[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55827-55828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22139]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-882]


Certain Digital Media Devices, Including Televisions, Blu-Ray 
Disc Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets and Mobile Phones, 
Components Thereof and Associated Software; Notice of a Commission 
Determination to Review in Part A Final Initial Determination Finding 
no Violation of Section 337, on Review to Modify-In-Part and Vacate-In-
Part the Determination; Grant of Consent Motion To Terminate the 
Investigation as to Certain Respondents; Termination of the 
Investigation

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'') of the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ'') finding no violation of section 337 by the following 
remaining respondents in the above-captioned investigation: Samsung 
Electronics Co., Ltd. of Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea; Samsung 
Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey; Samsung 
Telecommunications America, LLC of Richardson, Texas (collectively, 
``Samsung''); LG Electronics, Inc. of Seoul, Republic of Korea; LG 
Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; LG 
Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. of San Diego, California 
(collectively, ``LG''); Toshiba Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; and 
Toshiba American Information Systems, Inc. of Irvine, California 
(collectively, ``Toshiba''). On review, the Commission has determined 
to modify-in-part and vacate-in-part the final ID. The Commission has 
also determined to grant the joint motion to terminate the above-
captioned investigation as to respondents Panasonic Corporation of 
Osaka, Japan; Panasonic Corporation of North America of Secaucus, New 
Jersey (collectively, ``Panasonic'') based upon a settlement agreement. 
The Commission has terminated the investigation with a finding of no 
violation of section 337.

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 18, 2013 based on a complaint filed on May 13, 2013, by Black 
Hills Media, LLC (``BHM'') of Wilmington, Delaware. 78 FR 36573-74. 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 digital media devices, including televisions, 
blu-ray disc players, home theater systems, tablets and mobile phones, 
components thereof and associated software by reason of infringement of 
certain claims of the following U.S. Patent Nos.: 8,028,323 (``the '323 
patent''); 8,214,873 (``the '873 patent''); 8,230,099 (``the '099 
patent''); 8,045,952 (``the '952 patent''); 8,050,652 (``the '652 
patent''); and 6,618,593 (``the '593 patent''). The complaint further 
alleged that an industry in the United States exists as required by 
subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complaint named the following 
respondents: Samsung; LG; Toshiba; Panasonic; Sharp Corporation of 
Osaka, Japan; and Sharp Electronics Corporation of Mahwah, New Jersey 
(collectively, ``Sharp'').
    On September 10, 2013, the Commission issued notice of its 
determination not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 17) granting Google 
Inc.'s motion to intervene as a party to the investigation. On November 
20, 2013, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to 
review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 23) terminating the investigation as to 
Sharp based on a settlement agreement. On January 7, February 11, and 
April 10, 2014, the Commission issued notice of its determinations not 
to review the ALJ's IDs (Order Nos. 32, 35, and 49-50) terminating the 
investigation as to the following: The '323 and '099 patents; claims 2, 
6-8, 15-19, 22, 25-27, 31, 35-36, and 44 of the '873 patent; claims 3-
4, 6-7, 10, 42-45, 47-50, 52, and 55 of the '652 patent; claims 1, 4, 
10, 13-17, 19, and 20-21 of the '593 patent; and claims 1-4 and 10-12 
of the '952 patent. On March 14, 2014, the Commission issued notice of 
its determination not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 47) terminating 
the investigation as to claims 1, 11, and 13 of the '652 patent and 
claim 27 of the '873 patent with respect to Panasonic. On July 3, 2014, 
BHM and Panasonic filed an unopposed joint motion to terminate the 
investigation as to Panasonic based on a settlement agreement. 
Therefore, the remaining respondents are LG, Samsung, and Toshiba.
    On July 7, 2014, the ALJ issued the final ID finding no violation 
of section 337 by the remaining respondents. The ALJ found that: (1) 
There was no importation of ``articles that infringe'' under section 
337(a)(1)(B)(i) as to any of respondents' accused products with respect 
to any asserted claim of the patents at issue; (2) none of the accused 
products of the remaining respondents infringe any asserted claim of 
the patents at issue; (3) the domestic industry requirement (both 
economic and technical prongs) had not been satisfied with respect to 
any asserted

