In the Matter of Certain Audio Digital-To-Analog Converters and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Rescind a Limited Exclusion Order, 24117-24118 [05-9133]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 87 / Friday, May 6, 2005 / Notices allowed by law. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or busineses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety. Notice is hereby given that there will be at least one public meeting in connection with the proposed withdrawal to be announced at a later date. A notice of the time, place, and date will be published in the Federal Register and a local newspaper at least 30 days before the scheduled date of a meeting. For a period of two years from the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, the land will be segregated from location or entry under the United States mining laws, unless the application is denied or canceled or the withdrawal is approved prior to that date. The land will remain open to other uses within the statutory authority pertinent to National Forest lands and subject to discretionary approval. The application will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2300. (Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1714 (b)(1); 43 CFR 2310.3–1(a).) Dated: February 10, 2005. Randy D. Heuscher, Acting Deputy State Director, Division of Resources. [FR Doc. 05–9088 Filed 5–5–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–11–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337–TA–499] In the Matter of Certain Audio DigitalTo-Analog Converters and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Rescind a Limited Exclusion Order U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to rescind the limited exclusion order 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 non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business VerDate jul<14>2003 18:03 May 05, 2005 Jkt 205001 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. 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: The Commission instituted this investigation on November 14, 2003, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Cirrus Logic, Inc. of Austin, TX (‘‘Cirrus’’). 68 FR 64641 (Nov. 14, 2003). 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 audio digital-to-analog converters and products containing same by reason of infringement of claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 6,492,928 (‘‘the ’928 patent’’). The notice of investigation named Wolfson Microelectronics, PLC of Edinburgh, United Kingdom; and Wolfson Microelectronics, Inc. of San Diego, CA (collectively ‘‘Wolfson’’) as respondents. On December 29, 2003, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 5) granting complainant’s motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add allegations of infringement of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 15 of the ’928 patent, and of claims 9, 12, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,011,501 (‘‘the ’501 patent’’). 69 FR 4177 (Jan. 28, 2004). On July 1, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 16) granting complainant’s motion to terminate the investigation as to claims 1 and 2 of the ’928 patent. On July 27, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 24) granting complainant’s motion to terminate the investigation in part as to claim 11 of the ’928 patent. Orders Nos. 5, 16, and 24 were not reviewed by the Commission. The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing in the investigation from August 3, 2004, to August 11, 2004, and on November 15, 2004, he issued his final ID finding a violation of section 337 based on his findings that the asserted claims of the ’501 patent are infringed, that they are not invalid in view of any prior art, and that claims 9 and 12 of the ’501 patent are not invalid because of failure to provide an enabling written description of the claimed invention. PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 24117 The ALJ found the ’928 patent to be unenforceable because the inventors intentionally withheld highly material prior art from the examiner during the prosecution of the ’928 patent application at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (‘‘USPTO’’). As an independent ground for unenforceability, the ALJ found that the ’928 patent is unenforceable because one person was mistakenly listed on the patent as an inventor. The ALJ found that the accused devices infringe the asserted claims of the ’928 patent, if enforceable, that the asserted claims of the ’928 patent are not invalid in view of any prior art, or because of a failure to provide an enabling written description of the claimed invention, or for failure to disclose the best mode. On November 23, 2004, the USPTO issued a certificate correcting the inventorship of the ’928 patent thereby curing one ground on which the Commission had found the patent unenforceable. On December 30, 2004, the Commission determined to review and reverse the ID’s finding that the ’928 patent is unenforceable due to incorrect inventorship in view of the issued certificate of correction by the USPTO. 70 FR 1275 (Jan. 6, 2005). It further determined not to review the remainder of the ID, thereby finding a violation of section 337. Id. On February 16, 2005, the Commission determined that the appropriate form of relief is a limited exclusion order prohibiting the importation of Wolfson’s audio digitalto-analog converters that infringe claims 9, 12 and 19 of the ’501 patent. The limited exclusion order applies to any of the affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other related business entities, or their successors or assigns, of Wolfson. Complainants Cirrus and respondents Wolfson report that they have now settled all outstanding patent disputes and related actions. Accordingly, on April 4, 2005, pursuant to Commission rule 210.76(a)(1), Cirrus and Wolfson filed a joint petition for rescission of the limited exclusion order issued in the investigation. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Commission has determined that the settlement agreement satisfies the requirement of Commission rule 210.76(a)(1), 19 CFR 210.76(a)(1), for changed conditions of fact or law. The Commission therefore has issued an order rescinding the limited exclusion order previously issued in this investigation. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and section E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM 06MYN1 24118 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 87 / Friday, May 6, 2005 / Notices 210.76(a)(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.76(a)(1)). By order of the Commission. Issued: May 3, 2005. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 05–9133 Filed 5–5–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337–TA–531] In the Matter of Certain Network Controllers and Products Containing Same; Notice of Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Complainant’s Motion To Amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on April 12, 2005, granting complainant’s motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation. 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 the public version of the IDs and 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 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: On January 19, 2005, the Commission instituted an investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based on a complaint filed by Marvell International, Ltd. of Hamilton, VerDate jul<14>2003 18:03 May 05, 2005 Jkt 205001 Bermuda, (‘‘Marvell’’) alleging a violation of section 337 in the importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain network controllers and products containing same by reason of infringement of claims 68, 70, and 71 of U.S. Patent No. 6,462,688, and claims 22–32, 54, and 55 of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,529. 70 FR 31844 (January 19, 2005). The complainant named Realtek Semiconductor Corporation of Hsinchu, Taiwan, and Real Communications, Inc., of San Jose, CA (collectively, ‘‘Realtek’’), as respondents. On March 31, 2005, complainant Marvell moved to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add an additional respondent, Bizlink Technology, Inc. On April 11, 2005, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response in support of the motion. On the same day, respondents Realtek filed a response in opposition to the motion. On April 12, 2005, the presiding ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 5) granting complainant’s motion. No party petitioned for review of the ALJ’s ID. 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 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42). By order of the Commission. Issued: May 3, 2005. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 05–9134 Filed 5–5–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigations Nos. 701–TA–439 and 731– TA–1077, 1078, and 1080 (Final)] Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin from India, Indonesia, and Thailand Determinations On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines,2 pursuant to section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury, and the establishment of 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 Marcia E. Miller dissenting. PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 an industry in the United States is not materially retarded, by reason of imports from India of PET resin, provided for in subheading 3907.60.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to be subsidized by the Government of India.3 The Commission also determines,2 pursuant to section 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury, and the establishment of an industry in the United States is not materially retarded, by reason of imports from India, Indonesia, and Thailand of PET resin that have been found by Commerce to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).4 Background The Commission instituted these investigations effective March 24, 2004, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by the U.S. PET Resin Producers’ Coalition, Washington, DC. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of PET resin from India were being subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and that imports of PET resin from India, Indonesia, and Thailand were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigations 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 of November 17, 2004 (69 FR 67365). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on March 15, 2005, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission transmitted its determination in these investigations to 3 On March 21, 2005, the Commission terminated its countervailing duty investigation with regard to Thailand (Inv. No. 701–TA–440) (70 FR 15884, March 29, 2005) as a result of Commerce’s negative final determination of subsidies regarding imports of PET resin from Thailand (70 FR 13462, March 21, 2005). 2 Commissioner Marcia E. Miller dissenting. 4 On March 21, 2005, the Commission terminated its antidumping investigation with regard to Taiwan (Inv. No. 731–TA–1079) (70 FR 15884, March 29, 2005) as a result of Commerce’s final determination of sales at not LTFV regarding imports of PET resin from Taiwan (70 FR 13454, March 21, 2005). E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM 06MYN1

Agencies

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 87 (Friday, May 6, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24117-24118]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9133]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-499]


In the Matter of Certain Audio Digital-To-Analog Converters and 
Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Rescind 
a Limited Exclusion Order

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 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 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. Hearing-impaired 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: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on November 14, 2003, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Cirrus 
Logic, Inc. of Austin, TX (``Cirrus''). 68 FR 64641 (Nov. 14, 2003). 
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 audio digital-to-
analog converters and products containing same by reason of 
infringement of claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 6,492,928 (``the 
'928 patent''). The notice of investigation named Wolfson 
Microelectronics, PLC of Edinburgh, United Kingdom; and Wolfson 
Microelectronics, Inc. of San Diego, CA (collectively ``Wolfson'') as 
respondents.
    On December 29, 2003, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 5) granting 
complainant's motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation 
to add allegations of infringement of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 15 of the 
'928 patent, and of claims 9, 12, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,011,501 
(``the '501 patent''). 69 FR 4177 (Jan. 28, 2004). On July 1, 2004, the 
ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 16) granting complainant's motion to 
terminate the investigation as to claims 1 and 2 of the '928 patent. On 
July 27, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 24) granting 
complainant's motion to terminate the investigation in part as to claim 
11 of the '928 patent. Orders Nos. 5, 16, and 24 were not reviewed by 
the Commission.
    The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing in the investigation from 
August 3, 2004, to August 11, 2004, and on November 15, 2004, he issued 
his final ID finding a violation of section 337 based on his findings 
that the asserted claims of the '501 patent are infringed, that they 
are not invalid in view of any prior art, and that claims 9 and 12 of 
the '501 patent are not invalid because of failure to provide an 
enabling written description of the claimed invention. The ALJ found 
the '928 patent to be unenforceable because the inventors intentionally 
withheld highly material prior art from the examiner during the 
prosecution of the '928 patent application at the United States Patent 
and Trademark Office (``USPTO''). As an independent ground for 
unenforceability, the ALJ found that the '928 patent is unenforceable 
because one person was mistakenly listed on the patent as an inventor. 
The ALJ found that the accused devices infringe the asserted claims of 
the '928 patent, if enforceable, that the asserted claims of the '928 
patent are not invalid in view of any prior art, or because of a 
failure to provide an enabling written description of the claimed 
invention, or for failure to disclose the best mode.
    On November 23, 2004, the USPTO issued a certificate correcting the 
inventorship of the '928 patent thereby curing one ground on which the 
Commission had found the patent unenforceable. On December 30, 2004, 
the Commission determined to review and reverse the ID's finding that 
the '928 patent is unenforceable due to incorrect inventorship in view 
of the issued certificate of correction by the USPTO. 70 FR 1275 (Jan. 
6, 2005). It further determined not to review the remainder of the ID, 
thereby finding a violation of section 337. Id.
    On February 16, 2005, the Commission determined that the 
appropriate form of relief is a limited exclusion order prohibiting the 
importation of Wolfson's audio digital-to-analog converters that 
infringe claims 9, 12 and 19 of the '501 patent. The limited exclusion 
order applies to any of the affiliated companies, parents, 
subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other related business 
entities, or their successors or assigns, of Wolfson.
    Complainants Cirrus and respondents Wolfson report that they have 
now settled all outstanding patent disputes and related actions. 
Accordingly, on April 4, 2005, pursuant to Commission rule 
210.76(a)(1), Cirrus and Wolfson filed a joint petition for rescission 
of the limited exclusion order issued in the investigation.
    Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the Commission has 
determined that the settlement agreement satisfies the requirement of 
Commission rule 210.76(a)(1), 19 CFR 210.76(a)(1), for changed 
conditions of fact or law. The Commission therefore has issued an order 
rescinding the limited exclusion order previously issued in this 
investigation.
    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and section

[[Page 24118]]

210.76(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 
CFR 210.76(a)(1)).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 3, 2005.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-9133 Filed 5-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.