9370 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 2021 / Notices 

Authority: The authority for 

institution of this investigation is 

contained in section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 

1337, and in section 210.10 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2020). 

Scope of Investigation: Having 

considered the complaint, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission, on 

February 8, 2021, ordered that— 

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, an investigation be instituted 

to determine whether there is a 

violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of 

section 337 in the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

or the sale within the United States after 

importation of certain products 

identified in paragraph (2) by reason of 

infringement of one or more of claims 

1–11, 14–20, 25, and 26 of the ’523 

patent; and whether an industry in the 

United States exists or is in the process 

of being established as required by 

subsection (a)(2) of section 337; 

(2) Pursuant to Rule 210.10(b)(1) of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the 

plain language description of the 

accused products or category of accused 

products, which defines the scope of the 

investigation, is ‘‘Intel’s 

microprocessors fabricated using TriGate technology at a 14nm process node 

or smaller and products that contain 

such Intel microprocessors, specifically 

servers, workstations, desktops, all-inone PCs, laptops, notebooks, computer 

tablets, and board-level computers’’; 

(3) Pursuant to Rule 210.10(b)(3) of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(3), the 

presiding Administrative Law Judge 

shall hold an early evidentiary hearing 

and find facts, as needed, and shall 

issue an early initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’), within 100 days of institution, 

except for good cause shown, as to 

whether the complainant’s allegations 

in this investigation are precluded or 

otherwise barred—e.g., under claim 

preclusion, issue preclusion, or the 

Kessler doctrine—by either the decision 

of the U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of California, Intel 

Corp. v. Tela Innovations, Inc., No. 

3:18–cv–02848–WHO, ECF No. 316 

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2020), or the 

Commission’s final determination in 

Certain Integrated Circuits and Prods. 

Containing Same, Investigation No. 

337–TA–1148. See Smith v. Bayer 

Corp., 564 U.S. 299, 307 (2011) 

(‘‘Deciding whether and how prior 

litigation has preclusive effect is usually 

the bailiwick of the second 

court... .’’); see also Charles Alan 

Wright et al., Federal Practice & 

Procedure § 4405 (2d ed.) (‘‘The first 

court does not get to dictate to other 

courts the preclusion consequences of 

its own judgment. . . .’’). Any review 

will be conducted in accordance with 

Commission Rules 210.42–45. 19 CFR 

210.42–45. Unless the Commission 

orders otherwise, the issuance of an 

early ID finding that the complainant is 

precluded or barred from pursuing its 

complaint shall stay the investigation 

and any other decision shall not stay the 

investigation or delay the issuance of a 

final ID covering the other issues of the 

investigation; 

(4) Pursuant to Commission Rule 

210.50(b)(l), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the 

presiding administrative law judge shall 

take evidence or other information and 

hear arguments from the parties or other 

interested persons with respect to the 

public interest in this investigation, as 

appropriate, and provide the 

Commission with findings of fact and a 

recommended determination on this 

issue, which shall be limited to the 

statutory public interest factors set forth 

in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(l), (f)(1), (g)(1); 

(5) For the purpose of the 

investigation so instituted, the following 

are hereby named as parties upon which 

this notice of investigation shall be 

served: 

(a) The complainant is: 

Tela Innovations, Inc., 1484 Pollard 

Road #483, Los Gatos, CA 95032 

(b) The respondents are the following 

entities alleged to be in violation of 

section 337, and are the parties upon 

which the complaint is to be served: 

Acer, Inc., 1F, 88, Sec. 1, Xintai 5th Rd., 

Xizhi, New Taipei City 221, Taiwan 

Acer America Corporation, 333 West 

San Carlos Street, Suite 1500, San 

Jose, CA 95110 

ASUSTek Computer Inc., No. 15, Li-Te 

Road, Beitou District, Taipai 112, 

Taiwan 

ASUS Computer International, 800 

Corporate Way, Fremont, CA 94539 

Intel Corporation, 2200 Mission College 

Blvd., Santa Clara, CA 95052 

Lenovo Group Ltd., No. 6 Chuang Ye 

Road, Shangdi Information Industry 

Base, Beijing 100085, China 

Lenovo (United States) Inc., 1009 Think 

Pl., Morrisville, NC 27560 

Micro-Star International Co., Ltd., No. 

69, Lide St., Zhonghe District, New 

Taipei City 235, Taiwan 

MSI Computer Corp., 901 Canada Court, 

City of Industry, CA 91748 

(c) The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 

401, Washington, DC 20436; and 

(7) For the investigation so instituted, 

the Chief Administrative Law Judge, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

shall designate the presiding 

Administrative Law Judge. 

Responses to the complaint and the 

notice of investigation must be 

submitted by the named respondents in 

accordance with section 210.13 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as 

amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 

2020), such responses will be 

considered by the Commission if 

received not later than 20 days after the 

date of service by the complainant of the 

complaint and the notice of 

investigation. Extensions of time for 

submitting responses to the complaint 

and the notice of investigation will not 

be granted unless good cause therefor is 

shown. 

Failure of a respondent to file a timely 

response to each allegation in the 

complaint and in this notice may be 

deemed to constitute a waiver of the 

right to appear and contest the 

allegations of the complaint and this 

notice, and to authorize the 

administrative law judge and the 

Commission, without further notice to 

the respondent, to find the facts to be as 

alleged in the complaint and this notice 

and to enter an initial determination 

and a final determination containing 

such findings, and may result in the 

issuance of an exclusion order or a cease 

and desist order or both directed against 

the respondent. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 8, 2021. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02872 Filed 2–11–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1247] 

Certain Wireless Communications 

Equipment and Components Thereof; 

Institution of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a 

complaint was filed with the U.S. 

International Trade Commission on 

January 7, 2021, under section 337 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on 

behalf of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 

of Korea and Samsung Electronics 

America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New 

Jersey. A supplement to the complaint 

was filed on January 25, 2021. The 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 2021 / Notices 9371 

complaint, as supplemented, alleges 

violations of section 337 based upon the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, and the sale within 

the United States after importation of 

certain wireless communications 

equipment and components thereof by 

reason of infringement of certain claims 

of U.S. Patent No. 9,041,074 (‘‘the ’074 

patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 9,521,616 (‘‘the 

’616 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 9,736,772 

(‘‘the ’772 patent’’); and U.S. Patent No. 

10,797,405 (‘‘the ’405 patent’’). The 

complaint further alleges that an 

industry in the United States exists or 

in the process of being established as 

required by the applicable Federal 

Statute. The complainants request that 

the Commission institute an 

investigation and, after the 

investigation, issue a limited exclusion 

order and cease and desist orders. 

ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for 

any confidential information contained 

therein, may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help 

accessing EDIS, please email 

EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. Hearing impaired 

individuals are advised that information 

on this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons 

with mobility impairments who will 

need special assistance in gaining access 

to the Commission should contact the 

Office of the Secretary at (202) 205– 

2000. General information concerning 

the Commission may also be obtained 

by accessing its internet server at 

https://www.usitc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katherine Hiner, Office of the Secretary, 

Docket Services Division, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 

telephone (202) 205–1802. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority: The authority for 

institution of this investigation is 

contained in section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 

1337, and in section 210.10 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2020). 

Scope of Investigation: Having 

considered the complaint, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission, on 

February 8, 2021, ORDERED THAT— 

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, an investigation be instituted 

to determine whether there is a 

violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of 

section 337 in the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

or the sale within the United States after 

importation of certain products 

identified in paragraph (2) by reason of 

infringement of one or more of claims 

1–6 and 11–17 of the ’074 patent; claims 

1–5, 8–16, 19–24, 26, 29–37, 40, and 42 

of the ’616 patent; claims 1–15 of the 

’772 patent; and claims 1–20 of the ’405 

patent; and whether an industry in the 

United States exists or is in the process 

of being established as required by 

subsection (a)(2) of section 337; 

(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the 

plain language description of the 

accused products or category of accused 

products, which defines the scope of the 

investigation, is ‘‘wireless 

communications devices or software for 

use with 4G and 5G applications and 

components thereof, specifically base 

stations, base band units, antenna units, 

antenna systems, radio units, radio 

systems, mobile transport systems, site 

systems, digital units, CPU units, 

modem units, central units, power 

amplifiers, or related software; radio 

access network software; network 

management software; cloud radio 

access networks; virtual radio access 

networks; or radio access processing 

platforms’’; 

(3) For the purpose of the 

investigation so instituted, the following 

are hereby named as parties upon which 

this notice of investigation shall be 

served: 

(a) The complainants are: 

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 129 

Samsung ro (Maetan-dong), 

Yeongtong-gu Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do 

16677 Korea 

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 85 

Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, NJ 

07660 

(b) The respondents are the following 

entities alleged to be in violation of 

section 337, and are the parties upon 

which the complaint is to be served: 

Ericsson AB, Torshamnsgatan 23, Kista, 

16480 Stockholm, Sweden 

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, 

Torshamnsgatan 21, Kista, SE–164 83 

Stockholm, Sweden 

Ericsson Inc., 6300 Legacy Drive, Plano, 

TX 75024 

(4) For the investigation so instituted, 

the Chief Administrative Law Judge, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

shall designate the presiding 

Administrative Law Judge. 

The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations will not participate as a 

party to this investigation. 

Responses to the complaint and the 

notice of investigation must be 

submitted by the named respondents in 

accordance with section 210.13 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as 

amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 

2020), such responses will be 

considered by the Commission if 

received not later than 20 days after the 

date of service by the complainants of 

the complaint and the notice of 

investigation. Extensions of time for 

submitting responses to the complaint 

and the notice of investigation will not 

be granted unless good cause therefor is 

shown. 

Failure of a respondent to file a timely 

response to each allegation in the 

complaint and in this notice may be 

deemed to constitute a waiver of the 

right to appear and contest the 

allegations of the complaint and this 

notice, and to authorize the 

administrative law judge and the 

Commission, without further notice to 

the respondent, to find the facts to be as 

alleged in the complaint and this notice 

and to enter an initial determination 

and a final determination containing 

such findings, and may result in the 

issuance of an exclusion order or a cease 

and desist order or both directed against 

the respondent. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 8, 2021. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02876 Filed 2–11–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—PXI Systems Alliance, 

Inc. 

Notice is hereby given that, on 

January 18, 2021, pursuant to Section 

6(a) of the National Cooperative 

Research and Production Act of 1993, 

15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), PXI 

Systems Alliance, Inc. (‘‘PXI Systems’’) 

has filed written notifications 

simultaneously with the Attorney 

General and the Federal Trade 

Commission disclosing changes in its 

membership. The notifications were 

filed for the purpose of extending the 

Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of 

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages 

under specified circumstances. 

Specifically, Virginia Panel (individual), 

Waynesboro, VA, has been added as a 

party to this venture. 

In addition, Coherent Solutions 

Limited has changed its name to 

Quantifi Photonics, Auckland, New 

Zealand.