In the Matter of Certain Optical Disk Controller Chips and Chipsets and Products Containing Same, Including DVD Players and PC Optical Storage Devices; Notice of Commission Decision To Review Portions of an Initial Determination Finding A Violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 42589-42591 [05-14561]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 141 / Monday, July 25, 2005 / Notices
authority to implement the Water Supply,
Reliability, and Environmental Improvement
Act, Pub. L. 108–361; the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661 et. seq.; the
Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et.
seq.; and the Reclamation Act of 1902, 43
U.S.C. 391 et. seq., and the acts amendatory
thereof or supplementary thereto, all
collectively referred to as the Federal
Reclamation laws, and in particular, the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, 34
U.S.C. 3401.)
Dated: July 7, 2005.
Allan Oto,
Special Projects Officer, Mid-Pacific Region,
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
[FR Doc. 05–14577 Filed 7–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MN–M
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337–TA–506]
In the Matter of Certain Optical Disk
Controller Chips and Chipsets and
Products Containing Same, Including
DVD Players and PC Optical Storage
Devices; Notice of Commission
Decision To Review Portions of an
Initial Determination Finding A
Violation of Section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
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 a violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, in the
above-captioned investigation.
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 (EDISON-LINE) at https://edis.usitc.gov.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:21 Jul 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 April 14, 2004, based on a complaint
filed on behalf of Zoran Corporation and
Oak Technology, Inc. both of
Sunnyvale, CA (collectively
‘‘complainants’’). 69 FR 19876. The
complaint, as supplemented, alleged
violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930 in the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation,
and the sale within the United States
after importation of certain optical disk
controller chips and chipsets and
products containing same, including
DVD players and PC optical storage
devices, by reason of infringement of
claims 1–12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,466,736
(the ’736 patent), claims 1–3 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,584,527, and claims 1–35
of U.S. Patent No. 6,546,440 (the ’440
patent). Id.
The notice of investigation identified
12 respondents. 69 FR 19876. On June
7, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No.
5) terminating the investigation as to
two respondents on the basis of a
consent order and settlement agreement.
On June 22, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID
(Order No. 7) granting complainants’
motion to amend the complaint and
notice of investigation to add nine
additional respondents. Those IDs were
not reviewed by the Commission.
On December 22, 2004, the ALJ issued
an ID (Order No. 33) granting
complainants’ motion to terminate the
investigation in part with respect to
claims 2–6, 8–10, and 11 of the ’736
patent and claims 2–4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15–
18, 20, 22–34, and 35 of the ’440 patent.
On January 28, 2005, the ALJ issued an
ID (Order No. 37) granting
complainants’ motion to terminate the
investigation in part with respect to
claim 12 of the ’736 patent. Neither ID
was reviewed by the Commission. The
claims remaining in issue are claims 1
and 7 of the ’736 patent; claims 1, 5, 7,
8, 10, 13, 14, 19, and 21 of the ’440
patent; and claims 1, 2, and 3 of the ’527
patent.
An eight-day evidentiary hearing was
held on February 7–12, and 14–15,
2005.
On May 16, 2005, the ALJ issued his
final ID, findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and recommended
determination on remedy and bonding.
The ALJ concluded that there was a
violation of section 337 based on his
findings that (a) The accused products
infringe claim 3 of the ’527 patent, (b)
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42589
the ’527 patent is not unenforceable, (c)
claim 3 is not invalid, and (d)
complainants have satisfied the
domestic industry requirement with
respect to the ’527 patent. Although the
ALJ found that the other asserted claims
of the ’527 patent (claims 1 and 2) are
not invalid, he found that the accused
products do not infringe those claims.
The ALJ found no violation with respect
to the other patents in issue. He found
that the accused products do not
infringe any asserted claim of the ’440
or ’736 patents and that complainants
have not satisfied the domestic industry
requirement with respect to those
patents. He also found that the asserted
claims of the ’440 and ’736 patents are
not invalid and that those patents are
not unenforceable.
On May 27, 2005, complainants and
respondents each petitioned for review
of portions of the final ID. On June 6,
2005, complainants, respondents, and
the IA filed responses to the petitions
for review.
Having examined the record in this
investigation, including the ID, the
petitions for review, and the responses
thereto, the Commission has determined
(1) to review the ID’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law with respect to
the ’527 and ’440 patents and (2) not to
review the ID’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law with respect to the
’736 patent. Thus, the Commission finds
no violation of section 337 with respect
to the ’736 patent. The Commission has
further determined to review and
modify the ID to clarify that respondents
accused only of infringing asserted
claims of the ’736 patent (viz.,
respondents Audiovox Corporation;
Initial Technology, Inc.; Mintek Digital,
Inc.; Shinco International AV Co., Ltd.;
Changzhou Shinco Digital Technology
Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Shinco Electronic
Group Co., Ltd.; Terapin Technology
Pte., Ltd. [formerly known as Teraoptix
d/b/a Terapin Technology] of Singapore;
and Terapin Technology U.S. [formerly
also known as Teraoptix]) are not in
violation of Section 337.
In connection with its review, the
Commission is particularly interested in
responses to the following questions,
with all answers supported by citations
to legal authority and the evidentiary
record:
1. Have respondents waived the
argument that the ’527 and ’440 patents
are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) for
nonjoinder of unidentified ‘‘Western
Digital engineers’’ as co-inventors by
failing to present it to the ALJ? (See
respondents’ petition for review at 51.)
Identify with citations to previous
briefing where this specific argument
E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM
25JYN1
42590
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 141 / Monday, July 25, 2005 / Notices
and any supporting evidence was
presented to the ALJ.
2. May a patent be held invalid for
nonjoinder of an unidentified coinventor under 35 U.S.C. 102(f)? If so,
did respondents present to the ALJ the
required clear and convincing evidence
to support a prima facie case? In
addition to supporting your answer with
citations to the evidentiary record and
legal authority, address Gemstar v. Int’l
Trade Comm’n, 383 F.3d 1352, 1382–83
(Fed. Cir. 2004), and Solomon v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372,
1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
3. The following questions relate to
claim construction. In your answers,
identify any finding of fact or
conclusion of law with respect to
infringement, the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement,
unenforceability, or invalidity in the ID
rendered clearly erroneous or legally
erroneous under your proposed claim
interpretation. Provide supporting
citations to the record.
(a) What is the impact, if any, of the
July 12, 2005, en banc decision of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit in Phillips v. AWH Corporation
on the ID’s construction of the asserted
claims of the ‘527 and ‘440 patents?
(b) Did respondents waive their
argument that the host interface
limitations of the asserted claims should
be construed to require support for eight
ATA command block registers plus a
separate multi-byte command buffer at
the same time by failing to raise this
argument before the ALJ? Identify where
this specific argument was presented to
the ALJ with citations to previous
briefing.
(c) Assume that the description of the
digital signal processor interface in the
summary of the invention section of the
‘527 patent (e.g., ‘527 patent, col. 3, ll.
15–28) is understood as a description of
the ‘‘storage medium interface’’ (claims
1 and 2 of the ‘527 patent). Does the
summary of the invention section (‘527
patent, col. 3, ll. 20–28) demonstrate a
clear intention to limit the scope of the
data error detection and correction
circuitry limitations of claims 1 and 2?
Why, or why not? In your answer,
address the following claim language:
‘‘data error detection and correction
circuitry including * * * error
correction circuitry for performing error
correction on data received from said
interface’’ (claim 1) and ‘‘data error
detection and correction circuitry
coupled to said storage medium
interface’’ (claim 2).
(d) How should the terms ‘‘controller’’
and ‘‘directly’’ be construed?
4. Have respondents waived their
argument that the ALJ erred in failing to
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:46 Jul 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
make a determination concerning the
date of actual reduction to practice of
the HISIDE product by failing to raise
that argument before him? (See
respondents’ petition for review at 112–
13: ‘‘There is no initial determination of
the date of reduction to practice for any
claim of the ‘440 and ‘527 patents and
there is no initial determination of the
date of actual reduction to practice of
[Western Digital’s] HISIDE product that
Respondents showed anticipates the
claims of the ‘440 and ‘527 patent
[sic].’’) Identify with citations to
previous briefing where this specific
argument and any supporting evidence
was presented to the ALJ.
5. Did the ALJ err in omitting the
MT1189 from the list of MediaTek OSC
chips accused of infringing the asserted
claims of the ‘440 and ‘527 patents (ID
at 110) or err in including the MT1528,
MT1558, or MT1668 in that list? Why or
why not? Identify with specificity
evidence in the record that would
support a finding that the MT1189,
MT1528, MT1558, or MT1668 infringe
any asserted claim of the ‘527 or ‘440
patents.
