80 FR 46998 - Certain Vision-Based Driver Assistance System Cameras, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same: Commission's Determination To Review-in-Part a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions; Extension of the Target Date
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 151 (August 6, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 151 (August 6, 2015)
| Page Range | 46998-47000 | |
| FR Document | 2015-19287 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 151 (Thursday, August 6, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 46998-47000] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-19287] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-907] Certain Vision-Based Driver Assistance System Cameras, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same: Commission's Determination To Review-in-Part a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions; Extension of the Target Date 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 final initial determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') on April 27, 2015, finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission also extends the target date to October 8, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda P. Fisherow, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov, and 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 January 28, 2014, based on a complaint filed by Magna Electronics Inc. of Auburn Hills, Michigan. See 79 FR 4490-91 (Jan. 28, 2014). The complaint 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, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain vision-based driver assistance system cameras and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,116,929 (``the '929 patent'') and 8,593,521 (``the '521 patent''). The complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. Subsequently, the complaint and notice of investigation were amended by adding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,686,840 (``the '840 patent'') and 8,692,659 (``the '659 patent''), and by terminating the investigation inpart as to all claims of the '521 patent. The '929 patent was later terminated from the investigation. The respondent named in the Commission's notice of investigation is TRW Automotive U.S., LLC of Livonia, Michigan (``TRW''). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') was also named a party in the investigation. On April 27, 2015, the ALJ issued his final ID. The ALJ found that no violation of section 337 has occurred. Specifically, the ALJ found that the '659 and '840 patents were not indirectly infringed, that the '840 patent is invalid, and that the domestic industry requirement for the '840 patent has not been met. The ALJ also issued his recommendation on remedy and bonding. On May 11, 2015, Magna and TRW each filed petitions for review. On May 19, 2015, the parties, including OUII, filed responses to the respective petitions for review. On May 28, 2015, Magna filed a corrected response. The Commission has determined to review the ALJ's findings with respect to: (1) Importation; (2) whether the asserted claims of the '659 patent require a [[Page 46999]] camera; (3) direct infringement of the '659 patent; (4) induced infringement of the '659 and '840 patents; (5) contributory infringement of the '659 and '840 patents; (6) whether the '659 patent satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112; (7) anticipation of the '659 patent claims based on Rayner; (8) anticipation of the '659 patent claims based on Batavia; (9) anticipation of the '659 patent claims based on the SafeTrac Prototype; (10) obviousness of the '659 patent based on Rayner in combination with Blank; (11) obviousness of the '659 patent based on Batavia, the SafeTrac Prototype, and the Navlab 1997 Demo; (12) whether the claims are invalid under the America Invents Act Sec. 33(a); and (13) the technical prong of domestic industry for the '659 and '840 patents. The Commission has amended the scope of the investigation to conform to the pleadings of the parties as the ID found. The parties are requested to brief their positions on the issues under review with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary record. In connection with its review, the Commission is interested in only responses to the following questions: 1. Please provide a legal analysis discussing the relevant evidence concerning whether the alleged importation(s), sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation meets the statutory requirements for finding a violation of section 337 (i.e., do the alleged importations, sales for importation, or sales in the United States after importation by TRW satisfy 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)). Please discuss any relevant case law including Commission precedent. Include in your discussion an analysis for each of the accused products. 2. Please discuss any intrinsic evidence, including the unasserted claims, file history, or related patents and applications (and prosecution histories thereof) that would guide one of ordinary skill in the art in determining whether the asserted claims of the '659 patent require a camera. Include in your discussion any relevant case law (e.g., case law pertaining to construction of ``configured to'' limitations). 3. In making his direct infringement finding for the '659 patent, the ALJ cited several non-admitted physical exhibits. For each of these citations, please identify whether the physical exhibit was converted into a demonstrative exhibit and identify the corresponding demonstrative exhibit, if any. 4. Discuss whether TRW has indirectly infringed the '659 patent in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920 (2015). In your response to this question, please include the following for each of the accused products: (a) An analysis of whether all of the requirements for both induced and contributory infringement are met. (b) Please address if the focus of the analysis for determining whether there are substantial non-infringing uses should be directed to: (1) the vehicle having the accused accessory mounting system installed, (2) the accused S-Cams, or (3) the Mobileye EyeQ chip. Please discuss (with citations to the record) whether there are substantial non-infringing uses for: (1) the accused S-Cams; and (2) the Mobileye EyeQ chip. Please cite to any relevant case law to support your position. (c) Discuss whether Magna must prove that TRW induced infringement of each limitation of the asserted claims before TRW can be held liable for induced infringement. (d) Please discuss whether, under the proper legal analysis, the relevant inducing acts must be related to the vehicle, the accused S-Cams, or the Mobileye EyeQ chip. Please cite to any relevant case law to support your position. (e) Are TRW's sales to GM that occurred after issuance of the '659 patent, sufficient acts to give rise to induced infringement liability? Please cite the relevant case law and the record evidence. 5. [[ ]] 6. Should the limitations of ``said structure is configured to accommodate a forward facing camera'' and ``a structure configured for mounting to said plurality of attachment members'' of claims 1, and 90 of the '659 patent be treated as means-plus-function limitations? See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, No. 2013-1130, 2015 WL 3687459 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015). If these limitations are means-plus-function limitations, please discuss where the structure corresponding to the claimed function is disclosed in the specification. 7. Must every limitation of a claimed invention be disclosed in a single embodiment in the specification to meet the written description requirement? Please address this question in the context of the relevant claims of the '659 patent and any relevant case law. See TRW Petition for Review at 33-39. 8. Did TRW, in its briefing before the ALJ, meet its burden to prove invalidity of the '659 patent by clear and convincing evidence in arguing a motivation to combine the admitted prior art or Blank with Rayner? 9. Please discuss the record evidence, if any, regarding whether there is a motivation to combine the admitted prior art or Blank with the teachings of Rayner. 10. Did TRW meet its burden, in its briefing before the ALJ, to prove obviousness of the '659 patent by clear and convincing evidence for the combination of Batavia, SafeTrac, and Navlab 1997 Demo references? Discuss whether each of the limitations of the asserted claims is met by the Batavia, SafeTrac, and Navlab 1997 Demo references. In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the respondent(s) 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. When the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or 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 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 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 (December 1994) (Commission Opinion). If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove 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: 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 persons 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. The complainant and OUII are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. [[Page 47000]] Complainant is also requested to state the date that the '659 patent expires and the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business on Friday, August 14, 2015. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on Monday, August 24, 2015. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. The page limit for the parties' initial submissions is 100 pages. The parties reply submissions, if any, are limited to 50 pages. Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (``Inv. No. 337-TA-907'') in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). 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. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with the any confidential filing. All non-confidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS. The Commission extends the target date to October 8, 2015. 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: July 31, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2015-19287 Filed 8-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
![46998 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Notices
Heard Museum, Phoenix, AZ, that meets that wish to claim this cultural item Street SW., Washington, DC 20436,
the definition of sacred object and object should submit a written request with telephone (202) 205–2000. General
of cultural patrimony under 25 U.S.C. information in support of the claim to information concerning the Commission
3001. John Bulla, Interim Director/CEO, Heard may also be obtained by accessing its
This notice is published as part of the Museum, 2301 N. Central Avenue, Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov).
National Park Service’s administrative Phoenix, AZ 85004, telephone (602) The public record for this investigation
responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 346–8188, email jbulla@heard.org, by may be viewed on the Commission’s
U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in September 8, 2015. After that date, if no electronic docket (EDIS) at http://
this notice are the sole responsibility of additional claimants have come edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired
the museum, institution, or Federal forward, transfer of control of the persons are advised that information on
agency that has control of the Native Hochxo Jish (Evil Way Medicine this matter can be obtained by
American cultural items. The National Bundle) to the Navajo Nation, Arizona, contacting the Commission’s TDD
Park Service is not responsible for the New Mexico & Utah, may proceed. terminal on (202) 205–1810.
determinations in this notice. The Heard Museum is responsible for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
History and Description of the Cultural notifying the Navajo Nation, Arizona, Commission instituted this investigation
Item New Mexico & Utah, that this notice has on January 28, 2014, based on a
been published. complaint filed by Magna Electronics
Around 1974, one cultural item was Inc. of Auburn Hills, Michigan. See 79
Dated: June 29, 2015.
removed from the Navajo Nation, FR 4490–91 (Jan. 28, 2014). The
Arizona, New Mexico & Utah, and in Melanie O’Brien,
Manager, National NAGPRA Program. complaint alleges violations of section
1979 it was donated to the Heard 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
Museum. The cultural item is a Hochxo [FR Doc. 2015–19265 Filed 8–5–15; 8:45 am]
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section
Jish (Evil Way Medicine Bundle). BILLING CODE 4312–50–P
337’’), in the importation into the
Representatives of the Navajo Nation,
United States, the sale for importation,
Arizona, New Mexico & Utah, examined
and the sale within the United States
the cultural item, consulted with INTERNATIONAL TRADE after importation of certain vision-based
museum staff, and identified it as a COMMISSION driver assistance system cameras and
Navajo Jish that is used in the Hochxo
[Investigation No. 337–TA–907] components thereof by reason of
Ceremony (Evil Way), a ceremony that
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
is still widely practiced by members of
Certain Vision-Based Driver Patent Nos. 8,116,929 (‘‘the ’929
the Navajo tribe. The Navajo people
Assistance System Cameras, patent’’) and 8,593,521 (‘‘the ’521
believe that jish are alive and must be
Components Thereof, and Products patent’’). The complaint further alleges
treated with respect. These are sacred
Containing the Same: Commission’s the existence of a domestic industry.
objects as well as objects of cultural
Determination To Review-in-Part a Subsequently, the complaint and notice
patrimony and are made by
Final Initial Determination Finding No of investigation were amended by
knowledgeable Navajo people. In order
Violation of Section 337; Request for adding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,686,840 (‘‘the
to possess jish, one must have the
Written Submissions; Extension of the ’840 patent’’) and 8,692,659 (‘‘the ’659
proper ceremonial knowledge with
Target Date patent’’), and by terminating the
which to care for and utilize them.
investigation inpart as to all claims of
Determinations Made by the Heard AGENCY: U.S. International Trade the ’521 patent. The ’929 patent was
Museum Commission. later terminated from the investigation.
ACTION: Notice. The respondent named in the
Officials of the Heard Museum have
determined that: Commission’s notice of investigation is
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that TRW Automotive U.S., LLC of Livonia,
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the U.S. International Trade
the cultural item described above is a Michigan (‘‘TRW’’). The Office of Unfair
Commission has determined to review Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) was also
specific ceremonial object needed by in-part the final initial determination
traditional Native American religious named a party in the investigation.
(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding On April 27, 2015, the ALJ issued his
leaders for the practice of traditional administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on
Native American religions by their final ID. The ALJ found that no violation
April 27, 2015, finding no violation of of section 337 has occurred.
present-day adherents. section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(D), U.S.C. 1337, in the above-captioned
Specifically, the ALJ found that the ’659
the cultural item described above has and ’840 patents were not indirectly
investigation. The Commission also infringed, that the ’840 patent is invalid,
ongoing historical, traditional, or extends the target date to October 8,
cultural importance central to the and that the domestic industry
2015. requirement for the ’840 patent has not
Native American group or culture itself,
rather than property owned by an FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: been met. The ALJ also issued his
individual. Amanda P. Fisherow, Office of the recommendation on remedy and
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there General Counsel, U.S. International bonding.
is a relationship of shared group Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., On May 11, 2015, Magna and TRW
identity that can be reasonably traced Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) each filed petitions for review. On May
between the Hochxo Jish (Evil Way 205–2737. The public version of the 19, 2015, the parties, including OUII,
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Medicine Bundle) and the Navajo complaint can be accessed on the filed responses to the respective
Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah. Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) petitions for review. On May 28, 2015,
at http://edis.usitc.gov, and will be Magna filed a corrected response. The
Additional Requestors and Disposition available for inspection during official Commission has determined to review
Lineal descendants or representatives business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) the ALJ’s findings with respect to: (1)
of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Importation; (2) whether the asserted
organization not identified in this notice International Trade Commission, 500 E claims of the ’659 patent require a
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Aug 05, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM 06AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_47149/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Notices 46999
camera; (3) direct infringement of the substantial non-infringing uses should be Accordingly, the Commission is
’659 patent; (4) induced infringement of directed to: (1) the vehicle having the interested in receiving written
the ’659 and ’840 patents; (5) accused accessory mounting system submissions that address the form of
installed, (2) the accused S-Cams, or (3) the
contributory infringement of the ’659 remedy, if any, that should be ordered.
Mobileye EyeQ chip. Please discuss (with
and ’840 patents; (6) whether the ’659 citations to the record) whether there are When the Commission contemplates
patent satisfies the requirements of 35 substantial non-infringing uses for: (1) the some form of remedy, it must consider
U.S.C. 112; (7) anticipation of the ’659 accused S-Cams; and (2) the Mobileye EyeQ the effects of that remedy upon the
patent claims based on Rayner; (8) chip. Please cite to any relevant case law to public interest. The factors the
anticipation of the ’659 patent claims support your position. Commission will consider include the
based on Batavia; (9) anticipation of the (c) Discuss whether Magna must prove that effect that an exclusion order and/or
’659 patent claims based on the TRW induced infringement of each limitation cease and desist orders would have on
of the asserted claims before TRW can be
SafeTrac Prototype; (10) obviousness of (1) the public health and welfare, (2)
held liable for induced infringement.
the ’659 patent based on Rayner in (d) Please discuss whether, under the competitive conditions in the U.S.
combination with Blank; (11) proper legal analysis, the relevant inducing economy, (3) U.S. production of articles
obviousness of the ’659 patent based on acts must be related to the vehicle, the that are like or directly competitive with
Batavia, the SafeTrac Prototype, and the accused S-Cams, or the Mobileye EyeQ chip. those that are subject to investigation,
Navlab 1997 Demo; (12) whether the Please cite to any relevant case law to and (4) U.S. consumers. The
claims are invalid under the America support your position. Commission is therefore interested in
Invents Act § 33(a); and (13) the (e) Are TRW’s sales to GM that occurred receiving written submissions that
after issuance of the ’659 patent, sufficient
technical prong of domestic industry for address the aforementioned public
acts to give rise to induced infringement
the ’659 and ’840 patents. The liability? Please cite the relevant case law interest factors in the context of this
Commission has amended the scope of and the record evidence. investigation.
the investigation to conform to the 5. [[ ]] If a party seeks exclusion of an article
pleadings of the parties as the ID found. 6. Should the limitations of ‘‘said structure from entry into the United States for
The parties are requested to brief their is configured to accommodate a forward purposes other than entry for
positions on the issues under review facing camera’’ and ‘‘a structure configured consumption, the party should so
with reference to the applicable law and for mounting to said plurality of attachment
members’’ of claims 1, and 90 of the ’659
indicate and provide information
the evidentiary record. In connection establishing that activities involving
patent be treated as means-plus-function
with its review, the Commission is limitations? See Williamson v. Citrix Online, other types of entry either are adversely
interested in only responses to the LLC, No. 2013–1130, 2015 WL 3687459 (Fed. affecting it or likely to do so. For
following questions: Cir. June 16, 2015). If these limitations are background, see Certain Devices for
1. Please provide a legal analysis means-plus-function limitations, please Connecting Computers via Telephone
discussing the relevant evidence concerning discuss where the structure corresponding to Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC
whether the alleged importation(s), sale for the claimed function is disclosed in the Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994)
importation, or sale within the United States specification.
