Certain Active Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Panels and Modules for Mobile Devices, and Components Thereof; Notice of the Commission's Final Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the Investigation, 13624-13626 [2025-04982]

Download as PDF ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 13624 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 25, 2025 / Notices may be subject to taxation by the Indian Tribe with jurisdiction. See 25 CFR 162.017. As explained further in the preamble to the final regulations, the Federal Government has a strong interest in promoting economic development, self-determination, and Tribal sovereignty. 77 FR 72440, 72447– 48 (December 5, 2012). The principles supporting the Federal preemption of State law in the field of Indian leasing and the taxation of lease-related interests and activities apply with equal force to leases entered into under Tribal leasing regulations approved by the Federal Government pursuant to the HEARTH Act. Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 5108, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation v. Thurston County, 724 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973)). Similarly, section 5108 preempts State taxation of rent payments by a lessee for leased trust lands because ‘‘tax on the payment of rent is indistinguishable from an impermissible tax on the land.’’ See Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Stranburg, 799 F.3d 1324, 1331, n.8 (11th Cir. 2015). In addition, as explained in the preamble to the revised leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162, Federal courts have applied a balancing test to determine whether State and local taxation of non-Indians on the reservation is preempted. White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 143 (1980). The Bracker balancing test, which is conducted against a backdrop of ‘‘traditional notions of Indian self-government,’’ requires a particularized examination of the relevant State, Federal, and Tribal interests. We hereby adopt the Bracker analysis from the preamble to the surface leasing regulations, 77 FR at 72447–48, as supplemented by the analysis below. The strong Federal and Tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department’s leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to Tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress’s overarching intent was to ‘‘allow Tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in Tribal communities.’’ 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:03 Mar 24, 2025 Jkt 265001 intended to afford Tribes ‘‘flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs’’ and to ‘‘enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.’’ H. Rep. 112–427 at 6 (2012). Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting Tribal economic development and self-determination and would threaten substantial Tribal interests in effective Tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy. See Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782, 810 (2014) (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (determining that ‘‘[a] key goal of the Federal Government is to render Tribes more self-sufficient, and better positioned to fund their own sovereign functions, rather than relying on Federal funding’’). The additional costs of State and local taxation have a chilling effect on potential lessees, as well as on a Tribe that, as a result, might refrain from exercising its own sovereign right to impose a Tribal tax to support its infrastructure needs. See id. at 810–11 (finding that State and local taxes greatly discourage Tribes from raising tax revenue from the same sources because the imposition of double taxation would impede Tribal economic growth). Similar to BIA’s surface leasing regulations, Tribal regulations under the HEARTH Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing. See 25 U.S.C. 415(h)(3)(B)(i) (requiring Tribal regulations be consistent with BIA surface leasing regulations). Furthermore, the Federal Government remains involved in the Tribal land leasing process by approving the Tribal leasing regulations in the first instance and providing technical assistance, upon request by a Tribe, for the development of an environmental review process. The Secretary also retains authority to take any necessary actions to remedy violations of a lease or of the Tribal regulations, including terminating the lease or rescinding approval of the Tribal regulations and reassuming lease approval responsibilities. Moreover, the Secretary continues to review, approve, and monitor individual Indian land leases and other types of leases not covered under the Tribal regulations according to 25 CFR part 162. Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by Tribal leasing regulations or 25 CFR part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 interests may be subject to taxation by the Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut. Bryan Mercier, Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Exercising the delegated authority of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. [FR Doc. 2025–04962 Filed 3–24–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337–15–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–1351 (Remand)] Certain Active Matrix Organic LightEmitting Diode Display Panels and Modules for Mobile Devices, and Components Thereof; Notice of the Commission’s Final Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the Investigation U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to find no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, in this investigation. The investigation is terminated in its entirety. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Chen, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2392. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket system (‘‘EDIS’’) at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal, telephone (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on February 3, 2023, based on a complaint filed by Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (‘‘SDC’’ or ‘‘Complainant’’) of the Republic of Korea. 88 FR 7,463–64 (Feb. 3, 2023). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain active matrix organic light-emitting diode display panels and modules for mobile devices, SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\25MRN1.SGM 25MRN1 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 25, 2025 / Notices and components thereof by reason of infringement of claims 1–5 and 19–21 of U.S. Patent No. 9,818,803 (‘‘the ’803 patent’’); claims 1, 2, 4–10, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,854,683 (‘‘the ’683 patent’’); claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,414,599 (‘‘the ’599 patent’’); and claims 1–3, 6–8, and 14–22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,330,593 (‘‘the ’593 patent’’). Id. The complaint further alleged that a domestic industry exists. Id. The notice of investigation named the following parties as respondents: Injured Gadgets, LLC (‘‘Injured Gadgets’’) of Norcross, Georgia; Wholesale Gadget Parts, Inc. (‘‘Wholesale Gadget Parts’’) of Bixby, Oklahoma; Phone LCD Parts LLC and Parts4LCD (collectively, ‘‘Phone LCD Parts’’) of Wayne, New Jersey; AptAbility LLC d/b/a MobileSentrix of Chantilly, Virginia; Mobile Defenders, LLC of Caledonia, Michigan; Group Vertical, LLC (‘‘Group Vertical’’) of Grand Rapids, Michigan; Electronics Universe, Inc. d/b/a Fixez.com and Electronics Universe, Inc. d/b/a Repairs Universe, Inc. (‘‘Electronics Universe’’) of Las Vegas, Nevada; LCTech International Inc. d/b/a SEGMobile.com (‘‘LCTech’’) of City of Industry, California; Sourcely Plus, LLC (‘‘Sourcely Plus’’) of Tempe, Arizona; eTech Parts Plus LLC (‘‘eTech Parts Plus’’) of Southlake, Texas; Parts4Cells Inc. (‘‘Parts4Cells’’) of Houston, Texas; Captain Mobile Parts, Inc. (‘‘Captain Mobile Parts’’) of Dallas, Texas; DFW Imports LLC d/b/a DFW Cellphone and Parts (‘‘DFW Imports’’) of Dallas, Texas; Mengtor Inc. (‘‘Mengtor’’) of El Monte, California; and Gadgetfix Corp. (‘‘Gadgetfix’’) of Irvine, California. Id. The notice of investigation also named the Office of Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) as a party. Id. On March 22, 2023, the Commission granted Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.’s (‘‘BOE’’) unopposed motion to intervene as a respondent in this investigation. Order No. 7 (Mar. 15, 2023), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Mar. 22, 2023). Two respondents, Apt-Ability LLC d/ b/a MobileSentrix and Mobile Defenders, LLC, were terminated based on a consent order. Order No. 43 (Dec. 20, 2023), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Apr. 18, 2024). Ten respondents, Captain Mobile Parts, Group Vertical, Sourcely Plus, Mengtor, Electronics Universe, LCTech, Parts4Cells, DFW Imports, Gadgetfix, and eTech Parts Plus were found in default. Order No. 16 (May 10, 2023), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (June 7, 2023); Order No. 22 (Jun. 27, 2023), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (July 20, 2023); Order No. 25 (Jul. 19, 2023), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Aug. 18, 2023); Order No. 27 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:03 Mar 24, 2025 Jkt 265001 (Aug. 8, 2023), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Aug. 30, 2023). Accordingly, respondents Injured Gadgets, Wholesale Gadget Parts, and Phone LCD Parts (collectively, ‘‘the BLF Respondents’’) and BOE remain active in the investigation. On April 20, 2023, the Commission granted SDC’s motion for leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add allegations of infringement related to claims 1–6, 10, 12, 17, 19, 21–23, 40–47, and 51–52 of the ’578 patent. Order No. 8 (Mar. 28, 2023), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Apr. 20, 2023). When the final ID issued, only claims 5 and 21 of the ’803 patent, claims 5, 10, 17, 40–41, and 47 of the ’578 patent, claims 2–3, 13, and 15–16 of the ’599 patent, and claim 6 of the ’593 patent remain asserted in the investigation as a result of termination of all asserted claims of the ’683 patent and certain other asserted claims. See Order No. 34 (Oct. 26, 2023), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Nov. 27, 2024), Order No. 39 (Dec. 7, 2023), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Jan. 8, 2024), Order No. 51 (Jun. 14, 2024), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Jul. 3, 2024), Order No. 65 (Aug. 27, 2024), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Sept. 26, 2024). On November 15, 2023, the BLF Respondents and BOE (collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’) moved for summary determination that SDC lacked standing to bring and maintain this investigation. Respondents argued because SDC’s parent company, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (‘‘SEC’’), ‘‘has an unfettered right to grant licenses, SDC lacks the exclusionary rights necessary to prove standing.’’ Mot. at 18. Finding that ‘‘there is no genuine issue of material fact that SEC has an unrestricted right to sublicense the Asserted Patents to others’’ and that SEC’s possession of such a right divested SDC of exclusionary rights, on January 9, 2024, the ALJ granted Respondents’ motion for summary determination of no violation due to lack of standing. Order No. 44 at 13, 24–25 (Jan. 9, 2024). On April 24, 2024, the Commission vacated that initial determination and remanded the investigation for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. In its opinion, the Commission found that ‘‘(1) constitutional standing, the Article III requirements of the Constitution related to the authority of federal courts to adjudicate lawsuits, is not required at [the] Commission; and (2) there are genuine issues of material facts relating to [Complainant’s] rights in the asserted patents.’’ Comm’n Op. at 2. The Commission remanded the investigation to the ALJ to ‘‘conduct PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 13625 further proceedings as appropriate and consistent with the Commission’s opinion herewith.’’ Id. On May 2, 2024, the ALJ held a case management conference to discuss how the case would proceed on remand. Respondent BOE indicated that it wished to argue that SDC lacked ‘‘all substantial rights’’ to the asserted patents when it filed its complaint and that it wished to pursue discovery from SEC on this issue. Order No. 50 at 3 (June 11, 2024). SDC responded that a statutory cause of action defense had never previously been raised and thus was waived. Id. at 5. OUII noted that ‘‘Respondents’ argument that [SDC] may not have owned the asserted patents when it filed the complaint because it did not hold all substantial rights is fundamentally different from the argument advanced in Respondents’ motion for summary determination.’’ Id. The ALJ then ordered ‘‘additional briefing’’ on ‘‘the effect of the Commission opinion on th[e] Investigation.’’ Order No. 47, EDIS Doc. ID 820416, at 1 (May 3, 2024). Following a teleconference and briefing on remand, the ALJ found that Respondents waived their argument that SDC lacked ‘‘all substantial rights’’ to the Asserted Patents and thus failed to satisfy the requirement of Commission Rule 210.12(a)(7) because Respondents did not address this issue in their prehearing brief, as required by the ALJ’s Ground Rules. ID at 4 (citing Order No. 50 at 4). The evidentiary hearing was held on July 8–9, 2024, and July 15–17, 2024. On November 15, 2024, the ALJ issued a final ID, finding no violation of section 337 because SDC failed to show the existence of a domestic industry, among other reasons. In particular, the ID found: (1) SDC met its burden under Rule 210.12(a)(7); (2) SDC failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for all asserted patents; (3) SDC satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the ’803, the ’578, and the ’599 patents but not for the ’593 patent; (4) at least one representative accused product infringes claims 5 and 21 of the ’803 patent, claims 5, 10, 17, 40–41, and 47 of the ’578 patent, claims 15–16 of the ’599 patent, and claim 6 of the ’593 patent but not claims 2–3 and 13 of the ’599 patent; and (5) the claims have not been shown to be invalid. On November 29, 2024, SDC filed a petition for review of the ID challenging certain findings related to the ’803, the ’578, and the ’599 patents, including the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. SDC did not petition for review of the ID’s findings E:\FR\FM\25MRN1.SGM 25MRN1 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 13626 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 25, 2025 / Notices related to the ’593 patent. That same day, Respondent BOE and the BLF Respondents filed a joint contingent petition for review. OUII did not file a petition for review. On December 9, 2024, Complainant, Respondents, and OUII each filed a response to the petitions. The Commission solicited submissions from the public on the public interest issues raised by the recommended determination. 89 FR 92721 (Nov. 22, 2024). The Commission received comments from Representative John Moolenaar, Chairman of the House Select Committee on China, and Dr. Robert D. Atkinson of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation. On January 8, 2025, SDC filed a notice of supplemental authority to apprise the Commission of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decisions in inter partes review proceedings on the ’578 patent and the ’803 patent. In the final written decisions, the Board found claim 21 of the ’803 patent unpatentable and all other asserted claims of the ’578 and ’803 patents at issue in this investigation had not been proven unpatentable. See Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd., IPR2023– 00987, Final Written Decision (Jan. 6, 2025); Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd., IPR2023–01075, Final Written Decision (Jan. 6, 2025). On January 16, 2025, the Commission determined to review the ID in part. Specifically, the Commission determined to review: (1) the ID’s findings that the Commission has statutory authority to investigate Complainant SDC’s alleged violation under section 337 and that Respondents waived their argument that SDC lacked the ability to bring this investigation under Commission Rule 210.12; (2) the ID’s findings related to the technical prong for the ’803 patent; and (3) the ID’s findings regarding the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. 