[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 49 (Friday, March 14, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 12174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-04049]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1432]
Certain Mobile Electronic Devices; Notice of Commission
Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting a Motion
To Amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to review an initial determination
(``ID'') (Order No. 6) of the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') granting Complainant's motion to amend the complaint and
notice of investigation to allege infringement of additional patent
claims.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Namo Kim, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3459. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may
be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email
[email protected]. General information concerning the Commission may
also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD
terminal, telephone (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
on January 23, 2025, based on a complaint filed by Maxell, Ltd. of
Kyoto, Japan (``Maxell''). 90 FR 8032-33 (Jan. 23, 2025). The
complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''), based
on the importation into the United States, the sale for importation,
and the sale within the United States after importation of certain
mobile electronic devices by reason of the infringement of certain
claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,130,280; U.S. Patent No. 11,490,004; U.S.
Patent No. 11,750,915; U.S. Patent No. 11,509,953; U.S. Patent No.
12,108,103; and U.S. Patent No. 11,445,241 (``the '241 patent''). Id.
The complaint further alleges that a domestic industry exists. Id. The
notice of investigation names as respondents Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd. of Suwon-Shi, Republic of Korea and Samsung Electronics America,
Inc. of New Jersey (collectively, ``Samsung''). Id. The Office of
Unfair Import Investigations is not named as a party. Id.
On February 6, 2025, Maxell filed a motion to amend the complaint
and notice of investigation to add infringement allegations as to
claims 15 and 24 of the '241 patent. Maxell explained that, prior to
institution, it submitted a first public supplement to assert claims 15
and 24 of the '241 patent. The notice of investigation, however, did
not reflect this supplement. Therefore, Maxell argued that good cause
exists because this motion is to address a clerical error in the notice
of investigation.
On February 18, 2025, Samsung filed an opposition to Maxell's
motion. Samsung argued that there was no clerical error in the notice
of investigation, and that Maxell failed to properly add claims 15 and
24 of the '241 patent during the pre-institution stage because Maxell
needed to file an amended complaint pursuant to Commission Rule
210.14(a), 19 CFR 210.14(a), to add any additional claims as opposed
filing a supplement. Samsung also argued that it would be unduly
prejudiced if Maxell's motion is granted.
On February 21, 2025, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 6)
granting Maxell's motion to amend the complaint and notice of
investigation pursuant to Commission Rule 210.14(b), 19 CFR 210.14(b).
The ID finds that the notice of investigation expressly acknowledged
Maxell's public supplements, including the first public supplement that
alleged infringement of claims 15 and 24 of the '241 patent, and this
acknowledgment is ``indicative of a clerical oversight in the listing
of instituted asserted claims.'' ID at 2; see 90 FR at 8032. The ID
also finds that even if there was no clerical error, Maxell has now
moved in a timely manner to add claims 15 and 24. Id. at 3. Lastly, the
ID finds that any prejudice to Samsung is low because Samsung was on
notice of Maxell's intent to add claims 15 and 24. Id. at 3-4.
No petitions for review of the ID were filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the ID.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on March 10,
2025.
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: March 10, 2025.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2025-04049 Filed 3-13-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P