```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 14 (Thursday, January 23, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8034-8037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01563]

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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-1351 (Remand)]

Certain Active Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Panels 
and Modules for Mobile Devices, and Components Thereof; Notice of a 
Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial 
Determination Finding No 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 (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ''), finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930. The Commission requests written submissions from the parties on 
the issues under review and submissions from the parties, interested 
government agencies, and interested persons on the issues of remedy, 
the public interest, and bonding, under the schedule set forth below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Chen, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2392. 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 
[email protected]. 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 February 3, 2023, based on a complaint filed Samsung Display Co., 
Ltd. (``SDC'' or ``Complainant'') of the Republic of Korea. 88 FR 7463-
64 (Feb. 3, 2023). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations 
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 active matrix organic light-emitting diode display panels and 
modules for mobile devices, and components thereof by reason of 
infringement of claims 1-5 and 19-21 of U.S. Patent No. 9,818,803 
(``the '803 patent''); claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 
10,854,683 (``the '683 patent''); claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 
7,414,599 (``the '599 patent''); and claims 1-3, 6-8, and 14-22 of U.S. 
Patent No. 9,330,593 (``the '593 patent''). Id. The complaint further 
alleged that a domestic industry exists. Id. The notice of 
investigation named the following parties as respondents: Injured 
Gadgets, LLC (``Injured Gadgets'') of Norcross, Georgia; Wholesale 
Gadget Parts, Inc. (``Wholesale Gadget Parts'') of Bixby, Oklahoma; 
Phone LCD Parts LLC and Parts4LCD (collectively, ``Phone LCD Parts'') 
of Wayne, New Jersey; Apt-Ability LLC d/b/a MobileSentrix of Chantilly, 
Virginia; Mobile Defenders, LLC of Caledonia, Michigan; Group

[[Page 8035]]

Vertical, LLC (``Group Vertical'') of Grand Rapids, Michigan; 
Electronics Universe, Inc. d/b/a Fixez.com and Electronics Universe, 
Inc. d/b/a Repairs Universe, Inc. (``Electronics Universe'') of Las 
Vegas, Nevada; LCTech International Inc. d/b/a SEGMobile.com 
(``LCTech'') of City of Industry, California; Sourcely Plus, LLC 
(``Sourcely Plus'') of Tempe, Arizona; eTech Parts Plus LLC (``eTech 
Parts Plus'') of Southlake, Texas; Parts4Cells Inc. (``Parts4Cells'') 
of Houston, Texas; Captain Mobile Parts, Inc. (``Captain Mobile 
Parts'') of Dallas, Texas; DFW Imports LLC d/b/a DFW Cellphone and 
Parts (``DFW Imports'') of Dallas, Texas; Mengtor Inc. (``Mengtor'') of 
El Monte, California; and Gadgetfix Corp. (``Gadgetfix'') of Irvine, 
California. Id. The notice of investigation also named the Office of 
Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') as a party. Id.
    On March 22, 2023, the Commission granted Mianyang BOE 
Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.'s (``BOE'') unopposed motion to 
intervene as a respondent in this investigation. Order No. 7, 
unreviewed by, Comm'n Notice (Mar. 22, 2023).
    Two respondents, Apt-Ability LLC d/b/a MobileSentrix and Mobile 
Defenders, LLC, were terminated based on a consent order. Order No. 43, 
unreviewed by, Comm'n Notice (Apr. 18, 2024). Ten respondents, Captain 
Mobile Parts, Group Vertical, Sourcely Plus, Mengtor, Electronics 
Universe, LCTech, Parts4Cells, DFW Imports, Gadgetfix, and eTech Parts 
Plus (collectively, ``the Defaulting Respondents''), were found in 
default. Order No. 16, unreviewed by, Comm'n Notice (June 7, 2023); 
Order No. 22, unreviewed by, Comm'n Notice (July 20, 2023); Order No. 
25, unreviewed by, Comm'n Notice (Aug. 18, 2023); Order No. 27, 
unreviewed by, Comm'n Notice (Aug. 30, 2023). Accordingly, respondents 
Injured Gadgets, Wholesale Gadget Parts, and Phone LCD Parts 
(collectively, ``the BLF Respondents'') and BOE remain active in the 
investigation.
    On April 20, 2023, the Commission granted SDC's motion for leave to 
amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add allegations of 
infringement related to claims 1-6, 10, 12, 17, 19, 21-23, 40-47, and 
51-52 of the '578 patent. Order No. 8, unreviewed by, Comm'n Notice 
(Apr. 20, 2023). As a result of termination of all asserted claims of 
the '683 patent and certain other asserted claims, see Order No. 34 
(Oct. 26, 2023), unreviewed by, Comm'n Notice (Nov. 27, 2024), Order 
No. 39 (Dec. 7, 2023), unreviewed by, Comm'n Notice (Jan. 8, 2024), 
Order No. 51 (Jun. 14, 2024), unreviewed by, Comm'n Notice (Jul. 3, 
2024), Order No. 65 (Aug. 27, 2024), unreviewed by, Comm'n Notice 
(Sept. 26, 2024), only claims 5 and 21 of the '803 patent, claims 5, 
10, 17, 40-41, and 47 of the '578 patent, claims 2-3, 13, and 15-16 of 
the '599 patent, and claim 6 of the '593 patent remain asserted in the 
investigation.
    On November 15, 2023, the BLF Respondents and BOE (collectively, 
``Respondents'') moved for summary determination that SDC lacked 
constitutional standing to bring and maintain this investigation. 
Respondents argued because SDC's parent company, Samsung Electronics 
Co., Ltd. (``SEC''), ``has an unfettered right to grant licenses, SDC 
lacks the exclusionary rights necessary to prove standing.'' Mot. at 
18. Finding that ``there is no genuine issue of material fact that SEC 
has an unrestricted right to sublicense the Asserted Patents to 
others'' and that SEC's possession of such a right divested SDC of 
exclusionary rights, on January 9, 2024, the ALJ granted Respondents' 
motion for summary determination of no violation due to lack of 
standing. Order No. 44 at 13, 24-25 (Jan. 9, 2024).
    On April 24, 2024, the Commission vacated that initial 
determination and remanded the investigation for further proceedings 
consistent with its opinion. In its opinion, the Commission found that 
``(1) constitutional standing, the Article III requirements of the 
Constitution related to the authority of federal courts to adjudicate 
lawsuits, is not required at [the] Commission; and (2) there are 
genuine issues of material facts relating to [Complainant's] rights in 
the asserted patents.'' Comm'n Op. at 2. The Commission remanded the 
investigation to the ALJ to ``conduct further proceedings as 
appropriate and consistent with the Commission's opinion herewith.'' 
Id.
    On May 2, 2024, the ALJ held a case management conference to 
discuss how the case would proceed on remand. Respondent BOE indicated 
that it wished to argue that SDC lacked ``all substantial rights'' to 
the asserted patents when it filed its complaint and that it wished to 
pursue discovery from SEC on this issue. Order No. 50 at 3. SDC 
responded that a statutory cause of action defense had never previously 
been raised and thus was waived. Id. at 5. OUII noted that 
``Respondents' argument that [SDC] may not have owned the asserted 
patents when it filed the complaint because it did not hold all 
substantial rights is fundamentally different from the argument 
advanced in Respondents' motion for summary determination.'' Id. The 
ALJ then ordered ``additional briefing'' on ``the effect of the 
Commission opinion on th[e] Investigation.'' Order No. 47, EDIS Doc. ID 
820416, at 1 (May 3, 2024). Following briefing on remand, the ALJ found 
that Respondents waived their argument that SDC failed to satisfy the 
requirement of Commission Rule 210.12 because Respondents did not 
address this issue in their prehearing brief, as required by the ALJ's 
Ground Rules. ID at 4 (citing Order No. 50 at 4 (June 11, 2024)).
    The evidentiary hearing was held on July 8-9, 2024, and July 15-17, 
2024.
