Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2012 / Notices 14043 

State Department Contact information 

New Mexico ......................... Taxation and Revenue Department, Oil and Gas Bureau.Valdean Severson, 1200 South St. Francis Drive, Santa 

Fe, NM 87502–4034 

ONRR received the State’s proposal 

on December 23, 2011. In accordance 

with 30 CFR 1227.101(b)(1), the State 

requests that ONRR delegate the royalty 

management functions of conducting 

audits and investigations. The State 

requests delegation of these functions 

for producing Federal oil and gas leases 

within the State boundaries; as 

applicable, for producing Federal oil 

and gas leases in the Outer Continental 

Shelf, subject to revenue sharing under 

8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf 

Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1337(g); and for 

other producing solid mineral or 

geothermal Federal leases within the 

state. The State does not request 

delegation of royalty and production 

reporting functions. 

The State of New Mexico requests 

100-percent funding of the delegated 

functions for a 3-year period beginning 

July 1, 2012, with the opportunity to 

extend for an additional 3-year period. 

The State has a current audit delegation 

agreement with ONRR, as shown in the 

table below. 

State Agreement Nos. Term 

New Mexico ..................................................................................................................... D12AX70004 

0206CA27654 

10/01/2011–06/30/2012 

07/01/2006–09/30/2011 

Therefore, ONRR has determined that 

we will not hold a formal hearing for 

comments under 30 CFR 1227.105. 

Dated: March 2, 2012. 

Gregory J. Gould, 

Director, Office of Natural Resources 

Revenue. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5670 Filed 3–7–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–T2–P 

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL 

TRADE COMMISSION 

[USITC SE–12–005] 

Government in the Sunshine Act 

Meeting Notice 

AGENCY: Agency Holding the Meeting: 

United States International Trade 

Commission. 

DATES: Time and Date: March 14, 2012 

at 11 a.m. 

Place: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 

(202) 205–2000. 

STATUS: Open to the public. 

Matters To Be Considered 

1. Agendas for future meetings: None. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Vote in Inv. No. 731–TA–1089 

(Review)(Certain Orange Juice from 

Brazil). The Commission is currently 

scheduled to transmit its determination 

and Commissioners’ opinions to the 

Secretary of Commerce on or before 

March 27, 2012. 

5. Outstanding action jackets: None. 

In accordance with Commission 

policy, subject matter listed above, not 

disposed of at the scheduled meeting, 

may be carried over to the agenda of the 

following meeting. 

Issued: March 5, 2012. 

By order of the Commission. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5722 Filed 3–6–12; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–744] 

Certain Mobile Devices, Associated 

Software, and Components Thereof; 

Determination To Review Final Initial 

Determination 

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 the final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on 

December 20, 2011. 

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) 

205–3115. 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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on November 5, 2010, based on a 

complaint filed by Microsoft 

Corporation of Redmond, Washington. 

75 FR 68379–80 (Nov. 5, 2010). 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, associated 

software, and components thereof by 

reason of infringement of U.S. Patent 

Nos. 5,579,517 (‘‘the ‘517 patent’’); 

5,758,352 (‘‘the ‘352 patent’’); 6,621,746 

(‘‘the ‘746 patent’’); 6,826,762 (‘‘the ‘762 

patent’’); 6,909,910 (‘‘the ‘910 patent’’); 

7,644,376 (‘‘the ‘376 patent’’); 5,664,133 

(‘‘the ‘133 patent’’); 6,578,054 (‘‘the ‘054 

patent’’); and 6,370,566 (‘‘the ‘566 

patent.’’) Subsequently, the ‘517 and the 

‘746 patents were terminated from the 

investigation. The notice of 

investigation, as amended, names 

Motorola Mobility, Inc. of Libertyville, 

Illinois and Motorola, Inc. of 

Schaumburg, Illinois as respondents. 

Motorola, Inc. n/k/a Motorola Solutions 

was terminated from the investigation 

based on withdrawal of infringement 

allegations on July 12, 2011. 

The final ID on violation was issued 

on December 20, 2011. The ALJ issued 

his recommended determination on 

remedy and bonding on the same day. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
14044 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2012 / Notices 

The ALJ found that a violation of 

section 337 has occurred in the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, or the sale within 

the United States after importation of 

certain mobile devices, associated 

software, and components thereof 

containing same by reason of 

infringement of one or more of claims 1, 

2, 5 and 6 of the ‘566 patent. Both 

Complainant and Respondent filed 

timely petitions for review of various 

portions of the final ID, as well as timely 

responses to the petitions. 

