Overview
Title
Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. International Trade Commission got a complaint from a company saying some cell phones might be breaking a law, and they asked people to say how stopping these phones might affect everyone. People have a little over a week to share what they think.
Summary AI
The U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint from Evolved Wireless, LLC concerning certain LTE-compliant cellular communication devices possibly violating the Tariff Act of 1930. Evolved Wireless has named Samsung Electronics and Motorola Mobility as respondents and is seeking various orders to stop the alleged infringements. The public is invited to comment on how these requested orders might affect public health, safety, and the U.S. economy. Comments must be submitted electronically within eight days of the notice’s publication in the Federal Register.
Abstract
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled Certain LTE-Compliant Cellular Communication Devices, DN 3531; 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.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document under review is a notice from the U.S. International Trade Commission published in the Federal Register. It concerns a complaint filed by Evolved Wireless, LLC against Samsung Electronics and Motorola Mobility. The complaint alleges violations related to certain LTE-compliant cellular communication devices under the Tariff Act of 1930. Evolved Wireless is requesting the Commission to impose restrictions on imports and sales of these devices, which they claim infringe on specific patents. The Commission is seeking public comments on how these measures might affect public interest factors such as health, safety, welfare, competitive market conditions, and consumer impact.
Summary
In essence, this document announces the receipt of a complaint and solicits public feedback on the potential economic and public welfare ramifications of the requested orders. This includes an exclusion order and a cease and desist order against the alleged infringing products. The document also sets deadlines and procedural requirements for submitting comments and supporting documents, mentioning the use of the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) for electronic submissions.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One notable issue is the document's extensive use of legal and technical jargon. References to specific legal sections, such as "section 337 of the Tariff Act" and "§ 210.8(b)", are not explained in lay terms, which could complicate public comprehension. These references might confuse readers who are not familiar with legal frameworks, leading to possible misunderstanding of the complaint's implications or the invitation to comment.
The document outlines a timeline for public submissions but lacks clarity on the subsequent actions related to the Presidential review period, especially regarding the imposition of a bond. Moreover, while it provides contact information for further inquiry, it does not offer direct links or resources for navigating EDIS, potentially hindering first-time users.
Another critical aspect is the mention of confidential treatment for submissions. Although it indicates the option for confidential submissions, it does not provide a comprehensive guide on how to request and ensure such confidentiality, which could leave many unsure about the process.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this document signals a possible change in the availability of certain cellular devices from major brands Samsung and Motorola. If the Commission sides with Evolved Wireless and imposes the requested orders, consumers could face diminished product choices or potential price changes in the short term.
Impact on Stakeholders
Consumers: A potential exclusion order could directly affect consumers, possibly limiting access to some devices, which might lead to disruption or inconvenience.
Competing Manufacturers: Manufacturers that produce similar devices within the U.S. might benefit from reduced competition, potentially boosting domestic sales.
Samsung and Motorola: These companies could face significant disruptions in their operations and sales if the exclusion and cease orders are granted. This would likely incur financial losses and compel them to adjust their strategies and product lines.
Evolved Wireless, LLC: Successfully obtaining the requested legal orders could enhance their market position and validate their patent claims, further strengthening their intellectual property rights.
Conclusion
Overall, while the document presents an imperative legal notification, its impact hinges on complex legal interpretations which may not be immediately accessible to the broader public. The potential consequences of the requested orders pose important policy questions regarding balancing patent rights with consumer access and economic competition. These questions underscore the importance of soliciting diverse viewpoints from public comments to inform the Commission's final determinations.
Issues
• The document does not clearly define the timeline or process for the review within the Presidential review period regarding the imposition of a bond on respondents' alleged infringing articles.
• The document refers to the complainant's submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) without providing an explanation or context about what this section entails, which could be unclear to general readers.
• The document uses technical legal references (e.g., 19 U.S.C. 1337) without providing detailed explanations or a non-technical summary, which may be difficult for the public to understand.
• Contact information is provided for further inquiries, however, it lacks a direct link to specific guidance or resources for assistance in using EDIS, which could cause difficulties for users unfamiliar with the system.
• The document includes a request for confidential treatment of submissions but lacks detailed instructions or a clear procedure for how to request and ensure confidential treatment, which can lead to ambiguity for submitters.