78fr77489

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2013 / Notices
agreement includes, but is not limited
to, acts and omissions of the patentee
and their employees, agents,
contractors, lessees, or any third party,
arising out of or in connection with the
use and/or occupancy of the patented
real property which has already resulted
or does hereafter result in (1) Violations
of Federal, State, and local laws and
regulations that are now, or may in the
future become, applicable to the real
property; (2) Judgments, claims or
demands of any kind assessed against
the United States; (3) Costs, expenses, or
damages of any kind incurred by the
United States; (4) Other releases or
threatened releases of solid or
hazardous waste(s) and/or hazardous
substance(s), as defined by Federal or
State environmental laws of, on, into or
under land, property and other interests
of the United States; (5) Other activities
by which solid waste or hazardous
substance(s) or waste, as defined by
Federal and State environmental laws
are generated, released, stored, used or
otherwise disposed of on the patented
real property, and any cleanup
response, remedial action or other
actions related in any manner to said
solid or hazardous substance(s) or
waste(s); or (6) Natural resource
damages as defined by Federal and State
law. This covenant shall be construed as
running with the parcel of land patented
or otherwise conveyed by the United
States and may be enforced by the
United States in a court of competent
jurisdiction.
Conveyance of this land to the City of
Truth Consequences is consistent with
applicable Federal and county land use
plans, and BLM policy.
On December 23, 2013, the land
described above will be segregated from
all other forms of appropriation under
the public land laws, including the
general mining laws, except for
conveyance under the R&PP Act, leasing
under the mineral leasing laws, and
disposals under the mineral material
disposal laws.
Classification Comments: Interested
parties may submit comments involving
the suitability of the land for a
conveyance of a landfill. Comments on
the classification are restricted to
whether the land is physically suited for
the proposal, whether the use will
maximize the future use or uses of the
land, whether the use is consistent with
local planning and zoning, or if the use
is consistent with State and Federal
programs.
Application Comments: Interested
parties may submit comments regarding
the specific use proposed in the
application and plan of development,
whether the BLM followed proper

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:12 Dec 20, 2013

Jkt 232001

administrative procedures in reaching
the decision to convey under the R&PP
Act, or any other factor not directly
related to the suitability of the land for
use as an existing landfill.
The public may submit comments in
writing directly to the BLM using one of
the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section above. Comments should be
submitted on or before February 6, 2014.
Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so. Any adverse comments will be
reviewed by the BLM New Mexico State
Director who may sustain, vacate, or
modify this realty action. In the absence
of any adverse comments, the
classification of the land described in
this notice will become effective on
February 21, 2014. The land will not be
available for conveyance until after the
classification becomes effective.
Authority: 43 CFR part 2740.
Bill Childress,
District Manager, Las Cruces.
[FR Doc. 2013–30485 Filed 12–20–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–FB–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 332–543]

Trade, Investment, and Industrial
Policies in India: Effects on the U.S.
Economy Submission of Questionnaire
for OMB Review
United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice of submission of request
for approval of a questionnaire to the
Office of Management and Budget. This
notice is being given pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
AGENCY:

Purpose of Information Collection:
The information requested by the
questionnaire is for use by the
Commission in connection with
investigation No. 332–543, Trade,
Investment, and Industrial Policies in
India: Effects on the U.S. Economy. The
investigation was instituted under
section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930
(19 U.S.C. 1332(g)) at the request of the
House Committee on Ways and Means

PO 00000

Frm 00073

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

77489

and the Senate Committee on Finance
(the Committees). The Commission
expects to deliver its report to the
Committees by December 15, 2014.
Summary of Proposal
(1) Number of forms submitted: 1.
(2) Title of form: Trade, Investment,
and Industrial Policies in India
Questionnaire.
(3) Type of request: New.
(4) Frequency of use: Industry
questionnaire, single data gathering,
scheduled for 2014.
(5) Description of respondents:
Companies in the United States in
industries particularly affected by
Indian trade, investment, or industrial
policies.
(6) Estimated number of
questionnaires to be mailed: 9,000.
(7) Estimated total number of hours to
complete the questionnaire per
respondent: 12 hours.
(8) Information obtained from the
questionnaire that qualifies as
confidential business information will
be so treated by the Commission and not
disclosed in a manner that would reveal
the individual operations of a firm.
Additional Information or Comment:
Copies of the questionnaire and
supporting documents may be obtained
from project leader William Powers
([email protected] or 202–708–
5405) or deputy project leader Renee
Berry ([email protected] or 202–
205–3498). Comments about the
proposal should be directed to the
Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Room 10102 (Docket Library),
Washington, DC 20503, ATTENTION:
Docket Librarian. All comments should
be specific, indicating which part of the
questionnaire is objectionable,
describing the concern in detail, and
including specific suggested revision or
language changes. Copies of any
comments should be provided to
Andrew Martin, Chief Information
Officer, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, who is the
Commission’s designated Senior Official
under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by
accessing its Internet address (http://
www.usitc.gov). Hearing impaired
individuals are advised that information
on this matter can be obtained by
contacting the TDD terminal on 202–
205–1810. Persons with mobility
impairments who will need special
assistance in gaining access to the
Commission should contact the
Secretary at 202–205–2000.
Issued: December 17, 2013.

