerning: (1) as to the '481 patent, that claim 1 is not 
invalid as obvious; (2) as to the '761 patent, that the accused 
products infringe the asserted claims and claims 4-6 are not invalid as 
obvious; (3) as to the '950 patent, that the asserted claims are not 
invalid as obvious; (4) certain of the ALJ's pre-hearing orders; and 
(5) that Vicor has satisfied the economic prong as to each Asserted 
Patent. On October 21, 2024, OUII filed a combined response to the 
petitions. On October 22, 2024, Vicor and Respondents each filed 
responses to the other party's petition.
    Having examined the record in this investigation, including the 
final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the 
Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. Specifically, 
the Commission has determined to review the final ID's findings 
regarding: (1) as to the '481 patent, whether the accused Delta 
products \1\ infringe claim 1 and whether Vicor has demonstrated 
commercial success to overcome a finding of prima facie obviousness; 
(2) as to the '761 patent, whether the accused Delta products infringe 
asserted claims 1-7 and whether the asserted claims are valid; (3) as 
to the '950 patent, whether the accused Delta and Cyntec products and 
redesigned products infringe asserted claims 9, 13, 14, and 33-36 and 
whether Vicor has satisfied the technical prong of the domestic 
industry requirement; (4) whether Vicor has satisfied the economic 
prong of the domestic industry requirement as to all of the asserted 
patents; and (5) the license defense asserted by respondents FII USA, 
Inc., Ingrasys Technology, Inc., and Ingrasys Technology USA Inc. 
(collectively, ``Foxconn''). The Commission has determined not to 
review the remainder of the Final ID's findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Unless otherwise indicated ``accused products'' does not 
include redesigned products. See Final ID at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. With respect to the '761 patent:
    a. What is the proper claim construction of the term ``magnetically 
coupled''? Applying the proper construction, do the accused products 
infringe claim 1?
    b. Do the terms ``dissipate power'' and ``heat generation'' as 
recited in claim 1 have distinct meanings? Do the accused products 
practice both limitations?
    c. With reference to Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366 
(Fed. Cir. 2019), are the domestic industry products ``coextensive'' 
with the claimed invention for purposes of commercial success?
    2. With respect to the '950 patent:
    a. What is the proper claim construction of the terms ``input 
circuit'' and ``output circuit'' as recited in the asserted claims? 
Applying the proper construction, do the accused and redesigned 
products infringe the asserted claims?
    b. How, if at all, is the phase of operation relevant to the 
determination of whether the accused and redesigned products satisfy 
the limitation that ``an input voltage VIN is applied to the 
input circuit''?
    3. With respect to the economic prong of the domestic industry 
requirement:
    Does the record permit allocation of the overall payments made by 
Complainant to foreign IC Vendors, see Final ID at 198, to the DI 
products for each of the Asserted Patents? If so, please provide such 
allocations.
    4. With respect to Foxconn's license defense:
    a. With citation to legal authority (binding or persuasive) 
interpreting Massachusetts General Law (``MGL'') 106 section 2-207, 
Uniform Commercial Code section 2-207, or any other relevant provision, 
is there a binding agreement between Complainant and the Foxconn 
respondents that includes the license provision set forth in General 
Term 10 of the Foxconn purchase orders (see RX-1630C.0002; RX-
1635C.0002; RX-16359.0002)? If such an agreement exists, does MGL 106 
section 2-207(2) or 2-207(3) govern what terms are part of the 
agreement?
    b. In addition to any issues the parties deem relevant, the parties 
should address whether the purported acceptance of the alleged offers 
was ``sent within a reasonable time'' (MGL 106 section 2-207(1)) in 
light of Note 3

[[Page 99280]]

of the Foxconn purchase orders (see RX-1630C.0001; RX-1635C.0001; RX-
1639C.0001).
    c. If there is a binding agreement between Complainant and the 
Foxconn respondents including the license provision, to which 
Respondents, Asserted Patents, and accused products does that license 
apply?
    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).
    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 order would have on: (1) the public health and 
welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. 
production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those 
that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The 
Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions 
that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context 
of this investigation.
    If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade 
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve, 
disapprove, or take no action on the Commission's determination. See 
Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). 
During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the 
United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and 
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is 
therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of 
the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.
    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 
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 December 18, 2024. Reply submissions must be 
filed no later than the close of business on December 27, 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-1370) 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 December 
4, 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: December 4, 2024.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-28935 Filed 12-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.