Certain Mobile Electronic Devices; 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

Issuing agencies

Abstract

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part a final initial determination ("FID") issued by the presiding Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), finding a violation of section 337 as to a certain asserted patent and no violation as to other asserted patents. The Commission requests written submissions from the parties on the issues under review and 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 91 Issue 170 (Thursday, September 3, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 170 (Thursday, September 3, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56667-56669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-18027]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-1432]


Certain Mobile Electronic Devices; 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 (``FID'') issued by the presiding Administrative Law 
Judge (``ALJ''), finding a violation of section 337 as to a certain 
asserted patent and no violation as to other asserted patents. The 
Commission requests written submissions from the parties on the issues 
under review and 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: 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 <a href="https://edis.usitc.gov">https://edis.usitc.gov</a>. For help accessing EDIS, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5c1918150f6f1439302c1c292f35283f723b332a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e4a1a0adb7d7ac818894a491978d9087ca838b92">[email&#160;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, 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 Nos. 8,130,280 (``the '280 patent''); 11,490,004 
(``the '004 patent''); 11,750,915 (``the '915 patent''); 11,509,953 
(``the '953 patent''); 12,108,103 (``the '103 patent''); 11,445,241 
(``the '241 patent''). Id. The complaint further alleges that a 
domestic industry (``DI'') 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 March 10, 2025, the Commission amended the complaint and notice 
of investigation to allege a violation of section 337 based on 
infringement of additional claims 15 and 24 of the '241

[[Page 56668]]

patent. Order No. 6 (Feb. 21, 2025); unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (March 
10, 2025).
    On September 25, 2025, the Commission granted in part Maxell's 
motion for summary determination that Samsung cannot sustain its 
prosecution laches defense. Order No. 18 (Sept. 2, 2025); unreviewed by 
Comm'n Notice (Sept. 25, 2025).
    On February 3, 2026, the Commission terminated the investigation as 
to claims 2-11, 15-17 of the '280 patent, claims 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-
20 of the '004 patent, claims 1, 3-8, 10-29 of the '953 patent, claims 
2, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-21 of the '103 patent, claims 1-3, 6, 8-14, 17-27 of 
the '241 patent, and all asserted claims of the '915 patent. Order No. 
27 (Jan. 2, 2026), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Feb. 3, 2026).
    On May 7, 2026, Samsung filed: (1) a request that the ALJ take a 
judicial notice of a recently-issued Final Written Decision (``FWD'') 
of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (``PTAB'') finding asserted claims 
5 and 15 (and unasserted independent claim 1) of the '241 patent 
unpatentable; and (2) a motion for leave to file supplemental briefing 
to explain the overlapping issues between the FWD and the forthcoming 
FID. On May 14, 2026, Maxell filed an opposition to Samsung's motion to 
submit supplemental briefing, arguing that this would allow Samsung to 
``circumvent the governing ground rules and inject new invalidity 
theories into the case.'' Maxell Opposition at 1. In its filing, Maxell 
also stated that it does not oppose Samsung's request for judicial 
notice.
    On July 1, 2026, the ALJ issued the FID granting Samsung's request 
to take judicial notice and denying Samsung's motion for leave to file 
supplemental briefing because the invalidity theories that Samsung 
presented to the PTAB were materially different from those presented in 
this investigation. The FID evaluates the '280, '004, '103, '953, and 
'241 patents (collectively ``the asserted patents'') and concludes that 
there is a violation of section 337 as to the '004 patent and no 
violation as to the '280, '103, '953, and '241 patents.
    The FID also includes a recommended determination (``RD'') on 
remedy and bonding, and recommends, should the Commission find a 
violation of section 337, that the Commission issue: (1) a limited 
exclusion order (``LEO'') against Samsung with service, warranty, and 
repair exemptions; and (2) cease-and-desist orders (``CDOs'') against 
each of the Samsung respondents. The RD recommends that the Commission 
set the bond at zero percent (0%) during the period of Presidential 
review.
    On July 8, 2026, the Commission published its post-RD Federal 
Register notice seeking submissions on public interest issues raised by 
the relief recommended by the ALJ should the Commission find a 
violation. 91 FR 42248 (July 8, 2026). No responses from the public 
were filed.
    On July 13, 2026, Maxell petitioned for Commission review of the 
FID's findings concerning non-infringement of Samsung's redesigned 
products as to the '004 patent, and the FID's findings as to the '103, 
'953, and '241 patents on the issues of claim construction, non-
infringement, and the technical prong of the DI requirement. On the 
same day, Samsung petitioned for Commission review of the FID's 
findings concerning infringement, DI, invalidity, and 
representativeness of Maxell's DI products as to the '004 patent. 
Samsung also contingently petitioned for Commission review of the FID's 
findings as to the '280, '103, '953 and '241 patents on the issues of 
claim construction, infringement, the technical prong of the DI 
requirement, invalidity, representativeness of Maxell's DI products, 
and the FID's denial of Samsung's request for supplemental briefing to 
explain the impact of the FWD on this investigation.
    On July 21, 2026, Maxell and Samsung filed responses to each 
other's petition for Commission review.
    On August 6, 2026, Maxell and Samsung each filed statements on 
public interest. Maxell stated the public interest factors do not weigh 
against exclusion of Samsung products that infringe Maxell's asserted 
patents. Samsung argued that the public interest factors weigh against 
the issuance of a remedy.
    Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the FID 
and the parties' submissions, the Commission has determined to review 
the FID in part. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review: 
(1) the entirety of the FID's findings with respect to the '004, '103, 
'953, and '241 patents, and (2) the FID's findings on the economic 
prong of the DI requirement for the '280 patent. The Commission has 
determined not to review the remainder of the FID.
    The parties are asked to provide additional briefing on the 
following issues under review:
    1. What is the meaning of ``frame'' in claim 1 of the '004 patent? 
Please cite any applicable supporting claim language, portion of the 
specification, and/or extrinsic evidence.
    2. What exactly is the relationship, regardless of how large or 
small, between the white circle region and what the accused/DI products 
use to focus the camera? How are the redesigned products different? 
Does that relationship satisfy the ``focus setting region frame'' 
limitation? Please cite any applicable supporting claim language, 
portion of the specification, and/or extrinsic evidence.
    3. Does the claim language ``the display displays a focus setting 
region frame'' require that the focus be set based exclusively on what 
is displayed, or is the claim language satisfied if the focus is set on 
something larger or smaller than what is displayed? Please cite any 
applicable supporting claim language, portion of the specification, 
and/or extrinsic evidence.
    4. Is there any limit as to how small a ``focus setting region 
frame'' can be? Could a single pixel be a ``focus setting region 
frame?'' Please cite any applicable supporting claim language, portion 
of the specification, and/or extrinsic evidence.
    The parties are invited to brief only the discrete issues requested 
above, with reference to the applicable law and the existing 
evidentiary record. 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) 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).
    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

[[Page 56669]]

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: 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 
state the dates that the asserted patents expire, and 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 the close of business on September 14, 2026. All 
reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on 
September 21, 2026. Opening submissions from the parties are limited to 
50 pages. Reply submissions from the parties are limited to 30 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 pursuant to 19 
CFR 210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the investigation number 
(Inv. No. 337-TA-1432) 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/secretary/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf">https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/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 August 31, 
2026.
    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: August 31, 2026.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2026-18027 Filed 9-2-26; 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>