34870 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Notices 

released, would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of your personal 

privacy. You must also briefly describe 

any possible harmful consequence(s) of 

the disclosure of information, such as 

embarrassment, injury or other harm. 

Dated: July 17, 2018. 

Walter D. Cruickshank, 

Acting Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15669 Filed 7–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1047] 

Certain Semiconductor Devices and 

Consumer Audiovisual Products 

Containing the Same; Commission 

Determination To Review in Part a 

Final Initial Determination Finding No 

Violation of Section 337; Schedule for 

Briefing; Extension of Target Date 

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 

(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’), 

finding no violation of section 337 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The 

Commission has also set a schedule for 

briefing. Additionally, Commission has 

determined to extend the target date for 

the completion of the investigation to 

September 19, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Needham, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–5468. 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 (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 this investigation 

on April 12, 2017, based on a complaint 

filed by Broadcom Corporation 

(‘‘Broadcom’’) of Irvine, California. 82 

FR 17688. The complaint alleges 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

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

(‘‘section 337’’), in the importation into 

the United States, the sale for 

importation, and the sale within the 

United States after importation of 

certain semiconductor devices and 

consumer audiovisual products 

containing the same that infringe U.S. 

Patent Nos. 7,310,104; 7,342,967; 

7,590,059; 8,068,171; and 8,284,844. Id. 

The Commission’s notice of 

investigation named as respondents 

MediaTek Inc. of Hsinchu City, Taiwan, 

MediaTek USA Inc. of San Jose, 

California, and MStar Semiconductor 

Inc. of ChuPei Hsinchu Hsien, Taiwan 

(together, ‘‘MediaTek’’); Sigma Designs, 

Inc. of Fremont, California (‘‘Sigma’’); 

LG Electronics Inc. of Seoul, Republic of 

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

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (together, 

‘‘LG’’); Funai Electric Company, Ltd., of 

Osaka, Japan, Funai Corporation, Inc. of 

Rutherford, New Jersey, and P&F USA, 

Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia (together, 

‘‘Funai’’); and Vizio, Inc., of Irvine, 

California (‘‘Vizio’’). Id. The Office of 

Unfair Import Investigations is not 

participating in this investigation. Id. 

Several parties were terminated from 

the investigation based on settlement. 

Specifically, the Commission 

terminated the investigation with 

respect to Funai, Order No. 31 (Nov. 7, 

2017), not reviewed Notice (Dec. 12, 

2017); MediaTek, Order No. 35 (Nov. 29, 

2017), not reviewed Notice (Dec. 19, 

2017); and LG, Order No. 42 (Apr. 9, 

2018), not reviewed Notice (May 4, 

2018). Accordingly, only respondents 

Sigma and Vizio (together, 

‘‘Respondents’’) remained in the 

investigation at the time of the final ID. 

The Commission also terminated two 

patents and several claims based on 

Broadcom’s partial withdrawal of the 

complaint. Specifically, the Commission 

terminated the investigation with 

respect to the ’967 patent, the ’171 

patent, claims 21–30 of the ’059 patent, 

and claim 14 of the ’844 patent. Order 

No. 24 (Oct. 10, 2017), not reviewed 

Notice (Oct. 24, 2017). Broadcom also 

elected to withdraw claims 5 and 11–13 

of the ’844 patent in its post-hearing 

brief. ID at 7. Accordingly, at the time 

of the final ID, the only remaining 

claims were 1, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 22 of 

the ’104 patent; claims 1–4, 6–10, of the 

’844 patent; and claims 11–20 of the 

’059 patent. 

On May 11, 2018, the ALJ issued a 

final ID finding no violation of section 

337. Specifically, he found that 

Respondents did not infringe any claim, 

that the asserted claims of the ’844 

patent are invalid, and that Broadcom 

did not satisfy the technical prong of the 

domestic industry requirement for the 

’104 patent. 

On May 29, 2018, Broadcom and 

Respondents each petitioned for review 

of the ID. On June 6, 2018, the parties 

opposed each other’s petitions. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final 

ID, the petitions for review, and the 

responses thereto, the Commission has 

determined to review the final ID in 

part. Specifically, the Commission has 

determined to review the following 

issues: (1) The construction of ‘‘a 

processor adapted to control a decoding 

process’’ in claim 1 of the ’844 patent, 

as well as related issues of infringement, 

invalidity, and the technical prong of 

the domestic industry requirement with 

respect to the limitation; (2) the finding 

that Fandrianto satisfies the limitation 

‘‘adapted to perform a decoding 

function on a digital media stream’’ of 

claim 1 of the ’844 patent; (3) the 

construction of ‘‘the blended graphics 

image’’ in claim 1 of the ’104 patent, as 

well as related issues of infringement, 

invalidity, and the technical prong of 

the domestic industry requirement with 

respect to the limitation; (4) the 

construction of ‘‘blend the blended 

graphics image with the video image 

using the alpha values and/or at least 

one value derived from the alpha 

values’’ in claim 1 of the ’104 patent, as 

well as related issues of infringement, 

invalidity, and the technical prong of 

the domestic industry requirement with 

respect to the limitation; and (5) the 

finding that claims 1 and 10 of the ’104 

patent would be rendered obvious by 

Gloudemans in view of Porter & Duff 

under Broadcom’s proposed claim 

constructions. 

The parties are requested to brief their 

positions on the issues under view with 

reference to applicable law and the 

evidentiary record. In connection with 

its review, the Commission is interested 

in briefing on the following issues: 

1. Should the construction of the term ‘‘a 

processor adapted to control a decoding 

process’’ of the ’844 patent include the 

concept of ‘‘orchestrate,’’ and what is the 

difference between ‘‘control’’ and 

‘‘orchestrate’’ in the context of this patent? 

2. Should the construction of the term ‘‘a 

processor adapted to control a decoding 

process’’ of the ’844 patent include the 

concept of a ‘‘pipeline’’ or ‘‘stage’’? 

3. In construing the term ‘‘blend the 

blended graphics image with the video image 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Notices 34871 

1All contract personnel will sign appropriate 

nondisclosure agreements. 

using the alpha values and/or at least one 

value derived from the alpha values’’ in 

claim 1 of the ’104 patent, under what legal 

theory (if any) may the Commission base its 

construction upon Broadcom’s arguments in 

the district court case Broadcom Corp. v. 

SiRF Technology, Inc., Case No. 8:08–cv– 

00546–JVS–MLG (C.D. Cal. July 15, 2010)? 

4. If your responses to the questions above 

contend that one or more of the final ID’s 

claim constructions should be changed, 

please explain how each change in claim 

construction would impact the issues of 

infringement, invalidity, and the technical 

prong of the domestic industry requirement. 

The parties have been invited to brief 

only the discrete issues described above, 

with reference to the applicable law and 

evidentiary record. The parties are not 

to brief other issues on review, which 

are adequately presented in the parties’ 

existing filings. 

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 a cease 

and desist order that could result in the 

respondent 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 (December 1994) 

(Commission Opinion). 

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 a cease and 

desist order 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 aforementioned public 

interest factors in the context of this 

investigation. The Commission is 

particularly interested in briefing on the 

following issue: 

1. If the Commission were to issue 

remedial orders in this investigation, could 

the demand for the excluded articles be 

fulfilled by others? 

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 issues 

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, which issued 

on May 23, 2018. Broadcom is also 

requested to submit proposed remedial 

orders for the Commission’s 

consideration. Broadcom is additionally 

requested to state the date that the ’059, 

’844 and ’104 patents expire, the HTSUS 

numbers under which the subject 

articles are imported, and to supply a 

list of known importers of the subject 

articles. The written submissions, 

exclusive of any exhibits, must not 

exceed 60 pages, and must be filed no 

later than close of business on July 27, 

2018. Reply submissions must not 

exceed 30 pages, and must be filed no 

later than the close of business on 

August 3, 2018. No further submissions 

on 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 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–1047’’) in a prominent place on 

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

Handbook for Electronic Filing 

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

secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/ 

handbook_on_electronic_filing.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 nonconfidential 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: July 17, 2018. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15635 Filed 7–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1124] 

Institution of Investigation: Certain 

Powered Cover Plates 

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 June 

20, 2018, under section 337 of the Tariff 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1