99278 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Notices 

opposition to the motion. OUII filed its 

reply on October 1, 2024. 

On October 18, 2024, the ALJ issued 

Order No. 19 granting-in-part OUII’s 

motion for summary determination and 

finding no violation. On October 25, 

2024, Complainant filed a petition for 

review of the ID in Order No. 19. On 

November 1, 2024, OUII filed a response 

to Complainant’s petition for review of 

the ID in Order No. 19. 

On October 18, 2024, the ALJ also 

issued Order No. 20, asking the parties 

to brief whether the investigation 

should be terminated in its entirety and 

whether all remaining motions are moot 

and/or withdrawn in light of Order No. 

19. On October 28, 2024, Complainant 

responded to Order No. 20, opposing 

terminating the investigation. On 

October 28, 2024, OUII responded to 

Order No. 20 supporting termination of 

the investigation and Xenogenic 

responded requesting the ALJ to grant 

its motion to intervene. On November 4, 

2024, Complainant filed a reply 

regarding Order No. 20, opposing 

terminating the investigation. 

On November 8, 2024, the ALJ issued 

Order No. 23 granting Xenogenic’s 

motion to intervene and terminating the 

investigation. On November 9, 2024, 

Complainant filed a petition to review 

the ID in Order No. 23. On November 

18, 2024, OUII filed a response in 

opposition to Complainant’ petition to 

review of Order No. 23. 

Having considered the record in this 

investigation, including the complaint, 

the filings before the ALJ and the 

Commission, the Commission has 

determined to review Order No. 19. On 

review, the Commission affirms Order 

No. 19 finding no infringement of the 

asserted patents with the following 

supplementation: (1) on page 18 of the 

ID, the Commission supplements the 

citation to 19 CFR 210.18(a)–(b) to also 

include 19 CFR 210.18(c); and (2) on 

page 26 of the ID, the Commission adds 

a citation to Exhibit 14 of OUII’s motion 

for summary determination, which is 

RFC 7950 entitled ‘‘The YANG 1.1 Data 

Modeling Language’’ (in addition to 

already cited Exhibits 13, 15, and 16 

from OUII’s motion for summary 

determination). 

The Commission has further 

determined to review and vacate Order 

No. 23. Order No. 19 finds that there is 

no infringement of the Asserted Patents 

and that no violation of section 337 has 

occurred. Affirmance of Order No. 19 

would result in termination of the 

investigation, and thereby, the 

Commission finds that as of the time of 

issuance of Order No. 23 the 

investigation was already pending 

before the Commission. However, the 

Commission has determined to grant 

third party Xenogenic’s motion to 

intervene for the limited purpose of 

addressing ownership of the Asserted 

Patents. Regardless of ownership, the 

Commission’s finding of no 

infringement results in a finding of no 

violation and the investigation is 

terminated. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on December 

4, 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: December 4, 2024. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28925 Filed 12–9–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1370] 

Certain Power Converter Modules and 

Computing Systems Containing the 

Same; Notice of a Commission 

Determination To Review in Part a 

Final Initial Determination Finding a 

Violation of Section 337; Request for 

Written Submissions on the Issues 

Under Review and on Remedy, the 

Public Interest, and Bonding 

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 

(‘‘final ID’’) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on 

September 24, 2024, finding a violation 

of section 337 in the above referenced 

investigation. The Commission requests 

written submissions from the parties on 

certain issues under review, as 

indicated in this notice, and 

submissions from the parties, interested 

government agencies, and other 

interested persons on the issues of 

remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding, under the schedule set forth 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joelle Justus, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–2593. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (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 on (202) 

205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

17, 2023, the Commission instituted this 

investigation under section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 

U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’), based on a 

complaint filed by Vicor Corporation 

(‘‘Complainant’’ or ‘‘Vicor’’) of Andover, 

Massachusetts. See 88 FR 56050 through 

56051 (Aug. 17, 2023). The complaint, 

as supplemented, alleges a violation 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 power converter modules and 

computing systems containing the same 

by reason of the infringement of certain 

claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,166,481; 

9,516,761; and 10,199,950. See id. The 

notice of investigation names the 

following respondents: Delta 

Electronics, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; 

Delta Electronics (Americas) Ltd. of 

Fremont, California; Delta Electronics 

(USA) Inc. of Plano, Texas; Cyntec Co., 

Ltd. of Hsinchu, Taiwan; Quanta 

Computer Inc. and Quanta Cloud 

Technology Inc., both of Taoyuan City, 

Taiwan; Quanta Cloud Technology USA 

LLC of San Jose, California; Quanta 

Computer USA Inc. of Fremont, 

California; Hon Hai Precision Industry 

Co. Ltd. (d/b/a, Foxconn Technology 

Group) of Taipei City, Taiwan; Foxconn 

Industrial internet Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen, 

China; FII USA Inc. (a/k/a Foxconn 

Industrial, internet USA Inc.) of 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Ingrasys 

Technology Inc. of Taoyuan City, 

Taiwan; and Ingrasys Technology USA 

Inc. of Fremont, California (collectively, 

‘‘Respondents’’). See id. The Office of 

Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) is 

also a party to the investigation. See id. 

On January 25, 2024, the Commission 

partially terminated the investigation as 

to respondents Delta Electronics (USA) 

Inc., Quanta Cloud Technology Inc., and 

Quanta Cloud Technology USA LLC 

based on withdrawal of the complaint as 

to those respondents. See Order No. 16 

(Dec. 22, 2023), unreviewed by Comm’n 

Notice (Jan. 25, 2024). 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Notices 99279 

1Unless otherwise indicated ‘‘accused products’’ 

does not include redesigned products. See Final ID 

at 9–10. 

On January 26, 2024, the Commission 

amended the complaint and notice of 

investigation to add DET Logistics 

(USA) Corporation of Fremont, 

California as a respondent. See Order 

No. 18 (Jan. 2, 2024), unreviewed by 

Comm’n Notice (Jan. 26, 2024). 

On March 22, 2024, the ALJ granted 

in part Respondents’ motion for 

summary determination, specifically as 

to no infringement of any patent under 

the doctrine of equivalents. See Order 

No. 37. The Commission determined not 

to review the partial grant of summary 

determination. See Comm’n Notice 

(Apr. 23, 2024). 

On September 27, 2024, the ALJ 

issued the final ID finding that a 

violation of section 337 has occurred. 

The Final ID finds, inter alia: (1) as to 

the ’481 patent, the accused Cyntec 

products infringe asserted claim 1 but 

that the accused Delta products and 

certain asserted redesign products do 

not infringe claim 1, asserted claim 1 is 

not invalid, and certain asserted 

domestic industry products practice 

asserted claim 1; (2) as to the ’761 

patent, the accused Delta products 

infringe asserted claims 1–7, claims 1– 

3 and 7 are invalid as anticipated, 

claims 4–6 are not invalid for 

obviousness or indefiniteness, and the 

asserted domestic industry products 

practice claims 1–7; (3) as to the ’950 

patent, the accused Delta and Cyntec 

products do not infringe asserted claims 

9, 13, 14, and 33–38, the asserted claims 

are not invalid for obviousness, and the 

domestic industry products do not 

practice any asserted claim; (4) 

Respondents do not have a license to 

practice the asserted patents; and (5) 

Vicor has satisfied the domestic 

industry requirement of section 337 

with respect to each of the asserted 

patents. 

The ALJ also issued a Recommended 

Determination on remedy and bonding 

(‘‘RD’’). The RD recommends that, if the 

Commission finds a violation, it should 

issue a limited exclusion order. The RD 

also recommends the issuance of cease 

and desist orders as to all Respondents. 

The RD further recommended that the 

Commission set no bond as to Cyntec’s 

products and various bond amounts as 

to the other infringing products during 

the period of Presidential review. 

On October 29, 2024, Complainant 

and respondent FII USA submitted 

public interest comments pursuant to 

Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4) (19 CFR 

210.50(a)(4)). No submissions were filed 

in response to the Commission’s 

Federal Register notice seeking 

submissions on the public interest. See 

89 FR 80604 through 80605 (Oct. 3, 

2024). 

On October 11, 2024, Vicor filed a 

petition for review of the Final ID’s 

findings concerning: (1) as to the ’481 

patent, no infringement by the Delta 

accused products, and certain aspects of 

the Final ID’s validity analysis; (2) as to 

the ’761 patent, that certain claims are 

invalid as anticipated and certain 

subsidiary aspect of the Final ID’s 

remaining validity analysis; (3) as to the 

’950 patent, no infringement, no 

technical domestic industry, and certain 

aspects of the Final ID’s economic prong 

analysis; and (4) as to all patents, no 

copying (secondary indicia of nonobviousness). Also on October 11, 2024, 

Respondents filed a petition for review 

of the Final ID’s findings concerning: (1) 

as to the ’481 patent, that claim 1 is not 

invalid as obvious; (2) as to the ’761 

patent, that the accused products 

infringe the asserted claims and claims 

4–6 are not invalid as obvious; (3) as to 

the ’950 patent, that the asserted claims 

are not invalid as obvious; (4) certain of 

the ALJ’s pre-hearing orders; and (5) 

that Vicor has satisfied the economic 

prong as to each Asserted Patent. On 

October 21, 2024, OUII filed a combined 

response to the petitions. On October 

22, 2024, Vicor and Respondents each 

filed responses to the other party’s 

petition. 

Having examined the record in this 

investigation, including the 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 final ID’s 

findings regarding: (1) as to the ’481 

patent, whether the accused Delta 

products 1 infringe claim 1 and whether 

Vicor has demonstrated commercial 

success to overcome a finding of prima 

facie obviousness; (2) as to the ’761 

patent, whether the accused Delta 

products infringe asserted claims 1–7 

and whether the asserted claims are 

valid; (3) as to the ’950 patent, whether 

the accused Delta and Cyntec products 

and redesigned products infringe 

asserted claims 9, 13, 14, and 33–36 and 

whether Vicor has satisfied the 

technical prong of the domestic industry 

requirement; (4) whether Vicor has 

satisfied the economic prong of the 

domestic industry requirement as to all 

of the asserted patents; and (5) the 

license defense asserted by respondents 

FII USA, Inc., Ingrasys Technology, Inc., 

and Ingrasys Technology USA Inc. 

(collectively, ‘‘Foxconn’’). The 

Commission has determined not to 

review the remainder of the Final ID’s 

findings. 

In connection with its review, the 

Commission requests responses to the 

following questions. The parties are 

requested to brief their positions with 

reference to the applicable law and the 

existing evidentiary record. 

1. With respect to the ’761 patent: 

a. What is the proper claim 

construction of the term ‘‘magnetically 

coupled’’? Applying the proper 

construction, do the accused products 

infringe claim 1? 

b. Do the terms ‘‘dissipate power’’ and 

‘‘heat generation’’ as recited in claim 1 

have distinct meanings? Do the accused 

products practice both limitations? 

c. With reference to Fox Factory, Inc. 

v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 

2019), are the domestic industry 

products ‘‘coextensive’’ with the 

claimed invention for purposes of 

commercial success? 

2. With respect to the ’950 patent: 

a. What is the proper claim 

construction of the terms ‘‘input circuit’’ 

and ‘‘output circuit’’ as recited in the 

asserted claims? Applying the proper 

construction, do the accused and 

redesigned products infringe the 

asserted claims? 

b. How, if at all, is the phase of 

operation relevant to the determination 

of whether the accused and redesigned 

products satisfy the limitation that ‘‘an 

input voltage VIN is applied to the input 

circuit’’? 

