Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Notices 46519 

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

to the local FMSC, however, because we 

do have an obligation to ensure that a 

specific number of members have the 

prerequisite maritime security 

experience, we encourage the 

submission of resumes highlighting 

experience in the maritime and security 

industries. 

Dated: September 22, 2017. 

J. S. Dufresne, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Maritime 

Security Coordinator, Buffalo. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21486 Filed 10–4–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1185 (Review)] 

Steel Nails From the United Arab 

Emirates 

Determination 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject five-year review, the 

United States International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) 

determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 

1930 (‘‘the Act’’), that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on steel nails 

from the United Arab Emirates would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to an 

industry in the United States within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. 

Background 

The Commission, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), 

instituted this review on April 3, 2017 

(82 FR 16229) and determined on July 

7, 2017 that it would conduct an 

expedited review (82 FR 37112, August 

8, 2017). 

The Commission made this 

determination pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It 

completed and filed its determination in 

this review on September 29, 2017. The 

views of the Commission are contained 

in USITC Publication 4729 (September 

2017), entitled Steel Nails from the 

United Arab Emirates: Investigation No. 

731–TA–1185 (Review). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 29, 2017. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21427 Filed 10–4–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1010] 

Certain Semiconductor Devices, 

Semiconductor Packages, and 

Products Containing Same: 

Commission Determination To Review 

in Part a Final Initial Determination 

Finding in Part a Violation of Section 

337; Schedule for Filing Written 

Submissions on the Issues Under 

Review and on Remedy, the Public 

Interest, and Bonding; and Denial of a 

Motion To Modify the Administrative 

Protective Order 

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 the final initial determination 

(‘‘final ID’’) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on 

June 30, 2017, finding in part a violation 

of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

in the above-captioned investigation. 

The Commission has also determined to 

deny the motion filed on August 1, 

2017, to amend the administrative 

protective order. The Commission 

requests certain briefing from the parties 

on the issues under review, as indicated 

in this notice. The Commission also 

requests briefing from the parties and 

interested persons on the issues of 

remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Esq., Office of 

the General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2532. 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 on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on June 24, 2016, based on a complaint 

filed on behalf of Tessera Technologies, 

Inc.; Tessera, Inc.; and Invensas 

Corporation, all of San Jose, California 

(collectively, ‘‘Tessera’’). 81 FR 41344 

(Jun. 24, 2016). The complaint alleged 

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. 

6,856,007 (‘‘the ’007 patent’’); U.S. 

Patent No. 6,849,946 (‘‘the ’946 patent’’); 

and U.S. Patent No. 6,133,136 (‘‘the ’136 

patent’’). The complaint further alleged 

that a domestic industry exists. The 

Commission’s notice of investigation 

named 24 respondents. Those 

respondents are Broadcom Limited of 

Singapore and Broadcom Corporation of 

Irvine, California (collectively, 

‘‘Broadcom’’), and 22 manufacturers and 

importers of products containing 

Broadcom’s semiconductor devices: 

Avago Technologies Limited of 

Singapore, and Avago Technologies U.S. 

Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively, 

‘‘Avago’’); Arista Networks, Inc. of Santa 

Clara, California; ARRIS International 

plc, ARRIS Group, Inc., ARRIS 

Solutions, Inc., ARRIS Enterprises, and 

Pace Ltd., all of Suwanee, Georgia, as 

well as Pace Americas LLC and Pace 

USA LLC, both of Boca Raton, Florida, 

and ARRIS Technology, Inc. of 

Horsham, Pennsylvania (collectively, 

‘‘ARRIS’’); ASUSTek Computer, Inc. of 

Taipei, Taiwan, and ASUS Computer 

International of Fremont, California 

(collectively, ‘‘ASUS’’); Comcast Cable 

Communications, LLC, Comcast Cable 

Communications Management, LLC, 

and Comcast Business Communications, 

LLC, each of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

(collectively, ‘‘Comcast’’); HTC 

Corporation of Taoyuan, Taiwan and 

HTC America Inc. of Bellevue, 

Washington (collectively, ‘‘HTC’’); 

NETGEAR, Inc. of San Jose, California; 

Technicolor S.A. of Issy-LesMoulineaux, France, as well as 

Technicolor USA, Inc. and Technicolor 

Connected Home USA LLC, both of 

Indianapolis, Indiana (collectively, 

‘‘Technicolor’’). The Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations is not 

participating in the investigation. 

On June 30, 2017, the presiding 

administrative law judge issued the 

final ID. The final ID finds a violation 

of section 337 as to claims 16, 17, 20, 

and 22 of the ’946 patent. ID at 262. The 

final ID finds that for claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 

16, 24–26, and 34 of the ’136 patent, the 

claims are infringed and not invalid, but 

that the existence of a domestic industry 

was not shown. Id. at 262–63. For the 

’007 patent, the final ID finds that 

infringement was shown only as to 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES