50678 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices 

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

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–945 (Modification 

Proceeding)] 

Certain Network Devices, Related 

Software and Components Thereof (II) 

Institution of Modification 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 

a modification proceeding in the abovecaptioned investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amanda P. Fisherow, Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–2737. 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 January 27, 2015, based on a 

Complaint filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. 

of San Jose, California (‘‘Cisco’’). 80 FR 

4313–14 (Jan. 27, 2015). The Complaint 

alleges violations of section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 

U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’), by reason 

of infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 7,023,853 (‘‘the ’853 

patent’’); 6,377,577 (‘‘the ’577 patent’’); 

7,460,492 (‘‘the ’492 patent’’); 7,061,875 

(‘‘the ’875 patent’’); 7,224,668 (‘‘the ’668 

patent’’); and 8,051,211 (‘‘the ’211 

patent’’). The Complaint further alleges 

the existence of a domestic industry. 

The Commission’s Notice of 

Investigation named Arista Networks, 

Inc. of Santa Clara, California (‘‘Arista’’) 

as the respondent. The Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) was also 

named as a party to the investigation. 

The Commission terminated the 

investigation in part as to certain claims 

of the asserted patents. Notice (Nov. 18, 

2015) (see Order No. 38 (Oct. 27, 2015)); 

Notice (Dec. 1, 2015) (see Order No. 47 

(Nov. 9, 2015)). 

On May 4, 2017, the Commission 

found a violation of section 337 with 

respect to certain of the asserted claims 

of the ’577 and ’668 patents. Notice 

(May 4, 2017); 82 FR 21827–29 (May 10, 

2017); see also Notice of Correction 

(May 30, 2017); 82 FR 25811 (June 5, 

2017). The Commission issued a limited 

exclusion order (‘‘LEO’’) and a cease 

and desist order (‘‘CDO’’) against Arista. 

Id. The Commission did not find a 

violation with respect to the ’853, ’875, 

’492, and ’211 patents. Id. 

On June 30, 2017, Cisco filed a notice 

of appeal with the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(‘‘Federal Circuit’’), seeking review of 

the Commission’s finding of no 

violation. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Trade 

Comm’n, Appeal No. 17–2289. On July 

21, 2017, Arista filed a notice of appeal 

with the Federal Circuit, seeking review 

of the Commission’s finding of 

violation. Arista Networks, Inc. v. Int’l 

Trade Comm’n, Appeal No. 17–2336. 

On August 3, 2017, the Federal Circuit 

consolidated the Arista and Cisco 

appeals. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Trade 

Comm’n, Appeal No. 17–2289, Dkt. No. 

20. The consolidated appeal is currently 

pending before the Federal Circuit. 

On August 25, 2017, Arista filed a 

motion with the Federal Circuit seeking 

to stay the Commission’s remedial 

orders pending resolution of the appeal 

on the merits. On September 22, 2017, 

the Federal Circuit denied this request 

‘‘subject to the condition that the 

product redesign on which Cisco relies 

to deny irreparable harm must be 

permitted to enter the country, without 

being blocked by the Commission order 

under review in this case, unless and 

until Commission proceedings are 

initiated and completed to produce an 

enforceable determination that such a 

redesign is barred by the order here 

under review or by a new or amended 

order.’’ Cisco Sys, Inc. v. ITC; Arista 

Networks, Inc. v. ITC, Appeal Nos. 

2017–2289, –2351, Order at 3 (Fed. Cir. 

Sept. 22, 2017). 

On September 27, 2017, Cisco 

petitioned for a modification proceeding 

to determine whether Arista’s 

redesigned switches infringe the patent 

claims that are the subject of the LEO 

and CDO issued in this investigation 

and for modification of the remedial 

orders to specify the status of these 

redesigned products. On October 10, 

2017, Arista filed its opposition to 

Cisco’s petition. On October 17, 2017, 

Cisco filed a Motion for Leave to Submit 

a Reply in Support of Its Petition for a 

Modification Proceeding. The 

Commission grants Cisco’s motion to 

file a reply. 

The Commission has determined that 

the request complies with the 

requirements for institution of a 

modification proceeding under 

Commission Rule 210.76. Accordingly, 

the Commission has determined to 

institute a modification proceeding and 

has delegated the proceeding to the 

Chief Administrative Law Judge to 

designate a presiding Administrative 

Law Judge. Cisco, Arista, and OUII are 

named as parties to the proceeding. 

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: October 27, 2017. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23785 Filed 10–31–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1186–1187 

(Review)] 

Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening 

Agents From China and Taiwan; 

Determinations 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject five-year reviews, the 

United States International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) 

determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 

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

antidumping duty orders on certain 

stilbenic optical brightening agents from 

China and Taiwan 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 these reviews on April 3, 

2017 (82 FR 16226) and determined on 

July 7, 2017 that it would conduct 

expedited reviews (82 FR 37237, August 

9, 2017). 

The Commission made these 

determinations pursuant to section 

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

completed and filed its determinations 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES