Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Notices
`
`26993
`
`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 United
`States International Trade Commission
`(USITC) at USITC 2. The public record
`for this investigation may be viewed on
`the Commission’s Electronic Document
`Information System (EDIS) at EDIS 3.
`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 has received a complaint
`and a submission pursuant to section
`210.8(b) of the Commission’s Rules of
`Practice and Procedure filed on behalf
`of Silicon Laboratories, Inc. on May 6,
`2014. The complaint alleges violations
`of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930
`(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 silicon tuners and products
`containing same, including television
`tuners. The complaint name as
`respondents Cresta Technology
`Corporation of Santa Clara, CA;
`Hauppauge Digital, Inc. of Hauppauge,
`NY; Hauppauge Computer Works, Inc.
`of Hauppauge, NY; PCTV Systems
`S.a.r.l., Luxembourg of Luxembourg;
`and PCTV Systems S.a.r.l. of Germany.
`The complainant requests that the
`Commission issue a general exclusion
`order and a cease and desist order.
`Proposed respondents, other
`interested parties, and members of the
`public are invited to file comments, not
`to exceed five (5) pages in length,
`inclusive of attachments, on any public
`interest issues raised by the complaint
`or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments
`should address whether issuance of the
`relief specifically requested by the
`complainant in this investigation would
`affect the public health and welfare in
`the United States, competitive
`conditions in the United States
`economy, the production of like or
`directly competitive articles in the
`United States, or United States
`consumers.
`In particular, the Commission is
`interested in comments that:
`(i) Explain how the articles
`potentially subject to the requested
`
`remedial orders are used in the United
`States;
`(ii) identify any public health, safety,
`or welfare concerns in the United States
`relating to the requested remedial
`orders;
`(iii) identify like or directly
`competitive articles that complainant,
`its licensees, or third parties make in the
`United States which could replace the
`subject articles if they were to be
`excluded;
`(iv) indicate whether complainant,
`complainant’s licensees, and/or third
`party suppliers have the capacity to
`replace the volume of articles
`potentially subject to the requested
`exclusion order and/or a cease and
`desist order within a commercially
`reasonable time; and
`(v) explain how the requested
`remedial orders would impact United
`States consumers.
`Written submissions must be filed no
`later than by close of business, eight
`calendar days after the date of
`publication of this notice in the Federal
`Register. There will be further
`opportunities for comment on the
`public interest after the issuance of any
`final initial determination in this
`investigation.
`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 docket number (‘‘Docket No. 3011’’)
`in a prominent place on the cover page
`and/or the first page. (See Handbook for
`Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic
`Filing Procedures 4). 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. All nonconfidential
`written submissions will be available for
`public inspection at the Office of the
`Secretary and on EDIS 5.
`
`2 United States International Trade Commission
`(USITC): http://edis.usitc.gov.
`3 Electronic Document Information System
`(EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov.
`
`4 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures:
`http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/
`rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf.
`5 Electronic Document Information System
`(EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov.
`
`This action is taken under the
`authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
`of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),
`and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of
`the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
`Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
`By order of the Commission.
`Issued: May 6, 2014.
`Lisa R. Barton,
`Secretary to the Commission.
`[FR Doc. 2014–10764 Filed 5–9–14; 8:45 am]
`BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
`
`INTERNATIONAL TRADE
`COMMISSION
`
`[Investigation No. 337–TA–750]
`
`Certain Mobile Devices and Related
`Software Thereof; Commission
`Decision To Remand Investigation to
`the Chief Administrative Law Judge
`Pursuant To Remand From the U.S.
`Court of Appeals for the Federal
`Circuit
`AGENCY: U.S. International Trade
`Commission.
`ACTION: Notice.
`
`SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
`the U.S. International Trade
`Commission has determined to remand
`the above-captioned investigation to the
`Chief Administrative Law Judge for
`assignment to an administrative law
`judge (‘‘ALJ’’) for an initial
`determination on remand (‘‘RID’’)
`concerning validity, infringement, and
`domestic industry following remand
`from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
`Federal Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’).
`FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
`Megan M. Valentine, Office of the
`General Counsel, U.S. International
`Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
`Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
`708–2301. 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.
`
`VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:00 May 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM 12MYN1
`
`emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
`
`

`
`26994
`
`Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Notices
`
`SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
`Commission instituted this investigation
`on November 30, 2010, based on a
`complaint filed by Apple Inc., f/k/a
`Apple Computer, Inc., of Cupertino,
`California (‘‘Apple’’). 75 FR 74081–82.
