[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3021-3022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01035]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-1094]


Certain IoT Devices and Components Thereof (IoT, the Internet of 
Things)--Web Applications Displayed on a Web Browser; Institution of 
Investigation

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 October 3, 2017, under section 
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Lakshmi 
Arunachalam, Ph.D. of Menlo Park, California. Supplements were filed on 
October 24, October 30, and November 3, 2017. On November 7, 2017, an 
amended complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade 
Commission under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on 
behalf of Lakshmi Arunachalam, Ph.D. and WebXchange, Inc., both of 
Menlo Park, California. Supplements were filed on November 7, 13, and 
December 21, 2017. On December 6, 2017, the Commission postponed the 
vote on whether to institute an investigation based on the amended 
complaint to January 9, 2017. The amended complaint alleges violations 
of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the 
sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after 
importation of certain IOT devices and components thereof (IOT, the 
Internet of Things)--web applications displayed on a web browser by 
reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,930,340 
(``the '340 patent''), and that an industry in the United States exists 
as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The amended complaint 
further alleges unfair methods of competition and unfair acts (criminal 
and civil RICO violations, breach of contract, theft of intellectual 
property, antitrust violations, and trade secret misappropriation), the 
threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an 
industry in the United States.
    The complainant requests that the Commission institute an 
investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion 
order and cease and desist orders.

ADDRESSES: The amended complaint, except for any confidential 
information contained therein, is available for inspection during 
official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S.

[[Page 3022]]

International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Room 112, Washington, 
DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are 
advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting 
the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility 
impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the 
Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of 
Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 
telephone (202) 205-2560.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: The authority for institution of 
this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 and in section 210.10 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2018).
    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. 
International Trade Commission, on January 12, 2018, 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 IoT devices 
and components thereof (IoT, the Internet of Things)--web applications 
displayed on a web browser by reason of infringement of one or more of 
claims 1-40 of the '340 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 or other interested 
persons with respect to the public interest in his 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 set forth in 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 satisfied the domestic industry 
requirement. 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 domestic industry 
requirement 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 that complainants do not satisfy the 
domestic industry requirement 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 complainants are:

Lakshmi-Arunachalam, Ph.D., 222 Stanford Avenue, Menlo Park, CA 94025
WebXchange, Inc., 222 Stanford Avenue, Menlo Park, CA 94025

    (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:

Apple Inc., 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014
Facebook, Inc., 1 Hacker Way, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 85 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, 
NJ
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 129, Samsung-ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, 
Gyeonggi-do, Korea; Headquarters: 40th floor Samsung Electronics, 
Building, 11, Seocho-daero 74-gil, Seocho District, Seoul, South Korea

    (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: January 17, 2018.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-01035 Filed 1-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P