[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16707-16709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06107]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-807]


Certain Digital Photo Frames and Image Display Devices and 
Components Thereof; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and 
Desist Orders; Termination of Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has terminated the above-captioned investigation under 
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and has issued a 
limited

[[Page 16708]]

exclusion order directed against infringing products of the following 
respondents previously found in default: Nextar Inc. (``Nextar'') of La 
Verne, California; WinAccord Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan and WinAccord 
U.S.A., Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively, ``the WinAccord 
respondents''); Aiptek International Inc. (``Aiptek'') of Hsinchu, 
Taiwan; and Pandigital, Inc. (``Pandigital'') of Dublin, California 
(collectively, ``the defaulting respondents''). The Commission has also 
issued cease and desist orders directed against these defaulting 
respondents.

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 September 27, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Technology 
Properties Limited, LLC (``TPL'') of Cupertino, California. 76 FR 
59737-38. The complaint alleged a violation 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 digital photo frames and 
image display devices and components thereof by reason of infringement 
of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,976,623 (``the '623 patent''); 
7,162,549; 7,295,443; and 7,522,424. The complaint further alleged the 
existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's notice of 
investigation named twenty respondents including Nextar; the WinAccord 
respondents; Aiptek; Pandigital; Action Electronics Co., Ltd. 
(``Action'') of Taoyuan County, Taiwan; Aluratek, Inc. (``Aluratek'') 
of Tustin, California; Audiovox Corporation (``Audiovox'') of Happauge, 
New York; CEIVA Logic, Inc. (``CEIVA'') of Burbank, California; Circus 
World Displays Ltd. (``Circus'') of Niagra Falls, Canada; Coby 
Electronics Corporation (``Coby'') of Lake Success, New York; Curtis 
International, Ltd. (``Curtis'') of Ontario, Canada; Digital Spectrum 
Solutions, Inc. (``Digital Spectrum'') of Irvine, California; Eastman 
Kodak Company (``Eastman Kodak'') of Rochester, New York; Mustek 
Systems, Inc. (``Mustek'') of Hsinchu Taiwan; Royal Consumer 
Information Products, Inc. (``Royal Consumer'') of Somerset, New Jersey 
and Sony Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; Sony Corporation of America of 
New York, New York (collectively, ``the Sony respondents''); Transcend 
Information, Inc. (``Transcend'') of Taipei, Taiwan; and Viewsonic 
Corporation (``Viewsonic'') of Walnut, California. The complaint and 
notice of investigation were served on all respondents. See Notice of 
Investigation, Certificate of Service (Sept. 22, 2011) (EDIS Document 
459720). No Commission investigative attorney participated in the 
investigation.
    On November 10 and 30, 2011, respectively, the Commission 
determined not to review initial determinations (``IDs'') issued by the 
presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') terminating the 
investigation as to Coby and Aluratek based on settlement agreements. 
On December 21, 2011, the Commission determined not to review an ID 
terminating the investigation as to Circus based on a settlement 
agreement. On January 25, 2012, the Commission determined not to review 
an ID terminating the investigation as to Curtis based on a settlement 
agreement. On February 10 and 23, 2012, respectively, the Commission 
determined not to review IDs terminating the investigation as to Royal 
Consumer and Viewsonic based on settlement agreements. On March 16, 
2012, the Commission determined not to review an ID terminating the 
investigation as to CEIVA based on a settlement agreement. On April 11, 
2012, the Commission determined not to review IDs terminating the 
investigation as to Eastman Kodak and Mustek, respectively, based on 
consent order stipulations. On May 24, 2012, the Commission determined 
not to review an ID terminating the investigation as to Audiovox based 
on a settlement agreement. Also, on May 24 and 29, 2012, respectively, 
the Commission determined not to review IDs terminating the 
investigation as to the '623 patent with respect to Pandigital, and 
terminating Digital Spectrum, based on consent order stipulations. On 
June 20, 2012, the Commission determined not to review an ID 
terminating the investigation as to Action based on a consent order 
stipulation. On July 26, 2012, the Commission determined not to review 
an ID terminating the investigation as to Transcend based on a consent 
order stipulation. On October 3, 2012, the Commission determined not to 
review an ID terminating the investigation as to the Sony respondents 
based on a consent order stipulation.
    On December 6 and 22, 2011, respectively, the ALJ issued IDs 
finding Nextar, the WinAccord respondents, and Aiptek in default, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 210.16, because these respondents did not respond to 
the complaint and notice of investigation, or to Order Nos. 13 and/or 
15 to show cause why it should not be found in default. On January 3 
and 9, 2012, respectively, the Commission determined not to review the 
IDs finding Nextar, the WinAccord respondents, and Aiptek in default. 
The Commission found that the statutory requirements of section 
337(g)(1)(A)-(E) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)(A)-(E)) were met with respect to 
Aiptek, Nextar, and the WinAccord respondents. Accordingly, pursuant to 
section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) and Commission rule 210.16(c) 
(19 CFR 210.16(c)), the Commission presumed the facts alleged in the 
complaint to be true.
    On March 8, 2012, complainant TPL filed a declaration requesting 
immediate relief against defaulting respondent Aiptek under Commission 
rule 210.16(c)(1), 19 CFR 210.16(c)(1), which it later withdrew.
    On October 9, 2012, the ALJ issued Order No. 47, directing 
Pandigital to show cause why it should not be found in default and in 
violation of section 337 pursuant to 19 CFR 210.17 because it did not 
file a pre-hearing statement and brief as required by the ALJ's 
Procedural Schedule. As of November 7, 2012, Pandigital had not 
responded to Order No. 47 and the ALJ issued an ID finding Pandigital 
in default and in violation of section 337. He also extended the target 
date in this investigation to March 7, 2013.
    On December 7, 2012, the Commission determined not to review the ID 
finding Pandigital in default and in violation of section 337. The 
Commission also requested public briefing on remedy, the public 
interest, and bonding with respect to Pandigital, Aiptek, Nextar, and 
the WinAccord respondents and requested that TPL address certain issues 
related to remedy and bonding. 77 FR 74220-21 (Dec. 13, 2012). On 
December 21, 2012, TPL