7. Must every limitation of a claimed
(Commission Opinion).
after importation meets the statutory
requirements for finding a violation of invention be disclosed in a single If the Commission orders some form
section 337 (i.e., do the alleged importations, embodiment in the specification to meet the of remedy, the U.S. Trade
sales for importation, or sales in the United written description requirement? Please Representative, as delegated by the
States after importation by TRW satisfy 19 address this question in the context of the President, has 60 days to approve or
U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)). Please discuss any relevant claims of the ’659 patent and any disapprove the Commission’s action.
relevant case law including Commission relevant case law. See TRW Petition for See Presidential Memorandum of July
precedent. Include in your discussion an Review at 33–39. 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005).
analysis for each of the accused products. 8. Did TRW, in its briefing before the ALJ,
2. Please discuss any intrinsic evidence, meet its burden to prove invalidity of the During this period, the subject articles
including the unasserted claims, file history, ’659 patent by clear and convincing evidence would be entitled to enter the United
or related patents and applications (and in arguing a motivation to combine the States under bond, in an amount
prosecution histories thereof) that would admitted prior art or Blank with Rayner? determined by the Commission and
guide one of ordinary skill in the art in 9. Please discuss the record evidence, if prescribed by the Secretary of the
determining whether the asserted claims of any, regarding whether there is a motivation Treasury. The Commission is therefore
the ’659 patent require a camera. Include in to combine the admitted prior art or Blank interested in receiving submissions
your discussion any relevant case law (e.g., with the teachings of Rayner. concerning the amount of the bond that
case law pertaining to construction of 10. Did TRW meet its burden, in its
‘‘configured to’’ limitations). briefing before the ALJ, to prove obviousness should be imposed if a remedy is
3. In making his direct infringement of the ’659 patent by clear and convincing ordered.
finding for the ’659 patent, the ALJ cited evidence for the combination of Batavia, Written Submissions: The parties to
several non-admitted physical exhibits. For SafeTrac, and Navlab 1997 Demo references? the investigation are requested to file
each of these citations, please identify Discuss whether each of the limitations of the written submissions on the issues
whether the physical exhibit was converted asserted claims is met by the Batavia, identified in this notice. Parties to the
into a demonstrative exhibit and identify the SafeTrac, and Navlab 1997 Demo references.
corresponding demonstrative exhibit, if any.
investigation, interested government
4. Discuss whether TRW has indirectly In connection with the final agencies, and any other interested
infringed the ’659 patent in light of the disposition of this investigation, the persons are encouraged to file written
Supreme Court’s decision in Commil USA, Commission may (1) issue an order that submissions on the issues of remedy,
LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920 (2015). could result in the exclusion of the the public interest, and bonding. Such
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
In your response to this question, please subject articles from entry into the submissions should address the
include the following for each of the accused United States, and/or (2) issue one or recommended determination by the ALJ
products: more cease and desist orders that could on remedy and bonding. The
(a) An analysis of whether all of the
requirements for both induced and result in the respondent(s) being complainant and OUII are also
contributory infringement are met. required to cease and desist from requested to submit proposed remedial
(b) Please address if the focus of the engaging in unfair acts in the orders for the Commission’s
analysis for determining whether there are importation and sale of such articles. consideration.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Aug 05, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM 06AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_47149/page/2.svg)
![47000 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Notices
Complainant is also requested to state INTERNATIONAL TRADE International Trade Commission,
the date that the ’659 patent expires and COMMISSION Washington, DC, and by publishing the
the HTSUS numbers under which the notice in the Federal Register on
[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–522 and 731–
accused products are imported. The TA–1258 (Final)]
February 24, 2015 (80 FR 9744). The
written submissions and proposed hearing was held in Washington, DC, on
remedial orders must be filed no later Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light June 9, 2015, and all persons who
than close of business on Friday, August Truck Tires From China requested the opportunity were
14, 2015. Reply submissions must be permitted to appear in person or by
filed no later than the close of business Determinations counsel.
on Monday, August 24, 2015. No further On the basis of the record 1 developed The Commission made these
submissions on these issues will be in the subject investigations, the United determinations pursuant to sections
permitted unless otherwise ordered by States International Trade Commission 705(b) and 735(b) of the Tariff Act of
the Commission. The page limit for the (‘‘Commission’’) determines, pursuant 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) and (19 U.S.C.
parties’ initial submissions is 100 pages. to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its
The parties reply submissions, if any, that an industry in the United States is determinations in these investigations
are limited to 50 pages. materially injured by reason of imports on August 3, 2015. The views of the
Persons filing written submissions of certain passenger vehicle and light Commission are contained in USITC
must file the original document truck tires from China, provided for in Publication 4545 (August 2015), entitled
electronically on or before the deadlines subheadings: 4011.10.10, 4011.10.50, Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light
stated above and submit 8 true paper 4011.20.10, and 4011.20.50 of the Truck Tires from China: Investigation
copies to the Office of the Secretary by Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the Nos. 701–TA–522 and 731–TA–1258
noon the next day pursuant to section United States, that have been found by (Final).
210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of the Department of Commerce to be sold By order of the Commission.
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR in the United States at less than fair
210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to Issued: August 3, 2015.
value (‘‘LTFV’’) and subsidized by the Lisa R. Barton,
the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. government of China.2 3
337–TA–907’’) in a prominent place on Secretary to the Commission.
the cover page and/or the first page. (See Background [FR Doc. 2015–19319 Filed 8–5–15; 8:45 am]
Handbook for Electronic Filing The Commission, pursuant to sections BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/ 705(b) and 735(b) of the Tariff Act of
secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/ 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) and (19 U.S.C.
handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). 1673d(b)), instituted these DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Persons with questions regarding filing investigations effective June 3, 2014,
should contact the Secretary (202–205– following receipt of petitions filed with Office of the Secretary
2000). the Commission and Commerce by
Any person desiring to submit a United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Agency Information Collection
document to the Commission in Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Activities; Submission for OMB
confidence must request confidential Industrial and Service Workers, Review; Comment Request;
treatment. All such requests should be International Union, Pittsburgh, PA. The Independent Contractor Registration
directed to the Secretary to the final phase of the investigations was and Identification
Commission and must include a full scheduled by the Commission following ACTION: Notice.
statement of the reasons why the notification of preliminary
Commission should grant such determinations by Commerce that SUMMARY: The Department of Labor
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents imports of certain passenger vehicle and (DOL) is submitting the Mine Safety and
for which confidential treatment by the light truck tires from China were Health Administration (MSHA)
Commission is properly sought will be subsidized within the meaning of sponsored information collection
treated accordingly. A redacted non- section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. request (ICR) titled, ‘‘Independent
confidential version of the document 1671b(b)) and dumped within the Contractor Registration and
must also be filed simultaneously with meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. Identification,’’ to the Office of
the any confidential filing. All non- 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of Management and Budget (OMB) for
confidential written submissions will be the final phase of the Commission’s review and approval for continued use,
available for public inspection at the investigations and of a public hearing to without change, in accordance with the
Office of the Secretary and on EDIS. be held in connection therewith was Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Commission extends the target given by posting copies of the notice in (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public
date to October 8, 2015. the Office of the Secretary, U.S. comments on the ICR are invited.
The authority for the Commission’s
DATES: The OMB will consider all
determination is contained in section 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the
written comments that agency receives
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
on or before September 8, 2015.
amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part CFR 207.2(f)).
210 of the Commission’s Rules of 2 Vice Chairman Dean A. Pinkert and ADDRESSES: A copy of this ICR with
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part Commissioners Irving A. Williamson and Rhonda applicable supporting documentation;
K. Schmidtlein voted in the affirmative. They including a description of the likely
210). further determine that imports subject to
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Commerce’s affirmative critical circumstances respondents, proposed frequency of
By order of the Commission.
determinations are not likely to undermine response, and estimated total burden
Issued: July 31, 2015. seriously the remedial effect of the countervailing may be obtained free of charge from the
Lisa R. Barton, and antidumping duty orders on certain passenger RegInfo.gov Web site at http://
Secretary to the Commission. vehicle and light truck tires from China.
3 Chairman Meredith M. Broadbent and www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
[FR Doc. 2015–19287 Filed 8–5–15; 8:45 am] Commissioners David S. Johanson and F. Scott Kieff PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201408-1219-002
BILLING CODE P dissenting. (this link will only become active on the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Aug 05, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM 06AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_47149/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-23 10:55:26
Document Modified: 2018-02-23 10:55:26
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice. | |
| Contact | Amanda P. Fisherow, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov, and 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. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 46998 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR