[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 25, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27054-27057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11659]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1398]
Certain Smart Wearable Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof;
Notice of a Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial
Determination; Request for Written Submissions on Remedy, the Public
Interest, and Bonding
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission (``Commission'') has determined to review in part a final
initial determination (``FID'') of the presiding administrative law
judge (``ALJ''). The Commission requests written submissions from the
parties, interested government agencies, and other interested persons
on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding, under the
schedule set forth below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Lall, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436,
[[Page 27055]]
telephone (202) 205-2043. 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 April 17, 2024, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Ouraring,
Inc. of San Francisco, California, and [Omacr]ura Health Oy of Finland
(collectively, ``Oura,'' or ``Complainants''). 89 FR 27452-53 (Apr. 17,
2024). The complaint, as amended, alleged violations of section 337,
based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for
importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of
certain smart wearable devices, systems, and components thereof by
reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
11,868,178 (``the '178 patent''); 10,842,429 (``the '429 patent''); and
11,868,179 (``the '179 patent''). The Commission's notice of
investigation named as respondents Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. of
Karnataka, India; Ultrahuman Healthcare SP LLC of Abu Dhabi, UAE;
Ultrahuman Healthcare Ltd. of London, United Kingdom (collectively
``Ultrahuman''); Guangdong Jiu Zhi Technology Co. Ltd. of Guangdong,
China; RingConn LLC of Wilmington, Delaware; and Circular SAS of Paris,
France. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') is also a
party in this investigation.
Subsequently, the ALJ issued an ID granting Oura's motion to amend
its first amended complaint and the notice of investigation to change
the name of respondent Guangdong Jiu Zhi Technology Co. Ltd. to
Shenzhen Ninenovo Technology Limited because of a corporate name
change, and to amend the address for RingConn LLC (collectively,
``RingConn''). Order No. 8 (May 3, 2024), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice,
89 FR 48686-87 (June 7, 2024).
The ALJ also issued an ID granting a joint motion for partial
termination of the investigation as to respondent Circular SAS based on
settlement. Order No. 12 (July 9, 2024), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice
(Aug. 6, 2024).
Moreover, the ALJ issued three IDs granting the complainants'
unopposed motions for partial termination as to certain claims,
including all claims of the '429 and '179 patents. Order No. 13 (July
30, 2024), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Aug. 22, 2024); Order No. 15
(Sept. 16, 2024), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Oct. 7, 2024); Order No.
21 (Dec. 9, 2024), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Dec. 23, 2024).
On August 15, 2024, the ALJ held a hearing on claim construction,
and on October 13, 2024, the ALJ issued a claim construction order.
Order No.17 (Oct. 23, 2024).
The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing on December 11-13 and 16-17,
2024. As of the hearing, Oura only asserted claims 1, 2, and 12-14 of
the '178 patent (the ``Asserted Claims'') against the RingConn's
accused Smart Ring and associated applications and the Ultrahuman Ring
AIR and its associated application. FID at 7-8. Oura also asserted that
its domestic industry products practice claims 1, 2, and 12-14 of the
'178 patent for purposes of the domestic industry requirement. Id.
On April 18, 2025, the presiding ALJ issued the FID, finding that
there has been a violation of section 337 in the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation, and/or the sale in the United
States after importation of certain smart ring wearable devices,
systems, and components thereof with respect to certain claims of the
'178 patent. Specifically, the FID found that: (1) The importation
requirement was satisfied for the accused products; (2) claims 1, 2,
and 12-14 of the '178 patent were shown to be infringed; (3) the
technical prong of the domestic industry requirement was satisfied with
respect to the '178 patent; (4) claims 1, 2, and 12-14 of the '178
patent were not shown to be invalid; and (5) the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement was satisfied with respect to the '178
patent. Id. at 130.
The FID included a Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding
(``RD''). Id. at 136-41. It recommended that the Commission issue a
limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders in the event the
Commission finds a violation of section 337 and impose a bond of zero
percent (0%) during the period of Presidential Review. Id. The ALJ also
issued a Recommended Determination on the Public Interest pursuant to
the Commission's delegation of public interest to the ALJ in the notice
of investigation.
On May 2, 2025, RingConn and Ultrahuman (collectively,
``Respondents'') filed a joint petition for review of several of the
FID's findings. On May 12, 2025, Oura and OUII filed separate responses
to Respondents' petition.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the
parties' petitions for review and related submissions, the Commission
has determined to review the final initial determination in part.
Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the economic
prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '178 patent.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
statute authorizes issuance of, inter alia, (1) an exclusion order that
could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into
the United States; and/or (2) cease and desist orders that could result
in the respondents 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, Comm'n Op.
at 7-10 (Dec. 1994). In connection with these findings, the Commission
requests responses from the parties to the following questions:
(1) To the extent that any party seeks an exemption from any
proposed remedy for customer service and warranty obligations, please
explain:
a. What is the rationale for providing an exemption, including
under the public interest factors (in particular, U.S. consumers)?
Please identify and describe specific evidence supporting this
rationale and where in the record such evidence was first submitted to
the ALJ. If such evidence was not submitted to the ALJ, please explain
why the Commission should give such evidence any weight at this stage
in the investigation.
b. What are the warranty terms, if any, for the merchandise in
question? Should the exemption apply only to merchandise under
warranty, or to all needed service and repair?
c. Should the exemption cover only parts for service/repair, or
should it also allow complete replacement of merchandise?
d. What should the temporal cutoff be for the exemption, e.g., (1)
should the
[[Page 27056]]
operative date be the issuance of the Commission's final determination
or the end of the Presidential review period, and (2) should it apply
to merchandise sold prior to such date or to merchandise imported prior
to such date?
The parties are invited to brief only the discrete issues requested
above. The parties are not to brief other issues on review, which are
adequately presented in the parties' existing filings.
The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of that
remedy upon the public interest. The public interest factors the
Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and
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. To the
extent that any party in this investigation asserts that the proposed
remedy would adversely impact the public interest, please identify and
describe specific evidence supporting this assertion and where in the
record such evidence was first submitted to the ALJ. If such evidence
was not submitted to the ALJ, please explain what weight, if any, the
Commission should give such evidence at this stage in the
investigation.
In connection with the consideration of the public interest, the
Commission requests responses from the parties to the following
questions:
(1) Please identify whether any reasonable substitutes for the
infringing devices are available to consumers, researchers, or other
professionals, for example those participating in the uses described in
the third-party public interest submissions, and whether they are
capable of meeting any public health and welfare concerns raised by any
remedial relief in this investigation. Is or would there be sufficient
supply of any such reasonable substitutes for the infringing devices?
(2) With respect to the medical, health, and wellness studies using
the accused products referenced during the hearing, please provide
documents sufficient to show:
a. What is the goal of the study?
b. When did the study start?
c. How long is the study planned for?
d. How many devices are being used?
e. How many participants are involved in the study?
f. Are there reasonable substitutes for the accused product
currently used in the study? Are Complainants' domestic industry
products reasonable substitutes?
(3) Please explain why the parties failed to develop the
evidentiary record in the hearing before the ALJ to include specific
documents and statements from third party researchers that use the
accused products.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve,
disapprove, or take no action on the Commission's determination. 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 RD by the ALJ on remedy and bonding.
In their initial submission, Complainants are also requested to
identify the remedy sought, and Complainants and OUII are requested to
submit proposed drafts of remedial orders for the Commission's
consideration. Complainants are further requested to provide the HTSUS
subheadings under which the accused products are imported and to supply
the identification information for all known importers of the products
at issue in this investigation. All initial written submissions, from
the parties and/or third parties/interested government agencies, and
proposed remedial orders from the parties must be filed no later than
close of business on July 7, 2025. All reply submissions must be filed
no later than the close of business on July 14, 2025. Opening
submissions from the parties are limited to 50 pages. Reply submissions
from the parties are limited to 25 pages. All submission from third
parties and/or interested government agencies are limited to 10 pages.
No further submissions on any of 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. The
Commission's paper filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) are currently
waived. 85 FR 15798 (Mar. 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to the
investigation number (``Inv. No. 337-TA-1398'') in a prominent place on
the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic
Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.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 by marking each document
with a header indicating that the document contains confidential
information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request
procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b)
& 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the
Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. Any non-
party wishing to submit comments containing confidential information
must serve those comments on the parties to the investigation pursuant
to the applicable Administrative Protective Order. A redacted non-
confidential version of the document must also be filed with the
Commission and served on any parties to the investigation within two
business days of any confidential filing. All information, including
confidential business information and documents for which confidential
treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes
of this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the
Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for
developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding,
or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations
relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission
including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government
employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes.
All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.
All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public
inspection on EDIS.
The Commission's vote on this determination took place on June 20,
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.
[[Page 27057]]
Issued: June 20, 2025.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2025-11659 Filed 6-24-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P