Jun. ll.

20l3

1:00PM

No. H37

P.

TRENT FRANKS
8TH Dternlcr, AHIZONA

Caucus Cru.|aMANs)<lP3
CONGRESSIONAL ISRAELAuras Caucus
MISQILE DEFENEE CAUCUS

JUDICIARV COMMITTEE
CNAIRMAN,

CONGRESSIONAL ELEcricMAGu:v|

Suecommmcs on "msCous'n'ru1|oN
ANDCrvn.Jusrrcs
Suacowvm-res otv CEIME,TRRQ|1|5M, "MEI-N0 sscumrv ANDlNVE!:'T|GAT|0N$

"'::r|r||\|*?;,

Puts: (Mucus Nmomt Sscunnv woanue GDuP-RSC

CONG{$$|QNAL INTEMWATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CAUCUB

tllungress of the littttzittates

113th ttliottgrerrs

Comsaeesloml. Caucus ONOar-musmo

Vutnemste Cuunasn

ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

suecommtrrss owSraneerc Fences

Suscommmes on INTELLIGENCE, E-renews Tvmems mo CAPABILITIES

Washington, Bill
June 10, 2013

www.fra nl(s.houee.gov

Hon. Irving A. Williamson Chairman U.S. International Trade Commission 500 B Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20436

Re; ITC Investigation Number 796, Protecting American Consumers 0mthe Unintended Consequences of a Vague Exclusion Order

Dear Chairman Williamson,

I write to express concerns regarding investigation number 337-TA-796, a patent dispute case currently before the Commission. Should a violation be found, particular care of providing clarity and administrability must be given in crafting any exclusion order on design patents which are as simple as a drawing. This is vital if the Commission is to fulll its mission of remedying unfair practices in the importation of articles while also ensuring healthy competitive conditions in the United States.
It is fundamental that any exclusion order that may be issued be sufficiently clear to all affected parties, particularly to the Customs and Border Protection that must administer an order. There must be no room for interpretation of exclusion orders that can ultimately impact billions of dollars in trade of vital consumer products. A simple drawing of a rectangle with rounded corners, a speaker and a display, a shape common to all modern phones, would pose administrative difficulties as the CBP would be forced to make subjective decisions without clear Commission guidance.
Moreover, an exclusion order, should one issue, that is unclear and thus difcult to administer would be detrimental to U.S. consumers because of a potential unintended effect of dramatically decreasing if not removing mobile devices that offer a wide range of price points by a manufacturer with a signicant presence in the U.S. Such products are sought by U.S. consumers not only because of their innovative features, affordable prices and extensive local distribution channels but also because of access to the internet for everyday needs like mobile banking and submittingjob applications. An unclear exclusion order that may unintentionally affect non-infringing mobile phones and tablets would leave consumers with fewer choices, particularly since other manufacturers are unlikely to have the capacity to quickly replace the demand.

When considering an exclusion order, the Commission must carefully consider both the ability of Customs to administer an order and the potential effects of any such order on the public and the U.S. economy. Accordingly, I urge the Commission to provide clarity and
2435 Rmreunw BUILDING
WAsH|MaToN, DC 20515

7121 W. Ben. Hone Sums 200

GLENDALE A2 13.5303

921 225-4576

teas) 116-1911

No. 1137

adm inisti-ability,while ensuring the continued availability of a range of electronic devices in a competitive U.S. market. In sum, I encourage the Commission to listen to all interested voices and work closely with Customs ofcials to craft sufficiently clear guidance on administration, if an exclusion order is to be issued.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter of design patent enforceability and consumer access.
Most sincerely,

Tre Franks United States Congress