Notice2024-13742
Certain Components for Certain Environmentally-Protected LCD Digital Displays and Products Containing Same; Notice of a Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding
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
June 24, 2024
Issuing agencies
International Trade Commission
Abstract
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") on April 16, 2024, finding no violation of section 337 in the above referenced investigation. The Commission requests written submissions from the parties on certain issues under review, as indicated in this notice, and 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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 121 (Monday, June 24, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52505-52507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-13742]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1349]
Certain Components for Certain Environmentally-Protected LCD
Digital Displays and Products Containing Same; Notice of a Commission
Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding
No Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions on the
Issues Under Review and 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 has determined to review in part a final initial
determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') on April 16, 2024, finding no violation of section 337 in the
above referenced investigation. The Commission requests written
submissions from the parties on certain issues under review, as
indicated in this notice, and 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: Joelle P. Justus, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 617-1998. 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#ebaeafa2b8d8a38e879bab9e98829f88c58c849d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1a5f5e534929527f766a5a6f69736e79347d756c">[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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 10, 2023, the Commission
instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. of the Republic of Korea; Samsung Electronics
America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey; Samsung Research America,
Inc. of Mountain View, California; and Samsung International, Inc. of
Chula Vista, California (collectively, ``Samsung''). 88 FR 1404-05
(Jan. 10, 2023). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 based
on the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or
the sale within the United States after importation of components for
certain environmentally-protected LCD digital displays and products
containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 7,948,575 (``the '575 patent''); 8,111,348 (``the '348
patent''); RE45,117 (``the '117 patent''); 8,842,253 (``the '253
patent''); and 8,223,311 (``the '311 patent''). Id. The Commission's
notice of investigation named Manufacturing Resources International,
Inc. (``MRI'') of Alpharetta, Georgia as the sole respondent. The
Office of Unfair Import Investigations was not named as a party in this
investigation. Id.
On October 10, 2023, the Commission determined not to review an ID
terminating the investigation as to all asserted claims of the '575
patent; all asserted claims of the '348 patent; claim 5 of the '117
patent; claims 1, 10, 11, and 16-19 of the '253 patent; and claims 1-3
and 7-12 of the '311 patent. Order No. 22, unreviewed by Comm'n Notice
(Oct. 10, 2023).
On April 16, 2024, the presiding ALJ issued the final ID on
violation of section 337 and a recommended determination (``RD'') on
remedy and bond. The ID held that no violation of section 337 has
occurred in the importation into the United States, the sale for
importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of
components of certain environmentally-protected LCD digital displays
and products containing the same by reason of infringement of claims 1
and 2 of the '117 patent, claims 4, 6, and 13 of the '311 patent, and
claim 12 of the '253 patent. As to the '117 patent, the final ID found
the accused products infringe the asserted claims, the asserted claims
are not invalid, and the domestic industry products practice the
asserted claims. As to the '311 patent, the final ID found the accused
products do not infringe any of the asserted claims, the asserted
claims are invalid for indefiniteness, and the domestic industry
products practice the asserted claims (if valid). And with respect to
the '253 patent, the final ID found the accused products do not
infringe the asserted claim, the asserted claim is invalid, and the
domestic industry products do not practice the asserted claim (if
valid). The final ID also found that the '311 and '253 patents are not
unenforceable due to inequitable conduct or unclean hands. Finally, the
final ID found that Samsung failed to satisfy the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement as to any of the asserted patents.
Samsung filed a petition for review and MRI filed a contingent
petition for review on April 29, 2024. The parties
[[Page 52506]]
filed responses to the petitions on May 7, 2024.
Having examined the record in this investigation, including the
final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the
Commission has determined to review in part the final ID. Specifically,
the Commission has determined to review the final ID's findings
regarding: (1) ``in personam jurisdiction''; (2) ``in rem
jurisdiction,'' including importation and articles that infringe; (3)
standing; (4) for the '117 patent, infringement, validity, and
technical prong relating to the term ``the circuit board is received in
the circuit board mounting part'' in claim 1 and the term ``the circuit
board is mounted in the circuit board mounting part'' in claim 2; and
(5) the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement as to each
of the asserted patents.
The Commission notes that Samsung has expressly abandoned the '253
patent and the '311 patent in this investigation. Samsung Resp. to MRI
Contingent Pet. for Review at 1. Therefore, the Commission has
determined not to review the final ID as to these patents except as to
the economic prong. Nevertheless, in reference to the analysis on page
126 of the final ID regarding the '253 patent, the Commission clarifies
that the obligation to resolve a dispute over claim scope is not
limited to situations in which a term has been construed according to
its plain and ordinary meaning but applies anytime there is a relevant
dispute among the parties. See Pressure Prod. Med. Supplies, Inc. v.
Greatbatch Ltd., 599 F.3d 1308, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (finding District
Court properly invoked O2 Micro to supplement construction of means-
plus-function limitation during trial).
In connection with its review, the Commission requests responses to
the following questions. The parties are requested to brief their
positions with reference to the applicable law and the existing
evidentiary record.
