80 FR 34172 - Certain Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Part an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation in Its Entirety Based on Complainant's Lack of Standing and on Review To Affirm With Modified Reasoning; Termination of the Investigation

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 114 (June 15, 2015)

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part the presiding administrative law judge's (``ALJ'') initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 135) terminating the above-captioned investigation based on complainant's lack of standing with respect to the remaining asserted patents. On review, the Commission affirms with modified reasoning and terminates the investigation in its entirety.

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 114 (Monday, June 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 34172]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14492]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-897]


Certain Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products 
Containing the Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review in 
Part an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation in Its 
Entirety Based on Complainant's Lack of Standing and on Review To 
Affirm With Modified Reasoning; Termination of the Investigation

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 the presiding 
administrative law judge's (``ALJ'') initial determination (``ID'') 
(Order No. 135) terminating the above-captioned investigation based on 
complainant's lack of standing with respect to the remaining asserted 
patents. On review, the Commission affirms with modified reasoning and 
terminates the investigation in its entirety.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Chen, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2392. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are 
or will be available for inspection during official business hours 
(8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, 
telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission 
may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed 
on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 
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: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on October 25, 2013, based on a Complaint filed by Optical Devices, LLC 
of Peterborough, New Hampshire (``Optical Devices''), as supplemented. 
78 FR 64009 (Oct. 25, 2013). The Complaint alleges violations of 
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by 
reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,904,007; 
7,196,979; 8,416,651 (collectively, ``the Kadlec Patents''); RE40,927; 
RE42,913; and RE43,681 (collectively ``the Wild Patents''). The 
Complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. The 
Commission's Notice of Investigation named numerous respondents 
including Lenovo Group Ltd. of Quarry Bay, Hong Kong and Lenovo (United 
States) Inc., of Morrisville, North Carolina; LG Electronics, Inc. of 
Seoul, Republic of Korea and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood 
Cliffs, New Jersey; Toshiba Corporation of Tokyo, Japan and Toshiba 
America Information Systems, Inc. of Irvine, California; and MediaTek, 
Inc. of Hsinchu City, Taiwan and MediaTek USA Inc. of San Jose, 
California. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was not named as 
a party to the investigation.
    The Commission later terminated the investigation as to the 
application of numerous claims of the asserted patents to various named 
respondents. See Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review an 
Initial Determination Granting Complainant's Motions to Partially 
Terminate the Investigation as to Certain Patents (Aug. 8, 2014). The 
Commission also later terminated the investigation with respect to 
Nintendo Co., Ltd. of Kyoto, Japan and Nintendo of America, Inc. of 
Redmond, Washington; Panasonic Corp. of Osaka, Japan and Panasonic 
Corporation of North America of Secaucus, New Jersey; Samsung 
Electronics Co., Ltd. of Seoul, Republic of Korea and Samsung 
Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, based on 
settlement agreements. See Notice of Commission Determination to Grant 
a Joint Motion to Terminate the Investigation as to Respondents Samsung 
Electronics Co., Ltd. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. on the Basis of 
a Settlement Agreement (Sept. 2, 2014); Notice of Commission 
Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination Terminating the 
Investigation In Part as to Respondents Panasonic and Nintendo (Mar. 
30, 2015).
    On December 4, 2014, the Commission affirmed, with modified 
reasoning, the ALJ's determination to terminate the investigation with 
respect to the Wild Patents based on Optical Devices' lack of standing 
to assert the Wild Patents. On the same day, the Commission vacated the 
ALJ's finding that Optical Devices lacked standing with respect to the 
Kadlec Patents, and remanded the investigation to the ALJ for further 
proceedings.
    After re-opening discovery and receiving additional briefing from 
the parties, the ALJ issued the subject ID on April 27, 2015, finding 
that Optical Devices does not have standing to assert the Kadlec 
Patents in this investigation.
    On May 7, 2015, Optical Devices filed a petition for review of the 
subject ID, and Respondents filed a contingent petition for review of 
the subject ID. On May 14, 2015, the parties filed their respective 
responses to the petitions.
    Having reviewed the parties' submissions and the record evidence, 
the Commission has determined to review the subject ID in part. 
Specifically, the Commission has determined to review a finding related 
to an agreement discussed on pages 22-25 of the ID. On review, the 
Commission affirms the ID's finding with modified reasoning. The 
Commission has also determined to correct certain statements made in 
the subject ID. A Commission opinion will be issued shortly. The 
investigation is terminated in its entirety.
    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: June 9, 2015.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-14492 Filed 6-12-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P