Notice2024-28935
Certain Power Converter Modules and Computing Systems Containing the Same; Notice of a Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a 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
December 10, 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 ("final ID") issued by the presiding administrative law judge ("ALJ") on September 24, 2024, finding a 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 237 (Tuesday, December 10, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 10, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 99278-99280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28935]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1370]
Certain Power Converter Modules and Computing Systems Containing
the Same; Notice of a Commission Determination To Review in Part a
Final Initial Determination Finding a 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 (``final ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law
judge (``ALJ'') on September 24, 2024, finding a 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 Justus, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2593. 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#fabfbeb3a9c9b29f968aba8f89938e99d49d958c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6a2f2e233959220f061a2a1f19031e09440d051c">[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 August 17, 2023, the Commission
instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''), based on a
complaint filed by Vicor Corporation (``Complainant'' or ``Vicor'') of
Andover, Massachusetts. See 88 FR 56050 through 56051 (Aug. 17, 2023).
The complaint, as supplemented, alleges a violation 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 power converter modules and computing systems containing the
same by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent
Nos. 9,166,481; 9,516,761; and 10,199,950. See id. The notice of
investigation names the following respondents: Delta Electronics, Inc.
of Taipei, Taiwan; Delta Electronics (Americas) Ltd. of Fremont,
California; Delta Electronics (USA) Inc. of Plano, Texas; Cyntec Co.,
Ltd. of Hsinchu, Taiwan; Quanta Computer Inc. and Quanta Cloud
Technology Inc., both of Taoyuan City, Taiwan; Quanta Cloud Technology
USA LLC of San Jose, California; Quanta Computer USA Inc. of Fremont,
California; Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd. (d/b/a, Foxconn
Technology Group) of Taipei City, Taiwan; Foxconn Industrial internet
Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; FII USA Inc. (a/k/a Foxconn Industrial,
internet USA Inc.) of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Ingrasys Technology Inc. of
Taoyuan City, Taiwan; and Ingrasys Technology USA Inc. of Fremont,
California (collectively, ``Respondents''). See id. The Office of
Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') is also a party to the
investigation. See id.
On January 25, 2024, the Commission partially terminated the
investigation as to respondents Delta Electronics (USA) Inc., Quanta
Cloud Technology Inc., and Quanta Cloud Technology USA LLC based on
withdrawal of the complaint as to those respondents. See Order No. 16
(Dec. 22, 2023), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Jan. 25, 2024).
[[Page 99279]]
On January 26, 2024, the Commission amended the complaint and
notice of investigation to add DET Logistics (USA) Corporation of
Fremont, California as a respondent. See Order No. 18 (Jan. 2, 2024),
unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Jan. 26, 2024).
On March 22, 2024, the ALJ granted in part Respondents' motion for
summary determination, specifically as to no infringement of any patent
under the doctrine of equivalents. See Order No. 37. The Commission
determined not to review the partial grant of summary determination.
See Comm'n Notice (Apr. 23, 2024).
On September 27, 2024, the ALJ issued the final ID finding that a
violation of section 337 has occurred. The Final ID finds, inter alia:
(1) as to the '481 patent, the accused Cyntec products infringe
asserted claim 1 but that the accused Delta products and certain
asserted redesign products do not infringe claim 1, asserted claim 1 is
not invalid, and certain asserted domestic industry products practice
asserted claim 1; (2) as to the '761 patent, the accused Delta products
infringe asserted claims 1-7, claims 1-3 and 7 are invalid as
anticipated, claims 4-6 are not invalid for obviousness or
indefiniteness, and the asserted domestic industry products practice
claims 1-7; (3) as to the '950 patent, the accused Delta and Cyntec
products do not infringe asserted claims 9, 13, 14, and 33-38, the
asserted claims are not invalid for obviousness, and the domestic
industry products do not practice any asserted claim; (4) Respondents
do not have a license to practice the asserted patents; and (5) Vicor
has satisfied the domestic industry requirement of section 337 with
respect to each of the asserted patents.
The ALJ also issued a Recommended Determination on remedy and
bonding (``RD''). The RD recommends that, if the Commission finds a
violation, it should issue a limited exclusion order. The RD also
recommends the issuance of cease and desist orders as to all
Respondents. The RD further recommended that the Commission set no bond
as to Cyntec's products and various bond amounts as to the other
infringing products during the period of Presidential review.
On October 29, 2024, Complainant and respondent FII USA submitted
public interest comments pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4) (19
CFR 210.50(a)(4)). No submissions were filed in response to the
Commission's Federal Register notice seeking submissions on the public
interest. See 89 FR 80604 through 80605 (Oct. 3, 2024).
On October 11, 2024, Vicor filed a petition for review of the Final
ID's findings concerning: (1) as to the '481 patent, no infringement by
the Delta accused products, and certain aspects of the Final ID's
validity analysis; (2) as to the '761 patent, that certain claims are
invalid as anticipated and certain subsidiary aspect of the Final ID's
remaining validity analysis; (3) as to the '950 patent, no
infringement, no technical domestic industry, and certain aspects of
the Final ID's economic prong analysis; and (4) as to all patents, no
copying (secondary indicia of non-obviousness). Also on October 11,
2024, Respondents filed a petition for review of the Final ID's
findings concerning: (1) as to the '481 patent, that claim 1 is not
invalid as obvious; (2) as to the '761 patent, that the accused
products infringe the asserted claims and claims 4-6 are not invalid as
obvious; (3) as to the '950 patent, that the asserted claims are not
invalid as obvious; (4) certain of the ALJ's pre-hearing orders; and
(5) that Vicor has satisfied the economic prong as to each Asserted
Patent. On October 21, 2024, OUII filed a combined response to the
petitions. On October 22, 2024, Vicor and Respondents each filed
responses to the other party's petition.
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 the final ID in part. Specifically,
the Commission has determined to review the final ID's findings
regarding: (1) as to the '481 patent, whether the accused Delta
products \1\ infringe claim 1 and whether Vicor has demonstrated
commercial success to overcome a finding of prima facie obviousness;
(2) as to the '761 patent, whether the accused Delta products infringe
asserted claims 1-7 and whether the asserted claims are valid; (3) as
to the '950 patent, whether the accused Delta and Cyntec products and
redesigned products infringe asserted claims 9, 13, 14, and 33-36 and
whether Vicor has satisfied the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement; (4) whether Vicor has satisfied the economic
prong of the domestic industry requirement as to all of the asserted
patents; and (5) the license defense asserted by respondents FII USA,
Inc., Ingrasys Technology, Inc., and Ingrasys Technology USA Inc.
(collectively, ``Foxconn''). The Commission has determined not to
review the remainder of the Final ID's findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unless otherwise indicated ``accused products'' does not
include redesigned products. See Final ID at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the '761 patent:
a. What is the proper claim construction of the term ``magnetically
coupled''? Applying the proper construction, do the accused products
infringe claim 1?
b. Do the terms ``dissipate power'' and ``heat generation'' as
recited in claim 1 have distinct meanings? Do the accused products
practice both limitations?
c. With reference to Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366
(Fed. Cir. 2019), are the domestic industry products ``coextensive''
with the claimed invention for purposes of commercial success?
2. With respect to the '950 patent:
a. What is the proper claim construction of the terms ``input
circuit'' and ``output circuit'' as recited in the asserted claims?
Applying the proper construction, do the accused and redesigned
products infringe the asserted claims?
b. How, if at all, is the phase of operation relevant to the
determination of whether the accused and redesigned products satisfy
the limitation that ``an input voltage V<INF>IN</INF> is applied to the
input circuit''?
3. With respect to the economic prong of the domestic industry
requirement:
Does the record permit allocation of the overall payments made by
Complainant to foreign IC Vendors, see Final ID at 198, to the DI
products for each of the Asserted Patents? If so, please provide such
allocations.
4. With respect to Foxconn's license defense:
a. With citation to legal authority (binding or persuasive)
interpreting Massachusetts General Law (``MGL'') 106 section 2-207,
Uniform Commercial Code section 2-207, or any other relevant provision,
is there a binding agreement between Complainant and the Foxconn
respondents that includes the license provision set forth in General
Term 10 of the Foxconn purchase orders (see RX-1630C.0002; RX-
1635C.0002; RX-16359.0002)? If such an agreement exists, does MGL 106
section 2-207(2) or 2-207(3) govern what terms are part of the
agreement?
b. In addition to any issues the parties deem relevant, the parties
should address whether the purported acceptance of the alleged offers
was ``sent within a reasonable time'' (MGL 106 section 2-207(1)) in
light of Note 3
[[Page 99280]]
of the Foxconn purchase orders (see RX-1630C.0001; RX-1635C.0001; RX-
1639C.0001).
c. If there is a binding agreement between Complainant and the
Foxconn respondents including the license provision, to which
Respondents, Asserted Patents, and accused products does that license
apply?
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, Complainant is also requested to
identify the remedy sought and to submit proposed remedial orders for
the Commission's consideration. Complainant is 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 December 18, 2024. Reply submissions must be
filed no later than the close of business on December 27, 2024. No
further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise
ordered by the Commission. Opening submissions are limited to 50 pages.
Reply submissions are limited to 30 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-1370) 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 December
4, 2024.
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: December 4, 2024.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-28935 Filed 12-9-24; 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 December 10, 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.