Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same; Commission Determination To Rescind the Limited Exclusion Order Based on a Settlement and License Agreement, 35796-35797 [2014-14672]

Download as PDF 35796 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2014 / Notices have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before Friday, November 7, 2014, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.30 of the Commission’s rules. All written submissions must conform to the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform to the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission’s Web site at https://edis.usitc.gov, elaborates upon the Commission’s rules with respect to electronic filing. Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission’s rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff. In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: June 12, 2014. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer. [FR Doc. 2014–14670 Filed 6–23–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES [Investigation No. 337–TA–501 (Rescission)] Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same; Commission Determination To Rescind the Limited Exclusion Order Based on a Settlement and License Agreement U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 23:01 Jun 23, 2014 Jkt 232001 Commission has determined to rescind the limited exclusion order issued in the above-captioned investigation based on a settlement and license agreement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3115. 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 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 under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, on December 19, 2003, based on a complaint filed by Amkor Technology Inc. (‘‘Amkor’’). See 68 Fed. Reg. 70836 (Dec. 19, 2003). Amkor alleged a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337), by respondents Carsem in the importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain encapsulated integrated circuit devices and products containing same in connection with claims 1–4, 7, 17, 18 and 20–23 of U.S. Patent No. 6,433,277 (‘‘the ’277 patent’’); claims 1–4, 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,630,728 (‘‘the ’728 patent’’); and claims 1, 2, 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,455,356 (‘‘the ’356 patent’’). All three patents are owned by Amkor. The investigation also concerned a thirdparty, ASAT, Inc. (‘‘ASAT’’), and its invention (‘‘ASAT invention’’), which Carsem argued was invalidating prior art to Amkor’s asserted patents. On November 18, 2004, the ALJ issued a final initial determination (‘‘Final ID’’) finding no violation of section 337. After reviewing the Final ID in its entirety, the Commission on March 31, 2005, modified the ALJ’s claim construction and remanded the investigation to the ALJ with instructions ‘‘to conduct further proceedings and make any new findings or changes to his original findings that PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 are necessitated by the Commission’s new claim constructions.’’ Commission Order ¶ 8 (March 31, 2005). On November 9, 2005, the ALJ issued a remand initial determination (‘‘Remand ID’’). The Remand ID found a violation of section 337 with regard to six claims of the ’277 patent, but found no violation in connection with the asserted claims of the ’728 or ’356 patents. Completion of this investigation was delayed because of difficulty in obtaining from third-party ASAT certain documents that Carsem asserted were critical for its affirmative defenses. The Commission’s efforts to enforce a February 11, 2004, subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum directed to ASAT resulted in a July 1, 2008, order and opinion of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granting the Commission’s second enforcement petition. On July 1, 2009, after ASAT had complied with the subpoena, the Commission issued a notice and order remanding this investigation to the ALJ so that the ASAT documents could be considered. On October 30, 2009, the ALJ issued a supplemental ID (‘‘First Supplemental ID’’), finding that the ASAT invention was not prior art, and reaffirming his finding of a violation of section 337. On February 18, 2010, the Commission reversed the ALJ’s finding that the ASAT invention is not prior art to Amkor’s asserted patents, and remanded the investigation to the ALJ to make necessary findings in light of the Commission’s determination that the ASAT invention is prior art. On March 22, 2010, the ALJ issued a Supplemental ID (‘‘Second Supplemental ID’’) in which he found that the ’277 and ’728 patents were invalid in view of ASAT prior art and determined that there was no violation of Section 337 in the present investigation. On July 20, 2010, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ’s Remand ID and Second Supplemental ID. As a result, the Commission determined that there is no violation of section 337 in this investigation. Amkor appealed the Commission’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (‘‘the Court’’). On August 22, 2012, the Court ruled on Amkor’s appeal reversing the Commission’s determination that the ’277 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2), declining to affirm the Commission’s invalidity determination on the alternative grounds raised by Carsem, and remanding for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Amkor Technology Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 692 F.3d 1250 (Fed. E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM 24JNN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2014 / Notices Cir. 2012) (‘‘Amkor Technology’’). On October 5, 2012, Carsem filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc. The Court denied Carsem’s petition on December 7, 2012, and issued its mandate on December 19, 2012, returning jurisdiction to the Commission. On January 14, 2013, the Commission issued an Order (‘‘Commission’s Order’’) ordering the parties to the investigation to submit their comments regarding what further proceedings must be conducted to comply with the August 22, 2012, judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (‘‘the Court’’) in Amkor Technology. On June 5, 2013, the Commission issued a Notice (‘‘Commission’s Notice’’) requesting briefing on remedy, bonding and the public interest in the above-captioned investigation, as well as providing responses to certain questions posed by the Commission regarding the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement and the public interest. 78 FR 35051 (June 11, 2013). On April 4, 2014, the Commission determined that there is a violation of Section 337 in the unlawful importation, sale for importation, and sale after importation by Respondents Carsem of certain encapsulated integrated circuit devices covered by one or more of claims 2–4 and 21–23 of the ’277 patent. The Commission determined that the appropriate form of relief was a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of covered encapsulated integrated circuit devices manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of, Respondents or any of their affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, or other related business entities, or their successors or assigns. On May 23, 2014, both private parties jointly petitioned that the limited exclusion order issued by the Commission in the above-captioned proceeding on April 4, 2014, be rescinded pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(k) and 19 CFR 210.76(a). The petitioners submit that rescission is warranted on the basis of changed conditions of fact or law stemming from a settlement between Amkor and Carsem, which provides that all articles currently covered by the Commission’s remedial order are now licensed. On May 29, 2014, the Commission investigative attorney filed his response in support of the petition. The Commission has granted the petition. The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. VerDate Mar<15>2010 23:01 Jun 23, 2014 Jkt 232001 § 1337), and Part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210). By order of the Commission. Issued: June 19, 2014. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2014–14672 Filed 6–23–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1122–0009] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice. ACTION: 60-Day notice. AGENCY: The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office on Violence Against Women, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. DATES: Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 25, 2014. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202–514–5430. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points: —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Office on Violence Against Women, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 35797 including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: SemiAnnual Progress Report for Grantees from the Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation and Exchange Grant Program (Supervised Visitation Program). (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: 1122–0009. U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: The affected public includes the approximately 33 grantees of the Supervised Visitation Program who are States, Indian tribal governments, and units of local government. The Supervised Visitation Program provides an opportunity for communities to support the supervised visitation and safe exchange of children, by and between parents, in situations involving domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault, or stalking. (4) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that it will take the approximately 33 respondents (Supervised Visitation Program grantees) approximately one hour to complete a semi-annual progress report. The semi-annual progress report is divided into sections that pertain to the different types of activities in which grantees may engage. A Supervised Visitation Program grantee will only be required to complete the sections of the form that pertain to its own specific activities. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total annual hour burden to complete the data collection forms is 66 hours, that is 33 grantees completing a form twice a year with an estimated E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM 24JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35796-35797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14672]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-501 (Rescission)]


Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products 
Containing Same; Commission Determination To Rescind the Limited 
Exclusion Order Based on a Settlement and License Agreement

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to rescind the limited exclusion order issued 
in the above-captioned investigation based on a settlement and license 
agreement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. 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 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 
under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 
Sec.  1337, on December 19, 2003, based on a complaint filed by Amkor 
Technology Inc. (``Amkor''). See 68 Fed. Reg. 70836 (Dec. 19, 2003). 
Amkor alleged a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (19 U.S.C. Sec.  1337), by respondents Carsem in the 
importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States 
after importation of certain encapsulated integrated circuit devices 
and products containing same in connection with claims 1-4, 7, 17, 18 
and 20-23 of U.S. Patent No. 6,433,277 (``the '277 patent''); claims 1-
4, 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,630,728 (``the '728 patent''); and 
claims 1, 2, 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,455,356 (``the '356 
patent''). All three patents are owned by Amkor. The investigation also 
concerned a third-party, ASAT, Inc. (``ASAT''), and its invention 
(``ASAT invention''), which Carsem argued was invalidating prior art to 
Amkor's asserted patents.
    On November 18, 2004, the ALJ issued a final initial determination 
(``Final ID'') finding no violation of section 337. After reviewing the 
Final ID in its entirety, the Commission on March 31, 2005, modified 
the ALJ's claim construction and remanded the investigation to the ALJ 
with instructions ``to conduct further proceedings and make any new 
findings or changes to his original findings that are necessitated by 
the Commission's new claim constructions.'' Commission Order ] 8 (March 
31, 2005). On November 9, 2005, the ALJ issued a remand initial 
determination (``Remand ID''). The Remand ID found a violation of 
section 337 with regard to six claims of the '277 patent, but found no 
violation in connection with the asserted claims of the '728 or '356 
patents.
    Completion of this investigation was delayed because of difficulty 
in obtaining from third-party ASAT certain documents that Carsem 
asserted were critical for its affirmative defenses. The Commission's 
efforts to enforce a February 11, 2004, subpoena duces tecum and ad 
testificandum directed to ASAT resulted in a July 1, 2008, order and 
opinion of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 
granting the Commission's second enforcement petition. On July 1, 2009, 
after ASAT had complied with the subpoena, the Commission issued a 
notice and order remanding this investigation to the ALJ so that the 
ASAT documents could be considered. On October 30, 2009, the ALJ issued 
a supplemental ID (``First Supplemental ID''), finding that the ASAT 
invention was not prior art, and reaffirming his finding of a violation 
of section 337.
    On February 18, 2010, the Commission reversed the ALJ's finding 
that the ASAT invention is not prior art to Amkor's asserted patents, 
and remanded the investigation to the ALJ to make necessary findings in 
light of the Commission's determination that the ASAT invention is 
prior art. On March 22, 2010, the ALJ issued a Supplemental ID 
(``Second Supplemental ID'') in which he found that the '277 and '728 
patents were invalid in view of ASAT prior art and determined that 
there was no violation of Section 337 in the present investigation. On 
July 20, 2010, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's Remand 
ID and Second Supplemental ID. As a result, the Commission determined 
that there is no violation of section 337 in this investigation. Amkor 
appealed the Commission's decision to the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit (``the Court'').
    On August 22, 2012, the Court ruled on Amkor's appeal reversing the 
Commission's determination that the '277 Patent is invalid under 35 
U.S.C. Sec.  102(g)(2), declining to affirm the Commission's invalidity 
determination on the alternative grounds raised by Carsem, and 
remanding for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Amkor 
Technology Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 692 F.3d 1250 (Fed.

[[Page 35797]]

Cir. 2012) (``Amkor Technology''). On October 5, 2012, Carsem filed a 
combined petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc. The 
Court denied Carsem's petition on December 7, 2012, and issued its 
mandate on December 19, 2012, returning jurisdiction to the Commission.
    On January 14, 2013, the Commission issued an Order (``Commission's 
Order'') ordering the parties to the investigation to submit their 
comments regarding what further proceedings must be conducted to comply 
with the August 22, 2012, judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit (``the Court'') in Amkor Technology.
    On June 5, 2013, the Commission issued a Notice (``Commission's 
Notice'') requesting briefing on remedy, bonding and the public 
interest in the above-captioned investigation, as well as providing 
responses to certain questions posed by the Commission regarding the 
economic prong of the domestic industry requirement and the public 
interest. 78 FR 35051 (June 11, 2013).
    On April 4, 2014, the Commission determined that there is a 
violation of Section 337 in the unlawful importation, sale for 
importation, and sale after importation by Respondents Carsem of 
certain encapsulated integrated circuit devices covered by one or more 
of claims 2-4 and 21-23 of the '277 patent. The Commission determined 
that the appropriate form of relief was a limited exclusion order 
prohibiting the unlicensed entry of covered encapsulated integrated 
circuit devices manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or imported by 
or on behalf of, Respondents or any of their affiliated companies, 
parents, subsidiaries, or other related business entities, or their 
successors or assigns.
    On May 23, 2014, both private parties jointly petitioned that the 
limited exclusion order issued by the Commission in the above-captioned 
proceeding on April 4, 2014, be rescinded pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(k) 
and 19 CFR 210.76(a). The petitioners submit that rescission is 
warranted on the basis of changed conditions of fact or law stemming 
from a settlement between Amkor and Carsem, which provides that all 
articles currently covered by the Commission's remedial order are now 
licensed. On May 29, 2014, the Commission investigative attorney filed 
his response in support of the petition.
    The Commission has granted the petition. The authority for the 
Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. Sec.  1337), and Part 210 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: June 19, 2014.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-14672 Filed 6-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.