[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16707-16709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06107]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-807]
Certain Digital Photo Frames and Image Display Devices and
Components Thereof; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and
Desist Orders; Termination of Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has terminated the above-captioned investigation under
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and has issued a
limited
[[Page 16708]]
exclusion order directed against infringing products of the following
respondents previously found in default: Nextar Inc. (``Nextar'') of La
Verne, California; WinAccord Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan and WinAccord
U.S.A., Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively, ``the WinAccord
respondents''); Aiptek International Inc. (``Aiptek'') of Hsinchu,
Taiwan; and Pandigital, Inc. (``Pandigital'') of Dublin, California
(collectively, ``the defaulting respondents''). The Commission has also
issued cease and desist orders directed against these defaulting
respondents.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. 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 http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed
on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://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 September 27, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Technology
Properties Limited, LLC (``TPL'') of Cupertino, California. 76 FR
59737-38. The complaint alleged a violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 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 digital photo frames and
image display devices and components thereof by reason of infringement
of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,976,623 (``the '623 patent'');
7,162,549; 7,295,443; and 7,522,424. The complaint further alleged the
existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's notice of
investigation named twenty respondents including Nextar; the WinAccord
respondents; Aiptek; Pandigital; Action Electronics Co., Ltd.
(``Action'') of Taoyuan County, Taiwan; Aluratek, Inc. (``Aluratek'')
of Tustin, California; Audiovox Corporation (``Audiovox'') of Happauge,
New York; CEIVA Logic, Inc. (``CEIVA'') of Burbank, California; Circus
World Displays Ltd. (``Circus'') of Niagra Falls, Canada; Coby
Electronics Corporation (``Coby'') of Lake Success, New York; Curtis
International, Ltd. (``Curtis'') of Ontario, Canada; Digital Spectrum
Solutions, Inc. (``Digital Spectrum'') of Irvine, California; Eastman
Kodak Company (``Eastman Kodak'') of Rochester, New York; Mustek
Systems, Inc. (``Mustek'') of Hsinchu Taiwan; Royal Consumer
Information Products, Inc. (``Royal Consumer'') of Somerset, New Jersey
and Sony Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; Sony Corporation of America of
New York, New York (collectively, ``the Sony respondents''); Transcend
Information, Inc. (``Transcend'') of Taipei, Taiwan; and Viewsonic
Corporation (``Viewsonic'') of Walnut, California. The complaint and
notice of investigation were served on all respondents. See Notice of
Investigation, Certificate of Service (Sept. 22, 2011) (EDIS Document
459720). No Commission investigative attorney participated in the
investigation.
On November 10 and 30, 2011, respectively, the Commission
determined not to review initial determinations (``IDs'') issued by the
presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') terminating the
investigation as to Coby and Aluratek based on settlement agreements.
On December 21, 2011, the Commission determined not to review an ID
terminating the investigation as to Circus based on a settlement
agreement. On January 25, 2012, the Commission determined not to review
an ID terminating the investigation as to Curtis based on a settlement
agreement. On February 10 and 23, 2012, respectively, the Commission
determined not to review IDs terminating the investigation as to Royal
Consumer and Viewsonic based on settlement agreements. On March 16,
2012, the Commission determined not to review an ID terminating the
investigation as to CEIVA based on a settlement agreement. On April 11,
2012, the Commission determined not to review IDs terminating the
investigation as to Eastman Kodak and Mustek, respectively, based on
consent order stipulations. On May 24, 2012, the Commission determined
not to review an ID terminating the investigation as to Audiovox based
on a settlement agreement. Also, on May 24 and 29, 2012, respectively,
the Commission determined not to review IDs terminating the
investigation as to the '623 patent with respect to Pandigital, and
terminating Digital Spectrum, based on consent order stipulations. On
June 20, 2012, the Commission determined not to review an ID
terminating the investigation as to Action based on a consent order
stipulation. On July 26, 2012, the Commission determined not to review
an ID terminating the investigation as to Transcend based on a consent
order stipulation. On October 3, 2012, the Commission determined not to
review an ID terminating the investigation as to the Sony respondents
based on a consent order stipulation.
On December 6 and 22, 2011, respectively, the ALJ issued IDs
finding Nextar, the WinAccord respondents, and Aiptek in default,
pursuant to 19 CFR 210.16, because these respondents did not respond to
the complaint and notice of investigation, or to Order Nos. 13 and/or
15 to show cause why it should not be found in default. On January 3
and 9, 2012, respectively, the Commission determined not to review the
IDs finding Nextar, the WinAccord respondents, and Aiptek in default.
The Commission found that the statutory requirements of section
337(g)(1)(A)-(E) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)(A)-(E)) were met with respect to
Aiptek, Nextar, and the WinAccord respondents. Accordingly, pursuant to
section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) and Commission rule 210.16(c)
(19 CFR 210.16(c)), the Commission presumed the facts alleged in the
complaint to be true.
On March 8, 2012, complainant TPL filed a declaration requesting
immediate relief against defaulting respondent Aiptek under Commission
rule 210.16(c)(1), 19 CFR 210.16(c)(1), which it later withdrew.
On October 9, 2012, the ALJ issued Order No. 47, directing
Pandigital to show cause why it should not be found in default and in
violation of section 337 pursuant to 19 CFR 210.17 because it did not
file a pre-hearing statement and brief as required by the ALJ's
Procedural Schedule. As of November 7, 2012, Pandigital had not
responded to Order No. 47 and the ALJ issued an ID finding Pandigital
in default and in violation of section 337. He also extended the target
date in this investigation to March 7, 2013.
On December 7, 2012, the Commission determined not to review the ID
finding Pandigital in default and in violation of section 337. The
Commission also requested public briefing on remedy, the public
interest, and bonding with respect to Pandigital, Aiptek, Nextar, and
the WinAccord respondents and requested that TPL address certain issues
related to remedy and bonding. 77 FR 74220-21 (Dec. 13, 2012). On
December 21, 2012, TPL
[[Page 16709]]
submitted responsive briefing including a proposed limited exclusion
order directed to the covered products of Pandigital, Aiptek, Nextar,
and the WinAccord respondents and cease and desist orders directed to
each of the defaulting respondents.
The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief
includes a limited exclusion order prohibiting: (1) The unlicensed
entry of digital photo frames and image display devices and components
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9, 11-12, and 14 of the
'443 patent, claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the '424 patent, or claims 1, 7,
11, 17, 19, and 21 of the '549 patent, which are manufactured abroad by
or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf of, Pandigital or one
of the WinAccord respondents, or any of their affiliated companies,
parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other related
business entities, or their successors or assigns; (2) the unlicensed
entry of digital photo frames and image display devices and components
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9 and 14 of the '443 patent
or claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the '424 patent, which are manufactured
abroad by or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf of, Nextar
or any of its affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, licensees,
contractors, or other related business entities, or its successors or
assigns; and (3) the unlicensed entry of digital photo frames and image
display devices and components thereof that infringe one or more of
claims 9 and 11-12 of the '443 patent or claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the
'424 patent, which are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or are
imported by or on behalf of, Aiptek or any of its affiliated companies,
parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other related
business entities, or its successors or assigns. Appropriate relief
also includes cease and desist orders prohibiting: (1) Pandigital or
either of the WinAccord respondents from conducting any of the
following activities in the United States: importing, selling,
marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring
(except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors
for digital photo frames and image display devices and components
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9, 11-12, and 14 of the
'443 patent, claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the '424 patent, or claims 1, 7,
11, 17, 19, and 21 of the '549 patent; (2) Nextar from conducting any
of the following activities in the United States: importing, selling,
marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring
(except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors
for digital photo frames and image display devices and components
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9 and 14 of the '443 patent
or claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the '424 patent; and (3) Aiptek from
conducting any of the following activities in the United States:
importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for
sale, transferring (except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents
or distributors for digital photo frames and image display devices and
components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 9 and 11-12 of
the '443 patent or claims 25-26 and 28-29 of the '424 patent.
The Commission has further determined that the public interest
factors enumerated in sections 337(d), (f), and (g)(1) (19 U.S.C.
1337(d), (f), and (g)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the limited
exclusion order or the cease and desist orders. Finally, the Commission
has determined that a bond in the amount of 100 percent of the entered
value of the covered products is required to permit temporary
importation during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C.
1337(j)). The Commission's orders were delivered to the President and
to the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.
The Commission has terminated this investigation. 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 sections
210.16(c), 210.17, 210.41, and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.16(c), 210.17, 210.41, and 210.50).
Issued: March 12, 2013.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-06107 Filed 3-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P