41352 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2022 / Notices 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1240] 

Certain UMTS and LTE Cellular 

Communications Modules and 

Products Containing the Same; Notice 

of a Commission Determination To 

Review in Part and, on Review, Affirm 

a Final Initial Determination Finding No 

Violation of Section 337; Termination 

of 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 the final 

initial determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by 

the presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) on April 1, 2022. On review, the 

Commission has determined to take no 

position on certain non-dispositive 

issues. The Commission has determined 

not to review, and thereby adopts, the 

remaining findings in the ID. The 

Commission further determines to 

affirm the ID’s finding of no violation 

with respect to each of the subject 

patents. This investigation is hereby 

terminated. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

P. Bretscher, 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 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 the present 

investigation on January 27, 2021, based 

on a complaint, as supplemented, filed 

by Koninklijke Philips N.V. of 

Eindhoven, Netherlands and Philips RS 

North America LLC (f/k/a Respironics, 

Inc.) of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 86 FR 

7305–06 (Jan. 27, 2021). The complaint 

alleges a violation of section 337 of the 

Tariff Act, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, 

based on the importation, sale for 

importation, or sale in the United States 

after importation of certain UMTS and 

LTE cellular communication modules 

and products containing the same by 

reason of infringement of certain claims 

of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,831,271; 8,199,711; 

7,554,943; and 7,944,935. Id. The 

complaint further alleges a domestic 

industry exists or is in the process of 

being established. Id. 

The Commission’s notice of 

investigation names the following 

respondents: Thales DIS AIS USA, LLC 

of Bellevue, Washington; Thales DIS 

AIS Deutschland GmbH, Bayern, 

Germany (collectively, ‘‘Thales’’); 

Thales USA, Inc., Arlington, Virginia; 

Thales S.A., Paris, France; Telit 

Wireless Solutions, Inc. of Durham, 

North Carolina; Telit Communications 

PLC, London, United Kingdom; Quectel 

Wireless Solutions Co., Ltd., Shanghai, 

China; CalAmp Corp. of Irvine, 

California; Xirgo Technologies, LLC of 

Camarillo, California; Laird 

Connectivity, Inc. of Akron, Ohio (all 

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

7306. The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) is also named as 

a party to this investigation. Id. 

The presiding ALJ held an evidentiary 

hearing from October 8–13, 2021. The 

parties filed their opening post-hearing 

briefs on October 29, 2021, and their 

post-hearing reply briefs on November 

15, 2021. 

On April 1, 2022, the presiding ALJ 

issued the final ID at issue finding no 

violation of Section 337 with respect to 

each of the four asserted patents. In 

summary, the final ID finds that Philips 

failed to prove that any of the asserted 

claims of the four asserted patents is 

infringed, directly or indirectly, by any 

of the Respondents. The ID further finds 

that Philips failed to prove that it 

satisfied the technical prong of the 

domestic industry requirement with 

respect to any of the four asserted 

patents. The ID further finds that 

asserted claim 9 of the ’711 patent is 

invalid as indefinite and asserted claims 

9 and 12 are invalid as obvious. The ID 

further finds that asserted claims 1–8 of 

the ’271 patent are invalid as indefinite 

and for lack of sufficient written 

description. The ID finds that claim 12 

of the ’943 patent is invalid as 

indefinite. The ID further finds that all 

four patents are unenforceable under a 

doctrine of implied waiver, but it rejects 

Respondents’ proposed defenses of 

express and implied licenses and 

equitable estoppel. 

On April 13, 2022, Philips filed a 

petition for review of certain noviolation findings in the final ID. On 

April 15, 2022, Thales filed a contingent 

petition to review certain findings in the 

final ID. 

On April 15, 2022, the presiding ALJ 

issued a recommended determination 

on remedy and bonding. 

On April 21, 2022, OUII filed a 

combined response opposing both 

parties’ petitions for review. On April 

21, 2022, Respondents filed their 

opposition to Philips’ petition for 

review. On April 25, 2022, Philips filed 

its opposition to Thales’ contingent 

petition for review. 

On May 16, 2022, Philips and Thales 

filed public interest statements pursuant 

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

CFR 210.50(a)(4)). The Commission also 

received public interest statements from 

a number of third parties as well as from 

interested individuals in response to the 

post-RD Federal Register notice, 

including: ResMed Corp. (May 13, 

2022); the American Sleep Apnea 

Association (May 16, 2022); App 

Association (May 16, 2022); Continental 

Automotive Systems, Inc., Denso 

Corporation, Bury S.p.z.o.o, the Alliance 

for Automotive Innovation, and the 

European Association of Auto Suppliers 

(May 16, 2022); Congressmen Scott H. 

Peters and Congressman Bryan G. Steil 

(May 16, 2022); Federal Trade 

Commission Chair Lina M. Khan and 

Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter 

(May 16, 2022); Professor Michael A. 

Carrier (May 16, 2022); Dr. Kathleen 

Sarmiento, M.D (May 16, 2022); Dr. 

Patrick J. Strollo, Jr., MD (May 8, 2022), 

Dr. Sanjay R. Patel, MD (May 5, 2022), 

and Dr. Sunil Sharma, M.D., Dr. Robert 

Stansbury, M.D., and Chris Pham, D.O. 

of the West Virginia University Sleep 

Evaluation Center (May 3, 2022). 87 FR 

23884 (April 21, 2022). 

Upon review of the subject ID, the 

parties’ petitions, and responses thereto, 

the Commission has determined to 

review and, on review, take no position 

on the following issues: (1) the ID’s 

construction and application of the 

claim terms ‘‘queue,’’ ‘‘queue store,’’ 

and ‘‘means for transmitting the group’’ 

in the ’935 patent: (2) the ID’s finding 

that claims 9 and 12 of the ’711 patent 

are invalid as obvious; (3) the ID’s 

finding on domestic industry for the 

’271 patent, to the extent it might be 

interpreted to suggest that ‘‘each and 

every’’ asserted domestic industry 

product must be shown to practice a 

claim of an asserted patent to satisfy the 

technical prong of the domestic industry 

requirement (see ID at 221); (4) the ID’s 

finding that the accused products do not 

directly infringe method claims 1–4 of 

the ’271 patent on the basis that Philips 

did not prove that they are used with an 

antenna, which conflicts with the ID’s 

construction of ‘‘transmitting’’ to not 

require an antenna (cf. ID at 210 with ID 

at 234); (5) the ID’s finding that Philips 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2022 / Notices 41353 

1Based on the Declaration from a DEA Diversion 

Investigator that the Government submitted with its 

RFAA, the Agency finds that the Government’s 

service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. 

RFAA, Exhibit (hereinafter, RFAAX) B, at 1–2. 

Further, based on the Government’s assertions in its 

RFAA, the Agency finds that more than thirty days 

have passed since Registrant was served with the 

OSC and Registrant has neither requested a hearing 

nor submitted a written statement or corrective 

action plan and therefore has waived any such 

rights. RFAA, at 1–2; see also 21 CFR 1301.43(d) 

and 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C). 

2Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an 

agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any stage 

in a proceeding—even in the final decision.’’ 

United States Department of Justice, Attorney 

General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure 

Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 

1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), ‘‘[w]hen an 

agency decision rests on official notice of a material 

fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a 

party is entitled, on timely request, to an 

opportunity to show the contrary.’’ Accordingly, 

Registrant may dispute the Agency’s finding by 

filing a properly supported motion for 

reconsideration of findings of fact within fifteen 

calendar days of the date of this Order. Any such 

motion and response shall be filed and served by 

email to the other party and to Office of the 

Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at 

dea.addo.attorneys@dea.usdoj.gov. 

3This rule derives from the text of two provisions 

of the CSA. First, Congress defined the term 

‘‘practitioner’’ to mean ‘‘a physician . . . or other 

person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, 

by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . , 

to distribute, dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a 

controlled substance in the course of professional 

practice.’’ 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the 

requirements for obtaining a practitioner’s 

registration, Congress directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney 

General shall register practitioners . . . if the 

applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled 

substances under the laws of the State in which he 

practices.’’ 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has 

clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state 

authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under 

the CSA, the DEA has held repeatedly that 

revocation of a practitioner’s registration is the 

appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer 

authorized to dispense controlled substances under 

the laws of the state in which he practices. See, e.g., 

James L. Hooper, 76 FR at 71,371–72; Sheran Arden 

Continued 

satisfied the economic prong of the 

domestic industry requirement with 

respect to the four asserted patents; (6) 

the ID’s finding that Philips has 

impliedly waived its rights to assert the 

four asserted patents; and (7) the ID’s 

finding that Respondents failed to prove 

either their express/implied license 

defense or their equitable estoppel 

defense with respect to any of the four 

asserted patents. See Beloit Corp. v. 

Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1422–23 

(Fed. Cir. 1984). Chair Johanson and 

Commissioner Karpel base their 

decision to review and take no position 

on the economic prong on the finding 

that the technical prong is not met. 

Commissioner Kearns would affirm the 

ID’s finding that the ‘271 patent is 

unenforceable under the doctrine of 

implied waiver (but takes no position on 

implied waiver for the other three 

asserted patents), and its findings that 

Respondents failed to prove both their 

express/implied license defense and 

their equitable estoppel defense with 

respect to the four asserted patents. 

Commissioner Kearns also notes that his 

determination to review and take no 

position regarding satisfaction of the 

economic prong is independent of his 

determination regarding the technical 

prong. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review, and thus adopts, the 

remaining findings in the ID, including 

that: (1) the asserted claims of the ’935 

patent, the ’711 patent, the ’943 patent, 

and the ’271 patent are not infringed; (2) 

Philips did not satisfy the technical 

prong of the domestic industry 

requirement with respect to any of the 

four asserted patents; (3) claim 9 of the 

’711 patent and claim 12 of the ’943 

patent are invalid as indefinite; and (4) 

the asserted claims of the ’271 patent are 

invalid as indefinite and for lack of 

written description. Recognizing the 

Commission has determined not to 

review the ID’s finding that Philips did 

not satisfy the technical prong of the 

domestic industry requirement with 

respect to any of the four asserted 

patents, Commissioner Schmidtlein 

would otherwise affirm the ID’s analysis 

concerning whether the asserted 

economic prong investments were 

significant under 19 U.S.C. 

1337(a)(3)(A) and (B). 

The Commission thus affirms the final 

ID’s finding of no violation of Section 

337 with respect to each of the four 

asserted patents. This investigation is 

hereby terminated. 

The Commission voted to approve 

this determination on July 6, 2022. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determinations 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: July 6, 2022. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14761 Filed 7–11–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Donald J. Murphy, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On April 15, 2022, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration 

(hereinafter, DEA or Government), 

issued an Order to Show Cause 

(hereinafter, OSC) to Donald J. Murphy, 

M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant). OSC, at 1 

and 3. The OSC proposed the revocation 

of Registrant’s Certificate of Registration 

No. AM2605561 at the registered 

address of 5920 McIntyre St., Golden, 

Colorado, 80403. Id. at 1. The OSC 

alleged that Registrant’s registration 

should be revoked because Registrant is 

‘‘without authority to handle controlled 

substances in the State of Colorado, the 

state in which [he is] registered with 

DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(3)). 

The Agency makes the following 

findings of fact based on the 

uncontroverted evidence submitted by 

the Government in its Request for Final 

Agency Action (RFAA) submitted June 

23, 2022.1

Findings of Fact 

On September 23, 2021, the Colorado 

Medical Board issued an Order 

suspending Registrant’s license to 

practice medicine in the State of 

Colorado. RFAAX C (Order of Summary 

Suspension), at 3. According to 

Colorado’s online records, of which the 

Agency takes official notice, Registrant’s 

license is still suspended. 2 Colorado 

Professional or Business License 

Lookup, https://apps.colorado.gov/ 

dora/licensing/Lookup/ 

LicenseLookup.aspx (last visited date of 

signature of this Order). Accordingly, 

the Agency finds that Registrant is not 

currently licensed to engage in the 

practice of medicine in Colorado, the 

state in which he is registered with the 

DEA. 

Discussion 

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the 

Attorney General is authorized to 

suspend or revoke a registration issued 

under section 823 of the Controlled 

Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA) 

‘‘upon a finding that the registrant . . . 

has had his State license or registration 

suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by 

competent State authority and is no 

longer authorized by State law to engage 

in the . . . dispensing of controlled 

substances.’’ With respect to a 

practitioner, the DEA has also long held 

that the possession of authority to 

dispense controlled substances under 

the laws of the state in which a 

practitioner engages in professional 

practice is a fundamental condition for 

obtaining and maintaining a 

practitioner’s registration. See, e.g., 

James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71,371 

(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 

826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh 

Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616, 27,617 

(1978). 3


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1