Certain Optical Disk Controller Chips and Chipsets and Products Containing Same, Including DVD Players and PC Optical Storage Devices II; Notice of Commission Decision To Review Portions of an Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930; Grant of Motion To File Corrected Petition for Review; Denial of Motion To File Reply Brief; Extension of Target Date for Completion of Investigation, 76074-76076 [E5-7714]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
76074
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 2005 / Notices
Demand Charge: None.
Energy Charge: 12.55 mills per
kilowatt-hour for all energy use; subject
to ability-to-pay but not less than 2.5
mills per kilowatt-hour.
Seasonal Minimum Bill: $2.75 per
kilowatt of the maximum 30-minute
integrated demand established during
service months of each year specified in
the contract.
Adjustments:
For Power Factor: The customer will
normally be required to maintain a
power factor at a point of delivery of not
less than 95 percent lagging or leading.
Penalties for Exceeding the Contract
Rate of Delivery (CROD): Energy usage
in excess of the CROD will be billed at
a rate 10 times the current project use
power rate. This will be calculated on
a prorated basis. The customer will also
be billed for any increased capacity and
transmission charges incurred as a
result of exceeding the CROD.
Approval of Project Use Power Rate
by Commissioner of Bureau of
Reclamation: The Commissioner
approved the rate of 12.55 mills/kWh by
memorandum dated December 5, 2005.
Dated: December 16, 2005.
Michael J. Ryan,
Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 05–24352 Filed 12–21–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
Determinations
On the basis of the record 1 developed
in the subject five-year reviews, the
United States International Trade
Commission (Commission) determines,2
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the
Act), that revocation of the antidumping
duty orders on forged stainless steel
flanges from India 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 instituted these
reviews on July 1, 2005 (70 FR 38195)
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337–TA–523 ]
Certain Optical Disk Controller Chips
and Chipsets and Products Containing
Same, Including DVD Players and PC
Optical Storage Devices II; Notice of
Commission Decision To Review
Portions of an Initial Determination
Finding No Violation of Section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930; Grant of Motion
To File Corrected Petition for Review;
Denial of Motion To File Reply Brief;
Extension of Target Date for
Completion of Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from
India and Taiwan
1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 207.2(f)).
2 Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson dissenting with
respect to forged stainless steel flanges from
Taiwan.
16:55 Dec 21, 2005
Issued: December 16, 2005.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E5–7678 Filed 12–21–05; 8:45 am]
AGENCY:
[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–639 and 640
(Second Review)]
VerDate Aug<31>2005
and determined on October 4, 2005, that
it would conduct expedited reviews (70
FR 60558, October 18, 2005).
The Commission transmitted its
determinations in these investigations to
the Secretary of Commerce on December
16, 2005. The views of the Commission
are contained in USITC Publication
3827 (December 2005), entitled Forged
Stainless Steel Flanges from India and
Taiwan: Investigation Nos. 731–TA–639
and 640 (Second Review).
Jkt 208001
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
certain portions of a final initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) of the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’)
finding no violation of section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, in
the above-captioned investigation. The
Commission has also granted a motion
for leave to file a corrected petition,
denied a motion for leave to file a reply
brief, and has extended the target date
for completion of the investigation by 30
days, i.e., until March 1, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clara Kuehn, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3012. Copies of the public version
of the ALJ’s ID and all other
nonconfidential 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 (https://
www.usitc.gov). The public record for
this investigation may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS–
ON–LINE) 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 August 31, 2004, based on a
complaint filed on behalf of MediaTek
Corporation (‘‘complainant’’) of HsinChu City, Taiwan. 69 FR 53089 (Aug.
31, 2004). The complaint, as
supplemented, alleged violations of
section 337 in the importation into the
United States, sale for importation, and
sale within the United States after
importation of certain optical disk
controller chips and chipsets by reason
of infringement of claims 1, 3–6, 8–9,
and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 5,970,031
(‘‘the ‘031 patent’’) and claims 1–4 of
U.S. Patent No. 6,229,773 (‘‘the ‘773
patent’’). Id. The notice of investigation
named two respondents: Zoran
Corporation (‘‘Zoran’’) of Sunnyvale, CA
and Oak Technology, Inc. (‘‘Oak’’) of
Sunnyvale, CA. Id.
On October 7, 2004, the ALJ issued an
ID (Order No. 5) granting complainant’s
motion to amend the complaint and
notice of investigation to add Sunext
Technology Co., Ltd. (‘‘Sunext’’) of
Hsin-Chu City, Taiwan, as a respondent
and to add another patent, viz., claims
1–2, 5–6, 15–19, 21, and 22 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,170,043 (‘‘the ‘043 patent’’)
to the scope of the investigation. 69 FR
64588. That ID was not reviewed by the
Commission. Id.
A tutorial was held on June 24, 2005,
and an eight-day evidentiary hearing
was held from June 27, 2005, through
July 7, 2005.
On September 30, 2005, the ALJ
issued his final ID and recommended
determination on remedy and bonding.
The ALJ concluded that there was no
violation of section 337. Although he
found that respondent Oak infringes
claims 1, 2, and 3 of the ‘773 patent, he
found that those claims are invalid as
anticipated by Japanese patent
application number 08–015834 (RX–
518) (‘‘the Okuda prior art reference’’).
He found no infringement of claim 4 of
the ‘773 patent, and no infringement of
any asserted claim of the ‘031 or ‘043
patents. The ALJ concluded that the
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 2005 / Notices
asserted claims of the ‘031 patent are
invalid for lack of enablement, the
asserted claims of the ‘043 patent are
not invalid, and the asserted claims of
the ‘043 patent are not unenforceable.
He also found that complainants did not
establish the technical or economic
prong of the domestic industry
requirement for any of the three patents
in issue.
On October 12, 2005, complainant
MediaTek, the Commission
investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’),
respondent Sunext, and respondents
Oak and Zoran petitioned for review of
portions of the final ID. On October 14,
2005, complainant MediaTek moved for
leave to file a corrected petition with
attached petition. Also on October 14,
2005, respondents Zoran and Oak filed
a letter requesting a two-day extension
of time for filing their response in the
event that the Commission accepted
MediaTek’s corrected petition. On
October 18, 2005, the Chairman granted
respondents’ October 14, 2005, request
for a two-day extension, and extended
the due date for all responses to all
petitions for review by two days, or
until Friday, October 21, 2005.
On October 21, 2005, all parties filed
responses to the petitions for review.
On November 17, 2005, complainant
MediaTek filed a motion for leave to
reply in support of its petition for
review with an attached reply. On
November 18, 2005, respondent Sunext
filed an opposition to MediaTek’s
motion, and on November 21, 2005,
respondents Zoran and Oak filed an
opposition to MediaTek’s motion. On
November 22, 2005, MediaTek filed a
response to Sunext’s opposition. On
November 23, 2005, the IA filed a
response opposing MediaTek’s motion,
and on December 5, 2005, MediaTek
filed a reply to the IA’s response.
The Commission has granted
complainant MediaTek’s October 14,
2005, motion for leave to file a corrected
petition, and denied complainant
MediaTek’s November 17, 2005, motion
for leave to file a reply in support of its
petition for review.
Having examined the record in this
investigation, including the ID, the
petitions for review, and the responses
thereto, the Commission has determined
to review the ID in part:
(1) The Commission has determined
to review the ALJ’s analysis of the
technical and economic prongs of the
domestic industry requirement in its
entirety.
(2) With respect to the ‘773 patent, the
Commission has determined to review
the following portions of the ALJ’s
infringement analysis: (a) The findings
and analysis under the doctrine of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:55 Dec 21, 2005
Jkt 208001
equivalents concerning the SC series
chips relating to the ‘‘radio frequency
(RF) amplifier chip’’ limitation of claims
1 and 3 of the ‘773 patent (ID at 89–93,
97); (b) the finding that Sunext’s
reference designs incorporating the SC
series controller chips do not infringe
claim 4 under the doctrine of
equivalents (ID at 99–100); (c) the
finding that the ‘‘working optical
drives’’ of Sunext’s customers that
incorporate the accused OTI–9510 and
SC series controller chips infringe
claims 1–3 of the ‘773 patent (ID at 79,
89,100); and (d) the finding that Sunext
does not indirectly infringe the asserted
claims of the ‘773 patent (ID at 102–04).
As to invalidity, the Commission has
determined to review the ALJ’s finding
that the Okuda reference anticipates
claims 1, 2, and 3 of the ‘773 patent (ID
at 104–06), and his conclusion that
respondents failed to establish that
claims 1, 2, or 3 of the ‘773 patent are
made obvious by certain prior art (ID at
109–111).
(3) With respect to the ‘043 patent, the
Commission has determined to review
the ALJ’s finding that PCT Publication
No. W097/38367 (Hagiwara) does not
anticipate claims 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, or
22 of the ‘043 patent. The Commission
has also determined to review portions
of the ALJ’s determination that the ‘043
patent is not unenforceable for
inequitable conduct before the PTO,
specifically sections X.E.1 and X.E.2 of
the ID (ID at 154–56).
The Commission has determined not
to review the remainder of the ID.
On review, the Commission requests
briefing based on the evidentiary record
on all issues under review. Specific
briefing questions that refer to
confidential business information under
the protective order issued in this
investigation have been provided to the
parties.
In connection with the final
disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may issue (1) an order that
could result in the exclusion of the
subject articles from entry into the
United States, and/or (2) cease and
desist orders that could result in
respondents being required to cease and
desist from engaging in unfair acts in
the importation and sale of such
articles. Accordingly, the Commission is
interested in receiving written
submissions that address the form of
remedy, if any, that should be ordered.
If a party seeks exclusion of an article
from entry into the United States for
purposes other than entry for
consumption, the party should so
indicate and provide information
establishing that activities involving
other types of entry either are adversely
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
76075
affecting it or are likely to do so. For
background information, see the
Commission Opinion, In the Matter of
Certain Devices for Connecting
Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv.
No. 337–TA–360.
If the Commission contemplates some
form of remedy, it must consider the
effects of that remedy upon the public
interest. The factors the Commission
will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease and desist
orders would have on (1) the public
health and welfare, (2) competitive
conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S.
production of articles that are like or
directly competitive with those that are
subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving written
submissions that address the
aforementioned public interest factors
in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form
of remedy, the President has 60 days to
approve or disapprove the
Commission’s action. During this
period, the subject articles would be
entitled to enter the United States under
a bond, in an amount to be determined
by the Commission and prescribed by
the Secretary of the Treasury. The
Commission is therefore interested in
receiving submissions concerning the
amount of the bond that should be
imposed.
Written Submissions: The parties to
the investigation are requested to file
written submissions on the issues under
review. The submission should be
concise and thoroughly referenced to
the record in this investigation,
including references to exhibits and
testimony. Additionally, the parties to
the investigation, interested government
agencies, and any other interested
persons are encouraged to file written
submissions on the issues of remedy,
the public interest, and bonding. Such
submissions should address the ALJ’s
September 30, 2005, recommended
determination on remedy and bonding.
Complainant and the Commission
investigative attorney are also requested
to submit proposed remedial orders for
the Commission’s consideration.
Complainant is requested to supply the
expiration dates of the patents at issue
and the HTSUS numbers under which
the accused products are imported. The
written submissions and proposed
remedial orders must be filed no later
than the close of business on January 9,
2006. Reply submissions must be filed
no later than the close of business on
January 16, 2006. No further
submissions will be permitted unless
otherwise ordered by the Commission.
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
76076
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 2005 / Notices
Persons filing written submissions
must file with the Office of the Secretary
the original and 12 true copies thereof
on or before the deadlines stated above.
Any person desiring to submit a
document (or portion thereof) to the
Commission in confidence must request
confidential treatment unless the
information has already been granted
such treatment during the proceedings.
All such requests should be directed to
the Secretary of the Commission and
must include a full statement of the
reasons why the Commission should
grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6.
Documents for which confidential
treatment is granted by the Commission
will be treated accordingly. All
nonconfidential written submissions
will be available for public inspection at
the Office of the Secretary.
The Commission has extended the
target date for completion of this
investigation by 30 days, i.e., until
March 1, 2006.
This action is taken under the
authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),
and in sections 210.42–.46 and section
210.51 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–
.46, 51).
Issued: December 16, 2005.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E5–7714 Filed 12–21–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 731–TA–287 (Review)]
Issued: December 19, 2005.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E5–7719 Filed 12–21–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337–TA–510 (Advisory Opinion
Proceedings)]
Systems for Detecting and Removing
Viruses or Worms, Components
Thereof, and Products Containing
Same; Notice of Commission
Determination to Institute Advisory
Opinion Proceedings
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Raw In-Shell Pistachios From Iran
Determination
On the basis of the record 1 developed
in the subject five-year review, the
United States International Trade
Commission (Commission) determines,
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the
Act), that revocation of the antidumping
duty order on raw in-shell pistachios
from Iran would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the United
States within a reasonably foreseeable
time.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
determined on June 6, 2005, that it
would conduct a full review.3 Notice of
the scheduling of the Commission’s
review and of a public hearing to be
held in connection therewith was given
by posting copies of the notice in the
Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission,
Washington, DC, and by publishing the
notice in the Federal Register on June
30, 2005.4 The hearing was held in
Washington, DC, on October 11, 2005,
and all persons who requested the
opportunity were permitted to appear in
person or by counsel.
The Commission transmitted its
determination in this review to the
Secretary of Commerce on December 15,
2005. The views of the Commission are
contained in USITC Publication 3824
(December 2005), entitled Raw In-Shell
Pistachios from Iran: Investigation No.
731–TA–287 (Review).
Background
The Commission instituted this
review on March 1, 2005,2 and
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to institute
advisory opinion proceedings in the
above-captioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Timothy P. Monaghan, Esq., Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–
205–3152. Copies of all nonconfidential
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
1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR § 207.2(f)).
2 70 FR 9976.
3 70 FR 35116, June 16, 2005 (Chairman Koplan,
Commissioner Miller, and Commissioner Hillman
dissenting).
4 70 FR 37867.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:55 Dec 21, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone 202–205–2000. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that
information on this matter can be
obtained by contacting the
Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–
205–1810. General information
concerning the Commission may also be
obtained by accessing its Internet server
(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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
investigation under section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19
U.S.C. 1337), was instituted by the
Commission on June 3, 2004, based on
a complaint filed by Trend Micro Inc.
(‘‘Trend Micro’’) of Cupertino,
California. 69 FR 32044–45 (June 8,
2004). The complaint alleged violations
of section 337 in the importation into
the United States, the sale for
importation into the United States, or
the sale within the United States after
importation of certain systems for
detecting and removing computer
viruses or worms, components thereof,
and products containing same by reason
of infringement of claims 1–22 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,623,600 (‘‘the ‘600 patent’’).
The notice of investigation named
Fortinet of Sunnyvale, California as the
sole respondent.
On May 9, 2005, the ALJ issued his
final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) finding
a violation of section 337 based on his
findings that claims 4, 7, 8, and 11–15
of the ’600 patent are not invalid or
unenforceable, and are infringed by
respondent’s products. The ALJ also
found that claims 1 and 3 of the ‘600
patent are invalid as anticipated by
prior art and that a domestic industry
exists. He also issued a recommended
determination on remedy and bonding.
On July 8, 2005, the Commission
issued notice that it had determined not
to review the ALJ’s final ID on violation,
thereby finding a violation of Section
337. 70 FR 40731 (July 14, 2005). The
Commission also requested briefing on
the issues of remedy, the public interest,
and bonding. Id. Submissions on the
issues of remedy, the public interest,
and bonding were filed on July 18, 2005,
by all parties. All parties filed response
submissions on July 25, 2005. On
August 8, 2005, the Commission
terminated the investigation, and issued
a limited exclusion order and a cease
and desist order covering respondent’s
systems for detecting and removing
viruses or worms, components thereof,
and products containing same covered
by claims 4, 7, 8, and 11–15 of the ‘600
patent.
