Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Notices 29375 

1On February 8, 2021, Guangdong Juxin 

Materials Technology Co., Inc. was substituted in 

place of Zhuhai Juxin Technology. ID at 1 n.1 

(citing Order No. 8). 

Beloit College, Logan Museum of 

Anthropology is responsible for 

notifying The Consulted and Notified 

Tribes that this notice has been 

published. 

Dated: May 4, 2022. 

Melanie O’Brien, 

Manager, National NAGPRA Program. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10267 Filed 5–12–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–52–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1236] 

Certain Polycrystalline Diamond 

Compacts and Articles Containing 

Same; 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 (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: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on December 29, 2020, based on a 

complaint filed by US Synthetic 

Corporation (‘‘USS’’) of Orem, Utah. 85 

FR 85661 (Dec. 29, 2020). The 

complaint alleged violations of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based upon 

the importation into the United States, 

the sale for importation, and the sale 

within the United States after 

importation of certain polycrystalline 

diamond compacts and articles 

containing same by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent No. 10,507,565 (‘‘the ’565 

patent’’), U.S. Patent No. 10,508,502 

(‘‘the ’502 patent’’), U.S. Patent No. 

8,616,306 (‘‘the ’306 patent’’), U.S. 

Patent No. 9,932,274 (‘‘the ’274 patent’’), 

and U.S. Patent No. 9,315,881 (‘‘the ’881 

patent’’). Id. The complaint further 

alleged that an industry in the United 

States exists as required by section 337. 

Id. The notice of investigation named as 

respondents: SF Diamond Co., Ltd., and 

SF Diamond USA, Inc. (collectively, 

‘‘SF Diamond’’); Element Six Abrasives 

Holdings Ltd., Element Six Global 

Innovation Centre, Element Six GmbH, 

Element Six Limited, Element Six 

Production (Pty) Limited, Element Six 

Hard Materials (Wuxi) Co. Limited, 

Element Six Trading (Shanghai) Co., 

Element Six Technologies US 

Corporation, Element Six US 

Corporation, ServSix US, and Synergy 

Materials Technology Limited 

(collectively, ‘‘Element Six’’); Iljin 

Diamond Co., Ltd., Iljin Holdings Co., 

Ltd., Iljin USA Inc., Iljin Europe GmbH, 

Iljin Japan Co., and Ltd., Iljin China Co., 

Ltd. (collectively, ‘‘Iljin’’); Henan Jingrui 

New Material Technology Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Jingrui’’); Zhenzghou New Asia 

Superhard Materials Composite Co., 

Ltd., and International Diamond 

Services, Inc. (collectively, ‘‘New Asia/ 

IDS’’); CR Gems Superabrasives Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘CR Gems’’); FIDC Beijing Fortune 

International Diamond (‘‘FIDC’’); Fujian 

Wanlong Superhard Material 

Technology Co., Ltd. (‘‘Wanlong’’); 

Zhujau Juxin Technology (‘‘Juxin’’); 1

and Shenzhen Haimingrun Superhard 

Materials Co., Ltd. (‘‘Haimingrun’’) 

(together, ‘‘the Respondents’’). Id. at 

85662. The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations is not participating in the 

investigation. Id. 

USS moved to terminate the 

investigation as to Element Six and 

FIDC over the course of the 

investigation. All of the motions were 

granted by non-final IDs, and the 

Commission did not review them. ID at 

2 (citing Order Nos. 6, 8, 10, and 16). 

Thus, the only remaining respondents 

are Iljin, SF Diamond, New Asia/IDS, 

Haimingrun, Juxin, CR Gems, Jingrui, 

and Wanlong. 

USS also moved for partial 

termination of the investigation with 

respect to certain asserted patents and 

claims. All the motions were granted by 

non-final IDs, and the Commission did 

not review them. ID at 3 (citing Order 

Nos. 26, 32, and 57). As such, the ’274 

and ’881 patents have been terminated 

from the investigation. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 

and 18 of the ’565 patent; claims 1, 2, 

11, 15, and 21 of the ’502 patent; and 

claim 15 of the ’306 patent remain in 

this investigation (collectively, ‘‘the 

Asserted Patents’’). 

On May 24, 2021, Order No. 23 

issued, which construed certain claim 

terms of the asserted patents. An 

evidentiary hearing was held on October 

18–22, 2021. 

On March 3, 2022, the ALJ issued his 

final ID, finding no violation of section 

337 by Respondents. Specifically, the ID 

found at least one accused product 

infringes all asserted claims of the 

Asserted Patents, but those claims are 

invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 102. 

The ID also found that Complainants 

have shown that the domestic industry 

requirement has been satisfied with 

respect to the Asserted Patents. 

On March 15, 2022, Complainant filed 

a petition for review seeking review of 

certain patent invalidity findings. That 

same day, Respondents filed two 

contingent petitions for review. The first 

petition submitted by all active 

Respondents seeks review of certain 

findings related to infringement, the 

technical prong of the domestic industry 

requirement, and invalidity. The second 

petition submitted by Respondents New 

Asia, Haimingrun, and Juxin seeks 

review of Order No. 46, which allowed 

Complainant to present evidence 

regarding its revenue-based investment 

allocation method for the economic 

prong of the domestic industry 

requirement. On March 23, 2022, the 

parties filed separate replies to the 

petitions for review. On March 31, 2022, 

the Iljin Respondents submitted their 

public interest statement. The 

Commission solicited submissions from 

the public on public interest issues 

raised by the recommended 

determination. No submissions were 

filed. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
29376 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Notices 

Commission has determined to review: 

(1) The ID’s finding that the asserted 

claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101; 

(2) the ID’s finding that the asserted 

claims of the ’565 patent are not entitled 

to an earlier priority date and, thus, they 

are invalid as anticipated by the sale of 

the CT–57 product; (3) the ID’s finding 

that the Mercury product anticipates 

claims 1 and 2 of the ’565 patent and 

claims 1 and 11 of the ’502 patent; (4) 

the ID’s finding that Respondents did 

not prove that the asserted claims are 

not enabled; and (5) the ID’s findings 

regarding the economic prong of the 

domestic industry requirement 

(including the ruling allowing USS to 

supplement its domestic industry 

contentions with a revenue-based 

allocation method). 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 ’306 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. Is each of the asserted patent claims 

directed to an abstract idea under the 

step one analysis of Alice Corp. v. CLS 

Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) and, if 

so, what do you allege is the abstract 

idea? Are the claims directed to the 

abstract idea of ‘‘enhanced’’ or a ‘‘highdegree’’ of diamond-to-diamond 

bonding? 

2. Is each of the individual claimed 

‘‘performance standards’’ and ‘‘electrical 

and magnetic side effects,’’ as discussed 

in the ID, directed to an abstract idea? 

For each of the claimed PDC 

characteristics (including coercivity, 

specific magnetic saturation, specific 

permeability, average electrical 

conductivity, G-Ratio, and thermal 

stability), please discuss the expert 

testimony and any other record 

evidence relevant to whether that 

characteristic is indicative of ‘‘the extent 

of diamond-to-diamond bonding,’’ ‘‘the 

amount of the metal-solvent catalyst 

present,’’ or any other physical 

characteristics of the diamond 

microstructure as discussed in the 

patent specifications. 

3. For any asserted claim that you 

allege invokes a judicial exception to 

patentability for being an abstract idea, 

does the claim recite additional 

elements that integrate the judicial 

exception into a practical application 

under step two of Alice? Please discuss 

whether the structures recited in each 

claim are well-known, routine, and 

conventional. See Yu v. Apple Inc., 1 

F.4th 1040, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2021). 

4. Do the specifications of U.S. Patent 

No. 7,866,418 (‘‘the ’418 patent’’) and 

the ’565 patent disclose, either expressly 

or inherently, an exemplary PDC 

exhibiting ‘‘an average electrical 

conductivity of less than about 1200 

S/m’’ as required, for example, in claim 

1 of the ’565 patent? Please cite the 

relevant portions of the specification 

and expert testimony. 

5. USS argues that the ID erred in 

relying on Dr. German’s electrical 

conductivity measurements of other 

PDCs because there is no information 

confirming these other PDCs were 

manufactured in the same way as the 

disclosed examples in the ’418 and ’565 

patents. See Compl. Pet. at 46. Is the 

way a PDC is manufactured relevant to 

USS’s argument that electrical 

conductivity is inherently disclosed in 

the ’418 patent? If it is relevant, please 

discuss whether Dr. Barron’s 

mathematical model to predict the 

electrical conductivity from cobalt 

content assumes the same materials and 

manufacturing conditions as described 

in the ’418 patent. Is USS’s argument 

consistent with its contention that the 

electrical conductivity of a PDC is 

indicative of ‘‘a PDC’s microstructure’’? 

See id. at 39. 

6. Respondents argue that even if the 

’418 patent discloses example PDCs 

having specific electrical conductivities 

of less than 1200 S/m, those examples 

are insufficient to provide written 

description support for the entire 

claimed electrical conductivity range of 

‘‘less than about 1200 S/m.’’ See Resp. 

Response at 34–37. Was this argument 

timely raised before the ALJ? Should the 

Commission find this argument is 

waived? If not waived, please discuss 

whether the ’418 patent specification 

provides written description support for 

the entire claimed electrical 

conductivity range. 

7. What evidence in the record 

supports the ID’s finding that the 

Mercury 1613 sample tested by Mr. 

Bellin is prior art to the ’565 and ’502 

patents? Please discuss whether and to 

what extent Mr. Gledhill’s testimony 

regarding manufacturing practices at 

Diamond Innovations, including his 

testimony at Tr. 525:17–540:19, was 

admitted into the record in view of 

Order No. 48 and the ALJ’s oral order 

at the evidentiary hearing, Tr. 667:5– 

72:22). 

8. Please explain what appropriate 

methods of valuation provide a reliable 

estimate of the Complainant’s 

investments in plant and equipment 

with respect to the articles protected by 

the ’565 and ’502 patents, including an 

explanation of any adjustments that are 

necessary to approximate those 

investments based on the record 

evidence and legal authority for such 

adjustments. For equipment that is 

purchased and placed into service years 

before the DI products are manufactured 

as described in the ID at page 148, 

please explain whether governing legal 

authority requires that the purchase 

price of the equipment be amortized or 

depreciated in order to be counted as an 

‘‘investment in . . . equipment’’ under 

section 337(a)(3)(A). Discuss, with 

relevant legal authority, whether 

replacement costs may be used as a 

basis to estimate investments in 

equipment and if so must any 

adjustments be made to rely on such 

replacement costs. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2022 / Notices 29377 

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 

100 pages, and their reply submissions 

should not exceed 60 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 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 Monday, May 23, 2022. 

Reply submissions must be filed no later 

than the close of business on Tuesday, 

May 31, 2022. 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–1236) 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 May 9, 

2022. 

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: May 9, 2022. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10304 Filed 5–12–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives 

[OMB 1140–0077] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed eCollection of 

eComments Requested; Report of 

Stolen or Lost Intrastate Purchase of 

Explosives Coupon (IPEC) 

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives, Department of 

Justice. 

ACTION: 60-Day notice. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 

(ATF), Department of Justice (DOJ), will 

submit the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

The proposed information collection 

(IC) is also being published to obtain 

comments from the public and affected 

agencies. 

DATES: Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted for 60 days until July 

12, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have additional comments 

regarding the estimated public burden 

or associated response time, 

suggestions, or need a copy of the 

proposed information collection 

instrument with instructions, or 

additional information, contact: Jason 

Lynch, United States Bomb Data Center, 

Office of Strategic Intelligence and 

Information, by mail at 3750 Corporal 

Road, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898, 

email at Jason.Lynch@atf.gov, or 

telephone at 256–261–7580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written 

comments and suggestions from the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

the proposed collection of information 

are encouraged. Your comments should 

address one or more of the following 

four points: 

—Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

—Evaluate whether and, if so, how the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected can be 

enhanced; and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1