38934 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 

Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended (30 

U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq.). 

Dated: June 15, 2017. 

John A. Trelease, 

Acting Chief, Division of Regulatory Support. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17290 Filed 8–15–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1001] 

Certain Digital Video Receivers and 

Hardware and Software Components 

Thereof; Commission Determination 

To Review in Part a Final Initial 

Determination Finding a Violation of 

Section 337; Schedule for Written 

Submissions on the Issues Under 

Review and on Remedy, the Public 

Interest, and Bonding; Grant of Joint 

Unopposed Motion for Leave To 

Amend the Complaint and Notice of 

Investigation To Correct Corporate 

Names 

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 (‘‘the Final ID’’) 

issued by the presiding administrative 

law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on May 26, 2017, 

finding a violation of section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended in 

connection with certain asserted 

patents. The Commission has also 

determined to deny Respondents’ 

motion requesting leave to file a reply 

to Rovi’s response to Respondents’ 

petition for review of the Final ID. The 

Commission has further determined to 

grant a joint unopposed motion for leave 

to amend the complaint and notice of 

investigation to correct the corporate 

names of certain respondents. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Traud, Office of the General Counsel, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 

20436, telephone 202–205–3427. Copies 

of non-confidential documents filed in 

connection with this investigation are or 

will be available for inspection during 

official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 

p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone 202–205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (‘‘EDIS’’) at https://

edis.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 May 26, 2016, based on a complaint 

filed on behalf of Rovi Corporation and 

Rovi Guides, Inc. (collectively, ‘‘Rovi’’), 

both of San Carlos, California. 81 FR 

33547–48 (May 26, 2016). The 

complaint, as amended, alleges 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 

1337, by reason of infringement of 

certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 

8,006,263 (‘‘the ’263 patent’’); U.S. 

Patent No. 8,578,413 (‘‘the ’413 patent’’); 

U.S. Patent No. 8,046,801 (‘‘the ’801 

patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 8,621,512 (‘‘the 

’512 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 8,768,147 

(‘‘the ’147 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 

8,566,871 (‘‘the ’871 patent’’); and U.S. 

Patent No. 6,418,556 (‘‘the ’556 patent’’). 

The complaint further alleges that a 

domestic industry exists. Id. at 33548. 

The Commission’s notice of 

investigation named sixteen 

respondents. The respondents are 

Comcast Corporation of Philadelphia, 

PA; Comcast Cable Communications, 

LLC of Philadelphia, PA; Comcast Cable 

Communications Management, LLC of 

Philadelphia, PA; Comcast Business 

Communications, LLC of Philadelphia, 

PA; Comcast Holdings Corporation of 

Philadelphia, PA; Comcast Shared 

Services, LLC of Chicago, IL; 

Technicolor SA of Issy-les-Moulineaux, 

France; Technicolor USA, Inc. of 

Indianapolis, IN; Technicolor 

Connected Home USA LLC of 

Indianapolis, IN; Pace Ltd. of Saltaire, 

England (now ARRIS Global Ltd.); Pace 

Americas, LLC of Boca Raton, FL; 

ARRIS International plc of Suwanee, 

GA; ARRIS Group Inc. of Suwanee, GA; 

ARRIS Technology, Inc. of Horsham, 

PA; ARRIS Enterprises Inc. of Suwanee, 

GA (now ARRIS Enterprises LLC); and 

ARRIS Solutions, Inc. of Suwanee, GA. 

81 FR at 33548. The Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations is not a party to 

this investigation. Id. 

