In the Matter of Certain Flash Memory Devices, and Components Thereof, and Products Containing Such Devices and Components; Notice of Commission Decision Not to Review the Administrative Law Judge's Final Initial Determination That There is No Violation of Section 337; Termination of Investigation, 78465 [06-9916]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 2006 / Notices
of the Secretary, U.S. International
Trade Commission, Washington, DC,
and by publishing the notice in the
Federal Register of November 6, 2006
(71 FR 64983). The conference was held
in Washington, DC, on November 21,
2006, and all persons who requested the
opportunity were permitted to appear in
person or by counsel.
The Commission transmitted its
determinations in these investigations to
the Secretary of Commerce on December
15, 2006. The views of the Commission
are contained in USITC Publication
3900 (December 2006), entitled Coated
Free Sheet Paper from China, Indonesia,
and Korea: Investigation Nos. 701–TA–
444–446 (Preliminary) and 731-TA–
1107–1109 (Preliminary).
Issued: December 26, 2006.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E6–22419 Filed 12–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–552]
In the Matter of Certain Flash Memory
Devices, and Components Thereof,
and Products Containing Such Devices
and Components; Notice of
Commission Decision Not to Review
the Administrative Law Judge’s Final
Initial Determination That There is No
Violation of Section 337; Termination
of Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
pwalker on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the United States International Trade
Commission has determined not to
review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
issued by the presiding administrative
law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) finding no violation
of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended, and to terminate the
investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean
Jackson, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3104. Copies of non-confidential
documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available le
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:15 Dec 28, 2006
Jkt 211001
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
Internet server at 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. 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 November 4, 2005, based on a
complaint filed by Toshiba Corporation
of Tokyo, Japan (‘‘Toshiba’’) under
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337. 70 FR 67192–
193 (November 4, 2005). The
complainant alleged violations of
section 337 in the importation and sale
of certain flash memory devices and
components thereof, and products
containing such devices and
components, by reason of infringement
of claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent No.
5,150,178 (‘‘the ‘178 patent’’); claims 1,
6 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 5,270,969
(‘‘the ‘969 patent’’); and claims 1 and 4
of U.S. Patent No. 5,517,449 (‘‘the ‘449
patent’’). The complainant named Hynix
Semiconductor of Ischon-si, Republic of
Korea, and Hynix Semiconductor
America, Inc. of San Jose, California
(collectively ‘‘Hynix’’) as respondents.
On November 21, 2005, Toshiba
moved for leave to amend the complaint
to add claim 5 of the ‘178 patent. On
December 2, 2005, the ALJ issued an ID
(Order No. 4) granting the motion to
amend the complaint. The Commission
determined not to review this ID.
An evidentiary hearing was held from
July 5, 2006, through July 13, 2006. On
November 65, 2006, the ALJ issued his
final ID and recommended
determination on remedy and bonding.
The ALJL concluded that there was no
violation of section 337. Specifically, he
found that the asserted claims of the
‘178, ‘969, and ‘449 patents are not
infringed and are not valid, and that
there is no domestic industry involving
the three patents.
On November 17, 2006, complainant
Toshiba, the Commission investigative
attorney, and respondent Hynix
petitioned for review of various portions
of the final ID. On November 28, 2006,
all parties filed responses to the
petitions for review.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the petitions for review, and the
responses thereto, the Commission has
determined not to review the ALJ’s ID,
and has terminated the investigation.
The authority for the Commission’s
determination is contained in section
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
78465
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in
section 210.42–45 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42–45).
Issued: December 22, 2006.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06–9916 Filed 12–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Partial Consent
Decree Under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (‘‘CERCLA’’)
Consistent with Section 122(d) of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended (‘‘CERCLA’’),
42 U.S.C. 9622(d), and 28 CFR 50.7,
notice is hereby given that on December
14, 2006, a proposed Partial Consent
Decree with Colgate-Palmolive
Company in United States v. American
Cyanamid, et al., Nos. 1:02–CV–109–1
and 1:03–CV–122–3 (M.D. Ga.), was
lodged with the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
In this action, the United States seeks
to recover from various defendants,
pursuant to Sections 107 and 113(g)(2)
of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607 and
9613(g)(2), the costs incurred and to be
incurred by the United States in
responding to the release and/or
threatened release of hazardous
substances at and from the Stoller
Chemical Company/Pelham Phosphate
Company Site (‘‘Site’’) in Pelham,
Mitchell County, Georgia. Under the
proposed Partial Consent Decree,
Defendant Colgate-Palmolive Company
will pay $2,850,000 to the Hazardous
Substances Superfund in
reimbursement of the costs incurred by
the United States at the Site.
The Department of Justice will receive
for a period of thirty (30) days from the
date of this publication comments
relating to the Partial Consent Decree.
Comments should be addressed to the
Assistant Attorney General,
Environment and Natural Resources
Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC
20044–7611, and should refer to United
States v. American Cyanamid, et al.,
(M.D. Ga) (Partial Consent Decree with
Colgate-Palmolive Company, DOJ Ref.
No. 9011–3–07602).
The Partial Consent Decree may be
examined at the Office of the United
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
29DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 250 (Friday, December 29, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 78465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9916]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-552]
In the Matter of Certain Flash Memory Devices, and Components
Thereof, and Products Containing Such Devices and Components; Notice of
Commission Decision Not to Review the Administrative Law Judge's Final
Initial Determination That There is No Violation of Section 337;
Termination of Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the United States International
Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination
(``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'')
finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, and to terminate the investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean Jackson, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3104. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are
or will be available le 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
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. 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 November 4, 2005, based on a complaint filed by Toshiba Corporation
of Tokyo, Japan (``Toshiba'') under section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337. 70 FR 67192-193 (November 4, 2005).
The complainant alleged violations of section 337 in the importation
and sale of certain flash memory devices and components thereof, and
products containing such devices and components, by reason of
infringement of claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 5,150,178 (``the `178
patent''); claims 1, 6 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 5,270,969 (``the `969
patent''); and claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 5,517,449 (``the `449
patent''). The complainant named Hynix Semiconductor of Ischon-si,
Republic of Korea, and Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc. of San Jose,
California (collectively ``Hynix'') as respondents.
On November 21, 2005, Toshiba moved for leave to amend the
complaint to add claim 5 of the `178 patent. On December 2, 2005, the
ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 4) granting the motion to amend the
complaint. The Commission determined not to review this ID.
An evidentiary hearing was held from July 5, 2006, through July 13,
2006. On November 65, 2006, the ALJ issued his final ID and recommended
determination on remedy and bonding. The ALJL concluded that there was
no violation of section 337. Specifically, he found that the asserted
claims of the `178, `969, and `449 patents are not infringed and are
not valid, and that there is no domestic industry involving the three
patents.
On November 17, 2006, complainant Toshiba, the Commission
investigative attorney, and respondent Hynix petitioned for review of
various portions of the final ID. On November 28, 2006, all parties
filed responses to the petitions for review.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto,
the Commission has determined not to review the ALJ's ID, and has
terminated the 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 section 210.42-45 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-45).
Issued: December 22, 2006.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06-9916 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-M