Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 2021 / Notices 9369 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Liberman, Esq., 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 may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

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

accessing EDIS, please email 

EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

internet server at https://www.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 

under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 

(‘‘section 337’’) on October 9, 2019, 

based on a complaint filed by SK 

Innovation Co., Ltd. of Seoul, Republic 

of Korea and SK Battery America, Inc. 

of Atlanta, Georgia (collectively, ‘‘SK’’). 

84 FR 54173–74 (Oct. 9, 2019). The 

complaint alleges a violation 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 pouch-type 

battery cells, battery modules, and 

battery packs, components thereof, and 

products containing the same by reason 

of infringement of claims 1–36 of the 

’994 patent. The complaint named as 

respondents LG Chem, Ltd. of Seoul, 

Republic of Korea, and LG Chem 

Michigan, Inc. of Holland, Michigan 

(collectively, ‘‘LG’’). The Commission’s 

Office of Unfair Import Investigations 

(‘‘OUII’’) also was named as a party. 

Subsequently, the investigation was 

terminated in part based on withdrawal 

of the complaint as to claims 8, 9, 17, 

26, 27, and 35 of the ’994 patent. Order 

No. 23 (March 25, 2020), unreviewed by 

Notice (Apr. 22, 2020). Further, the 

Commission determined that the 

economic prong of the domestic 

industry is satisfied. Order No. 51 (Dec. 

14, 2020), reviewed, and on review, 

affirmed with modified reasoning by 

Notice (Jan. 14, 2021). 

On January 4, 2021, SK filed a 

corrected motion for leave to amend the 

complaint and notice of investigation to 

reflect a reorganization of respondent 

LG Chem, Ltd. (‘‘LGC’’) in which (i) 

certain business functions were 

transferred to a newly created 

subsidiary named LG Energy Solution, 

Ltd., and (ii) respondent LG Chem 

Michigan Inc. was renamed LG Energy 

Solution Michigan, Inc. SK also moved 

to terminate the investigation in part 

with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10–14, 

16, 18, 21, 23, 28, 29–32, 34, and 36 of 

the ’994 patent based on withdrawal of 

the allegations in the complaint as to 

those claims. Respondents did not 

oppose the motion. Mot. at 3. On 

January 6, 2021, OUII advised the 

presiding CALJ that it does not object to 

the motion and will not be filing a 

response. 

On January 11, 2021, the CALJ issued 

the subject ID granting SK’s motion 

pursuant to Commission Rules 210.14(b) 

and 210.21(a)(1), 19 CFR 210.14(b), 

210.21(a)(1). The ID finds that good 

cause exists for amending the complaint 

and notice of investigation due to the 

recent change in corporate structure. ID 

at 2. The ID finds that amending the 

complaint and notice of investigation to 

reflect LGC’s recent corporate 

reorganization will aid in the 

development of this investigation and 

serve the public interest by apprising 

the public of the correct entities 

involved. The ID finds that the proposed 

amendments do not unnecessarily 

prejudice the public interest or the 

rights of the parties to the investigation. 

The ID further finds that no 

extraordinary circumstances exist that 

would prevent the requested partial 

termination of this investigation. Id. at 

4. No party petitioned for review of the 

ID. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the subject ID. Claims 1, 2, 4, 

7, 10–14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 28, 29–32, 34, 

and 36 of the ’994 patent are terminated 

from this investigation. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on February 8, 

2021. 

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: February 8, 2021. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02878 Filed 2–11–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1246] 

Certain Integrated Circuits and 

Products Containing the Same; 

Institution of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a 

complaint and motion for temporary 

relief were filed with the U.S. 

International Trade Commission on 

December 18, 2020, under section 337 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on 

behalf of Tela Innovations, Inc. of Los 

Gatos, California. Supplements were 

filed on December 30, 2020, and 

February 3, 2021. The motion for 

temporary relief was withdrawn on 

February 3, 2021. The complaint 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 integrated circuits and products 

containing the same by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent No. 10,186,523 (‘‘the ’523 

patent’’). The complaint further alleges 

that an industry in the United States 

exists and/or is in the process of being 

established as required by the 

applicable Federal Statute. The 

complainant requests 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: 

Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of 

Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 

telephone (202) 205–2560. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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