81 FR 27173 - Certain Audio Processing Hardware and Software and Products Containing Same: Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating Dell Inc.; and Termination of the Investigation

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 87 (May 5, 2016)

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (``ALJ'') initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 40) terminating the investigation on the basis of withdrawal of the complainant as to the last remaining respondent, Dell Inc. (``Dell'') of Round Rock, Texas.

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27173-27174]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10575]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-949]


Certain Audio Processing Hardware and Software and Products 
Containing Same: Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial 
Determination Terminating Dell Inc.; and 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 not to review the presiding administrative 
law judge's (``ALJ'') initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 40) 
terminating the investigation on the basis of withdrawal of the 
complainant as to the last remaining respondent, Dell Inc. (``Dell'') 
of Round Rock, Texas.

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 at 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 March 18, 2015, based on a complaint filed by Andrea Electronics 
Corp. (``Andrea'') of Bohemia, New York. 80 FR 14,159 (Mar. 18, 2015). 
The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United 
States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States 
after importation of certain audio processing hardware and software and 
products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of 
U.S. Patent Nos. 5,825,898 (``the '898 patent''); 6,483,923 (``the '923 
patent''); 6,049,607 (``the '607 patent'');

[[Page 27174]]

6,363,345 (``the '345 patent''); and 6,377,637 (``the '637 patent''). 
The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States 
exists as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2). The notice of investigation 
named Dell and the following 12 respondents: Acer Inc. of New Taipei 
City, Taiwan; Acer America Corp. of San Jose, California (collectively, 
``Acer''); ASUSTeK Computer Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; ASUS Computer 
International of Fremont, California (collectively, ``ASUS''); Hewlett 
Packard Co. (``HP'') of Palo Alto, California; Lenovo Holding Co., Inc. 
and Lenovo (United States) Inc. (collectively, ``Lenovo''), both of 
Morrisville, North Carolina; Lenovo Group Ltd. of Beijing, China; 
Toshiba Corp. of Tokyo, Japan; Toshiba America Information Systems, 
Inc. (collectively, ``Toshiba'') of Irvine, California; Toshiba 
America, Inc. of New York City, New York; and Realtek Semiconductor 
Corp. (``Realtek'') of Hsinchu, Taiwan. Also, intervenors Waves Audio 
Ltd. (``Waves'') of Tel Aviv, Israel and Conexant Systems Inc. 
(``Conexant'') of Irvine, California were subsequently added to the 
investigation. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is a party in 
this investigation. The 12 other respondents and the two intervenors, 
as detailed below, have been terminated from the investigation based on 
settlement or stipulation.
    On July 13, 2015, the Commission determined not to review an ID 
finding that Andre has standing to bring the complaint in this 
investigation and to deny respondents' motion for oral argument. On May 
1, 2015, the Commission determined not to review two IDs (Order Nos. 4, 
5) granting motions of Andrea terminating the investigation as to 
Lenovo Group Ltd. and Toshiba America, Inc., respectively, based on 
stipulation. On December 8, 2015, the Commission determined not to 
review an ID (Order No. 23) granting a joint motion of Andrea and 
Realtek terminating the investigation as to Realtek based on a 
settlement agreement and a patent license agreement. On December 21, 
2015, the Commission determined not to review an ID (Order No. 24) 
granting a joint motion of Andrea and Acer terminating the 
investigation as to Acer based on a settlement agreement and a patent 
license agreement. On January 5, 2016, the Commission determined not to 
review two IDs (Order Nos. 25, 26) granting a motion of Andrea to 
terminate the investigation as to all infringement allegations relating 
to the '637 patent; the '898 patent; the '923 patent; claims 4-11, 18-
20, 22, and 39-46 of the '345 patent; and claims 5-7, 9-12, 29-31, and 
33-37 of the '607 patent. On February 3, 2016, the Commission 
determined not to review an ID (Order No. 30) granting a joint motion 
of Andrea and HP terminating the investigation as to HP based on a 
settlement agreement and a patent license agreement. On March 4, 2016, 
the Commission determined not to review an ID (Order No. 33) granting a 
joint motion of Andrea and ASUS terminating the investigation as to 
ASUS based on a settlement agreement and a patent license agreement. On 
March 17, 2016, the Commission determined not to review an ID (Order 
No. 36) granting a joint motion of Andrea and Lenovo terminating the 
investigation as to Lenovo based on a settlement agreement and a patent 
license agreement. On April 5, 2016, the Commission determined not to 
review an ID (Order No. 37) granting a joint motion of Andrea and 
Conexant terminating the investigation as to Conexant based on a 
settlement agreement and a patent license agreement. On April 19, 2016, 
the Commission determined not to review an ID (Order No. 38) granting a 
joint motion of Andrea and Waves terminating the investigation as to 
Waves based on a settlement agreement and a patent license agreement. 
On the same date, the Commission determined not to review an ID (Order 
No. 39) granting a joint motion of Andrea and Toshiba terminating the 
investigation as to Toshiba based on a settlement agreement.
    On March 25, 2016, Andrea filed a motion to terminate the last 
remaining respondent, Dell, from the investigation on the basis of 
withdrawal of the complaint as to Dell. Andrea affirmed that there are 
no agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between itself and 
Dell concerning the subject matter of the investigation. None of the 
other parties opposed the motion.
    On April 6, 2016, the ALJ granted the motion as an ID. The ALJ 
found no information indicating that termination of the investigation 
with respect to Dell on the basis of the withdrawal of the complaint is 
contrary to the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in 
the U.S. economy, the production of like or directly competitive 
articles in the United States, or U.S. consumers. The ALJ also 
terminated the investigation. Order No. 40 at 2.
    No petitions for review of the ID were filed. The Commission has 
determined not to review the subject ID, and has terminated the 
investigation.
    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.

    Dated: May 2, 2016.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-10575 Filed 5-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P