28660 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Notices 

defaulting respondents’ accused 

products have been imported into the 

United States and that a domestic 

industry exists in the United States with 

respect to the ’031 patent. No petitions 

for review of the ID were filed. The ALJ 

also issued a Recommended 

Determination on Remedy and Bonding, 

recommending that, if the Commission 

finds a section 337 violation, the 

Commission issue a general exclusion 

order and impose a bond of 100 percent 

during the period of Presidential review. 

On March 19, 2018, the Commission 

determined to review in part the ID. 83 

FR 12812 (Mar. 23, 2018). Specifically, 

the Commission determined to review 

(1) the ID’s findings on the technical 

prong of the domestic industry 

requirement to correct a typographical 

error and (2) the ID’s findings on the 

economic prong of the domestic 

industry requirement. The Commission 

determined not to review the remaining 

issues decided in the ID. The 

Commission requested additional 

briefing from the parties on the issues 

under review and also invited the 

parties, interested government agencies, 

and any other interested parties to file 

written submissions on the issues of 

remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding. 

On April 2, 2018, PopSockets and 

OUII filed initial written submissions in 

response to the Commission’s notice. 

On April 4, 2018, non-party Quest USA 

Corporation (‘‘Quest’’) filed a written 

submission. On April 11, 2018, 

PopSockets filed a reply to Quest’s 

submission. Also on that day, OUII filed 

a reply to the submissions of 

PopSockets and Quest. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ID and the 

various submissions, the Commission 

has determined to affirm, on modified 

grounds, the ID’s finding of a section 

337 violation. The Commission affirms 

the ID’s finding that the complainant 

satisfied the technical prong of the 

domestic industry requirement with the 

modification of a citation to ‘‘Mem. Ex. 

2 (Kemnitzer Decl.) at ¶ 77 

(Infringement Analysis and Chart)’’ at 

page 107 of the ID to ‘‘Mem. Ex. 2 

(Kemnitzer Decl.) at ¶ 61 (Analysis and 

Chart).’’ The Commission affirms, with 

modified reasoning set forth in the 

opinion issued concurrently herewith, 

the ID’s finding with respect to the 

economic prong of the domestic 

industry requirement under section 

337(a)(3)(B), but takes no position with 

respect to subsections (A) and (C) (19 

U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A), (B), (C)). The 

Commission finds that the statutory 

requirements for relief under section 

337(g)(2) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(2)) are 

satisfied with respect to the defaulting 

respondents. In addition, the 

Commission finds that the public 

interest factors enumerated in section 

337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) do not 

preclude issuance of the statutory relief. 

The Commission has determined the 

appropriate remedy is a general 

exclusion order prohibiting the 

unlicensed importation of certain 

collapsible sockets that infringe one or 

more of claims 9–12 of the ’031 patent. 

The Commission has also determined to 

set a bond in the amount of 100 percent 

of the entered value of the infringing 

products imported during the period of 

Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)). 

The Commission’s order and opinion 

were delivered to the President and to 

the United States Trade Representative 

on the day of their issuance. 

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: June 14, 2018. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13192 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1044] 

Certain Graphics Systems, 

Components Thereof, and Consumer 

Products Containing the Same; 

Commission Determination To Review 

in Part a Final Initial Determination 

Finding a Section 337 Violation; Target 

Date Extension and Schedule for Filing 

Written Submissions 

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 a final initial determination 

(‘‘FID’’) of the presiding administrative 

law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) finding a violation of 

section 337 the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended; and extend the target date by 

five business days from August 15, 

2018, to August 22, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Houda Morad, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–4716. 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 https://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at https://

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 Investigation No. 

337–TA–1044 on March 22, 2017, based 

on a complaint filed by Complainants 

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. of 

Sunnyvale, California and ATI 

Technologies ULC of Canada 

(collectively, ‘‘AMD’’ or 

‘‘Complainants’’). See 82 FR 14748 

(Mar. 22, 2017). The complaint, as 

amended, alleges violations of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), based upon 

the importation into the United States, 

the sale for importation, and the sale 

within the United States after 

importation of certain graphics systems, 

components thereof, and consumer 

products containing the same, by reason 

of infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent No. 7,633,506 (‘‘the ’506 patent’’); 

U.S. Patent No. 7,796,133 (‘‘the ’133 

patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 8,760,454 (‘‘the 

’454 patent’’); and U.S. Patent No. 

9,582,846 (‘‘the ’846 patent’’). Id. The 

notice of investigation identified LG 

Electronics, Inc. of Seoul, Republic of 

Korea, LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of 

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, and LG 

Electronics MobileComm U.S.A. Inc. of 

San Diego, California (collectively, 

‘‘LG’’), VIZIO, Inc. (‘‘VIZIO’’) of Irvine, 

California, MediaTek Inc. of Hsinchu 

City, Taiwan and Media Tek USA Inc. 

of San Jose, California (collectively, 

‘‘MediaTek’’), and Sigma Designs, Inc. 

(‘‘SDI’’) of Fremont, California, as 

respondents in this investigation. See 

id. The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations (OUII) is also a party to 

the investigation. 

On October 20, 2017, the ALJ issued 

an initial determination terminating the 

investigation as to LG based on 

settlement. See Order No. 48 (Oct. 20, 

2017), unreviewed, Comm’n Notice 

(Nov. 13, 2017). The remaining 

respondents in this investigation are 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Notices 28661 

VIZIO, MediaTek, and SDI (hereinafter, 

‘‘the Remaining Respondents’’). The ALJ 

also terminated the investigation with 

respect to all asserted claims of the ’454 

and ’846 patents; claims 6, 7, and 9 of 

the ’506 patent; and claims 2, 4–13, and 

40 of the ’133 patent. See Order No. 33 

(Aug. 15, 2017), unreviewed, Comm’n 

Notice (Sept. 5, 2017); Order No. 43 

(Oct. 5, 2017), unreviewed, Comm’n 

Notice (Oct. 31, 2017); Order No. 49 

(Oct. 20, 2017), unreviewed, Comm’n 

Notice (Nov. 13, 2017); Order No. 53 

(Oct. 31, 2017), unreviewed, Comm’n 

Notice (Nov. 28, 2017). Claims 1–5 and 

8 of the ’506 patent and claims 1 and 3 

of the ’133 patent (hereinafter, ‘‘the 

asserted claims’’) remain pending in this 

investigation. 

On April 13, 2018, the ALJ issued her 

FID finding a violation of section 337 

with respect to the ’506 patent but not 

the ’133 patent. Specifically, the FID 

finds that: (1) Certain accused products 

infringe the asserted claims of the ’506 

patent but not the ’133 patent; (2) the 

asserted claims are not invalid; and (3) 

Complainants satisfy the economic and 

technical prongs of the domestic 

industry requirement with respect to 

both asserted patents. In addition, the 

ALJ recommended that the Commission 

issue: (1) a Limited Exclusion Order 

against the infringing accused products; 

and (2) Cease and Desist Orders against 

Respondents VIZIO and SDI. The ALJ 

further recommended against setting a 

bond during Presidential review. 

The Commission has determined to 

review the FID in part. In particular, the 

Commission has determined to review 

the claim constructions of the terms: 

‘‘unified shader’’ (recited in the ’506 

and ’133 patent claims), ‘‘packet’’ 

(recited in the ’133 patent claims), and 

‘‘ALU/memory pair’’ (recited in the ’133 

patent claims). In view of the 

Commission’s claim construction 

review, the Commission will also 

review the relevant FID’s findings with 

respect to infringement, validity, and 

technical prong of the domestic industry 

requirement. Furthermore, the 

Commission has determined to review 

whether the importation requirement is 

satisfied with respect to Respondents 

MediaTek and SDI. The Commission 

has determined not to review the 

remainder of the FID. The Commission 

has also determined to extend the target 

date by five business days from August 

15, 2018, to August 22, 2018. 

In connection with the review, the 

parties are requested to brief their 

positions with reference to the 

applicable law and the evidentiary 

record regarding the questions provided 

below: 

1. Consistent with the specification of 

the ’506 patent (JX–1) and with the 

patentee’s statements during the 

prosecution of the ’506 patent (JX–2) 

distinguishing Zhu U.S. Patent No. 

6,697,063 at JX–2.387–388, the 

Commission proposes to construe the 

term ‘‘unified shader’’ to mean ‘‘a single 

shader circuit capable of performing 

color shading and texture coordinate 

shading, wherein the single shader 

circuit may not include separate 

dedicated hardware blocks that perform 

separate color and texture operations, 

and wherein texture coordinate shading 

may include texture address operations, 

indirect texturing, and bump mapping 

performed by the unified shader to 

modify texture coordinates.’’ In view of 

the Commission’s proposed 

construction, please explain: (1) 

Whether and why you agree or disagree 

with the Commission’s proposed 

construction; and (2) whether and why 

the Commission’s proposed 

construction affects the FID’s 

infringement and invalidity analyses 

with respect to the ’506 patent. 

2. Consistent with the specification of 

the ’133 patent (JX–2) and with the 

patentee’s statements during the 

prosecution of the ’133 patent (JX–4) 

distinguishing Donham U.S. Patent No. 

6,980,209 at JX–4.240–41 and JX–4.272, 

the Commission proposes to construe 

the term ‘‘unified shader’’ to mean ‘‘a 

single shader circuit capable of 

performing color shading and texture 

coordinate shading, wherein the single 

shader circuit may not include separate 

dedicated hardware blocks that perform 

separate color and texture operations, 

and wherein texture coordinate shading 

may include texture address operations, 

indirect texturing, and bump mapping 

performed by the unified shader to 

modify texture coordinates.’’ In view of 

the Commission’s proposed 

construction, please explain: (1) 

Whether and why you agree or disagree 

with the Commission’s proposed 

construction; and (2) whether and why 

the Commission’s proposed 

construction affects the FID’s 

infringement and invalidity analyses 

with respect to the ’133 patent. 

3. Consistent with the specification of 

the ’133 patent (JX–3) and with the 

patentee’s statements during the 

prosecution of the ’133 patent (JX–4) 

distinguishing Morgan U.S. Patent No. 

6,384,824 at JX–4.89, the Commission 

proposes to construe the term ‘‘packet’’ 

to mean ‘‘data bundle containing texture 

coordinate and color value information 

for one or more pixels, wherein said 

information is received simultaneously 

by the unified shader,’’ i.e., in the same 

packet rather than serially as suggested 

by Complainants. In view of the 

Commission’s proposed construction, 

please explain: (1) Whether and why 

you agree or disagree with the 

Commission’s proposed construction; 

and (2) whether and why the 

Commission’s proposed construction 

affects the FID’s infringement and 

invalidity analyses with respect to the 

’133 patent. 

4. Consistent with the specification of 

the ’133 patent (JX–3), the Commission 

proposes to modify the FID’s 

interpretation with respect to the scope 

of the term ‘‘ALU/memory pair’’ to 

clarify that it does not exclude control 

logic or circuitry. In view of the 

Commission’s proposed interpretation, 

please explain: (1) Whether and why 

you agree or disagree with the 

Commission’s proposed interpretation; 

and (2) whether and why the 

Commission’s proposed interpretation 

affects the FID’s infringement and 

invalidity analyses with respect to the 

’133 patent. 

In addition, 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. 

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 (Dec. 1994) (Comm’n 

Op.). 

If 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
28662 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Notices 

[1]All contract personnel will sign appropriate 

nondisclosure agreements. 

aforementioned public interest factors 

in the context of this investigation. 

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 questions 

identified in this notice. Parties to the 

investigation, interested government 

agencies, and any other interested 

parties 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. Complainants 

and OUII are also requested to submit 

proposed remedial orders for the 

Commission’s consideration. 

Complainants are also requested to state 

the date that the asserted patents expire 

and the HTSUS numbers under which 

the accused products are imported. 

Complainants are further requested to 

supply the names of known importers of 

the products at issue in this 

investigation. 

Written submissions and proposed 

remedial orders must be filed no later 

than close of business on June 28, 2018. 

Reply submissions must be filed no later 

than the close of business on July 6, 

2018. Initial written submissions may 

not exceed 50 pages in length, exclusive 

of any exhibits, while reply submissions 

may not exceed 25 pages in length, 

exclusive of any exhibits. No further 

submissions on any of these issues will 

be permitted unless otherwise ordered 

by the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document 

electronically on or before the deadlines 

stated above and submit eight (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–1044’’) in a prominent place on 

the cover page and/or the first page. (See 

Handbook for Electronic Filing 

Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/ 

secretary/documents/handbook_on_

filing_procedures.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. All information, 

including confidential business 

information and documents for which 

confidential treatment is properly 

sought, submitted to the Commission for 

purposes of this Investigation may be 

disclosed to and used: (i) By the 

Commission, its employees and Offices, 

and contract personnel (a) for 

developing or maintaining the records 

of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in 

internal investigations, audits, reviews, 

and evaluations relating to the 

programs, personnel, and operations of 

the Commission including under 5 

U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. 

government employees and contract 

personnel,[1] solely for cybersecurity 

purposes. All non-confidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection at the Office of the Secretary 

and on EDIS. 

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: June 14, 2018. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13191 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 332–567] 

Generalized System of Preferences: 

Possible Modifications, 2017 Review 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of amendment of scope 

of investigation. 

SUMMARY: Following receipt on June 6, 

2018 of a correction to the United States 

Trade Representative’s (USTR) request 

letter of May 18, 2018, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

(Commission) has amended the scope of 

its investigation No. 332–567, 

Generalized System of Preferences: 

Possible Modifications, 2017 Review, 

and will treat ferroniobium, nesoi, from 

Brazil, provided for in subheading 

7202.93.80 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule, as having been listed in Table 

E of the Annex to the USTR’s request 

letter instead of Table D. As a result, the 

Commission will also provide advice for 

this article with respect to whether a 

like or directly competitive article was 

being produced in the United States in 

any of the preceding three calendar 

years. 

DATES: 

June 4, 2018: Deadline for filing 

requests to appear at the public hearing. 

June 7, 2018: Deadline for filing prehearing briefs and statements. 

June 14, 2018: Public hearing. 

June 21, 2018: Deadline for filing 

post-hearing briefs and statements. 

June 21, 2018: Deadline for filing all 

other written submissions. 

September 7, 2018: Transmittal of 

Commission report to the USTR. 

ADDRESSES: All Commission offices, 

including the Commission’s hearing 

rooms, are located in the United States 

International Trade Commission 

Building, 500 E Street SW, Washington, 

DC. All written submissions should be 

addressed to the Secretary, United 

States International Trade Commission, 

500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 

20436. The public record for this 

investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Information specific to this investigation 

may be obtained from Sabina Neumann, 

Project Leader, Office of Industries 

(202–205–3000 or sabina.neumann@

usitc.gov), Mark Brininstool, Deputy 

Project Leader, Office of Industries 

(202–708–1395 or mark.brininstool@

usitc.gov), or Marin Weaver, Technical 

Advisor, Office of Industries (202–205– 

3461 or marin.weaver@usitc.gov. For 

information on the legal aspects of this 

investigation, contact William Gearhart 

of the Commission’s Office of the 

General Counsel (202–205–3091 or 

william.gearhart@usitc.gov). The media 

should contact Margaret O’Laughlin, 

Office of External Relations (202–205– 

1819 or margaret.olaughlin@usitc.gov). 

Hearing-impaired individuals may 

obtain information on this matter by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal at 202–205–1810. General 

information concerning the Commission 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES