[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 223 (Monday, November 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69499-69501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28064]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-804]


Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof; 
Notice of the Commission's Determination To Review in Part the Final 
Initial Determination

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 September 7, 2012, finding a violation of section 337 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda S. Pitcher, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. The public version of 
the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket 
(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov, and 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 (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 September 7, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Litepanels, Inc. 
and Litepanels, Ltd. (collectively, ``Litepanels''). 76 FR 55416 (Sept. 
7, 2011). The complaint alleged 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 LED photographic lighting devices 
and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 
7,429,117 (terminated from the investigation); 7,510,290 (terminated 
from the investigation); 7,972,022 (``the '022 patent''); 7,318,652 
(``the '652 patent''); and 6,948,823 (``the '823 patent''). The Notice 
of Institution named respondents Flolight, LLC. of Campbell, 
California; Prompter People, Inc. of Campbell, California; IKAN 
Corporation of Houston, Texas; Advanced Business Computer Services, LLC 
d/b/a Cool Lights, USA of Reno, Nevada; Elation Lighting, Inc. of Los 
Angeles, California; Fotodiox, Inc. of Waukegan, Illinois; Fuzhou F&V 
Photographic Equipment Co., Ltd. of Fujian, China; Yuyao Lishuai Photo-
Facility Co., Ltd. of Zhejiang Province, China; Yuyao Fotodiox Photo 
Equipment Co., Ltd. of Zhejiang Province, China; Shantou Nanguang 
Photographic Equipment Co., Ltd. of Guangdong Province, China; Visio 
Light, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; Tianjin Wuqing Huanyu Film and TV 
Equipment Factory of Tianjin, China; Stellar Lighting Systems of Los 
Angeles, California; and Yuyao Lily Collection Co., Ltd. of Yuyao, 
China. The Commission Investigative Attorney (``IA'') of the Office of 
Unfair Import Investigations also participated in this investigation.
    On September 7, 2012, the ALJ issued the subject final ID finding a 
violation of section 337. The ALJ held that a violation occurred in the 
importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the 
sale within the United States after importation of certain LED 
photographic lighting devices and components thereof that infringe one 
or more of claims 1, 57-58, and 60 of the '022 patent; claims 1, 2, 5, 
16, 18, 19, 25 and 27 of the '652 patent; and claim 19 of the '823 
patent. ID at ii. The ALJ further held that no violation of section 337 
occurred in the importation into the United States, the sale for 
importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of 
certain LED photographic lighting devices and components thereof that 
infringe claims 17 and 28 of the '823 patent because claims 17 and 28 
are anticipated. Id. at ii, 81.

[[Page 69500]]

    Litepanels petitions for review of the ALJ's construction of the 
preamble of claim 17 of the '823 patent and asserts that the ALJ 
incorrectly found that independent claim 17 and dependent claim 28 of 
the '823 patent were invalid based on his incorrect construction. The 
IA petitioned for review of the ALJ's finding that claims 17, 19 and 28 
of the '823 patent are infringed based on the construction of the term 
``an integrated power source'' of independent claim 17. Respondents 
petitioned for review of most of the ALJ's invalidity findings 
(including public use, and obviousness), the construction of ``focusing 
element'' of claim 1 of the '652 patent, and the exclusion of claim 
charts.
    The Commission has determined to review the ID in part. The 
Commission has determined to review (1) the ALJ's construction of the 
preamble of the asserted independent claims of the '652 patent, the 
'823 patent and the '022 patent; (2) the ALJ's findings of 
infringement; (3) the ALJ's findings of obviousness and anticipation; 
(4) the ALJ's construction of ``an integrated power source'' of claim 
17 of the '823 patent; and (5) the ALJ's findings on the technical 
prong of domestic industry. The Commission has determined not to review 
the remainder of the ID.
    The parties are requested to brief their positions on the issues 
under review with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary 
record. In connection with its review, the Commission is particularly 
interested in responses to the following questions:
    (1) If the Commission were to determine that the preambles of the 
asserted independent claims of the '652 patent, the '823 patent and the 
'022 patent are limitations and should be interpreted based on their 
plain and ordinary meaning (see ID at 44), what impact, if any, does 
this have on the ALJ's findings regarding anticipation and obviousness 
for the asserted patents? Please cite to record evidence that supports 
your position.
    (2) If the Commission were to determine that the preambles of the 
asserted independent claims of the '652 patent, the '823 patent and the 
'022 patent are limitations and should be interpreted based on their 
plain and ordinary meaning (see ID at 44), do the accused products and 
domestic industry products meet the preamble limitation of each of the 
asserted independent claims? Please cite to record evidence to support 
your position. Have the Respondents waived the ability to challenge a 
finding that the preambles of the asserted independent claims, 
interpreted based on their plain and ordinary meaning, are met by the 
accused products?
    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the 
Commission may issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the 
subject articles from entry into the United States. Accordingly, the 
Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address 
the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. The Commission is 
particularly interested in responses to the following questions:
    (1) Please discuss the technical and qualitative interchangeability 
of Litepanels and its licensees' products with the products that would 
be excluded under a general exclusion order. Please discuss the 
evidence that supports your position.
    (2) Discuss whether Litepanels and its licensees have sufficient 
capability to meet the demand for any products that would be excluded 
under a general exclusion order. Please discuss the evidence that 
supports your position, including evidence regarding current 
manufacturing capacity and product interchangeability.
    (3) What lead time would be required for existing manufacturers to 
modify their allegedly infringing products to be noninfringing? Please 
discuss the evidence that supports your position.
    (4) Please discuss specific evidence pertaining to any specialized 
requirements of the film, video, photographic industries, or any other 
industries, that cannot be met by the products of Litepanels or its 
licensees, but are only met by the products that would be excluded 
under a general exclusion order.
    (5) Please provide specific evidence regarding the impact, if any, 
of a general exclusion order on public health and welfare, competitive 
conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or 
directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States 
consumers.

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 In the Matter of Certain Devices 
for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, 
USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994) (Commission Opinion).

    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 U.S. Trade 
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve 
or disapprove the Commission's action. 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 persons are encouraged to file written submissions on 
the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding, as well as 
respond to the questions posed herein relating to remedy and the public 
interest. Such submissions should address the recommended determination 
by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. Complainant and IA are also requested 
to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration.
    Complainant is also requested to state the dates that the '853, 
'022 and '652 patents expire and the HTSUS numbers under which the 
accused products are imported. The written submissions and proposed 
remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business on 
Wednesday, November 28, 2012. Reply submissions must be filed no later 
than the close of business on Wednesday, December 5, 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

[[Page 69501]]

210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 
210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (``Inv. 
No. 337-TA-804'') 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 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46 and 210.50).

    Issued: November 13, 2012.

    By order of the Commission.

Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-28064 Filed 11-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P