    On November 15, 2024, the ALJ issued a final ID finding no 
violation of section 337 because SDC failed to show the existence of a 
domestic industry, among other reasons. In particular, the ID found: 
(1) SDC failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry 
requirement for all asserted patents; (2) SDC satisfied the technical 
prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '803, the '578, and 
the '599 patents but not for the '593 patent; (3) at least one 
representative accused product infringes claims 5 and 21 of the '803 
patent, claims 5, 10, 17, 40-41, and 47 of the '578 patent, claims 15-
16 of the '599 patent, and claim 6 of the '593 patent but not claims 2-
3 and 13 of the '599 patent; and (4) the claims have not been shown to 
be invalid.
    On November 29, 2024, SDC filed a petition for review of the ID 
challenging certain findings related to the '803, the '578, and the 
'599 patents, including the economic prong of the domestic industry 
requirement. SDC did not petition for review of the ID's findings 
related to the '593 patent. That same day, Respondent BOE and the BLF 
Respondents filed a joint contingent petition for review. OUII did not 
file a petition for review. On December 9, 2024, Complainant, 
Respondents, and OUII each filed a response to the petitions.
    The Commission solicited submissions from the public on the public 
interest issues raised by the recommended determination. 89 FR 92721 
(Nov. 22, 2024). The Commission received comments from Representative 
John Moolenaar, Chairman of the House Select Committee on China, and 
Dr. Robert D. Atkinson of the Information Technology & Innovation 
Foundation.
    On January 8, 2025, SDC filed a notice of supplemental authority to 
apprise the Commission of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's final 
written decisions in inter partes review proceedings on the '578 patent 
and the '803 patent. In the final written decisions, the Board found 
claim 21 of the '803 patent unpatentable and all other asserted

[[Page 8036]]

claims of the '578 and '803 patents at issue in this investigation have 
not been proven unpatentable. See Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Tech. 
Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd., IPR2023-00987, Final Written 
Decision (Jan. 6, 2025); Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Tech. Co., Ltd. 
v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd., IPR2023-01075, Final Written Decision 
(Jan. 6, 2025).
    Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the 
final ID, the parties' submissions to the ALJ, the petitions for 
review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to 
review the ID in part. Specifically, the Commission has determined to 
review: (1) the ID's findings that the Commission has statutory 
authority to investigate Complainant SDC's alleged violation under 
section 337 and that Respondents waived their argument that SDC lacked 
the ability to bring this investigation under Commission Rule 210.12; 
(2) the ID's findings related to the technical prong for the '803 
patent; and (3) the ID's findings regarding the economic prong of the 
domestic industry requirement. The Commission has determined not to 
review any other findings presented in the final ID, including the ID's 
finding of no violation of section 337 with respect to the '593 patent.
    In connection with its review, 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. Did Respondents raise in their prehearing brief an argument that 
Complainant was not the owner of the asserted patents or otherwise 
lacked all substantial rights in the asserts patents and therefore 
lacked the ability to bring this investigation under Commission Rule 
210.12? If so, please identify where in the brief this argument was 
raised?
    2. Assuming SEC possessed an unrestricted right to sublicense the 
asserted patents when SDC filed the complaint, please address the 
merits of Respondents' argument that SDC was not the owner of the 
asserted patents under Commission Rule 210.12.
    3. Did any party bring to the ALJ's attention that the asserted 
claims of the '803 patent were subject to an inter partes review 
proceeding and that the outcome of the proceeding could affect this 
investigation including the ALJ's technical prong findings for the '803 
patent?
    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) cease and desist orders that could result 
in the respondents 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/or a 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. 
The parties' opening submissions should not exceed 50 pages, and their 
reply submissions should not exceed 25 pages. 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, public 
interest, and bonding.
    In their initial submissions, Complainant is also requested to 
identify the remedy sought and Complainant and OUII are requested 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 Thursday, January 30, 2025. Reply submissions must be filed no later 
than the close of business on Thursday, February 6, 2025. No further 
submissions on 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 (March 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to the 
investigation number (Inv. No. 337-TA-1351) 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

[[Page 8037]]

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 January 
16, 2025.
    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: January 16, 2025.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2025-01563 Filed 1-22-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
```