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76074-76076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7714]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337-TA-523 ]
Certain Optical Disk Controller Chips and Chipsets and Products
Containing Same, Including DVD Players and PC Optical Storage Devices
II; Notice of Commission Decision To Review Portions of an Initial
Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930; Grant of Motion To File Corrected Petition for Review; Denial of
Motion To File Reply Brief; Extension of Target Date for Completion of
Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review certain portions of a final initial
determination (``ID'') of the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission
has also granted a motion for leave to file a corrected petition,
denied a motion for leave to file a reply brief, and has extended the
target date for completion of the investigation by 30 days, i.e., until
March 1, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clara Kuehn, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3012. Copies of the
public version of the ALJ's ID and all other nonconfidential 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 (https://www.usitc.gov). The public
record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's
electronic docket (EDIS-ON-LINE) 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 August 31, 2004, based on a complaint filed on behalf of MediaTek
Corporation (``complainant'') of Hsin-Chu City, Taiwan. 69 FR 53089
(Aug. 31, 2004). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of
section 337 in the importation into the United States, sale for
importation, and sale within the United States after importation of
certain optical disk controller chips and chipsets by reason of
infringement of claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 5,970,031
(``the `031 patent'') and claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 6,229,773
(``the `773 patent''). Id. The notice of investigation named two
respondents: Zoran Corporation (``Zoran'') of Sunnyvale, CA and Oak
Technology, Inc. (``Oak'') of Sunnyvale, CA. Id.
On October 7, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 5) granting
complainant's motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation
to add Sunext Technology Co., Ltd. (``Sunext'') of Hsin-Chu City,
Taiwan, as a respondent and to add another patent, viz., claims 1-2, 5-
6, 15-19, 21, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 6,170,043 (``the `043 patent'')
to the scope of the investigation. 69 FR 64588. That ID was not
reviewed by the Commission. Id.
A tutorial was held on June 24, 2005, and an eight-day evidentiary
hearing was held from June 27, 2005, through July 7, 2005.
On September 30, 2005, the ALJ issued his final ID and recommended
determination on remedy and bonding. The ALJ concluded that there was
no violation of section 337. Although he found that respondent Oak
infringes claims 1, 2, and 3 of the `773 patent, he found that those
claims are invalid as anticipated by Japanese patent application number
08-015834 (RX-518) (``the Okuda prior art reference''). He found no
infringement of claim 4 of the `773 patent, and no infringement of any
asserted claim of the `031 or `043 patents. The ALJ concluded that the
[[Page 76075]]
asserted claims of the `031 patent are invalid for lack of enablement,
the asserted claims of the `043 patent are not invalid, and the
asserted claims of the `043 patent are not unenforceable. He also found
that complainants did not establish the technical or economic prong of
the domestic industry requirement for any of the three patents in
issue.
On October 12, 2005, complainant MediaTek, the Commission
investigative attorney (``IA''), respondent Sunext, and respondents Oak
and Zoran petitioned for review of portions of the final ID. On October
14, 2005, complainant MediaTek moved for leave to file a corrected
petition with attached petition. Also on October 14, 2005, respondents
Zoran and Oak filed a letter requesting a two-day extension of time for
filing their response in the event that the Commission accepted
MediaTek's corrected petition. On October 18, 2005, the Chairman
granted respondents' October 14, 2005, request for a two-day extension,
and extended the due date for all responses to all petitions for review
by two days, or until Friday, October 21, 2005.
On October 21, 2005, all parties filed responses to the petitions
for review.
On November 17, 2005, complainant MediaTek filed a motion for leave
to reply in support of its petition for review with an attached reply.
On November 18, 2005, respondent Sunext filed an opposition to
MediaTek's motion, and on November 21, 2005, respondents Zoran and Oak
filed an opposition to MediaTek's motion. On November 22, 2005,
MediaTek filed a response to Sunext's opposition. On November 23, 2005,
the IA filed a response opposing MediaTek's motion, and on December 5,
2005, MediaTek filed a reply to the IA's response.
The Commission has granted complainant MediaTek's October 14, 2005,
motion for leave to file a corrected petition, and denied complainant
MediaTek's November 17, 2005, motion for leave to file a reply in
support of its petition for review.
Having examined the record in this investigation, including the ID,
the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has
determined to review the ID in part:
(1) The Commission has determined to review the ALJ's analysis of
the technical and economic prongs of the domestic industry requirement
in its entirety.
(2) With respect to the `773 patent, the Commission has determined
to review the following portions of the ALJ's infringement analysis:
(a) The findings and analysis under the doctrine of equivalents
concerning the SC series chips relating to the ``radio frequency (RF)
amplifier chip'' limitation of claims 1 and 3 of the `773 patent (ID at
89-93, 97); (b) the finding that Sunext's reference designs
incorporating the SC series controller chips do not infringe claim 4
under the doctrine of equivalents (ID at 99-100); (c) the finding that
the ``working optical drives'' of Sunext's customers that incorporate
the accused OTI-9510 and SC series controller chips infringe claims 1-3
of the `773 patent (ID at 79, 89,100); and (d) the finding that Sunext
does not indirectly infringe the asserted claims of the `773 patent (ID
at 102-04). As to invalidity, the Commission has determined to review
the ALJ's finding that the Okuda reference anticipates claims 1, 2, and
3 of the `773 patent (ID at 104-06), and his conclusion that
respondents failed to establish that claims 1, 2, or 3 of the `773
patent are made obvious by certain prior art (ID at 109-111).
(3) With respect to the `043 patent, the Commission has determined
to review the ALJ's finding that PCT Publication No. W097/38367
(Hagiwara) does not anticipate claims 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, or 22 of the
`043 patent. The Commission has also determined to review portions of
the ALJ's determination that the `043 patent is not unenforceable for
inequitable conduct before the PTO, specifically sections X.E.1 and
X.E.2 of the ID (ID at 154-56).
The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the
ID.
On review, the Commission requests briefing based on the
evidentiary record on all issues under review. Specific briefing
questions that refer to confidential business information under the
protective order issued in this investigation have been provided to the
parties.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may issue (1) an order that could result in the exclusion of
the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2)
cease and desist orders that could result in respondents being required
to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and
sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in
receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any,
that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from
entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for
consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information
establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are
adversely affecting it or are likely to do so. For background
information, see the Commission Opinion, In the Matter of Certain
Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-
360.
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the
public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S.
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly
competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written
submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in
the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the President has 60
days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. During this
period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United
States under a bond, in an amount to be determined by the Commission
and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of
the bond that should be imposed.
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the issues under review. The submission
should be concise and thoroughly referenced to the record in this
investigation, including references to exhibits and testimony.
Additionally, the parties to the investigation, interested government
agencies, and any other interested persons are encouraged to file
written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and
bonding. Such submissions should address the ALJ's September 30, 2005,
recommended determination on remedy and bonding. Complainant and the
Commission investigative attorney are also requested to submit proposed
remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainant is
requested to supply the expiration dates of the patents at issue and
the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported. The
written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later
than the close of business on January 9, 2006. Reply submissions must
be filed no later than the close of business on January 16, 2006. No
further submissions will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the
Commission.
[[Page 76076]]
Persons filing written submissions must file with the Office of the
Secretary the original and 12 true copies thereof on or before the
deadlines stated above. Any person desiring to submit a document (or
portion thereof) to the Commission in confidence must request
confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted
such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be
directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full
statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment
is granted by the Commission will be treated accordingly. All
nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public
inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
The Commission has extended the target date for completion of this
investigation by 30 days, i.e., until March 1, 2006.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in sections
210.42-.46 and section 210.51 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-.46, 51).
Issued: December 16, 2005.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E5-7714 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
