[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56672-56674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22517]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-784]


Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing the Same; 
Determination To Review a Final Initial Determination in Part and Set a 
Schedule for Filing 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 the final initial 
determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ'') on July 9, 2012, in the above-captioned investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. 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 
under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 
1337, on July 11, 2011, based on two complaints filed by OSRAM GmbH of 
Munich, Germany (``OSRAM''), alleging, inter alia, a violation of 
section 337 in the importation, sale for importation, and sale within 
the United States after importation of certain light-emitting diodes 
and products containing same by reason of infringement of certain 
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,849,881 (``the `881 patent''); 6,975,011 
(``the `011 patent''); 7,106,090 (``the `090 patent''); 7,151,283 
(``the `283 patent''); and 7,271,425 (``the `425 patent''). 76 FR 40746 
(July 11,

[[Page 56673]]

2011). Subsequently, the `881, the `090, and the `011, as well as 
certain claims of the `283 and `425 patents, were terminated from the 
investigation. The respondents are LG Electronics and LG Innotek Co., 
Ltd., both of Seoul, Republic of Korea; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of 
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; and LG Innotek U.S.A., Inc. of San Diego, 
California (collectively, ``LG''). Id. The Office of Unfair Import 
Investigations was not named as a party to the investigation.
    The evidentiary hearing in this investigation was held from April 
26 through May 2, 2012. On July 9, 2012, the ALJ issued the final ID 
finding a violation of section 337. The ALJ issued his recommended 
determination on remedy and bonding on July 23, 2012. Respondent LG 
filed a timely petition for review of various portions of the final ID, 
and complainant OSRAM filed a timely response to the petition.
    Having examined the record in this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID, the petition for review, and the response thereto, the 
Commission has determined to review:
    (I) The ALJ's determination that OSRAM met the economic prong of 
the domestic industry requirement with respect to both asserted 
patents;
    (II) With respect to the `283 patent:
    (a) the ALJ's determination that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 22, 24, 25, 
26, 29, 32, 33, and 34 of the `283 patent are not rendered obvious in 
view of prior art references Japanese Patent (``JP'') 345, JP 609, JP 
794, and Hewes;
    (b) the ALJ's determination that claim 34 of the `283 patent is not 
rendered obvious in view of prior art references Nikkei Article, 
Stevenson, Blasse, and Hewes;
    (c) the ALJ's determination that claim 34 of the `283 patent is not 
rendered obvious in view of prior art references JP 609, Nikkei 
Article, Blasse, and Hewes.
    The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the 
final ID. The parties are requested to brief their positions on only 
the following issues, with reference to the applicable law and the 
evidentiary record:
    (1) With respect to the economic prong of the domestic industry 
requirement:
    (a) Please identify the record evidence showing that the products 
on which OSRAM relies for the purpose of demonstrating that it met the 
economic prong of the domestic industry requirement are protected by 
the `283 patent, as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3);
    (b) Please identify the record evidence showing that, with respect 
to its products protected by the `283 patent, OSRAM made qualifying 
investments in the `283 patent's exploitation, including engineering, 
research and development, as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C);
    (c) Please identify the record evidence showing that OSRAM's 
qualifying investment in the `283 patent's exploitation, including 
engineering, research and development, with respect to OSRAM's products 
protected by the `283 patent is substantial, as required by 19 U.S.C. 
1337(a)(3)(C).
    (2) With respect to the `283 patent:
    (a) Does the record evidence, including the disclosure in JP 609 
(see RX-105), and OSRAM's arguments made before the European Patent 
Office (see RX-118) and USPTO (see RX-10002), show that JP 609 teaches 
a ``partial conversion'' of light?
    (b) Does the record evidence, including the disclosure in the 
Nikkei Article (see RX-108), and OSRAM's arguments made before the 
European Patent Office (see RX-118), show that the Nikkei Article 
teaches a ``partial conversion'' of light?
    (c) Assuming the evidence demonstrates that JP 609 or the Nikkei 
Article discloses partial conversion, please identify the record 
evidence that demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would 
have been motivated to combine: (i) JP 345 (see RX-107), JP 609, JP 794 
(see RX-106), and Hewes (see RX-101); (ii) the Nikkei Article, 
Stevenson (see RX-109), Blasse (see RX-110), and Hewes; or (iii) JP 
609, the Nikkei Article, Blasse, and Hewes, to arrive at the claimed 
inventions of the `283 patent.
    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the 
Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of 
the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) 
issue one or more cease and desist orders 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 are 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).
    If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must 
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The 
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an 
exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the 
public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. 
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly 
competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. 
consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written 
submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in 
the context of this investigation.
    If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the President has 60 
days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. 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.
    Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested 
to file written submissions on the issues under review. The submissions 
should be concise and thoroughly referenced to the record in this 
investigation. Parties to the investigation, interested government 
agencies, and any other interested persons 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. Complainant is also requested to 
submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. 
Complainant is further requested to provide the expiration date of the 
`283 patent and state the HTSUS subheading(s) under which the accused 
articles are imported. The written submissions and proposed remedial 
orders must be filed no later than the close of business on September 
21, 2012. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of 
business on September 28, 2012. No further submissions on 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 and submit 8 
true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day 
pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 CFR

[[Page 56674]]

210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (``Inv. 
No. 337-TA-784'') in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the 
first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.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. All such requests 
should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include 
a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such 
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment 
by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A 
redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed 
simultaneously with the any confidential filing. All non-confidential 
written submissions will be available for public inspection at the 
Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.
    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-.46 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-.46).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 7, 2012.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-22517 Filed 9-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P