90 FR 8,034–036 (Jan. 23, 2024). The Commission determined not to review any other findings presented in the final ID, including the ID’s finding of no violation of section 337 with respect to the ’593 patent. The Commission requested briefing from the parties on certain issues under review and on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. The parties filed their opening written submissions on January 30, 2025, and their responsive written submissions on February 6, 2025. On review, the Commission has found no violation of section 337 with respect to claims 5 and 21 of the ’803 patent; claims 5, 10, 17, 40–41, and 47 of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:03 Mar 24, 2025 Jkt 265001 ’578 patent; and claims 2–3, 13, and 15– 16 of the ’599 patent. Specifically, the Commission has determined to affirm the ALJ’s finding that the Commission has statutory authority to investigate Complainant’s alleged violation under section 337. The Commission has also determined to affirm the ID’s finding that representative display panels in the asserted domestic industry products practice claim 21 of the ’803 patent. The Commission has further determined to affirm with modified reasoning the ID’s finding that Complainant failed to demonstrate the existence of a domestic industry under sections 337(a)(3)(A) and (B). Based on this dispositive finding, the Commission has determined to take no position on whether the asserted domestic industry products also practice claim 5 of the ’803 patent and whether Respondents forfeited their argument that Complainant is not the owner of the Asserted Patents under Commission Rule 210.12(a)(7). Accordingly, the investigation is terminated with a finding of no violation. The Commission’s reasoning in support of its determinations is set forth more fully in its opinion issued concurrently herewith. The Commission vote for this determination took place on March 19, 2025. 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: March 19, 2025. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2025–04982 Filed 3–24–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731–TA–747 (Fifth Review)] Fresh Tomatoes From Mexico; Scheduling of a Full Five-Year Review United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a full review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’) to determine whether termination of the suspended investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days. DATES: March 18, 2025. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jesse Sanchez (202–205–2402), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background.—On November 4, 2024, the Commission determined that responses to its notice of institution of the subject five-year review were such that a full review should proceed (89 FR 96681, December 5, 2024); accordingly, a full review is being scheduled pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)). A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner’s statements are available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission’s website. Participation in the review and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in this review as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission’s rules, by 45 days after publication of this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance following publication of the Commission’s notice of institution of the review need not file an additional notice of appearance. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the review. For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, E:\FR\FM\25MRN1.SGM 25MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 25, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13624-13626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-04982]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-1351 (Remand)]


Certain Active Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Panels 
and Modules for Mobile Devices, and Components Thereof; Notice of the 
Commission's Final Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; 
Termination of the Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to find no violation of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, in this investigation. The 
investigation is terminated in its entirety.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Chen, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2392. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may 
be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket system (``EDIS'') at 
https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email 
[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, telephone (202) 205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on February 3, 2023, based on a complaint filed by Samsung Display Co., 
Ltd. (``SDC'' or ``Complainant'') of the Republic of Korea. 88 FR 
7,463-64 (Feb. 3, 2023). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged 
violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, 
the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after 
importation of certain active matrix organic light-emitting diode 
display panels and modules for mobile devices,

[[Page 13625]]

and components thereof by reason of infringement of claims 1-5 and 19-
21 of U.S. Patent No. 9,818,803 (``the '803 patent''); claims 1, 2, 4-
10, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,854,683 (``the '683 patent''); claims 
1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,414,599 (``the '599 patent''); and claims 1-
3, 6-8, and 14-22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,330,593 (``the '593 patent''). 