E:\FR\FM\23DEN1.SGM

23DEN1

77490

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2013 / Notices

By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–30494 Filed 12–20–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–850]

Certain Electronic Imaging Devices;
Notice of Commission Determination
To Review-in-Part a Final
Determination
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:

Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in-part the final initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on
September 30, 2013, finding a violation
of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘Section 337’’).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jia
Chen, Office of the General Counsel,
U.S. International Trade Commission,
500 E Street SW., Washington, DC
20436, telephone (202) 708–4737.
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 June 29, 2012, based on a complaint
filed by Flashpoint Technology, Inc.
(‘‘Flashpoint’’) of Peterborough, New
Hampshire alleging violations of Section
337 in the importation into the United
States, the sale for importation, and the
sale within the United States after
importation of certain electronic
imaging devices by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 6,504,575 (‘‘the ’575
patent’’), 6,222,538 (‘‘the ’538 patent’’),

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:12 Dec 20, 2013

Jkt 232001

6,400,471 (‘‘the ’471 patent’’), and
6,223,190 (‘‘the ’190 patent’’). The
notice of investigation named the
following respondents: HTC
Corporation of Taoyuan, Taiwan and
HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue,
Washington (collectively, ‘‘HTC’’);
Pantech Co., Ltd. of Seoul, Republic of
Korea and Pantech Wireless, Inc. of
Atlanta, Georgia (collectively,
‘‘Pantech’’); Huawei Technologies Co.,
Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; FutureWei
Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei
Technologies (USA) of Plano, Texas
(collectively ‘‘Huawei’’); ZTE
Corporation of Shenzhen, China; and
ZTE (USA) Inc. of Richardson, Texas
(collectively ‘‘ZTE’’). The ’575 patent
and respondent Pantech have been
terminated from the investigation. The
Commission Office of Unfair Import
Investigations did not participate in this
investigation.
On September 30, 2013, the ALJ
issued a final ID finding a violation of
Section 337 by HTC. Specifically, the
ALJ concluded that two of the accused
HTC smartphones, i.e., the HTC Vivid
and HTC Droid Incredible 4G LTE,
infringe the asserted claims of the ’538
patent. The ALJ found, however, that
none of the other accused HTC
smartphones infringe the ’538 patent
and that none of the accused HTC,
Huawei, or ZTE smartphones infringe
the asserted claims of the ’471 patent or
the ’190 patent. The ALJ found that the
smartphones of Flashpoint’s licensees
[REDACTED] meet the technical prong
of the domestic industry requirement
with respect to the ’538 patent, but that
none of the licensed [REDACTED]
smartphones meet the technical prong
of the domestic industry requirement
with respect to either the ’471 or ’190
patents. The ALJ found that Flashpoint
established the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement under
Sections 337(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C) with
respect to all of the asserted patents.
The ALJ also found that HTC has not
established that the asserted patents are
invalid in view of the prior art or the onsale bar. The ALJ further found that the
’190 and ’538 patents are not
unenforceable for failure to name an
inventor.
On October 31, 2013, Flashpoint filed
a petition for review, challenging the
ALJ’s determination with respect to: (1)
The representativeness of the accused
products for the ’538 patent, (2) claim
construction for the ’471 patent, (3) noninfringement of the ’471 patent, (4) noninfringement of the ’190 patent, (5)
technical prong for the ’471 patent, and
(6) technical prong for the ’190 patent.
On the same day, respondents HTC,
Huawei, and ZTE filed a joint petition

PO 00000

Frm 00074

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

for review, challenging the ALJ’s
determination with respect to: (1) Noninfringement of the ’190 patent, (2)
validity of the ’190 patent for
anticipation and obviousness, (3)
validity of the ’471 patent for
anticipation and obviousness (4)
technical prong for the ’190 patent, and
(5) economic prong with respect to all
asserted patents. HTC filed a separate
petition for review with respect to
issues affecting only HTC, challenging
the ALJ’s determination with respect to
(1) claim construction for the ’538
patent, (2) infringement of the ’538
patent, (3) validity of the ’538 patent for
anticipation and obviousness, (4) noninfringement of the ’471 patent; (5)
validity of the asserted patents with
respect to the on-sale bar, and (6)
enforceability of the asserted patents.
The Commission has determined to
review the ALJ’s findings regarding the
following issues: (1) Infringement of the
asserted claims of the ’538 patent by the
HTC Vivid and HTC Droid Incredible
4G LTE smartphones; (2) the technical
prong of the domestic industry
requirement for the ’538 patent; (3)
obviousness of the asserted claims of the
’538 patent over U.S. Patent No.
5,835,772 to Thurlo (‘‘Thurlo’’), U.S.
Patent No. 5,740,801 to Branson
(‘‘Branson’’), the ‘‘Admitted Prior Art’’
(‘‘APA’’), U.S. Patent No. 5,638,501 to
Gough et al. (‘‘Gough’’), and U.S. Patent
No. 5,898,434 to Small (‘‘Small’’); (4)
claim construction of the term
‘‘operating system’’ in the asserted
claims of the ’471 patent; (5)
infringement of the ’471 patent by the
accused HTC, Huawei, and ZTE
products; (6) the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement for the
’471 patent; (7) anticipation of the
asserted claims of the ’471 patent in
view of U.S. Patent No. 5,687,376 to
Celi, Jr. et al.; (8) infringement of the
asserted claim of the ’190 patent; (9)
technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement for the ’190 patent; (10)
anticipation and obviousness of the ’190
patent in view of U.S. Provisional Patent
Application 60/037,963 to Parulski; (11)
anticipation and obviousness of the ’190
patent in view of the Zaurus; (12)
anticipation and obviousness of the
’‘190 patent in view of the Japanese
Laid-Open Patent Application No. H09–
298678 to Kazu Saito; (13) validity of
the ’538, ’471, and ’‘190 patents in view
of the on-sale bar; (14) enforceability of
claim 19 of the ’538 patent with respect
to joint inventorship; and (15) the
economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement with respect to the
’539, ’471, and ’190 patents. The

E:\FR\FM\23DEN1.SGM

23DEN1