[[Page 16709]]

submitted responsive briefing including a proposed limited exclusion 
order directed to the covered products of Pandigital, Aiptek, Nextar, 
and the WinAccord respondents and cease and desist orders directed to 
each of the defaulting respondents.
    The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief 
includes a limited exclusion order prohibiting: (1) The unlicensed 
entry of digital photo frames and image display devices and components 
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9, 11-12, and 14 of the 
'443 patent, claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the '424 patent, or claims 1, 7, 
11, 17, 19, and 21 of the '549 patent, which are manufactured abroad by 
or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf of, Pandigital or one 
of the WinAccord respondents, or any of their affiliated companies, 
parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other related 
business entities, or their successors or assigns; (2) the unlicensed 
entry of digital photo frames and image display devices and components 
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9 and 14 of the '443 patent 
or claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the '424 patent, which are manufactured 
abroad by or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf of, Nextar 
or any of its affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, licensees, 
contractors, or other related business entities, or its successors or 
assigns; and (3) the unlicensed entry of digital photo frames and image 
display devices and components thereof that infringe one or more of 
claims 9 and 11-12 of the '443 patent or claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the 
'424 patent, which are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or are 
imported by or on behalf of, Aiptek or any of its affiliated companies, 
parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other related 
business entities, or its successors or assigns. Appropriate relief 
also includes cease and desist orders prohibiting: (1) Pandigital or 
either of the WinAccord respondents 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 digital photo frames and image display devices and components 
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9, 11-12, and 14 of the 
'443 patent, claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the '424 patent, or claims 1, 7, 
11, 17, 19, and 21 of the '549 patent; (2) Nextar 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 digital photo frames and image display devices and components 
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9 and 14 of the '443 patent 
or claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the '424 patent; and (3) Aiptek 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 digital photo frames and image display devices and 
components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9 and 11-12 of 
the '443 patent or claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the '424 patent.
    The Commission has further determined that the public interest 
factors enumerated in sections 337(d), (f), and (g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 
1337(d), (f), and (g)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the limited 
exclusion order or the cease and desist orders. Finally, the Commission 
has determined that a bond in the amount 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 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 
210.16(c), 210.17, 210.41, and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.16(c), 210.17, 210.41, and 210.50).

    Issued: March 12, 2013.

    By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-06107 Filed 3-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P