[[Page 55828]]

patent; and (4) the asserted claims of the '873 patent are invalid 
under 35 U.S.C. 112, ] 1 and 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103. On July 16, 
2014, the ALJ issued his recommendation on remedy and bonding (``RD'') 
in the event the Commission found a violation of section 337. On July 
21, 2014, BHM filed a petition for review of the final ID only with 
respect to the '873 and '652 patents and the remaining respondents 
(including intervenor) filed a joint petition for review with respect 
to all asserted patents. On July 29, 2014, BHM, the remaining 
respondents, and the Commission investigative attorney each filed a 
response to the opposing petition for review. On July 30, 2014, the 
remaining respondents (including intervenor), filed an unopposed motion 
for leave to file a corrected joint response to BHM's petition for 
review along with the corrected joint response. The Commission has 
determined to grant respondents' motion.
    Upon considering the record in this investigation, including the 
final ID and the parties' submissions, the Commission has determined to 
review-in-part the final ID under 19 CFR 210.44. On such review of the 
final ID, the Commission has modified a specific portion of the final 
ID and has vacated all portions of the final ID that reference Suprema, 
Inc. v. ITC, 742 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2013), reh'g en banc granted and 
vacated, 2014 WL 3036241 (May 13, 2014). Specifically, the Commission 
has modified the following portion of the final ID: Section VIII.A.4, 
on page 460, before the last period ``.'' of the citation to Certain 
Male Prophylactic Devices, the citation language ``; Certain Integrated 
Circuit Chips and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-859, 
Comm'n Op. at 30-51 (August 22, 2014)'' has been inserted. The 
Commission has also vacated the following portions of the final ID: (1) 
Section III.A, the last paragraph on pages 9-10; (2) Section III.A.1, 
the citation language ``Suprema, slip op. at 18 ('' and the closing 
parenthesis ``)'' in this citation on page 10; (3) the entirety of 
Section III.A.2.a on page 11; and (4) the entirety of Section III.C.3 
on pages 20-23. The Commission has determined not to review the 
remainder of the final ID under 19 CFR 210.42(h)(2).
    In addition, the Commission has determined that BHM did not 
petition for review of the ALJ's finding in the final ID of invalidity 
of the asserted claims of the '873 patent under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 
103, and therefore has abandoned these issues under 19 CFR 
210.43(b)(2). See Allied Corp. v. ITC, 850 F.2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1988). 
The Commission has also determined that BHM has petitioned for review 
of certain issues based on arguments that BHM did not set forth in 
detail in its pre- and/or post-hearing briefing before the ALJ, and 
therefore the Commission has determined that these issues are waived 
and deemed abandoned. See Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. ITC, 597 F.3d 1267 
(Fed. Cir. 2010); Order No. 2 (ALJ's Ground Rules, June 19, 2013). 
These abandoned issues are the following: (1) Infringement of the '652 
patent by accused Samsung and LG products with the Slacker application 
preinstalled; and (2) satisfaction of the economic prong of the 
domestic industry requirement with respect to all asserted patents. 
Specifically, these issues are found to be waived and therefore deemed 
abandoned because: (1) BHM did not present evidence of infringement 
with respect to Samsung and LG product models with the Slacker 
application preinstalled before the ALJ; and (2) BHM did not argue 
allocations of [[ ]] investments under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A), (B) 
with respect to specific domestic industry products (that practice the 
asserted patents) identified in its ``Identification of Models of 
Domestic Industry Products'' in its pre-hearing brief.
    The Commission has also determined to grant the joint motion to 
terminate the investigation as to Panasonic. Section 337(c) provides, 
in relevant part, that the Commission may terminate an investigation 
``on the basis of an agreement between the private parties to the 
investigation.'' When the investigation is before the Commission, as is 
the case here, the Commission may act on a motion to terminate on the 
basis of settlement. See Certain Insect Traps, Inv. No. 337-TA-498, 
Notice of Commission Determination to Terminate the Investigation in 
its Entirety on the Basis of a Settlement Agreement, 69 Fed. Reg. 63176 
(Oct. 29, 2004). Section 210.21(b) of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.21(b)), which implements section 
337(c), requires that a motion for termination based upon a settlement 
contain a copy of that settlement agreement, as well as a statement 
that there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or 
implied, between the parties concerning the subject matter of the 
investigation. The joint motion complies with these requirements.
    The Commission also considers the public interest when terminating 
an investigation based upon a settlement agreement. 19 CFR 
210.50(b)(2). We find no evidence that termination of the investigation 
as to Panasonic will prejudice the public interest or that settlement 
will adversely impact the public health and welfare, competitive 
conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or 
directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States 
consumers. Moreover, the public interest favors settlement to avoid 
needless litigation and to conserve public and private resources. 
Accordingly, the Commission hereby grants the consent motion to 
terminate this investigation as to Panasonic on the basis of a 
settlement agreement.
    Finally, the Commission has terminated the investigation with a 
finding of no violation of section 337.
    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 Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 
part 210.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 11, 2014.
Jennifer D. Rohrbach,
Supervisory Attorney.
[FR Doc. 2014-22139 Filed 9-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P