1. With respect to 19 U.S.C. 337(a)(1)(B):
a. How should the Commission define the term ``consignee''? What is
the standard for determining whether a person or entity is a
``consignee''? Is MRI a ``consignee''?
b. What standard should the Commission apply to determine whether a
respondent, who is not the importer of record, has ``imported'' an
article?
c. What is necessary for a person or entity to be considered
``sufficiently involved'' in importation (see Comcast Corp. v. Int'l
Trade Comm'n, 951 F.3d 1301, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).
d. Is causing an article to be imported by purchasing it and
knowing it will be imported enough to show that a respondent imported
the article?
e. With citations to the record, what involvement did MRI have in
the importation of the LCD Cells at issue in this investigation?
f. For purposes of ``sale after importation by the owner, importer,
or consignee, of articles that . . . infringe,'' is an entity that
takes title to the article after importation, an owner or a consignee
of that article? Or is the statute limited to the ``owner'' at the time
of importation?
g. Is the sale of a downstream product that incorporates an
imported article a ``sale after importation'' of the imported article?
h. Did Samsung allege that MRI violates section 337 by virtue of
MRI's own direct infringement of the asserted claims of the '117
patent? On what basis does the final ID find direct infringement, if
any, by MRI?
i. In reference to direct infringement of apparatus claims by a
respondent, under what circumstances is the importation of a component
of the claimed apparatus considered an importation of an ``article that
infringes''?
j. Does section 337(a)(1)(B) extend to induced infringement of an
apparatus claim wherein the accused infringer imports a component,
incorporates the component into an apparatus that infringes, and sells
the infringing apparatus to the end user with intent to induce
infringement?
k. With reference to Suprema Inc. v. International Trade
Commission, 796 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), Comcast, Certain
High-Density Fiber Optic Equipment and Components Thereof, Inv. No.
337-TA-1194, Comm'n Op. (Aug. 23, 2021) (``Fiber Optic Equipment''),
and/or any other relevant legal authority, should the legal standard
for induced infringement under section 337 be applied in the same
manner for method and apparatus claims? Please explain the legal
standard and analysis that should be used to determine whether an
imported component is an ``article that infringes'' under section
337(a)(1)(B), if the importer uses the article to manufacture a
downstream product that it sells to customers in the United States.
Discuss whether this statutory phrase is applied differently for method
and apparatus claims.
l. With reference to the Additional Views of Chair Kearns Regarding
``Articles that Infringe'' in Fiber Optic Equipment, Comm'n Op. at 98,
address the relevance of the following factors in an assessment of
whether the imported LCD Cells at issue in this investigation
constitute ``articles that infringe'': (a) whether the article is a
material part of the invention, (b) whether it is especially designed
and/or configured for use in an infringing manner, (c) whether it is a
staple article and the extent to which it has noninfringing uses, and
(d) the extent to which it is modified or combined with other articles
after importation.
2. As to the limitation in claim 1 that ``the circuit board is
received in the circuit board mounting part'':
a. With citations to the intrinsic record, how should ``received
in'' be construed?
b. Are the circuit boards of the accused products ``received in''
the constricted convection plate? How do the metal tubes to which the
circuit boards are affixed affect the infringement analysis of this
limitation, if at all?
c. How does the construction of ``received in'' effect the Final
ID's invalidity analysis as to this limitation?
3. As to the limitation in claim 2 that ``the circuit board is
mounted in the circuit board mounting part'':
a. With citations to the intrinsic record, how should ``mounted
in'' be construed?
b. Are the circuit boards of the accused products ``mounted in''
the constricted convection plate?
c. How does the construction of ``mounted in'' effect the Final
ID's invalidity analysis as to this limitation?
4. As to the economic prong of the domestic industry analysis:
a. Setting aside the origin of the parts and materials, should the
payments from B2B Care to USSI for parts and materials be considered
``employment of labor or capital'' for purposes of section
337(a)(3)(B)? Please identify any evidence in the record as to what
portion of payments from B2B Care to USSI were for U.S. labor costs as
opposed to parts and materials.
b. What quantification, if any, of the employment of labor or
capital with respect to the DI products by Samsung International Inc.
or Video Solutions Lab is provided in the record? Did Samsung show, or
did the parties stipulate, that the DI products are representative of
the OH series of digital LCD displays for purposes of the domestic
industry requirement?
c. If Samsung is seeking to rely on a comparison of its domestic
labor and capital investments relating to the DI products to foreign
investments to demonstrate quantitative significance, what foreign
investments are relevant? Citing to the evidentiary record, what
[[Page 52507]]
evidence is on record regarding Samsung's foreign investments?
d. Please explain how Samsung's proffered indicators of
significance should be considered in determining whether Samsung's
employment of labor or capital with respect to its DI products are
significant under section 337(a)(3)(B).
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.
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) 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, Comm'n Op. at 7-10 (Dec. 1994).
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 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 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 recommended determination by the ALJ on
remedy and bonding.
In its initial submission, Complainants are also requested to
identify the remedy sought and to submit proposed 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. The initial
written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later
than close of business on July 1, 2024. Reply submissions must be filed
no later than the close of business on July 9, 2024. No further
submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered
by the Commission. Opening submissions are limited to 100 pages. Reply
submissions are limited to 50 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-1349) in a prominent place on the
cover page and/or the 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. 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 vote for this determination took place on June 17,
2024.
This action is taken under the authority of 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: June 17, 2024.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-13742 Filed 6-21-24; 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 June 24, 2024.
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.