Notice2021-19849
Certain Electronic Devices, Including Streaming Players, Televisions, Set Top Boxes, Remote Controllers, and Components Thereof; Commission Determination To Review the Final Initial Determination in Part and To Request Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review, Remedy, Bonding, and the Public Interest
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 15, 2021
Issuing agencies
International Trade Commission
Abstract
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (``Commission'') has determined to review in part certain findings in a final initial determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') and to solicit briefing on the issues under review, as well as remedy, bonding, and the public interest.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 176 (Wednesday, September 15, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51381-51384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19849]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1200]
Certain Electronic Devices, Including Streaming Players,
Televisions, Set Top Boxes, Remote Controllers, and Components Thereof;
Commission Determination To Review the Final Initial Determination in
Part and To Request Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review,
Remedy, Bonding, and the Public Interest
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 certain
findings in a final initial determination (``ID'') issued by the
presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') and to solicit briefing on
the issues under review, as well as remedy, bonding, and the public
interest.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl P. Bretscher, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2382. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may
be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at <a href="https://edis.usitc.gov">https://edis.usitc.gov</a>. For help accessing EDIS, please email
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5712131e04641f323b271722243e233479303821"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8bcecfc2d8b8c3eee7fbcbfef8e2ffe8a5ece4fd">[email protected]</span></a>. General information concerning the Commission may
also be obtained by accessing its internet server at <a href="https://www.usitc.gov">https://www.usitc.gov</a>. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal
on (202) 205-1810.
[[Page 51382]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
on May 22, 2020, based on a complaint filed by Universal Electronics,
Inc. (``UEI'') of Scottsdale, Arizona. 85 FR 31211-212 (May 22, 2020).
The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``Section 337''),
in the importation into the United States, sale for importation, or
sale in the United States after importation of certain electronic
devices, including streaming players, televisions, set top boxes,
remote controllers, and components thereof, by reason of infringement
of one or more of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,696,514
(``the '514 patent''); 9,911,325 (``the '325 patent''); 9,716,853
(``the '853 patent''); 7,589,642 (``the '642 patent''); 10,593,196
(``the '196 patent''); and 10,600,317 (``the '317 patent''). Id. The
complaint alleges that a domestic industry exists. Id.
The Commission's notice of investigation names the following
respondents: Roku Inc. of Los Gatos, California (``Roku''); TCL
Electronics Holdings Ltd. of New Territories, Hong Kong; Shenzhen TCL
New Technology Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; TCL King Electrical
Appliances Co. Ltd. of Huizhou, China; TTE Technology Inc. of Corona,
California; TCL Corp. of Huizhou City, China; TCL Moka Int'l Ltd. of
New Territories, Hong Kong; TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd. of New
Territories, Hong Kong; TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. of New
Territories, Hong Kong; and TCL Smart Device Co. of Bac Tan Uyen
District, Vietnam (collectively, ``the TCL Respondents''); Hisense Co.
Ltd. of Qingdao, China; Hisense Electronics Manufacturing Co. of
America Corp. of Suwanee, Georgia; Hisense Import & Export Co. Ltd. of
Qingdao, China; Qingdao Hisense Electric Co., Ltd. of Qingdao, China;
and Hisense International Co., Ltd. of Shen Wang, Hong Kong
(collectively, ``the Hisense Respondents''); Funai Electric Co., Ltd.
of Osaka, Japan; Funai Corp. Inc. of Rutherford, New Jersey; and Funai
Co., Ltd. of Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand (collectively, ``the Funai
Respondents''). Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not
participating in this investigation. Id.
The Commission partially terminated the investigation with respect
to certain patents and patent claims that were withdrawn by UEI,
including all of the asserted claims of the '514 patent, '325 patent,
and '853 patent. See Order No. 27 (Dec. 2, 2020), unreviewed by Comm'n
Notice (Dec. 23, 2020); Order No. 32 (Dec. 21, 2020), unreviewed by
Comm'n Notice (Jan. 5, 2021); Order No. 33 (Dec. 29, 2020), unreviewed
by Comm'n Notice (Jan. 13, 2021); Order No. 34 (Jan. 4, 2021),
unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Jan. 21, 2021); Order No. 44 (Feb. 2,
2021), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Feb. 19, 2021); Order No. 49 (Feb.
9, 2021), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Feb. 24, 2021); Order No. 66
(March 23, 2021), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (April 8, 2021); Order
No. 67 (Apr. 6, 2021), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Apr. 22, 2021).
The Commission also terminated the investigation with respect to
the Hisense Respondents, the TCL Respondents, and the Funai
Respondents. Order No. 67 (Apr. 6, 2021), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice
(Apr. 22, 2021).
On February 18, 2021, the Commission determined not to review an ID
entering summary determination that claim 19 of the '642 patent is
practiced by the domestic industry products and infringed by the
accused ``Elk'' series of products. Order No. 38 (Jan. 19, 2021),
unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Feb. 18, 2021). On February 24, 2021, the
Commission determined not to review an ID entering summary
determination that the technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement is satisfied for claims 1-3, 5-8, and 16 of the '325
patent. Order No. 41 (Jan. 25, 2021), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Feb.
24, 2021).
On February 24, 2021, the Commission determined to review and
reverse an ID granting Roku's motion for summary determination that UEI
lacks standing to assert the '196 patent and to remand the standing
question to the ALJ for further consideration. Order No. 40 (Jan. 25,
2021), reviewed by Comm'n Notice (Feb. 24, 2021); see also Comm'n Op.
(Mar. 3, 2021).
The ALJ held on evidentiary hearing from April 19-23, 2021. By the
time of the hearing, the only remaining respondent was Roku and the
only remaining claims at issue for infringement or domestic industry
purposes were claim 19 of the '642 patent; claims 3, 6, 9, and 11 of
the '347 patent; and claims 1-3, 11, and 13-15 of the '196 patent.
On July 9, 2021, the ALJ issued the subject final ID, finding a
violation of Section 337 as to the '196 patent but no violation with
respect to either the '642 patent or '317 patent.
On July 23, 2021, both UEI and Roku filed petitions for review of
certain findings in the final ID, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.43(a)
(19 CFR 210.43(a)). On August 2, 2021, the parties filed their
respective replies, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.43(c) (19 CFR
210.43(c)).
Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the
final ID, the parties' petitions, and responses thereto, the Commission
has determined to review all issues relating to the '196 patent,
whether UEI satisfied the technical prong for the '317 patent, and the
ID's conclusion that UEI satisfied the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement under Section 337(a)(3)(B) with respect to the
'196 patent, the '317 patent, and the '642 patent. The Commission
further notes that the parties have agreed that Roku's Alice-5 remote
control is not among the accused products. See ID at 23. The Commission
has determined not to review any of the ID's other findings.
The parties are asked to provide additional briefing on the
following issues under review:
(A) Does the limitation ``for use in configuring the remote control
device to transmit'' in the final clause of claim 1 of the '196 patent
require construction? See '196 patent at 17:23-25 (emphasis added). If
so, how should it be construed?
(B) In view of the response to Question (A), supra, do the accused
Roku products infringe claim 1 of the '196 patent, with particular
attention to: (i) Whether converting a radiofrequency (``RF'') signal
to an infrared (``IR'') signal in the accused remote control devices
satisfies the limitation ``for use in configuring the remote control
device to transmit a second command''; and (ii) whether the accused
products use the same ``first data'' to indicate whether the ``second
media device'' will be ``responsive'' or ``unresponsive'' to the
``first command,'' as set forth in the final clause of claim 1. See
'196 patent at 17:13-32.
(C) Does your response to Question (A), supra, affect the ID's
invalidity analysis? Would the ID's invalidity analysis with respect to
the '196 patent be affected if the term ``for use in configuring the
remote control device to transmit'' in the final clause of claim 1 was
found not to cover converting an RF signal to an IR signal?
(D) With respect to the ID's invalidity analysis for the '196
patent, explain whether or how Chardon (U.S. Patent Application Pub.
No. 2012/0249890) or Mishra (U.S. Patent Application No. 2001/0005197),
singly or in combination, discloses to a person of ordinary skill in
the art a ``first media device'' that either ``cause[s] the first media
device to be configured to transmit a first command directly to the
second media device [via HDMI]'' or ``transmit[s] a second data to a
remote control device . . . for use in configuring the remote control
device to
[[Page 51383]]
transmit a second command directly to the second media device,''
depending on whether the ``second media device'' is ``responsive'' or
``unresponsive'' to a ``first command,'' respectively, as set forth in
the final clause of claim 1. See '196 patent at 17:13-32. Explain
whether there is a motivation to combine the references and clear and
convincing evidence of obviousness.
(E) Do the Samsung televisions that UEI identified as satisfying
the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement practice the
asserted claims of the '317 patent, with particular attention to: (i)
Whether the term ``a display device coupled to the controlled device''
in claim 1 can cover an electronic component (e.g., LCD display screen)
contained within an electronic device (e.g., an LCD television) (see
'317 patent at 8:55-56 (emphasis added)); and (ii) identify the
``controlled device,'' ``receiver,'' ``transmitter,'' ``display
device,'' ``processing device,'' and other components recited in the
asserted claims of the '317 patent to the extent the asserted claims
read on UEI's domestic industry products.
(F) Given that the domestic industry products for the '196 and '317
patents include downstream products, such as televisions (ID at 6, 51,
102), to what extent should an evaluation of the significance of
investments in labor and capital under Section 337(a)(3)(B) take into
account labor and capital associated with the downstream products?
The parties are requested to brief only the discrete issues
identified above, with reference to the applicable law and evidentiary
record. The parties are not to brief any other issues on review, which
have already been adequately presented in the parties' previous
filings.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
statute authorizes issuance of: (1) An 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 (December
1994).
The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of any
remedy upon the public interest. The public interest factors the
Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order
and/or 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.
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 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: Parties to this investigation are requested to
file written submissions on the issues identified above in this notice.
In addition, the parties, interested government agencies, and any other
interested parties are requested to file written submissions on the
issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such initial
submissions should include views on the recommended determination by
the ALJ on remedy and bonding. Explain whether your views on public
interest or bonding would differ if the redesigned products (or
redesigned components of a product) put forward by Respondents were
excluded from any remedy.
In its initial submission, Complainant is requested to identify the
remedy sought and to submit proposed remedial orders for the
Commission's consideration. Complainant is also requested to provide
the HTSUS subheadings under which the accused products are imported.
Complainant is further requested to supply the names of known importers
of the Respondents' products at issue in this investigation.
Complainant is also requested to identify and explain, from the record,
articles that it contends are ``components of'' the subject products,
and thus potentially covered by the proposed remedial orders, if
imported separately from the subject products. See 85 FR at 31211.
Failure to provide this information may result in waiver of any remedy
directed to ``components of'' the subject products, in the event any
violation may be found.
The parties' written submissions and proposed remedial orders must
be filed no later than the close of business on September 24, 2021.
Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on
October 1, 2021. Opening submissions are limited to 40 pages. Reply
submissions are limited to 35 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-1200'') in a prominent place on
the cover page and/or first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing
Procedures, <a href="https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf">https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf</a>). 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. 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
[[Page 51384]]
personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel
will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. All non-confidential
written submissions will be available for public inspection at the
Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on September
9, 2021.
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 9, 2021.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-19849 Filed 9-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 15, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.