3. With respect to the economic prong 

of the domestic industry requirement: 

Does the record permit allocation of 

the overall payments made by 

Complainant to foreign IC Vendors, see 

Final ID at 198, to the DI products for 

each of the Asserted Patents? If so, 

please provide such allocations. 

4. With respect to Foxconn’s license 

defense: 

a. With citation to legal authority 

(binding or persuasive) interpreting 

Massachusetts General Law (‘‘MGL’’) 

106 section 2–207, Uniform Commercial 

Code section 2–207, or any other 

relevant provision, is there a binding 

agreement between Complainant and 

the Foxconn respondents that includes 

the license provision set forth in 

General Term 10 of the Foxconn 

purchase orders (see RX–1630C.0002; 

RX–1635C.0002; RX–16359.0002)? If 

such an agreement exists, does MGL 106 

section 2–207(2) or 2–207(3) govern 

what terms are part of the agreement? 

b. In addition to any issues the parties 

deem relevant, the parties should 

address whether the purported 

acceptance of the alleged offers was 

‘‘sent within a reasonable time’’ (MGL 

106 section 2–207(1)) in light of Note 3 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
99280 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Notices 

of the Foxconn purchase orders (see 

RX–1630C.0001; RX–1635C.0001; RX– 

1639C.0001). 

c. If there is a binding agreement 

between Complainant and the Foxconn 

respondents including the license 

provision, to which Respondents, 

Asserted Patents, and accused products 

does that license apply? 

The parties are invited to brief only 

the discrete issues requested above. 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 

statute authorizes issuance of, inter alia, 

(1) an exclusion order that could result 

in the exclusion of the subject articles 

from entry into the United States; and/ 

or (2) 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, Comm’n Op. at 7–10 

(Dec. 1994). 

The statute requires the Commission 

to consider the effects of that remedy 

upon the public interest. The public 

interest factors the Commission will 

consider include the effect that an 

exclusion order and 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. 

If the Commission orders some form 

of remedy, the U.S. Trade 

Representative, as delegated by the 

President, has 60 days to approve, 

disapprove, or take no action on the 

Commission’s determination. 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. 

In its initial submission, Complainant 

is also requested to identify the remedy 

sought and to submit proposed remedial 

orders for the Commission’s 

consideration. Complainant is further 

requested to provide the HTSUS 

subheadings under which the accused 

products are imported, and to supply 

the identification information for all 

known importers of the products at 

issue in this investigation. The initial 

written submissions and proposed 

remedial orders must be filed no later 

than close of business on December 18, 

2024. Reply submissions must be filed 

no later than the close of business on 

December 27, 2024. No further 

submissions on these issues will be 

permitted unless otherwise ordered by 

the Commission. Opening submissions 

are limited to 50 pages. Reply 

submissions are limited to 30 pages. No 

further submissions on any of 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. The Commission’s paper 

filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) 

are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 (Mar. 

19, 2020). Submissions should refer to 

the investigation number (Inv. No. 337– 

TA–1370) in a prominent place on the 

cover page and/or the first page. (See 

Handbook for Electronic Filing 

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

documents/handbook_on_filing_

procedures.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 by marking each document 

with a header indicating that the 

document contains confidential 

information. This marking will be 

deemed to satisfy the request procedure 

set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 

210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 

210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which 

confidential treatment by the 

Commission is properly sought will be 

treated accordingly. Any non-party 

wishing to submit comments containing 

confidential information must serve 

those comments on the parties to the 

investigation pursuant to the applicable 

Administrative Protective Order. A 

redacted non-confidential version of the 

document must also be filed with the 

Commission and served on any parties 

to the investigation within two business 

days of any confidential filing. 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, solely for cybersecurity 

purposes. All contract personnel will 

sign appropriate nondisclosure 

agreements. All nonconfidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection on EDIS. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on December 

4, 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: December 4, 2024. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28935 Filed 12–9–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES