14160 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Notices 

International Trade Commission, on 

March 11, 2015, 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 audio processing 

hardware and software and products 

containing same by reason of 

infringement of one or more of claims 

1–28 of the ’898 patent; claims 1–16 of 

the ’923 patent; claims 1–12 and 25–37 

of the ’607 patent; claims 1–25, 38–40, 

and 42–47 of the ’345 patent; and claims 

1–14 of the ’637 patent, and whether an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337; 

(2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 

210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the 

presiding administrative law judge shall 

take evidence or other information and 

hear arguments from the parties and 

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, 19 

U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1); 

(3) Notwithstanding any Commission 

Rules that would otherwise apply, the 

presiding Administrative Law Judge 

shall hold an early evidentiary hearing, 

find facts, and issue an early decision, 

as to whether the complainant has 

standing to assert each of the asserted 

patents. Any such decision shall be in 

the form of an initial determination (ID). 

Petitions for review of such an ID shall 

be due five calendar days after service 

of the ID; any replies shall be due three 

business days after service of a petition. 

The ID will become the Commission’s 

final determination 30 days after the 

date of service of the ID unless the 

Commission determines to review the 

ID. Any such review will be conducted 

in accordance with Commission Rules 

210.43, 210.44, and 210.45, 19 CFR 

210.43, 210.44, and 210.45. The 

Commission expects the issuance of an 

early ID relating to the standing issues 

within 100 days of institution, except 

that the presiding ALJ may grant a 

limited extension of the ID for good 

cause shown. The issuance of an early 

ID finding complainant does not have 

standing to assert the asserted patents 

shall stay the investigation unless the 

Commission orders otherwise; any other 

decision shall not stay the investigation 

or delay the issuance of a final ID 

covering the other issues of the 

investigation. 

(4) 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: 

Andrea Electronics Corp., 65 Orville 

Drive, Suite One, Bohemia, NY 

11716. 

(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., 8F, 88, Sec. 1, Xintai 5th Rd. 

Xixhi, New Taipei City 221, Taiwan 

Acer America Corp., 333 West San 

Carlos Street, Suite 1500, San Jose, 

CA 95110 

ASUSTeK Computer Inc., No. 15, Li-Te 

Rd., Beitou District, Taipei 112, 

Taiwan 

ASUS Computer International, 800 

Corporate Way, Fremont, CA 94539 

Dell Inc., One Dell Way, Round Rock, 

TX 78682 

Hewlett Packard Co., 3000 Hanover 

Street, Palo Alto, CA 94304–1185 

Lenovo Group Ltd., Shangdi 

Information Industry Base, No 6 

Chuang Ye Road, Haidan District, 

100085 Beijing, China 

Lenovo Holding Co., Inc., 1009 Think 

Place, Morrisville, NC 27650 

Lenovo (United States) Inc., 1009 Think 

Place, Morrisville, NC 27650 

Toshiba Corp., 1–1, Shibaura 1-chome, 

Toshiba Building, Minato-Ku, 

Tokyo 105–8001, Japan 

Toshiba America, Inc., 1251 Avenue of 

the Americas, Suite 4110, New 

York, NY 10020 

Toshiba America Information Systems, 

Inc., 9740 Irvine Boulevard, Irvine, 

CA 92618 

Realtek Semiconductor Corp., No. 2, 

Innovation Road II, Hsinchu 

Science Park, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan 

(c) The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 

401, Washington, DC 20436; and 

(5) 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), such 

responses will be considered by the 

Commission if received not later than 20 

days after the date of service by the 

Commission 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: March 12, 2015. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06081 Filed 3–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–916] 

Certain Non-Volatile Memory Chips 

and Products Containing the Same; 

Commission Determination Not To 

Review an Initial Determination 

Terminating the Investigation Based 

on a Settlement Agreement 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 30) granting a joint motion 

to terminate the above-captioned 

investigation based on a settlement 

agreement. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clark S. Cheney, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–2661. Copies of all 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Notices 14161 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server (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 

the matter can be obtained by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on June 4, 2014, based on a complaint 

filed by Spansion LLC (‘‘Spansion’’). 79 

FR 32312–13 (June 4, 2014). The 

complaint alleged 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 non-volatile memory chips and 

products containing the same by reason 

of infringement of four U.S. patents. The 

notice of investigation named as 

respondents Macronix International Co., 

Ltd.; Macronix Asia Limited; Macronix 

(Hong Kong) Co., Ltd.; Macronix 

America, Inc. (collectively, 

‘‘Macronix’’); Acer Inc.; Acer America 

Corp.; ADT-Corp.; Amazon.com, Inc.; 

ASRock Inc.; ASRock America, Inc.; 

ASUSTeK Computer Inc.; Asus 

Computer International; Belkin 

International, Inc.; D-Link Corporation; 

D-Link Systems, Inc.; Leap Motion, Inc.; 

Lowe’s Companies, Inc.; Lowe’s Home 

Centers, LLC (f/k/a Lowe’s Home 

Centers, Inc.); Microsoft Corp.; Nintendo 

Co., Ltd.; Nintendo of America, Inc.; 

Sercomm Corporation; Vonage Holdings 

Corp.; Vonage America Inc.; and Vonage 

Marketing LLC. 

On January 29, 2015, Spansion and all 

respondents filed an unopposed motion 

to terminate the investigation based on 

a settlement agreement between 

Spansion and Macronix. On the same 

day, Spansion and Macronix filed a 

joint motion to limit service of their 

settlement agreement pursuant to 

Commission Rule 210.21(b)(1). On 

February 9, 2015, Commission 

investigative attorney Monisha Deka 

(‘‘IA’’) filed a response in support of 

both motions. 

On February 18, 2015, the ALJ issued 

the subject ID granting both motions and 

terminating the investigation. The ALJ 

noted the parties’ assertion that the 

settlement agreement between Spansion 

and Macronix fully resolves the 

investigation with respect to all 

respondents and that there are no other 

agreements between the parties 

concerning the subject matter of this 

investigation. The ALJ further found no 

evidence that termination based on the 

settlement agreement would impose any 

undue burdens on public health and 

welfare, competitive conditions in the 

U.S. economy, the production of like or 

directly competitive articles in the 

United States, or U.S. consumers. To the 

contrary, the ALJ found that termination 

is in the public interest because it 

would avoid needless litigation and 

conserve public resources. 

The ALJ found that Spansion and 

Macronix filed a confidential and public 

version of the settlement agreement in 

compliance with Commission Rule 

210.21(b). The ALJ additionally found 

that because the settlement agreement at 

issue is confidential between Spansion 

and Macronix, there was good cause to 

limit service of that agreement to 

Spansion, the Macronix respondents, 

and the IA. No petitions for review of 

the ID were filed. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the ID. 

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: March 12, 2015. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06170 Filed 3–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–910] 

Certain Television Sets, Television 

Receivers, Television Tuners, and 

Components Thereof, Capabilities and 

Components Thereof; Request for 

Statements on the Public Interest 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the presiding administrative law judge 

has issued a Final Initial Determination 

on Violation of Section 337 and 

Recommended Determination on 

Remedy and Bond in the abovecaptioned investigation. The 

Commission is soliciting comments 

from the public on public interest issues 

raised by the recommended relief, 

specifically that if the Commission were 

to find a violation of section 337, 19 

U.S.C. 1337, that the Commission issue 

limited exclusion orders and cease and 

desist orders directed to the 

respondents. The ALJ rejected the 

respondents’ arguments that the public 

interest stands in the way of relief for 

the complainants. This notice is 

soliciting public interest comments from 

the public only. Parties are to file public 

interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 

210.50(a)(4). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2532. 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: Section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides 

that if the Commission finds a violation 

it shall exclude the articles concerned 

from the United States: 

unless, after considering the effect of such 

exclusion upon the public health and 

welfare, competitive conditions in the United 

States economy, the production of like or 

directly competitive articles in the United 

States, and United States consumers, it finds 

that such articles should not be excluded 

from entry. 

19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1). A similar 

provision applies to cease and desist 

orders. 19 U.S.C. 1337(f)(1). 

The Commission is interested in 

further development of the record on 

the public interest in these 

investigations. Accordingly, members of 

the public are invited to file 

submissions of no more than five (5) 

pages, inclusive of attachments, 

concerning the public interest in light of 

the administrative law judge’s 

Recommended Determination on 

Remedy and Bond issued in this 

investigation on February 27, 2015. 

Comments should address whether 

issuance of a limited exclusion order 

and/or cease and desist orders in this 

investigation would affect the public 

health and welfare in the United States, 

competitive conditions in the United 

States economy, the production of like 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES