31580 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Notices 

—For requests of approval for various operations or submission of plans or applications, the burdens are included with other OMB-approved collections: For BOEM, 

30 CFR part 550 (subpart A, Control Number 1010–0114; subpart B, Control Number 1010–0151); and for BSEE, 30 CFR part 250 (subpart A, Control Number 

1014–0022; subpart D, Control Number 1014–0018). 

—All submission for designation of operator (Form BOEM–1123) under 30 CFR parts 550, 556, and 560 are captured in OMB Control Number 1010–0114. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a valid OMB control 

number. 

The authority for this action is the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Peter Meffert, 

Acting Chief, Office of Regulations. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11074 Filed 5–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1194 (Advisory 

Opinion Proceeding)] 

Certain High-Density Fiber Optic 

Equipment and Components Thereof; 

Institution of an Advisory Opinion 

Proceeding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to institute 

an advisory opinion proceeding as 

requested by Panduit Corporation 

(‘‘Panduit’’). The Commission has also 

determined to refer this matter to the 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

(‘‘CALJ’’) for assignment to an 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) for 

appropriate proceedings and an initial 

advisory opinion (‘‘IAO’’). The IAO is to 

be issued at the earliest practicable time, 

preferably within 120 days from the 

date of institution, but no later than 7 

months after institution. 

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 the underlying 

investigation on March 24, 2020, based 

on a complaint filed on behalf of 

Corning Optical Communications LLC 

(‘‘Corning’’) of Charlotte, North 

Carolina. 85 FR 16653–54 (Mar. 24, 

2020). 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 high-density fiber optic 

equipment and components thereof by 

reason of infringement of certain claims 

of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,020,320 (the ‘‘ ’320 

patent’’), 10,444,456 (the ‘‘ ’456 patent’’), 

10,120,153 (the ‘‘ ’153 patent’’), 

8,712,206 (the ‘‘ ’206 patent’’), and 

10,094,996 (‘‘the ’996 patent’’). Id. The 

’996 patent was subsequently 

terminated from the investigation. See 

Order No. 11 (July 29, 2020), 

unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Aug. 13, 

2020). The Commission’s notice of 

investigation named thirteen 

respondents including, among others, 

Panduit of Tinley, Illinois; FS.com Inc. 

(‘‘FS’’) of New Castle, Delaware; Leviton 

Manufacturing Co., Inc. (‘‘Leviton’’) of 

Melville, New York; Panduit of Tinley, 

Illinois; and The LAN Wirewerks 

Research Laboratories Inc. d/b/a 

Wirewerks of Quebec, Canada; and The 

Siemon Company (‘‘Siemon’’) of 

Watertown, Connecticut (collectively, 

‘‘Respondents’’). See Comm’n Op. at 

3–5 (Aug. 23, 2021). The remaining 

respondents were either found in 

default pursuant to Commission Rule 

210.16, or terminated from the 

investigation based on withdrawal of 

the allegations in the complaint or a 

settlement agreement. Id. The notice of 

investigation also named the Office of 

Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) as 

a party. Id. at 4. 

On March 23, 2021, the ALJ issued a 

final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) finding 

a violation of section 337 with respect 

to claims 1 and 3 of the ’320 patent; 

claims 11, 12, 14–16, 19, 21, 27, and 28 

of the ’456 patent; claims 9, 16, 23, and 

26 of the ’153 patent; and claims 22 and 

23 of the ’206 patent (collectively, 

‘‘Asserted Patents’’). 

On May 24, 2021, the Commission 

determined to review the final ID in 

part. 86 FR 28890–93 (May 28, 2021). 

On August 3, 2021, the Commission 

determined that Corning established a 

violation of section 337 with respect to 

claims 1 and 3 of the ’320 patent; claims 

11, 12, 14–16, 19, 21, 27, and 28 of the 

’456 patent; claims 9, 16, 23, and 26 of 

the ’153 patent; and claims 22 and 23 of 

the ’206 patent. 86 FR 43564–66 (Aug. 

9, 2021). Among other findings, the 

Commission affirmed with 

modifications the ID’s finding that 

Panduit induced infringement of the 

asserted claims of the ’320, ’456, and 

’153 patents but not the ’206 patent. As 

a remedy, the Commission determined 

to issue a general exclusion order 

(‘‘GEO’’) and cease and desist orders 

(‘‘CDOs’’), including one directed to 

Panduit. 

On November 24, 2021, Corning filed 

a complaint requesting that the 

Commission institute an enforcement 

proceeding under Commission Rule 

210.75 to investigate alleged violations 

of the GEO and CDO by Panduit. On 

December 28, 2021, the Commission 

determined to institute an enforcement 

proceeding to determine whether 

violations of the GEO and CDO have 

occurred and to determine what, if any, 

enforcement measures are appropriate. 

Panduit and OUII were named as 

parties. The Commission referred the 

enforcement proceeding to the Chief 

ALJ for designation of a presiding ALJ 

to conduct any necessary proceedings, 

issue an Enforcement Initial 

Determination, and make a 

recommendation on appropriate 

enforcement measures, if any. 

On November 29, 2021, Panduit, 

Siemon, and FS filed a notice of appeal 

with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit seeking review of the 

Commission’s determination. The 

appeal (Docket No. 2022–1228) was 

docketed on December 7, 2021. 

On April 18, 2022, Panduit filed the 

subject request for an advisory opinion 

that three new fiber optic equipment 

designs that it developed do not infringe 

any asserted claims of the Asserted 

Patents and are therefore not covered by 

the GEO and CDO issued in this 

investigation. Panduit’s new designs 

include: (1) A patch panel design with 

a density of 192 fiber optic connections 

in a 1U space; (2) a patch panel design 

with a density of 144 fiber optic 

connections in a 1U space; and (3) a 

new enclosure design with a density of 

192 fiber optic connections in a 1U 

space (collectively, ‘‘New Designs’’). On 

April 28, 2022, Corning and OUII filed 

responses to Panduit’s request. 

Having reviewed Panduit’s request 

and the supporting documents, the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Notices 31581 

Commission has determined to institute 

an advisory opinion proceeding to 

ascertain whether Panduit’s New 

Designs infringe claims 1 and 3 of the 

’320 patent; claims 11, 12, 14–16, 19, 21, 

27, and 28 of the ’456 patent; claims 9, 

16, 23, and 26 of the ’153 patent; and 

claims 22 and 23 of the ’206 patent, and 

are covered by the remedial orders 

issued in this investigation. The 

Commission has further determined to 

refer the matter to the CALJ for 

assignment to an ALJ for appropriate 

proceedings and the issuance of an IAO 

at the earliest practicable time, 

preferably within 120 days of institution 

but no later than 7 months after 

institution. The ALJ shall set a target 

date at two months following the date 

of issuance of the IAO. The target date 

may be extended for good cause shown. 

The following entities are named as 

parties to the proceeding: (1) Panduit; 

(2) Corning; and (3) OUII. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on May 18, 

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 18, 2022. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11078 Filed 5–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1314] 

Certain Computer Network Security 

Equipment and Systems, Related 

Software, Components Thereof, and 

Products Containing Same; 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 

April 19, 2022, under section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on 

behalf of Centripetal Networks, Inc. of 

Reston, Virginia. A supplement to the 

complaint was filed on April 29, 2022. 

The 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 computer network security 

equipment and systems, related 

software, components thereof, and 

products containing same by reason of 

the infringement of certain claims of 

U.S. Patent No. 9,264,370 (‘‘the ’370 

patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 10,193,917 

(‘‘the ’917 patent’’); and U.S. Patent No. 

10,284,526 (‘‘the ’526 patent’’). The 

complaint further alleges that an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by the applicable Federal 

Statute. The complainant requests that 

the Commission institute an 

investigation and, after the 

investigation, issue a limited exclusion 

order and a cease and desist order. 

ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for 

any confidential information contained 

therein, may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help 

accessing EDIS, please email 

EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. 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. 

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 (2021). 

Scope of Investigation: Having 

considered the complaint, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission, on 

May 18, 2022, 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 products 

identified in paragraph (2) by reason of 

infringement of one or more of claims 

22–27, 42–48, and 63 of the ’370 patent; 

claims 1, 5, 11, 15, and 20 of the ’917 

patent; and claims 1–3, 6, 11–13, and 16 

of the ’526 patent, and whether an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337; 

(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the 

plain language description of the 

accused products or category of accused 

products, which defines the scope of the 

investigation, is ‘‘network traffic 

monitoring and security enforcement 

computer equipment, as well as related 

network analysis software components 

thereof, and products containing the 

same’’; 

(3) 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 complainant is: Centripetal 

Networks, Inc., 1875 Explorer Street, 

Suite 900, Reston, VA 20190. 

(b) The respondent is the following 

entity alleged to be in violation of 

section 337, and is the party upon 

which the complaint is to be served: 

Keysight Technologies, Inc., 1400 

Fountaingrove Parkway, Santa Rosa, 

CA 95403–1738. 

(c) The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 

401, Washington, DC 20436; and 

(4) 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 respondent 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 the 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1