Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 14 / Thursday, January 23, 2025 / Notices 8033 

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 85 

Challenger Road, Floor 7, Ridgefield 

Park, NJ 07660–2118. 

(4) For the investigation so instituted, 

the Chief Administrative Law Judge, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

shall designate the presiding 

Administrative Law Judge. 

The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations will not be a party to this 

investigation. 

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), as 

amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 

2020), such responses will be 

considered by the Commission if 

received not later than 20 days after the 

date of service by the complainant 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, as supplemented, 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, 2025. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2025–01587 Filed 1–22–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1376] 

Certain Electronic Devices, Including 

Mobile Phones, Tablets, Laptops, 

Components Thereof, and Products 

Containing the Same; Notice of 

Commission Determination To Review 

in Part and, on Review, Affirm a Final 

Initial Determination Finding No 

Violation; Termination of the 

Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) has 

determined to review in part a final 

initial determination (‘‘FID’’) issued by 

the presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) finding no violation of section 

337. On review, the Commission affirms 

the determination of no violation. The 

investigation is hereby terminated. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

P. Bretscher, Esq., 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 (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 

November 17, 2023, the Commission 

instituted the present investigation 

based on a complaint, as supplemented, 

filed by Ericsson AB of Stockholm, 

Sweden and Telefonaktiebolaget LM 

Ericsson of Stockholm, Sweden 

(collectively ‘‘Ericsson’’), alleging 

violations of section 337 of Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 

(‘‘section 337’’), due to the importation 

into the United States, sale for 

importation, or sale in the United States 

after importation of certain electronic 

devices, including mobile phones, 

tablets, laptops, components thereof, 

and products containing the same, that 

allegedly infringe one or more of the 

asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 

9,313,178 (‘‘the ’178 patent’’); 

10,972,654 (‘‘the ’654 patent’’); 

9,509,273 (‘‘the ’273 patent’’); 7,151,430 

(‘‘the ’430 patent’’); and 11,122,313 

(‘‘the ’313 patent’’). 88 FR 80337–338 

(Nov. 17, 2023). The complaint alleges 

that a domestic industry exists. Id. The 

notice of investigation names the 

following respondents: Motorola 

Mobility, LLC of Chicago, Illinois; 

Motorola (Wuhan) Mobility 

Technologies Communication Company 

Limited of Wuhan, China; Lenovo 

(United States) Inc. of Morrisville, North 

Carolina; Lenovo Group Limited of 

Hong Kong, SAR, China; Lenovo 

(Shanghai) Electronics Technology Co., 

Ltd. of Shanghai, China; Lenovo Beijing 

Co., Ltd. of Beijing, China; Lenovo PC 

HK Limited of Hong Kong, SAR, China; 

and Lenovo Information Products 

(Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen, China 

(collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’). Id. at 

80337. The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations is not a party to this 

investigation. Id. 

The Commission subsequently 

terminated the investigation with 

respect to certain patents and patent 

claims that were withdrawn by the 

Ericsson. Order No. 29 (June 3, 2024), 

unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (June 25, 

2024) (terminating the ’430 patent in its 

entirety, asserted claims 1–5 of the ’178 

patent, and asserted claims 1–4 and 6 of 

the ’313 patent); Order No. 34 (July 15, 

2024), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice 

(Aug. 6, 2024) (terminating all 

remaining claims of the ’313 patent, 

claim 18 of the ’178 patent, claims 9, 10, 

and 15 of the ’654 patent, and claims 1– 

3, 7–10, 12–14, and 16 of the ’273 

patent); Order No. 39 (Aug. 9, 2024), 

unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Sept. 9, 

2024) (terminating all remaining claims 

of the ’273 patent). 

On July 5, 2024, the Commission 

terminated the investigation with 

respect to respondent Lenovo Group 

Limited for good cause because it does 

not import into the United States, sell 

for importation, or sell in the United 

States after importation any accused 

products. Order No. 30 (June 20, 2024), 

unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (July 5, 

2024). 

On August 13, 2024, the Commission 

granted in part Ericsson’s unopposed 

motion for summary determination that 

it has satisfied the economic prong of 

the domestic industry requirement 

under section 337(a)(3)(A) with respect 

to the ’178 and ’654 patents. Order No. 

32 (July 12, 2024), unreviewed by 

Comm’n Notice (Aug. 13, 2024). 

On November 15, 2024, the presiding 

ALJ issued the subject FID, finding no 

violation of section 337 with respect to 

either the remaining ’178 patent or the 

’654 patent. With regard to the ’178 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
8034 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 14 / Thursday, January 23, 2025 / Notices 

patent, the FID finds that asserted 

claims 16 and 17 are not infringed and 

are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 

103 (‘‘section 103’’), that no domestic 

industry product practices either claim, 

and that the economic prong of the 

domestic prong requirement would have 

been satisfied under 35 U.S.C. 

1337(a)(3)(B) (‘‘section 337(a)(3)(B)’’) 

but for the invalidity of the asserted 

claims. With regard to the ’654 patent, 

the FID finds that asserted claims 1, 3, 

and 16 are ineligible for patenting under 

35 U.S.C. 101 (‘‘section 101’’), that 

claims 1 and 3 are invalid as anticipated 

under 35 U.S.C. 102, and that claims 1, 

3, and 16 are invalid as obvious under 

section 103. The FID finds that, but for 

the invalidity of its claims, the ’654 

patent would have been infringed and 

both the technical and economic prongs 

of the domestic industry requirement 

would have been satisfied under section 

337(a)(3)(B). The FID rejects 

Respondents’ license defense. 

On November 29, 2024, Respondents 

filed a contingent petition for review, 

arguing that if the Commission were to 

review the FID, it should also review: (i) 

the FID’s rejection of Respondents’ 

license defense; (ii) the FID’s narrow 

construction of the term ‘‘detect’’ recited 

in the asserted claims of the ’178 patent 

and its resultant rejection of certain 

obviousness defenses; and (iii) the FID’s 

narrow ordering of the claim steps in 

the ’654 patent claims and its resultant 

rejection of certain anticipation 

arguments. Respondents did not 

petition for review of the FID’s findings 

on non-infringement, patent 

ineligibility, or domestic industry. On 

December 9, 2024, Ericsson filed a 

response opposing Respondents’ 

petition for review of the license 

defense, but it did not address any of 

the other issues raised by Respondents. 

Ericsson did not file a petition for 

Commission review of any findings in 

the FID. 

Having reviewed the record of the 

investigation, including the FID, the 

parties’ petitions for review and related 

submissions, the Commission has 

determined to review the FID in part as 

to the FID’s finding that the asserted 

claims of the ’654 patent are ineligible 

for patenting under section 101, that 

Ericsson has satisfied the economic 

prong of the domestic industry 

requirement under section 337(a)(3)(B), 

and concerning Respondents’ licensing 

defense. On review, the Commission has 

determined to adopt the FID’s findings, 

including its no-violation 

determination, with the exception that 

the Commission takes no position on 

whether the asserted claims of the ’654 

patent are ineligible under section 101, 

whether Ericsson has satisfied the 

economic prong of domestic industry 

requirement under section 337(a)(3)(B), 

or the FID’s findings regarding 

Respondents’ licensing defense. See 19 

CFR 210.45(c); Beloit Corp. v. Valmet 

Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 

1984). Additionally, the Commission 

has determined to reconsider, and on 

reconsideration, to vacate Order No. 32 

and take no position on whether 

Ericsson has satisfied the economic 

prong of domestic industry under 

section 337(a)(3)(A). See 19 CFR 210.47; 

Beloit, 742 F.2d at 1423. The 

Commission notes that there can be no 

domestic industry if the asserted patent 

claims are either invalid or withdrawn. 

See Order No. 34 (July 15, 2024), 

unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Aug. 6, 

2024) (terminating investigation as to 

certain claims forming the basis or the 

grant of summary determination in 

Order No. 32). 

The investigation is hereby 

terminated with a finding of no 

violation. 

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. 2025–01564 Filed 1–22–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

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

Certain Active Matrix Organic LightEmitting 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 

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 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; AptAbility LLC d/b/a MobileSentrix of 

Chantilly, Virginia; Mobile Defenders, 

LLC of Caledonia, Michigan; Group 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1