6. Should the asserted claims of the
‘440 and ‘527 patents be accorded the
conception date found by the
Commission in the 409 investigation for
the claims of the ‘715 patent? Why or
why not? In your answer, address any
relevant admission(s) by respondents.
(See ID at 129 n.45.)
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
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
May 16, 2005, recommended
determination on remedy and bonding.
Complainants and the Commission
investigative attorney are also requested
to submit proposed remedial orders for
the Commission’s consideration.
Complainants are 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
August 1, 2005. Reply submissions must
be filed no later than the close of
business on August 8, 2005. No further
submissions will be permitted unless
otherwise ordered by the Commission.
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
E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM
25JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 141 / Monday, July 25, 2005 / Notices
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.
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 § 210.42–.46 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42–.46).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: July 19, 2005.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–14561 Filed 7–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Request for Certification of
Compliance—Rural Industrialization
Loan and Grant Program
Employment and Training
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Employment and
Training Administration is issuing this
notice to announce the receipt of a
‘‘Certification of Non-Relocation and
Market and Capacity Information
Report’’ (Form 4279–2) for the
following:
Applicant/Location: Lakewood
Truckers Paradise, Inc., Halifax, North
Carolina.
Principal Product: The loan,
guarantee, or grant applicant has plans
to convert an existing truck stop with
facilities for the sale of gasoline and
diesel fuel, repair and maintenance of
trucks, and a restaurant, to a Petro truck
stop franchise, which will operate such
facilities, along with a convenience
store that will be added to the site. The
NAICS industry code for this enterprise
is 447110 (gasoline stations with
convenience stores).
DATES: All interested parties may submit
comments in writing no later than
August 8, 2005. Copies of adverse
comments received will be forwarded to
the applicant noted above.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments
concerning this notice to Anthony D.
Dais, U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment and Training
Administration, 200 Constitution
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:21 Jul 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
Avenue, NW., Room C–4514,
Washington, DC 20210; or transmit via
fax 202–693–3015 (this is not a toll-free
number).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anthony D. Dais, at telephone number
(202) 693–2784 (this is not a toll-free
number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
188 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act of 1972, as established
under 29 CFR Part 75, authorizes the
United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) to make or guarantee loans or
grants to finance industrial and business
activities in rural areas. The Secretary of
Labor must review the application for
financial assistance for the purpose of
certifying to the Secretary of Agriculture
that the assistance is not calculated, or
likely, to result in: (a) A transfer of any
employment or business activity from
one area to another by the loan
applicant’s business operation; or, (b)
An increase in the production of goods,
materials, services, or facilities in an
area where there is not sufficient
demand to employ the efficient capacity
of existing competitive enterprises
unless the financial assistance will not
have an adverse impact on existing
competitive enterprises in the area. The
Employment and Training
Administration (ETA) within the
Department of Labor is responsible for
the review and certification process.
Comments should address the two bases
for certification and, if possible, provide
data to assist in the analysis of these
issues.
Signed at Washington, DC this 19th day of
July, 2005.
Emily Stover DeRocco,
Assistant Secretary for Employment and
Training.
[FR Doc. E5–3939 Filed 7–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
THE NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE
ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
Meetings of Humanities Panel
The National Endowment for
the Humanities.
ACTION: Notice of meetings.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Pub. L. 92–463, as amended), notice is
hereby given that the following
meetings of the Humanities Panel will
be held at the Old Post Office, 1100
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20506.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael McDonald, Acting Advisory
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42591
Committee Management Officer,
National Endowment for the
Humanities, Washington, DC 20506;
telephone (202) 606–8322. Hearingimpaired individuals are advised that
information on this matter may be
obtained by contacting the
Endowment’s TDD terminal on (202)
606–8282.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
proposed meetings are for the purpose
of panel review, discussion, evaluation
and recommendation on applications
for financial assistance under the
National Foundation on the Arts and the
Humanities Act of 1965, as amended,
including discussion of information
given in confidence to the agency by the
grant applicants. Because the proposed
meetings will consider information that
is likely to disclose trade secrets and
commercial or financial information
obtained from a person and privileged
or confidential and/or information of a
personal nature the disclosure of which
would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy, pursuant
to authority granted me by the
Chairman’s Delegation of Authority to
Close Advisory Committee meetings,
dated July 19, 1993, I have determined
that these meetings will be closed to the
public pursuant to subsections (c)(4),
and (6) of section 552b of Title 5, United
States Code.
1. Date: August 1, 2005.
Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Room: 315.
Program: This meeting will review
applications for Fellowships in
Anthropology, submitted to the Division
of Research Programs at the May 1,
2005, deadline.
2. Date: August 1, 2005.
Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Room: 415.
Program: This meeting will review
applications for Fellowships in African,
Near Eastern, and Asian Studies,
submitted to the Division of Research
Programs at the May 1, 2005, deadline.
3. Date: August 2, 2005.
Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Room: 315.
Program: This meeting will review
applications for Fellowships in
American History and Studies I,
submitted to the Division of Research
Programs at the May 1, 2005, deadline.
4. Date: August 2, 2005.
Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Room: 415.
Program: This meeting will review
applications for Fellowships in
American History and Studies II,
submitted to the Division of Research
Programs at the May 1, 2005, deadline.
5. Date: August 3, 2005.
E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM
25JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 141 (Monday, July 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42589-42591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-14561]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337-TA-506]
In the Matter of Certain Optical Disk Controller Chips and
Chipsets and Products Containing Same, Including DVD Players and PC
Optical Storage Devices; Notice of Commission Decision To Review
Portions of an Initial Determination Finding A Violation of Section 337
of the Tariff Act of 1930
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 a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended, in the above-captioned investigation.
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 April 14, 2004, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Zoran
Corporation and Oak Technology, Inc. both of Sunnyvale, CA
(collectively ``complainants''). 69 FR 19876. The complaint, as
supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930 in the importation into the United States, the sale for
importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of
certain optical disk controller chips and chipsets and products
containing same, including DVD players and PC optical storage devices,
by reason of infringement of claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,466,736
(the '736 patent), claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,584,527, and claims
1-35 of U.S. Patent No. 6,546,440 (the '440 patent). Id.
The notice of investigation identified 12 respondents. 69 FR 19876.
On June 7, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 5) terminating the
investigation as to two respondents on the basis of a consent order and
settlement agreement. On June 22, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No.
7) granting complainants' motion to amend the complaint and notice of
investigation to add nine additional respondents. Those IDs were not
reviewed by the Commission.
On December 22, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 33) granting
complainants' motion to terminate the investigation in part with
respect to claims 2-6, 8-10, and 11 of the '736 patent and claims 2-4,
6, 9, 11, 12, 15-18, 20, 22-34, and 35 of the '440 patent. On January
28, 2005, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 37) granting complainants'
motion to terminate the investigation in part with respect to claim 12
of the '736 patent. Neither ID was reviewed by the Commission. The
claims remaining in issue are claims 1 and 7 of the '736 patent; claims
1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 19, and 21 of the '440 patent; and claims 1, 2,
and 3 of the '527 patent.
An eight-day evidentiary hearing was held on February 7-12, and 14-
15, 2005.
On May 16, 2005, the ALJ issued his final ID, findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and recommended determination on remedy and
bonding. The ALJ concluded that there was a violation of section 337
based on his findings that (a) The accused products infringe claim 3 of
the '527 patent, (b) the '527 patent is not unenforceable, (c) claim 3
is not invalid, and (d) complainants have satisfied the domestic
industry requirement with respect to the '527 patent. Although the ALJ
found that the other asserted claims of the '527 patent (claims 1 and
2) are not invalid, he found that the accused products do not infringe
those claims. The ALJ found no violation with respect to the other
patents in issue. He found that the accused products do not infringe
any asserted claim of the '440 or '736 patents and that complainants
have not satisfied the domestic industry requirement with respect to
those patents. He also found that the asserted claims of the '440 and
'736 patents are not invalid and that those patents are not
unenforceable.
On May 27, 2005, complainants and respondents each petitioned for
review of portions of the final ID. On June 6, 2005, complainants,
respondents, and the IA filed responses to the petitions for review.
Having examined the record in this investigation, including the ID,
the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has
determined (1) to review the ID's findings of fact and conclusions of
law with respect to the '527 and '440 patents and (2) not to review the
ID's findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the '736
patent. Thus, the Commission finds no violation of section 337 with
respect to the '736 patent. The Commission has further determined to
review and modify the ID to clarify that respondents accused only of
infringing asserted claims of the '736 patent (viz., respondents
Audiovox Corporation; Initial Technology, Inc.; Mintek Digital, Inc.;
Shinco International AV Co., Ltd.; Changzhou Shinco Digital Technology
Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Shinco Electronic Group Co., Ltd.; Terapin
Technology Pte., Ltd. [formerly known as Teraoptix d/b/a Terapin
Technology] of Singapore; and Terapin Technology U.S. [formerly also
known as Teraoptix]) are not in violation of Section 337.
In connection with its review, the Commission is particularly
interested in responses to the following questions, with all answers
supported by citations to legal authority and the evidentiary record:
1. Have respondents waived the argument that the '527 and '440
patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) for nonjoinder of
unidentified ``Western Digital engineers'' as co-inventors by failing
to present it to the ALJ? (See respondents' petition for review at 51.)
Identify with citations to previous briefing where this specific
argument
[[Page 42590]]
and any supporting evidence was presented to the ALJ.
2. May a patent be held invalid for nonjoinder of an unidentified
co-inventor under 35 U.S.C. 102(f)? If so, did respondents present to
the ALJ the required clear and convincing evidence to support a prima
facie case? In addition to supporting your answer with citations to the
evidentiary record and legal authority, address Gemstar v. Int'l Trade
Comm'n, 383 F.3d 1352, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and Solomon v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
3. The following questions relate to claim construction. In your
answers, identify any finding of fact or conclusion of law with respect
to infringement, the technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement, unenforceability, or invalidity in the ID rendered clearly
erroneous or legally erroneous under your proposed claim
interpretation. Provide supporting citations to the record.
(a) What is the impact, if any, of the July 12, 2005, en banc
decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in
Phillips v. AWH Corporation on the ID's construction of the asserted
claims of the `527 and `440 patents?
(b) Did respondents waive their argument that the host interface
limitations of the asserted claims should be construed to require
support for eight ATA command block registers plus a separate multi-
byte command buffer at the same time by failing to raise this argument
before the ALJ? Identify where this specific argument was presented to
the ALJ with citations to previous briefing.
(c) Assume that the description of the digital signal processor
interface in the summary of the invention section of the `527 patent
(e.g., `527 patent, col. 3, ll. 15-28) is understood as a description
of the ``storage medium interface'' (claims 1 and 2 of the `527
patent). Does the summary of the invention section (`527 patent, col.
3, ll. 20-28) demonstrate a clear intention to limit the scope of the
data error detection and correction circuitry limitations of claims 1
and 2? Why, or why not? In your answer, address the following claim
language: ``data error detection and correction circuitry including * *
* error correction circuitry for performing error correction on data
received from said interface'' (claim 1) and ``data error detection and
correction circuitry coupled to said storage medium interface'' (claim
2).
(d) How should the terms ``controller'' and ``directly'' be
construed?
4. Have respondents waived their argument that the ALJ erred in
failing to make a determination concerning the date of actual reduction
to practice of the HISIDE product by failing to raise that argument
before him? (See respondents' petition for review at 112-13: ``There is
no initial determination of the date of reduction to practice for any
claim of the `440 and `527 patents and there is no initial
determination of the date of actual reduction to practice of [Western
Digital's] HISIDE product that Respondents showed anticipates the
claims of the `440 and `527 patent [sic].'') Identify with citations to
previous briefing where this specific argument and any supporting
evidence was presented to the ALJ.
5. Did the ALJ err in omitting the MT1189 from the list of MediaTek
OSC chips accused of infringing the asserted claims of the `440 and
`527 patents (ID at 110) or err in including the MT1528, MT1558, or
MT1668 in that list? Why or why not? Identify with specificity evidence
in the record that would support a finding that the MT1189, MT1528,
MT1558, or MT1668 infringe any asserted claim of the `527 or `440
patents.
6. Should the asserted claims of the `440 and `527 patents be
accorded the conception date found by the Commission in the 409
investigation for the claims of the `715 patent? Why or why not? In
your answer, address any relevant admission(s) by respondents. (See ID
at 129 n.45.)
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 May 16, 2005,
recommended determination on remedy and bonding. Complainants and the
Commission investigative attorney are also requested to submit proposed
remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainants are
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 August 1, 2005. Reply submissions must be
filed no later than the close of business on August 8, 2005. No further
submissions will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the
Commission.
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
[[Page 42591]]
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.
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 Sec.
210.42-.46 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42-.46).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: July 19, 2005.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-14561 Filed 7-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