`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 mobile devices and related
`software by reason of infringement of
`certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
`7,812,828 (‘‘the ‘828 Patent’’); 7,663,607
`(‘‘the ‘607 Patent’’); and 5,379,430 (‘‘the
`‘430 Patent’’). The Commission’s notice
`of investigation named Motorola, Inc.
`n/k/a Motorola Solutions of
`Schaumburg, Illinois (‘‘Motorola
`Solutions’’) and Motorola Mobility, Inc.
`(‘‘Motorola’’) of Libertyville, Illinois as
`respondents. The Office of Unfair
`Import Investigation was named as a
`participating party. The Commission
`subsequently terminated Motorola
`Solutions as a respondent based on
`withdrawal of allegations pursuant to
`Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1) (19 CFR
`210.21(a)(1)). Notice (Aug. 31, 2011).
`On January 13, 2012, the ALJ issued
`his final ID, finding no violation of
`Section 337. Specifically, the ALJ
`determined that the accused products
`do not infringe the asserted claims of
`the ’828 Patent either literally or under
`the doctrine of equivalents (‘‘DOE’’).
`The ALJ also found that the asserted
`claims of the ’828 Patent are not invalid.
`The ALJ further found that the accused
`products literally infringe the asserted
`claims of the ’430 and ’607 patents, but
`do not infringe under DOE. The ALJ also
`found that the asserted claims of the
`’430 Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`102 for anticipation, and that the
`asserted claims of the ’607 Patent are
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 for
`anticipation and under 35 U.S.C. 103 for
`obviousness. The ALJ further found that
`Apple has standing to assert the ’430
`Patent, and that Motorola is not licensed
`to practice the ’430 Patent. The ALJ also
`found that Apple satisfied the domestic
`industry requirement.
`On January 30, 2012, Apple filed a
`petition for review of certain aspects of
`the ID’s findings concerning claim
`construction infringement, and validity.
`Also on January 30, 2012, Motorola filed
`a contingent petition for review of
`certain aspects of the ID’s findings
`concerning claim construction,
`infringement, validity, and domestic
`industry. On February 7, 2012, Motorola
`and Apple filed responses to each
`other’s petitions. Also on February 7,
`2012, the Commission investigative
`
`attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed a joint response to
`both Apple’s and Motorola’s petitions.
`On March 16, 2012, the Commission
`issued a notice, determining to review
`the ID in part, and on review, to affirm
`the ALJ’s determination of no violation
`and to terminate the investigation. 77
`FR 16860–62. Specifically, the
`Commission determined to review, and
`on review to affirm, the ALJ’s finding
`that the asserted claims of the ’828
`patent are not infringed. The
`Commission did not review the ID’s
`construction of the limitation
`‘‘mathematically fit[ting] an ellipse to at
`least one of the [one or more] pixel
`groups’’ in claims 1 and 10 of the ’828
`patent. The Commission also
`determined to review the ALJ’s finding
`that the asserted claims of the ’607
`patent are invalid for obviousness under
`35 U.S.C. 103, and on review, to affirm
`with modification the ID’s finding of
`obviousness. The Commission did not
`review the ID’s finding that the asserted
`claims of the ’607 patent are anticipated
`under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
`On April 13, 2012, Apple timely
`appealed the Commission’s final
`determination of no violation of section
`337 as to the ’607 and ’828 patents to
`the Federal Circuit. Specifically, Apple
`appealed the ALJ’s unreviewed finding
`that the asserted claims of the ’607
`patent are anticipated by U.S. Patent No.
`7,372,455 to Perski (‘‘Perski ’455’’).
`Apple also appealed the Commission’s
`determination that the asserted claims
`of the ’607 patent are invalid for
`obviousness in view of the prior art
`reference ‘‘SmartSkin: An Infrastructure
`for Freehand Manipulation on
`Interactive Surfaces’’ by Jun Rekimoto
`(‘‘SmartSkin’’) in combination with
`Japan Unexamined Patent Application
`Publication No. 2002–342033A to Jun
`Rekimoto (‘‘Rekimoto ’033’’). Apple
`further appealed the ALJ’s unreviewed
`construction of the claim limitation
`‘‘mathematically fit[ting] an ellipse to
`. . . pixel groups’’ in the asserted
`claims of the ’828 patent and the
`Commission’s resulting determination
`of non-infringement.
`On August 7, 2013, the Federal
`Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-
`part, and vacated-in-part the
`Commission’s decision and remanded
`for further proceedings. Apple, Inc. v.
`Int’l Trade Comm’n., 725 F.3d 1356
`(Fed. Cir. 2013). Specifically, the Court
`affirmed the Commission’s
`determination that Perski ’455
`anticipates claims 1–7 of the ’607 patent
`but reversed the Commission’s
`determination that Perski ’455
`anticipates claim 10 of the ’607 patent.