Prior to the evidentiary hearing, Rovi 

withdrew its allegations as to certain 

patent claims. See Notice of 

Commission Determination Not to 

Review an Initial Determination 

Granting Complainants’ Motion to 

Terminate Certain Asserted Patent 

Claims from the Investigation (Oct. 21, 

2016); Notice of Commission 

Determination Not to Review an Initial 

Determination Granting Complainants’ 

Motion to Terminate Certain Asserted 

Patent Claims from the Investigation 

(Dec. 2, 2016); Notice of Commission 

Determination Not to Review an Initial 

Determination Terminating U.S. Patent 

No. 8,768,147 from the Investigation 

(Dec. 28, 2016). Rovi proceeded at the 

evidentiary hearing on the following 

patents and claims: Claims 7, 18, and 40 

of the ’556 patent; claims 1, 2, 14, and 

17 of the ’263 patent; claims 1, 5, 10, 

and 15 of the ’801 patent; claims 12, 17, 

and 18 of the ’871 patent; claims 1, 3, 

5, 9, 10, 14, and 18 of the ’413 patent; 

and claims 1, 10, 13, and 22 of the ’512 

patent. 

On May 26, 2017, the ALJ issued the 

Final ID, which finds a violation of 

section 337 by the respondents in 

connection with the asserted claims of 

the ’263 and ’413 patents. The Final ID 

finds no violation of section 337 in 

connection with the asserted claims of 

the ’556, ’801, ’871, and ’512 patents. 

The ALJ recommended that, subject to 

any public interest determinations of 

the Commission, the Commission 

should issue a limited exclusion order 

directed to the accused products, that 

cease and desist orders issue to the 

respondents, and that the Commission 

should not require any bond during the 

Presidential review period. 

On June 12, 2017, Rovi and the 

respondents filed petitions for review of 

the Final ID. The respondents petitioned 

thirty-two of the Final ID’s conclusions, 

and Rovi petitioned seven of the Final 

ID’s conclusions. On June 20, 2017, the 

parties filed responses to the petitions 

for review. On July 11, 2017, Rovi and 

the respondents filed statements on the 

public interest. The Commission also 

received numerous comments on the 

public interest from the public. 

On June 26, 2017, Respondents filed 

a motion requesting leave to file a reply 

to Rovi’s response to Respondents’ 

petition for review, and on June 29, 

2017, Rovi filed a response in 

opposition to that motion. That motion 

is denied. 

On July 5, 2017, Rovi and the ARRIS 

respondents filed a Joint Unopposed 

Motion for, and Memorandum in 

Support of, Leave to Amend the 

Complaint and Notice of Investigation to 

Correct Corporate Names of Two ARRIS 

Respondents. The motion indicates that 

ARRIS Enterprises, Inc. has changed its 

name to ARRIS Enterprises LLC and that 

Pace Ltd. has changed its name to 

ARRIS Global Ltd. That motion is 

granted. 

On July 25, 2017, Comcast submitted 

with the Office of the Secretary a letter 

including supplemental disclosure and 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 38935 

representations. On July 31, 2017, Rovi 

submitted with the Office of the 

Secretary a response thereto, which 

asserted that ‘‘this new evidence 

confirms that there is no reason for the 

Commission to review’’ certain of the 

Final ID’s conclusions. On August 9, 

2017, Comcast filed a response to Rovi’s 

submission. The Commission has 

determined to reopen the evidentiary 

record and accept the supplemental 

disclosure, response thereto, and reply 

to the response. 

Having examined the record in this 

investigation, including the Final ID, the 

petitions for review, and the responses 

thereto, the Commission has determined 

to review the Final ID in part. In 

particular, the Commission has 

determined to review the following: 

(1) The Final ID’s determination that 

Comcast is an importer of the accused 

products (Issue 1 in Respondents’ 

Petition for Review). 

(2) The Final ID’s determination that 

Comcast has not sold accused products 

in the United States after the 

importation of those products into the 

United States (the issue discussed in 

section III of Rovi’s Petition for Review). 

(3) The Final ID’s determination that 

the accused Legacy products are 

‘‘articles that infringe’’ (Issue 2 in 

Respondents’ Petition for Review). 

(4) The issue of whether the X1 

products are ‘‘articles that infringe’’ 

(Issue 3 in Respondents’ Petition for 

Review), the issue of direct infringement 

of the ’263 and ’413 patents by the X1 

accused products (Issue 5 in 

Respondents’ Petition for Review), and 

the issue of ‘‘the nature and scope of the 

violation found’’ (the issue discussed in 

section X of Respondents’ Petition for 

Review). 

(5) The issue of whether Comcast’s 

two alternative designs infringe the ’263 

and ’413 patents (Issue 4 in 

Respondents’ Petition for Review). 

(6) The Final ID’s claim construction 

of ‘‘cancel a function of the second 

tuner to permit the second tuner to 

perform the requested tuning operation’’ 

in the ’512 patent, and the Final ID’s 

infringement determinations as to that 

patent (Issue 26 in Respondents’ 

Petition for Review). 

(7) The Final ID’s conclusion that the 

asserted claims of the ’512 patent are 

invalid as obvious (the issue discussed 

in section VI.B.4 of Rovi’s Petition for 

Review). 

(8) The issue of whether the ARRISRovi Agreement provides a defense to 

the allegations against the ARRIS 

respondents (the issue discussed in 

section XI of Respondents’ Petition for 

Review). 

(9) The Final ID’s conclusion that 

Rovi did not establish the economic 

prong of the domestic industry 

requirement based on patent licensing 

(the issue discussed in section IV of 

Rovi’s Petition for Review). 

The Commission has determined to 

not review the remainder of the Final 

ID. The Commission has further 

determined that Respondents’ petition 

of the Final ID’s determinations is 

improper as to the following issues: (1) 

The representative accused X1 products 

for the ’263, ’413, and ’801 patents; (2) 

the induced infringement of the ’263 

and ’413 patents; and (3) the eligibility 

under 35 U.S.C. 101 of the ’512 patent. 

See 19 CFR 210.43(b)(2) (‘‘Petitions for 

review may not incorporate statements, 

issues, or arguments by reference.’’). 

Those assignments of error are therefore 

waived. 

The parties are requested to brief their 

positions with reference to the 

applicable law and the evidentiary 

record regarding the questions provided 

below: 

(1) As to whether the Legacy accused 

products are ‘‘articles that infringe’’ 

(Issue 2 in Respondents’ Petition for 

Review): 

Has Rovi shown (or has Comcast 

conceded) that a Legacy accused 

product that infringes the asserted 

patents (and if so, which patents) has 

been imported or re-imported by any 

respondent or that respondent’s 

agent(s)? 

(2) As to whether the X1 products are 

‘‘articles that infringe’’ (Issue 3 in 

Respondents’ Petition for Review), the 

issue of direct infringement of the ’263 

and ’413 patents by the X1 accused 

products (Issue 5 in Respondents’ 

Petition for Review), and the issue of 

‘‘the nature and scope of the violation 

found’’ (the issue discussed in section X 

of Respondents’ Petition for Review): 

a. For purposes of giving rise to a 

section 337 violation and whether the 

X1 STBs are ‘‘articles that infringe,’’ is 

the importation of and infringement 

through the use of the X1 STBs 

distinguishable from the importation of 

and infringement through the use of the 

scanners in Suprema v. Int’l Trade 

Comm’n, 796 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 

2015)? For example, is Suprema 

distinguishable because the imported 

X1 STBs require cooperation with 

hardware (a mobile device and 

Comcast’s servers) that is not imported 

by the respondents for an act of 

infringement to occur? Note that, in 

Suprema, the imported scanners were 

‘‘not standalone products,’’ but rather, 

to function, the scanners had to ‘‘be 

connected to a computer, and that 

computer must have custom-developed 

software installed and running.’’ 796 

F.3d at 1341–42. 

b. Please discuss any relevant 

statutory language, legislative history, 

case law, and Commission precedent 

that does or does not support 

interpreting the language of section 337 

such that the X1 STBs are ‘‘articles that 

infringe’’ and that a violation arises 

from the importation or sale in the 

United States after importation of the X1 

STBs. 

In connection with the final 

disposition of this investigation, the 

Commission may (1) issue an order that 

could result in the exclusion of the 

subject articles from entry into the 

United States, and/or (2) issue one or 

more cease and desist orders that could 

result in the respondent 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 (December 1994) 

(Commission Opinion). 

If the Commission contemplates some 

form of remedy, it must consider the 

effects of that remedy upon the public 

interest. The factors the Commission 

will consider include the effect that an 

exclusion order and/or cease and desist 

orders 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. 

The parties and the public are 

requested to brief their positions 

regarding the public interest. The 

Commission is particularly interested in 

responses to the following: 

Should the Commission tailor any 

remedy to mitigate any harm considered 

by the public interest factors? Please 

provide any support, factual or 

otherwise, and relate that support to 

specific public interest factors. 

If the Commission orders some form 

of remedy, the U.S. Trade 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
38936 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Notices 

Representative, as delegated by the 

President, has 60 days to approve or 

disapprove the Commission’s action. 

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. 

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. Complainants are 

requested to submit proposed remedial 

orders for the Commission’s 

consideration. Complainants are also 

requested to state the date that the 

patents expire and the HTSUS numbers 

under which the accused products are 

imported. Complainants are further 

requested to supply the names of known 

importers of the products at issue in this 

investigation. The written submissions 

and proposed remedial orders must be 

filed no later than close of business on 

August 24, 2017. Reply submissions 

must be filed no later than the close of 

business on August 31, 2017. No further 

submissions on any of 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 and submit 8 true paper 

copies to the Office of the Secretary by 

noon the next day pursuant to section 

210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to 

the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 

337–TA–1001’’) in a prominent place on 

the cover page and/or the first page. (See 

Handbook for Electronic Filing 

Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/ 

secretary/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. All such requests should be 

directed to the Secretary to the 

Commission and must include a full 

statement of the reasons why the 

Commission should grant such 

treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents 

for which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is properly sought will be 

treated accordingly. 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 at the Office of the 

Secretary and on EDIS. 

This action is taken under the 

authority of 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: August 10, 2017. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17283 Filed 8–15–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Receipt of Complaint; 

Solicitation of Comments Relating to 

the Public Interest 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has received a complaint 

entitled Certain Wireless Audio Systems 

and Components Thereof, DN 3242; the 

Commission is soliciting comments on 

any public interest issues raised by the 

complaint or complainant’s filing 

pursuant to the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 

20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. The 

public version of the complaint can be 

accessed on the Commission’s 

Electronic Document Information 

System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov, 

and will be available for inspection 

during official business hours (8:45 a.m. 

to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server at United 

States International Trade Commission 

(USITC) at https://www.usitc.gov. The 

public record for this investigation may 

be viewed on the Commission’s 

Electronic Document Information 

System (EDIS) at https://edis.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 has received a complaint 

and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) 

of the Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure filed on behalf of 

Broadcom Limited and Avago 

Technologies General IP (Singapore) 

Pte. Ltd. on August 10, 2017. The 

complaint alleges violations of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1337) in the importation into the United 

States, the sale for importation, and the 

sale within the United States after 

importation of certain wireless audio 

systems and components thereof. The 

complaint names as respondents DTS, 

Inc. of Calabasas, CA; Phorus, Inc. of 

Calabasas, CA; MartinLogan, Ltd. of 

Lawrence, KS; Paradigm Electronics Inc. 

of Canada; Anthem Electronics, Inc. of 

Canada; Wren Sound Systems, LLC of 

Phoenixville, PA; McIntosh Laboratory, 

Inc. of Binghamton, NY; Definitive 

Technology of Owings Mills, MD; and 

Polk Audio Inc. of Vista, CA. The 

complainant requests that the 

Commission issue a limited exclusion 

order, cease and desist orders, and 

impose a bond upon respondents’ 

alleged infringing articles during the 60- 

day Presidential review period pursuant 

to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j). 

Proposed respondents, other 

interested parties, and members of the 

public are invited to file comments, not 

to exceed five (5) pages in length, 

inclusive of attachments, on any public 

interest issues raised by the complaint 

or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should 

address whether issuance of the relief 

specifically requested by the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES