Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 27, 2024 / Notices 93653 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1118 (Remand)] 

Certain Movable Barrier Operator 

Systems and Components Thereof; 

Notice of a Final Determination Finding 

a Violation of Section 337 and Issuing 

a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease 

and Desist Orders; Termination of 

Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has 

determined that respondents Nortek 

Security & Control, LLC of Carlsbad, 

California (presently doing business as 

Nice North America LLC); Nortek, Inc. 

of Providence, Rhode Island; and GTO 

Access Systems, LLC of Tallahassee, 

Florida (collectively, ‘‘Nortek’’) have 

violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended, by importing, selling 

for importation, or selling in the United 

States after importation certain movable 

barrier operators (including garage door 

operators) and components thereof that 

infringe claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 

8,587,404 (‘‘the ’404 patent’’). The 

Commission has determined that the 

appropriate remedies are a limited 

exclusion order (‘‘LEO’’) and cease and 

desist orders (‘‘CDOs’’) against Nortek. 

The Commission has also determined to 

set a bond in the amount of zero percent 

(0%) of the entered value of the 

excluded products imported during the 

period of Presidential review. This 

investigation is hereby terminated. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

P. Bretscher, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–2382. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket system 

(‘‘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, telephone 

(202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on June 11, 2018, based on a complaint, 

as supplemented, filed by The 

Chamberlain Group, Inc. 

(‘‘Chamberlain’’) of Oak Brook, Illinois. 

83 FR 27020–21 (June 11, 2018). The 

complaint accuses Nortek of violating 

section 337 of the Tariff Act, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 

337’’) by importing, selling for 

importation, or selling in the United 

States after importation certain movable 

barrier operator systems that infringe 

one or more of the asserted claims of the 

’404 patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 

7,755,223 (‘‘the ’223 patent’’) and 

6,741,052 (‘‘the ’052 patent’’). Id. The 

complaint also alleges the existence of 

a domestic industry. The Office of 

Unfair Import Investigations is not a 

party to the investigation. 

On November 25, 2019, the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued 

two initial determinations (‘‘IDs’’). First, 

the ALJ issued Order No. 38, granting 

Chamberlain’s motion for summary 

determination that it satisfied the 

economic prong of the domestic 

industry requirement (‘‘DI economic 

prong’’). Order No. 38 (Nov. 25, 2019). 

Second, the ALJ issued a final ID on 

violation, as well as a recommended 

determination (‘‘RD’’) on remedy and 

bond. The final ID finds no violation of 

section 337 because: (i) Nortek did not 

infringe claim 11 of the ’404 patent; (ii) 

Nortek did not infringe the ’223 patent 

and Chamberlain did not satisfy the 

technical prong of the domestic industry 

requirement (‘‘DI technical prong’’) for 

that patent; and (iii) asserted claim 1 of 

the ’052 patent is invalid as obvious. 

The RD recommends issuing an LEO 

and CDOs against Nortek and setting the 

bond of 100 percent during the period 

of Presidential review. 

On April 22, 2020, the Commission 

determined to review and, on review, to 

adopt the final ID’s no-violation finding 

for the ’404 patent, which was based on 

a narrow construction of the limitation 

‘‘movable barrier operator’’ that 

excluded the wall station. Comm’n 

Notice at 3 (Apr. 22, 2020). The 

Commission took no position on the 

final ID’s finding that Nortek failed to 

prove that claim 11 of the ’404 patent 

is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. 

The Commission also adopted the final 

ID’s finding that there was no violation 

with respect to the ’052 patent because 

the asserted claim is obvious. At the 

same time, the Commission vacated 

Order No. 38 and remanded the 

economic prong issue to the ALJ for 

further proceedings with respect to the 

’223 patent. Id.; Order Vacating and 

Remanding Order No. 38 (Apr. 22, 2020) 

(‘‘First Remand Order’’). 

The ALJ, after re-analyzing the 

domestic industry per the Commission’s 

instructions, issued a Remand Initial 

Determination (‘‘First RID’’) on July 10, 

2020. The First RID finds that 

Chamberlain made significant 

investments in plant and equipment as 

well as labor and capital, which 

satisfied the DI economic prong for the 

’223 patent under sections 337(a)(3)(A) 

and (B), respectively. 

On September 9, 2020, the 

Commission determined to review the 

First RID and requested additional 

briefing by the parties on issues relating 

to the DI economic prong and remedy, 

bond, and the public interest. 85 FR 

57249–50 (Sept. 14, 2020). 

On December 3, 2020, the 

Commission determined to adopt the 

First RID’s findings that Chamberlain 

had satisfied the DI economic prong 

under subsections 337(a)(3)(A) and (B). 

85 FR 79217–18 (Dec. 9, 2020). The 

Commission reversed the final ID’s noninfringement finding for the ’223 patent, 

finding instead that Nortek violated 

section 337 by infringing the ’223 

patent. Id. Finding that the public 

interest did not preclude relief, the 

Commission issued an LEO and CDOs 

against Nortek and set the bond at 100 

percent of entered value. Comm’n Op. at 

34–39, 41. 

On June 16, 2020, Chamberlain 

appealed the Commission’s no-violation 

determinations for the ’404 patent and 

’052 patent (which expired while the 

appeal was pending). On April 1, 2021, 

Nortek cross-appealed the Commission’s 

violation determination for the ’223 

patent. 

On April 27, 2023, the Federal Circuit 

issued its decision, in which it: (i) 

affirmed the Commission’s violation 

determination for the ’223 patent; (ii) for 

the ’404 patent, reversed the 

Commission’s construction of the term 

‘‘movable barrier operator,’’ vacated its 

non-infringement, waiver, and noviolation determinations, and remanded 

with instructions to the Commission to 

re-evaluate infringement of the ’404 

patent using a proper claim 

construction; and (iii) vacated the 

Commission’s determinations for the 

expired ’052 patent and remanded with 

instructions to dismiss the infringement 

claim as moot. The Chamberlain Group, 

Inc. v. ITC, Appeal Nos. 20–1965, 21– 

1829, 2023 WL 3115579 at *1, *4–7 

(Fed. Cir. Apr. 27, 2023). 

On August 4, 2023, the Commission 

issued a notice asking the parties which 

issues needed to be resolved in view of 

the Federal Circuit’s remand and 

whether additional proceedings were 

necessary. Comm’n Notice (Aug. 4, 

2023). The parties filed responses 

identifying infringement of the ’404 

patent, patent-ineligibility of claim 11 of 

the ’404 patent under section 101, and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
93654 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 27, 2024 / Notices 

the economic prong of domestic 

industry with respect to the ’404 patent 

as the violation issues that needed to be 

resolved. The parties agreed there was 

no need to reopen the evidentiary 

record, as it has already been fully 

developed. 

On October 4, 2023, the Commission 

issued a second notice directing the 

parties to brief: (i) which, if any, of the 

accused products infringe claim 11 of 

the ’404 patent under the Court’s new 

construction of ‘‘movable barrier 

operator’’ and (ii) whether the ID 

properly finds that claim 11 is not 

patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. 

Comm’n Notice at 3 (Oct. 4, 2023). The 

Commission determined not to reopen 

the evidentiary record. The Commission 

also remanded the investigation to the 

ALJ for the sole purpose of determining 

whether Chamberlain satisfied the DI 

economic prong for the ’404 patent. See 

Remand Order (Oct. 4, 2023) (‘‘Second 

Remand Order’’). 

On January 11, 2024, the presiding 

ALJ issued Order No. 46 directing the 

parties to provide supplemental 

information regarding the covered 

products allegedly protected by the ’404 

patent, the extent to which domestic 

investments relating to products 

covered by the ’223 patent were 

applicable to products covered by the 

’404 patent, the domestic inventories of 

products covered by the ’404 patent, 

and other issues relating to the DI 

economic prong analysis. See Order No. 

46 (Jan. 11, 2024). 

On May 8, 2024, the ALJ issued the 

Recommended [sic, Remand] Initial 

Determination on Second Remand 

Order (‘‘Second RID’’) presently at issue. 

Order No. 50 (May 8, 2024). The Second 

RID finds that Chamberlain has satisfied 

the DI economic prong for the ’404 

patent under subsections 337(a)(3)(A), 

(B), and (C). The Second RID also makes 

subsidiary findings regarding 

infringement and the accused Nortek 

products. The Second RID also notes 

that the Commission previously found 

that Chamberlain’s domestic industry 

products (the ‘‘’404 DI Products’’) 

practice the ’404 patent and 

Chamberlain thus satisfied the DI 

technical prong. 

On May 20, 2024, Nortek filed a 

petition for review of the Second RID. 

On May 28, 2024, Chamberlain filed its 

opposition to Nortek’s petition for 

review. 

On June 28, 2024, the Commission 

determined to review the Second RID. 

89 FR 54038 (June 28, 2024). The 

Commission also requested briefing on 

remedy, bond, and the public interest. 

Id. 

Upon review of the final ID, the 

Second RID, the Federal Circuit’s 

decision on appeal, the parties’ 

submissions, and the evidence of 

record, the Commission finds that 

Nortek has violated section 337 by 

importing into the United States, selling 

for importation, or selling in the United 

States after importation certain movable 

barrier operators and components 

thereof that infringe claim 11 of the ’404 

patent. As set forth in the accompanying 

Opinion, the Commission finds that 

Nortek has infringed claim 11 of the 

’404 patent, and that claim 11 is not 

abstract or patent-ineligible under 35 

U.S.C. 101. The Commission also finds 

that Chamberlain has satisfied the DI 

economic prong per 19 U.S.C. 

1337(a)(3)(A), (B), but takes no position 

on whether it has also satisfied the DI 

economic prong under section 

337(a)(3)(C). 

The Commission has determined that 

the appropriate remedy is: (i) an LEO 

prohibiting the importation of certain 

movable barrier operator systems, 

including garage door operators, and 

components thereof that infringe claim 

11 of the ’404 patent; and (ii) a CDO 

against each Nortek respondents. The 

Commission has determined that the 

public interest factors do not preclude 

issuance of a remedy. The Commission 

has determined to set a bond in the 

amount of zero percent (0%) of the 

entered value of the infringing products 

imported during the period of 

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

The Commission issues its opinion 

herewith setting forth its determinations 

on certain issues. This investigation is 

hereby terminated. 

The Commission’s orders and opinion 

were delivered to the President and 

United States Trade Representative on 

the day of their issuance. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on November 

21, 2024. 

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: November 21, 2024. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2024–27783 Filed 11–26–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB 1140–0062] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed eCollection 

eComments Requested; Identification 

of Imported Explosives Materials 

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives, Department of 

Justice. 

ACTION: 30-Day notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice 

(DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will be 

submitting the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted for 30 days until 

December 27, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have comments especially on the 

estimated public burden or associated 

response time, suggestions, or need a 

copy of the proposed information 

collection instrument with instructions 

or additional information, please 

contact: Michael O’Lena, Explosives 

Industry Programs Branch, by email at 

eipb-informationcollection@atf.gov or 

michael.olena@atf.gov, or telephone at 

(202) 648–7120. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposed information collection was 

previously published in the Federal 

Register, volume 89 page 80933, on 

Friday, October 4, 2024, allowing a 60- 

day comment period. Written comments 

and suggestions from the public and 

affected agencies concerning the 

proposed collection of information are 

encouraged. Your comments should 

address one or more of the following 

four points: 

—Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

—Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and/or 

—Minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1