Id. The complaint further alleged that a domestic industry exists. Id. 
The notice of investigation named the following parties as respondents: 
Injured Gadgets, LLC (``Injured Gadgets'') of Norcross, Georgia; 
Wholesale Gadget Parts, Inc. (``Wholesale Gadget Parts'') of Bixby, 
Oklahoma; Phone LCD Parts LLC and Parts4LCD (collectively, ``Phone LCD 
Parts'') of Wayne, New Jersey; Apt-Ability LLC d/b/a MobileSentrix of 
Chantilly, Virginia; Mobile Defenders, LLC of Caledonia, Michigan; 
Group Vertical, LLC (``Group Vertical'') of Grand Rapids, Michigan; 
Electronics Universe, Inc. d/b/a Fixez.com and Electronics Universe, 
Inc. d/b/a Repairs Universe, Inc. (``Electronics Universe'') of Las 
Vegas, Nevada; LCTech International Inc. d/b/a SEGMobile.com 
(``LCTech'') of City of Industry, California; Sourcely Plus, LLC 
(``Sourcely Plus'') of Tempe, Arizona; eTech Parts Plus LLC (``eTech 
Parts Plus'') of Southlake, Texas; Parts4Cells Inc. (``Parts4Cells'') 
of Houston, Texas; Captain Mobile Parts, Inc. (``Captain Mobile 
Parts'') of Dallas, Texas; DFW Imports LLC d/b/a DFW Cellphone and 
Parts (``DFW Imports'') of Dallas, Texas; Mengtor Inc. (``Mengtor'') of 
El Monte, California; and Gadgetfix Corp. (``Gadgetfix'') of Irvine, 
California. Id. The notice of investigation also named the Office of 
Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') as a party. Id.
    On March 22, 2023, the Commission granted Mianyang BOE 
Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.'s (``BOE'') unopposed motion to 
intervene as a respondent in this investigation. Order No. 7 (Mar. 15, 
2023), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Mar. 22, 2023).
    Two respondents, Apt-Ability LLC d/b/a MobileSentrix and Mobile 
Defenders, LLC, were terminated based on a consent order. Order No. 43 
(Dec. 20, 2023), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Apr. 18, 2024). Ten 
respondents, Captain Mobile Parts, Group Vertical, Sourcely Plus, 
Mengtor, Electronics Universe, LCTech, Parts4Cells, DFW Imports, 
Gadgetfix, and eTech Parts Plus were found in default. Order No. 16 
(May 10, 2023), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (June 7, 2023); Order No. 
22 (Jun. 27, 2023), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (July 20, 2023); Order 
No. 25 (Jul. 19, 2023), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Aug. 18, 2023); 
Order No. 27 (Aug. 8, 2023), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Aug. 30, 
2023). Accordingly, respondents Injured Gadgets, Wholesale Gadget 
Parts, and Phone LCD Parts (collectively, ``the BLF Respondents'') and 
BOE remain active in the investigation.
    On April 20, 2023, the Commission granted SDC's motion for leave to 
amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add allegations of 
infringement related to claims 1-6, 10, 12, 17, 19, 21-23, 40-47, and 
51-52 of the '578 patent. Order No. 8 (Mar. 28, 2023), unreviewed by 
Comm'n Notice (Apr. 20, 2023). When the final ID issued, only claims 5 
and 21 of the '803 patent, claims 5, 10, 17, 40-41, and 47 of the '578 
patent, claims 2-3, 13, and 15-16 of the '599 patent, and claim 6 of 
the '593 patent remain asserted in the investigation as a result of 
termination of all asserted claims of the '683 patent and certain other 
asserted claims. See Order No. 34 (Oct. 26, 2023), unreviewed by Comm'n 
Notice (Nov. 27, 2024), Order No. 39 (Dec. 7, 2023), unreviewed by 
Comm'n Notice (Jan. 8, 2024), Order No. 51 (Jun. 14, 2024), unreviewed 
by Comm'n Notice (Jul. 3, 2024), Order No. 65 (Aug. 27, 2024), 
unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Sept. 26, 2024).
    On November 15, 2023, the BLF Respondents and BOE (collectively, 
``Respondents'') moved for summary determination that SDC lacked 
standing to bring and maintain this investigation. Respondents argued 
because SDC's parent company, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (``SEC''), 
``has an unfettered right to grant licenses, SDC lacks the exclusionary 
rights necessary to prove standing.'' Mot. at 18. Finding that ``there 
is no genuine issue of material fact that SEC has an unrestricted right 
to sublicense the Asserted Patents to others'' and that SEC's 
possession of such a right divested SDC of exclusionary rights, on 
January 9, 2024, the ALJ granted Respondents' motion for summary 
determination of no violation due to lack of standing. Order No. 44 at 
13, 24-25 (Jan. 9, 2024).
    On April 24, 2024, the Commission vacated that initial 
determination and remanded the investigation for further proceedings 
consistent with its opinion. In its opinion, the Commission found that 
``(1) constitutional standing, the Article III requirements of the 
Constitution related to the authority of federal courts to adjudicate 
lawsuits, is not required at [the] Commission; and (2) there are 
genuine issues of material facts relating to [Complainant's] rights in 
the asserted patents.'' Comm'n Op. at 2. The Commission remanded the 
investigation to the ALJ to ``conduct further proceedings as 
appropriate and consistent with the Commission's opinion herewith.'' 
Id.
    On May 2, 2024, the ALJ held a case management conference to 
discuss how the case would proceed on remand. Respondent BOE indicated 
that it wished to argue that SDC lacked ``all substantial rights'' to 
the asserted patents when it filed its complaint and that it wished to 
pursue discovery from SEC on this issue. Order No. 50 at 3 (June 11, 
2024). SDC responded that a statutory cause of action defense had never 
previously been raised and thus was waived. Id. at 5. OUII noted that 
``Respondents' argument that [SDC] may not have owned the asserted 
patents when it filed the complaint because it did not hold all 
substantial rights is fundamentally different from the argument 
advanced in Respondents' motion for summary determination.'' Id. The 
ALJ then ordered ``additional briefing'' on ``the effect of the 
Commission opinion on th[e] Investigation.'' Order No. 47, EDIS Doc. ID 
820416, at 1 (May 3, 2024). Following a teleconference and briefing on 
remand, the ALJ found that Respondents waived their argument that SDC 
lacked ``all substantial rights'' to the Asserted Patents and thus 
failed to satisfy the requirement of Commission Rule 210.12(a)(7) 
because Respondents did not address this issue in their prehearing 
brief, as required by the ALJ's Ground Rules. ID at 4 (citing Order No. 
50 at 4).
    The evidentiary hearing was held on July 8-9, 2024, and July 15-17, 
2024.