Having examined the record in this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final 

ID, the petitions for review, and the 

responses thereto, the Commission has 

determined to review the ID in part. In 

particular, the Commission has 

determined to review: (1) The ID’s 

determination regarding the economic 

prong of the domestic industry 

requirement with respect to all of the 

presently asserted patents in this 

investigation, i.e., the ‘352 patent, the 

‘762 patent, the ‘910 patent; the ‘376 

patent, the ‘133 patent, the ‘054 patent, 

and the ‘566 patent; (2) the ID’s 

determination regarding the technical 

prong of the domestic industry 

requirement with respect to all of the 

presently asserted patents; (3) the ID’s 

anticipation and obviousness 

determinations with respect to the ‘566 

patent; (4) the ID’s infringement 

determination with respect to the ‘352 

patent; and (5) the ID’s analysis of 

induced infringement with respect to all 

of the presently asserted patents. The 

Commission has determined not to 

review the remainder of the final ID. 

The parties are requested to brief their 

positions on only the following issues, 

with reference to the applicable law and 

the evidentiary record: 

(1) With respect to the domestic 

industry: 

(a) For all of the presently asserted 

patents, what statutory provisions, 

Federal Circuit and Commission 

precedent, and record evidence support 

respondent’s argument that the ALJ 

impermissibly analyzed different 

articles for purposes of the technical 

and economic prongs of the domestic 

industry requirement, see Respondent’s 

Petition for Review at 28? 

(b) Under Federal Circuit and 

Commission precedent and section 337 

statutory provisions, where an asserted 

patent covers both hardware and 

software as one system, is it (i) 

necessary, and/or (ii) sufficient to 

demonstrate that the software at issue is 

implemented and functions on a third 

party’s hardware (e.g., a smartphone) in 

order to satisfy the technical prong of 

domestic industry requirement? 

(c) For all of the presently asserted 

patents, what statutory provisions and 

Commission precedent specifically 

support the ID’s determination 

regarding the economic prong of the 

domestic industry requirement and 

particular findings made in support of 

such determination? 

(2) With respect to the ‘566 patent: 

(a) (i) Please identify all the 

arguments made before the ALJ that rely 

on factual support from the record and 

legal support provided by applicable 

Federal Circuit and Commission 

precedent demonstrating that the Apple 

Newton MessagePad prior art reference 

discloses the ‘‘synchronization 

component’’ of claim 1; (ii) What, if any, 

disclosures are missing from the Apple 

Newton MessagePad reference such that 

it does not meet the ‘‘synchronization 

component’’ limitation of claim 1; 

(b) Please identify all the arguments 

made before the ALJ that rely on factual 

support from the record and legal 

support provided by applicable Federal 

Circuit and Commission precedent 

demonstrating that respondent met its 

burden of proof to show that the Apple 

Newton MessagePad reference 

anticipates claim 5. 

(c) Please identify all the arguments 

made before the ALJ that rely on factual 

support from the record and legal 

support provided by applicable Federal 

Circuit and Commission precedent 

demonstrating that prior art references 

render the asserted claims of the ‘566 

patent obvious; 

(3) With respect to the ‘352 patent, 

please identify all the arguments made 

before the ALJ that rely on factual 

support from the record and legal 

support provided by applicable Federal 

Circuit and Commission precedent 

demonstrating that complainant met its 

burden of proof to show that (a) the 

accused products infringe the asserted 

claims of the ‘352 patent, and (b) 

complainant satisfied the technical 

prong of the domestic industry 

requirement. 

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 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 are likely to do so. For 

background, see Certain Devices for 

Connecting Computers via Telephone 

Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC 

Pub. No. 2843, Comm’n Op. at 7–10 

(Dec. 1994). 

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 

aforementioned public interest factors 

in the context of this investigation. 

If the Commission orders some form 

of remedy, the President has 60 days to 

approve or disapprove the 

Commission’s action. 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. 

Written Submissions: The parties to 

the investigation are requested to file 

written submissions on the issues under 

review. The submissions should be 

concise and thoroughly referenced to 

the record in this investigation. 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 on remedy and bonding 

issued on December 20, 2011, by the 

ALJ. Complainant is also requested to 

submit proposed remedial orders for the 

Commission’s consideration. 

Complainant is further requested to 

provide the expiration date of the ’352 

patent, the ’762 patent, the ’910 patent, 

the ’376 patent, the ’133 patent, the ’054 

patent, and the ’566 patent, and state the 

HTSUS numbers under which the 

accused articles are imported. The 

written submissions and proposed 

remedial orders must be filed no later 

than the close of business on March 19, 

2012. Reply submissions must be filed 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2012 / Notices 14045 

no later than the close of business on 

March 27, 2012. No further submissions 

on these issues will be permitted unless 

otherwise ordered by the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must do so in accordance with 

Commission rule 210.4(f), 19 CFR 

210.4(f) which requires electronic filing. 

The original document and eight true 

copies thereof must also be filed on or 

before the deadlines stated above with 

the Office of the Secretary. Any person 

desiring to submit a document (or 

portion thereof) to the Commission in 

confidence must request confidential 

treatment unless the information has 

already been granted such treatment 

during the proceedings. All such 

requests should be directed to the 

Secretary of the Commission and must 

include a full statement of the reasons 

why the Commission should grant such 

treatment. See section 201.6 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for 

which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is sought will be treated 

accordingly. All nonconfidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection at the Office of the Secretary. 

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 

sections 210.42-.46 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42-.46). 

Issued: March 2, 2012. 

By order of the Commission. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5609 Filed 3–7–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–801] 

Certain Products Containing 

Interactive Program Guide and 

Parental Controls Technology; 

Modification of Initial Determination 

and Termination of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined on review 

to modify the presiding administrative 

law judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 5) 

granting a joint motion by Complainants 

Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc. (f/ 

k/a Gemstar-TV International Inc.), 

United Video Properties, Inc., and 

Gemstar Development Corporation, all 

of Santa Clara, California (collectively 

‘‘Rovi’’) and Respondents Sharp 

Corporation of Osaka, Japan, Sharp 

Electronics Corporation of Mahwah, 

New Jersey and Sharp Manufacturing 

Company of America, Inc. of Mahwah, 

New Jersey (collectively ‘‘Sharp’’) for 

termination of the investigation in its 

entirety based on a settlement 

agreement. On review, the Commission 

has modified the ID by further basing it 

on the final detailed agreement 

submitted by the parties. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean 

H. Jackson, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3104. 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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on August 31, 2011, based on a 

complaint filed by Rovi. 76 FR 54253 

(Aug. 31, 2011). The complaint alleges 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

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

1337, by reason of infringement of 

certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 

6,305,016; 7,493,643; and RE41,993. 

On September 30, 2011, Rovi and 

Sharp filed a joint motion to terminate 

the investigation in its entirety based 

upon a settlement agreement. On 

October 4, 2011, the ALJ issued the 

subject ID (Order No. 5) granting the 

motion for termination of the 

investigation in its entirety. In the 

subject ID, the ALJ found that the 

parties satisfied all the requirements 

under 19 CFR 210.21(b)(1), including a 

statement that the parties have no other 

agreements concerning the subject 

matter of this investigation. The ALJ 

noted that the settlement agreement 

contemplates the execution of a more 

detailed agreement by October 30, 2011, 

but he found that the possibility of 

further agreements between the parties 

did not affect his initial determination 

to grant the joint motion for termination. 

No petitions for review were filed. 

The Commission determined to 

review the ID on its own motion and 

required Rovi and Sharp to submit their 

detailed final agreement, so that the 

Commission could fully assess 

compliance with the requirements of 19 

CFR 210.21(b)(1) and 210.50(b)(2). The 

parties filed their final agreement with 

the Commission on January 13, 2012. 

Upon consideration of that document, 

the Commission has determined that the 

parties’ joint motion for termination 

complies with §§ 210.21(b)(1) and 

210.50(b)(2). Accordingly, the 

Commission has modified the ALJ’s ID 

to include a consideration of the final 

agreement. 

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 

section 210.45 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.45). 

Issued: March 5, 2012. 

By order of the Commission. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5637 Filed 3–7–12; 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—Accellera Systems 

(Formerly Open Systemc Initiative) 

Notice is hereby given that, on 

February 6, 2012, pursuant to Section 

6(a) of the National Cooperative 

Research and Production Act of 1993, 

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

Accellera Systems (formerly Open 

SystemC Initiative) 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. Open 

SystemC Initiative (‘‘OSCI’’) has 

changed its name to Accellera Systems 

Initiative (‘‘Accellera’’) through a merger 

whereby Accellera is the successor. 

In addition, Global Unichip Corp., 

Hsinchu, Taiwan; CoFluent Design, 

Nantes, France; GreenSocs Ltd., 

Cambridge, United Kingdom; Infineon 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES