[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69762-69763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27884]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-720]


Limited Exclusion and Cease and Desist Orders; Terminations of 
Investigations: Certain Biometric Scanning Devices, Components Thereof, 
Associated Software, and Products Containing the Same

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to modify a final initial determination 
(``ID'') of the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') finding a 
violation of section 337 by respondents in the above-captioned 
investigation, and has issued a limited exclusion order directed 
against products of respondents Suprema, Inc. (``Suprema'') of 
Gyeonggi, Korea and Mentalix, Inc. (``Mentalix'') of Plano, Texas, and 
a cease and desist order directed against Mentalix.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are 
or will be available for inspection during official business hours 
(8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, 
telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission 
may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed 
on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 
Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter 
can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 
205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on June 17, 2010 based on a complaint filed on May 11, 2010, by Cross 
Match Technologies, Inc. (``Cross Match'') of Palm Beach Gardens, 
Florida. 75 FR 34482-83. The complaint, as amended on May 26, 2010, 
alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the 
sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after 
importation of certain biometric scanning devices, components thereof, 
associated software, and products containing the same by reason of 
infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,900,993 (``the 
'993 patent''); 7,203,344 (``the '344 patent''); 7,277,562 (``the '562 
patent''); and 6,483,932 (``the '932 patent''). The complaint further 
alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by 
subsection (a)(2) of section 337, and names two respondents, Suprema 
and Mentalix.
    On November 10, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its 
determination not to review the ALJ's ID granting Cross Match's motion 
to amend the complaint by adding allegations of infringement as to 
claims 5-6, 12, and 30 of the '562 patent, and claims 7, 15, 19, and 45 
of the '44 patent. On December 27, 2010, the Commission issued notice 
of its determination not to review the ALJ's ID granting Cross Match's 
motion to terminate the investigation as to claims 6-8, 13-15, and 19-
21 of the '932 patent (eliminating this patent from the investigation); 
claims 13 and 16 of the '993 patent; claims 4, 15, 30, 32, and 44 of 
the '344 patent; and claim 2 of the '562 patent based on withdrawal of 
these claims from the complaint. On March 18, 2011, the Commission 
issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's ID granting 
Cross Match's motion for summary determination that it satisfies the 
economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.
    On June 17, 2011, the ALJ issued his final ID finding a violation 
of section 337 by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 10, 
12, and 15 of the '993 patent by the imported devices. The ALJ also 
found a violation of section 337 by reason of infringement of claim 19 
of the '344 patent. The ALJ found no violation of section 337 with 
respect to the '562 patent. He also issued his recommendation on remedy 
and bonding during the period of Presidential review. On July 5, 2011, 
Cross Match, respondents, and the Commission investigative attorney 
(``IA'') each filed a petition for review of the final ID; and on July 
13, 2011, each filed a response to the opposing petitions.
    On August 18, 2011, the Commission determined to review the ALJ's 
finding of a violation of section 337 based on infringement of claim 19 
of the '344

[[Page 69763]]

patent. The determinations made in the final ID that were not reviewed 
became final determinations of the Commission by operation of rule. See 
19 U.S.C. 210.42(h).
    The Commission requested briefing on certain questions concerning 
the issues under review and requested written submissions on the issues 
of remedy, the public interest, and bonding from the parties and 
interested non-parties. 76 FR 52970-71 (August 24, 2011).
    On August 30 and September 8, 2011, respectively, complainant Cross 
Match, respondents, and the IA each filed a brief and a reply brief on 
the issues for which the Commission requested written submissions.
    Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the 
final ID and the parties' written submissions, the Commission has 
determined to: (1) Modify-in-part the final ID and issue an Opinion 
supplementing the ID's analysis concerning its finding that the accused 
scanners infringe claim 19 of the '344 patent; and (2) affirm all other 
findings of the ID underlying the issue under review. Specifically, the 
Commission has determined that respondent Mentalix directly infringes 
claim 19 of the '344 patent, and that respondent Suprema indirectly 
infringes claim 19, via induced infringement, but does not infringe 
claim 19 via contributory infringement. These actions result in a 
finding of a violation of section 337 with respect to claim 19 of the 
'344 patent.
    Further, the Commission has made its determination on the issues of 
remedy, the public interest, and bonding. The Commission has determined 
that the appropriate form of relief is both: (1) A limited exclusion 
order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of biometric scanning devices, 
components thereof, associated software, and products containing the 
same that infringe one or more of claims 10, 12, and 15 of the '993 
patent and claim 19 of the '344 patent where the infringing scanning 
devices are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or are imported by 
or on behalf of, Suprema or Mentalix, or any of their affiliated 
companies, parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other 
related business entities, or successors or assigns; and (2) a cease 
and desist order prohibiting Mentalix, Inc. from conducting any of the 
following activities in the United States: importing, selling, 
marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring 
(except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors 
for, biometric scanning devices, components thereof, associated 
software, and products containing the same that infringe one or more of 
claims 10, 12, and 15 of the '993 patent and claim 19 of the '344 
patent.
    The Commission further determined that the public interest factors 
enumerated in sections 337(d)(1), (f)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1)) 
do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion or cease and desist 
order. Finally, the Commission determined that a bond of 100 percent of 
the entered value of the covered products is required to permit 
temporary importation during the period of Presidential review (19 
U.S.C. 1337(j)). The Commission's orders and opinion were delivered to 
the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day 
of their issuance.
    The Commission has terminated this investigation. 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 sections 
210.42, 210.45, and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42, 210.45, 210.50).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: October 24, 2011.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-27884 Filed 11-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P