    On November 15, 2024, the ALJ issued a final ID, finding no 
violation of section 337 because SDC failed to show the existence of a 
domestic industry, among other reasons. In particular, the ID found: 
(1) SDC met its burden under Rule 210.12(a)(7); (2) SDC failed to 
satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for all 
asserted patents; (3) SDC satisfied the technical prong of the domestic 
industry requirement for the '803, the '578, and the '599 patents but 
not for the '593 patent; (4) at least one representative accused 
product infringes claims 5 and 21 of the '803 patent, claims 5, 10, 17, 
40-41, and 47 of the '578 patent, claims 15-16 of the '599 patent, and 
claim 6 of the '593 patent but not claims 2-3 and 13 of the '599 
patent; and (5) the claims have not been shown to be invalid.
    On November 29, 2024, SDC filed a petition for review of the ID 
challenging certain findings related to the '803, the '578, and the 
'599 patents, including the economic prong of the domestic industry 
requirement. SDC did not petition for review of the ID's findings

[[Page 13626]]

related to the '593 patent. That same day, Respondent BOE and the BLF 
Respondents filed a joint contingent petition for review. OUII did not 
file a petition for review. On December 9, 2024, Complainant, 
Respondents, and OUII each filed a response to the petitions.
    The Commission solicited submissions from the public on the public 
interest issues raised by the recommended determination. 89 FR 92721 
(Nov. 22, 2024). The Commission received comments from Representative 
John Moolenaar, Chairman of the House Select Committee on China, and 
Dr. Robert D. Atkinson of the Information Technology & Innovation 
Foundation.
    On January 8, 2025, SDC filed a notice of supplemental authority to 
apprise the Commission of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's final 
written decisions in inter partes review proceedings on the '578 patent 
and the '803 patent. In the final written decisions, the Board found 
claim 21 of the '803 patent unpatentable and all other asserted claims 
of the '578 and '803 patents at issue in this investigation had not 
been proven unpatentable. See Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Tech. Co., 
Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd., IPR2023-00987, Final Written 
Decision (Jan. 6, 2025); Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Tech. Co., Ltd. 
v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd., IPR2023-01075, Final Written Decision 
(Jan. 6, 2025).
    On January 16, 2025, the Commission determined to review the ID in 
part. Specifically, the Commission determined to review: (1) the ID's 
findings that the Commission has statutory authority to investigate 
Complainant SDC's alleged violation under section 337 and that 
Respondents waived their argument that SDC lacked the ability to bring 
this investigation under Commission Rule 210.12; (2) the ID's findings 
related to the technical prong for the '803 patent; and (3) the ID's 
findings regarding the economic prong of the domestic industry 
requirement. 90 FR 8,034-036 (Jan. 23, 2024). The Commission determined 
not to review any other findings presented in the final ID, including 
the ID's finding of no violation of section 337 with respect to the 
'593 patent. The Commission requested briefing from the parties on 
certain issues under review and on remedy, the public interest, and 
bonding. The parties filed their opening written submissions on January 
30, 2025, and their responsive written submissions on February 6, 2025.
    On review, the Commission has found no violation of section 337 
with respect to claims 5 and 21 of the '803 patent; claims 5, 10, 17, 
40-41, and 47 of the '578 patent; and claims 2-3, 13, and 15-16 of the 
'599 patent. Specifically, the Commission has determined to affirm the 
ALJ's finding that the Commission has statutory authority to 
investigate Complainant's alleged violation under section 337. The 
Commission has also determined to affirm the ID's finding that 
representative display panels in the asserted domestic industry 
products practice claim 21 of the '803 patent. The Commission has 
further determined to affirm with modified reasoning the ID's finding 
that Complainant failed to demonstrate the existence of a domestic 
industry under sections 337(a)(3)(A) and (B). Based on this dispositive 
finding, the Commission has determined to take no position on whether 
the asserted domestic industry products also practice claim 5 of the 
'803 patent and whether Respondents forfeited their argument that 
Complainant is not the owner of the Asserted Patents under Commission 
Rule 210.12(a)(7).
    Accordingly, the investigation is terminated with a finding of no 
violation. The Commission's reasoning in support of its determinations 
is set forth more fully in its opinion issued concurrently herewith.
    The Commission vote for this determination took place on March 19, 
2025.
    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: March 19, 2025.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2025-04982 Filed 3-24-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.