`Id. at 1361–63. The Court also vacated
`and remanded the Commission’s
`
`determination that claim 10 of the ’607
`patent is invalid for obviousness in view
`of the SmartSkin reference in
`combination with Rekimoto ’033,
`holding that the Commission failed to
`perform the necessary analysis of
`secondary considerations before finding
`the claim invalid for obviousness
`although the Court agreed with the
`Commission’s finding that the combined
`prior art references disclose all of the
`limitations of claim 10. Id. at 1364–67.
`The Court also reversed the
`Commission’s construction of the
`limitation ‘‘mathematically fit[ting] an
`ellipse’’ in the asserted claims of the
`’828 patent and remanded the issue of
`infringement for the Commission to
`make a determination in light of the
`Court’s construction of that claim
`limitation. Id. at 1367–68.
`On September 6, 2013, intervenor
`Motorola filed a combined petition for
`panel rehearing and rehearing en banc
`concerning the panel’s holding that the
`Commission failed to consider
`secondary considerations in finding
`claim 10 of the ’607 patent invalid for
`obviousness. On November 8, 2013, the
`Court denied the petition. The mandate
`issued on November 15, 2013, returning
`jurisdiction to the Commission.
`On January 7, 2014, the Commission
`issued an Order directing the parties to
`submit comments regarding what
`further proceedings must be conducted
`to comply with the Federal Circuit’s
`remand. On January 22, 2014, Apple,
`Motorola, and the IA submitted initial
`comments. On January 29, 2014, the
`parties submitted response comments.
`Having examined the record of this
`investigation, including the ALJ’s final
`ID, the petitions for review, the
`responses thereto, and the parties’
`comments on remand, the Commission
`has determined to remand the
`investigation to the Chief ALJ for
`assignment to a presiding ALJ to
`determine certain outstanding issues
`concerning violation of section 337 set
`forth below.
`With respect to the ’607 patent, the
`Commission remands the issue of
`whether Perski ’455 anticipates claim 10
`of the ’607 patent. Specifically, the ALJ
`should determine whether Apple can
`establish an earlier priority date for
`claim 10 of the ’607 patent than the
`filing date of Perski ’455 such that
`Perski ’455 is prior art to claim 10 in
`light of the Commission’s prior
`determination that Perski ’455 discloses
`all of the limitations of claim 10. The
`Commission further remands the issue
`of whether claims 10 of the ’607 patent
`is invalid for obviousness in view of
`Smartskin in combination with
`Rekimoto ’033. Specifically, the ALJ
`
`VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:00 May 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM 12MYN1
`
`emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
`
`

`
`Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Notices
`
`26995
`
`should determine whether Apple’s
`evidence of secondary considerations
`requires a finding of nonobviousness
`with respect to the ’607 patent in light
`of the Commission’s determination, as
`affirmed by the Federal Circuit, that
`SmartSkin in combination with
`Rekimoto ’033 discloses all limitations
`of claim 10. In deciding the issue of
`obviousness, the ALJ should also
`determine whether there is a nexus
`between Apple’s evidence of secondary
`considerations and the invention recited
`in claim 10 of the ’607 patent. The
`Commission also remands the issue of
`domestic industry to the ALJ.
`Specifically, the ALJ should determine
`whether Apple’s iPhone 4 practices all
`of the limitations of claim 10 of the ’607
`patent.
`With respect to the ’828 patent, the
`Commission remands the issue of
`infringement. Specifically, the ALJ
`should determine whether Motorola’s
`accused products infringe the asserted
`claims of the ’828 patent under the
`Federal Circuit’s construction of the
`claim limitation ‘‘mathematically
`fit[ting] an ellipse.’’ The Commission
`further remands the issue of
`anticipation. Specifically, the ALJ
`should determine whether U.S. Patent
`No. 5,825,352 to Bisset anticipates
`claims 1 and 10 of the ’828 patent under
`the Federal Circuit’s construction of the
`claim limitation ‘‘mathematically
`fit[ting] an ellipse.’’
`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: May 6, 2014.
`Lisa R. Barton,
`Secretary to the Commission.
`[FR Doc. 2014–10769 Filed 5–9–14; 8:45 am]
`BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
`
`DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
`[OMB Number 1105–0101]
`
`Agency Information Collection
`Activities; Proposed eCollection;
`eComments requested
`AGENCY: Office of Tribal Justice,
`Department of Justice. Tribal Requests
`for Accelerated Exercise of Jurisdiction
`Under Section 204(a) of the Indian Civil
`Rights Act of 1968, as Amended.
`ACTION: 30-day notice.
`SUMMARY: The Department of Justice,
`Office of Tribal Justice, will be
`
`submitting the following information
`collection request to the Office of
`Management and Budget (OMB) for
`review and approval in accordance with
`the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
`The proposed information collection
`was previously published in the Federal
`Register Volume 79, Number 43, pages
`12527–12528, on March 5, 2014,
`allowing for a 60 day comment period.
`DATES: Comments are encouraged and
`will be accepted for an additional 30
`days until June 11, 2014.
`FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
`you have comments, especially on the
`estimated public burden or associated
`response time, suggestions, or need
`additional information, please contact
`Mr. Tracy Toulou, Director, Office of
`Tribal Justice, Department of Justice,
`950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room
`2310, Washington, DC 20530; telephone:
`(202) 514–8812.
`SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
`process is conducted in accordance with
`5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and
`suggestions from the public and affected
`agencies concerning the proposed
`collection of information are
`encouraged. Your comments should
`address one or more of the following
`four points:
`—Evaluate whether the proposed
`collection of information is necessary
`for the proper performance of the
`functions of the agency, including
`whether the information will have
`practical utility;
`—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
`estimate of the burden of the
`proposed collection of information,
`including the validity of the
`methodology and assumptions used;
`—Enhance the quality, utility, and
`clarity of the information to be
`collected; and
`—Minimize the burden of the collection
`of information on those who are to
`respond, including through the use of
`appropriate automated, electronic,
`mechanical, or other technological
`collection techniques or other forms
`of information technology, e.g.,
`permitting electronic submission of
`responses.
`Overview of this information
`collection:
`(1) Type of Information Collection:
`Extension of a currently approved
`collection.
`(2) Title of the Form/Collection:
`Request for Accelerated Authority to
`Exercise Special Domestic Violence
`Criminal Jurisdiction.
`(3) Agency form number: Not
`applicable.
`(4) Affected public who will be asked
`or required to respond, as well as a brief
`
`abstract: Primary: Tribal governments.
`Other: None.
`Abstract: The Violence Against
`Women Reauthorization Act of 2013
`(VAWA 2013) was signed into law on
`March 7, 2013. Section 904 of VAWA
`2013 recognizes the inherent power of
`‘‘participating tribes’’ to exercise special
`domestic violence criminal jurisdiction
`over certain defendants, regardless of
`their Indian or non-Indian status, who
`commit acts of domestic violence or
`dating violence or violate certain
`protection orders in Indian country.
`Section 904 also specifies the rights that
`a participating tribe must provide to
`defendants in special domestic violence
`criminal jurisdiction cases. Section
`908(b)(1) provides that tribes generally
`cannot exercise the special jurisdiction
`until March 7, 2015, but Section
`908(b)(2) establishes a pilot project that
`authorizes the Attorney General, in the
`exercise of his discretion, to grant a
`tribe’s request to be designed as a
`‘‘participating tribe’’ on an accelerated
`basis and to commence exercising the
`special jurisdiction on a date (prior to
`March 7, 2015) set by the Attorney
`General, after coordinating with the
`Secretary of the Interior, consulting with
`affected tribes, and concluding that the
`tribe’s criminal justice system has
`adequate safeguards in place to protect
`defendants’ rights, consistent with
`Section 204 of the Indian Civil Rights
`Act, as amended, 25 U.S.C. 1304. The
`Department of Justice has published a
`notice seeking comments on procedures
`for an Indian tribe to request
`designation as a ‘‘participating tribe’’ on
`an accelerated basis), and for the
`Attorney General to act on such
`requests, 78 FR 35961 (June 14, 2013).
`Pursuant to the notice, the Attorney
`General has delegated to the Associate
`Attorney General the authority to decide
`whether to grant the request of a tribe
`to be designated as a ‘‘participating
`tribe’’ prior to March 7, 2015. The
`purpose of the collection is to provide
`information from the requesting tribe
`sufficient for the Associate Attorney
`General to make that decision.
`(5) An estimate of the total number of
`respondents and the amount of time
`estimated for an average respondent to
`respond: Fewer than 40 respondents;
`average of 16 hours.
`(6) An estimate of the total public
`burden (in hours) associated with the
`collection: There are an estimated 640
`total burden hours associated with this
`collection.
`If additional information is required
`contact: Jerri Murray, Department
`Clearance Officer, United States
`Department of Justice, Justice
`Management Division, Policy and
`
`VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:00 May 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM 12MYN1
`
`emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES