[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75942-75944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29738]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-847]


Certain Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers, and Components 
Thereof; Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial 
Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Briefing 
on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and 
Bonding

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

[[Page 75943]]


ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to review in part a final initial 
determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ''), finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Needham, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. 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 (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 8, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Nokia Corp., Nokia Inc., 
and Intellisync Corp. (collectively, ``Nokia''). 77 FR 34063-64. The 
Commission's notice of investigation named as respondents HTC 
Corporation; HTC America, Inc. (together, ``HTC''); and Exedea, Inc. 
(``Exedea''). Id. Prior to receiving the complaint and notice of 
investigation, counsel for Exedea announced that Exedea had dissolved 
as a legal entity. The complaint and notice of investigation sent to 
Exedea were returned as undeliverable, and no further action was taken 
to serve Exedea. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations did not 
participate in this investigation.
    Originally, Nokia asserted numerous claims from nine patents 
against HTC. Throughout the course of the investigation, several IDs 
terminated the investigation with respect to various patents and 
claims. See Order No. 9 (Feb. 7, 2013) (terminating the investigation 
with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,366,529 because the patent was 
covered by an arbitration agreement), not reviewed (Mar. 11, 2013); 
Order No. 10 (Apr. 12, 2013) (terminating the investigation with 
respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,106,293; 6,141,664; and 7,209,911 patents 
based on Nokia's motion to withdraw the patents), not reviewed (Apr. 
30, 2013); Order No. 14 (May 14, 2013) (terminating the investigation 
with respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,728,530 based on Nokia's motion to 
withdraw the patent), not reviewed (May 29, 2013); Order No. 33 (June 
13, 2013) (terminating the investigation with respect to U.S. Patent 
No. 5,570,369 based on Nokia's motion to withdraw the patent), not 
reviewed (July 12, 2013). By the time of the final ID, Nokia asserted 
only claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,884,190 (``the '190 patent''); claims 
6, 8, 10, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 6,393,260 (``the '260 patent''); 
and claims 2, 18, 19, 21, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 7,415,247 (``the 
'247 patent'').
    On May 2, 2013, the ALJ issued an initial determination (Order 13) 
finding that HTC could not establish its defense of patent exhaustion. 
Nokia and HTC both petitioned for review of Order 13. On June 4, 2013, 
the Commission determined to review Order 13, and stated that it would 
render its final disposition on Order 13 in conjunction with the final 
disposition of the final initial determination in this investigation. 
Accordingly, Order 13 remains under review.
    On September 23, 2013, the presiding ALJ issued his final ID, 
finding a violation of section 337 with respect to claims 6, 8, 10, and 
11 of the '260 patent and claims 18, 19, 21, and 23 of the '247 patent, 
and finding no violation with respect to the '190 patent and claim 2 of 
the '247 patent. The ALJ recommended that a limited exclusion order 
issue against all infringing articles imported, sold for importation, 
or sold after importation by HTC. The ALJ also recommended that a 
cease-and-desist order issue against HTC.
    On October 23, 2013, HTC filed a petition for review challenging 
several grounds for the ALJ's determination that HTC violated section 
337. On October 31, 2013, Nokia filed a response in opposition to HTC's 
petition.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID, the petition for review, and the response thereto, the 
Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. Specifically, 
the Commission has determined to review the ALJ's findings on claim 
construction, infringement, and the technical prong of the domestic 
industry requirement for the limitations ``balance adjustment means'' 
of the '260 patent and ``different radio interfaces''/``different radio 
communications systems'' of the '247 patent. The Commission has 
determined to review the ALJ's remaining findings on infringement and 
the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '247 
patent. The Commission has also determined to review the striking of 
the testimony and witness statements of Dr. Colyannides. The Commission 
has determined not to review the remaining findings in 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 briefing on the following issues:
    1. Whether the phrase ``comprising transistors, or implemented 
using a variable voltage source'' is an appropriate modifier of the 
corresponding structure for the phrase ``balance adjustment means'' in 
the '260 patent.
    2. Whether Nokia's evidence with regards to the use of transistors 
in calibration is sufficient to establish HTC's infringement of the 
``balance adjustment means'' limitation in the '260 patent.
    3. Whether Nokia abandoned its contentions with respect to claims 
18 and 19 of the '247 patent by failing to set forth with particularity 
HTC's infringement of the claim limitation ``an input for receiving a 
digital baseband quadrature signal representing an information signal 
to be transmitted'' in Nokia's pre-hearing brief.
    4. Whether a person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the 
phrase ``different radio communications systems'' in the context of the 
limitation ``wherein said mixer is common for processing signals for 
transmission in at least two different radio communication systems, and 
wherein said transmitter amplifier is common for amplifying carrier 
frequency signals for transmission to at least two different radio 
communications systems . . .'' in light of the specification and 
prosecution history of the '247 patent, would have understood that the 
disclosed common mixer and common transmitter amplifier could be 
utilized with radio communications systems that differed in ways other 
than by frequency band.
    5. Whether the Federal Circuit's decision in Lifescan Scotland, 
Ltd. v. Shasta Techs., LLC, 734 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2013), or any 
other relevant court decisions, affects HTC's defense of patent 
exhaustion based on the transfer of rights under the Nokia-Qualcomm 
agreement.
    The parties have been invited to brief only the discrete issues 
described above, with reference to the applicable law and evidentiary 
record. The parties are not to brief other issues on review, which

[[Page 75944]]

are adequately presented in the parties' existing filings.
    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 a cease and desist order 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 likely to do so. For background, 
see 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 a cease and desist order 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. The Commission is particularly 
interested in briefing on the following issues:
    1. HTC's statement on the public interest contends that the 
Qualcomm Magellan and Odyssey transceiver chips have become a de facto 
standard in the mobile devices industry. What evidence exists to 
support or refute HTC's contention? If HTC is correct, please discuss 
any evidence regarding whether the exclusion of HTC devices containing 
the Qualcomm Magellan and Odyssey chips raise any concerns similar to 
those raised by some commentators regarding patent hold-up in the 
FRAND-encumbered standards-essential patent context?
    2. Several entities submitted statements on the public interest 
asserting that the Commission should consider in its public interest 
analysis the fact that HTC's accused products are complex devices 
comprising numerous components, whereas Nokia's infringement 
allegations are directed to a single component of the accused devices. 
How (if at all) should the Commission consider such a factor in 
determining whether to issue such a remedy or in fashioning an 
appropriate remedy in this investigation?
    3. How (if at all) should Nokia's covenant not to sue Qualcomm over 
the asserted patents affect the Commission's consideration of the 
public interest in determining whether to issue a remedy against HTC 
based on the functionality of Qualcomm components or in fashioning an 
appropriate remedy in this investigation?
    4. Several entities submitted statements on the public interest 
asserting that there should be a transition period for any remedy 
issued against HTC. Please explain and provide evidence regarding 
whether such a transition period is warranted in this investigation. 
Additionally, please explain and provide evidence regarding the 
appropriate duration for any such transition period.
    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 parties 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. The entirety of the parties' written submissions 
must not exceed 75 pages, and must be filed no later than close of 
business on December 23, 2013. Reply submissions must not exceed 50 
pages, and must be filed no later than the close of business on January 
6, 2014. 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 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the 
investigation number (``Inv. No. 337-TA-847'') 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: December 9, 2013.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-29738 Filed 12-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P