Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-USB Implementers Forum, Inc., 74333-74334 [05-24093]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 240 / Thursday, December 15, 2005 / Notices
the petitions. On October 6, 2005, the
Commission issued a notice indicating
that it had determined to extend the
deadline for determining whether to
review the final ID by 8 days, i.e., from
October 6, 2005, until October 14, 2005.
On October 20, 2005, the Commission
issued a notice indicating that it had
determined to review the final ID in its
entirety. 70 FR 61157 (October 20,
2005). In connection with its review, the
Commission requested written
submissions on the issues under review
and the issues of remedy, the public
interest, and bonding. On October 27,
2005, Gateway filed a motion to stay the
Commission’s review of the ID and
remand to the ALJ for additional
findings concerning a license agreement
related to the patents at issue in this
investigation. On November 7, 2005, HP
and the IA filed separate responses to
Gateway’s motion.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the final ID and
the submissions of the parties, the
Commission has determined to reverse
the ALJ’s finding of literal infringement
with respect to claims 7, 24, and 41 of
the ‘184 patent and claim 9 of the ‘976
patent and to remand the investigation
to the ALJ for findings concerning
infringement of these claims under the
doctrine of equivalents and whether the
technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement has been met in regard to
the ‘184 and ‘976 patents. The
Commission has also determined to
vacate that portion of the ID which
concerns infringement of claim 1 of the
‘318 patent under the doctrine of
equivalents. The Commission has
determined to affirm the remainder of
the ID. The Commission has also
directed the ALJ to consider and rule on
Motion Docket No. 52C, filed by
Gateway on October 27, 2005, which
concerns a license agreement related to
the patents at issue in this investigation.
Finally, the Commission has directed
the ALJ to extend the target date of the
investigation as may be necessary to
conclude the proceedings and to issue
his findings on remand two months
before the new target date.
This action is taken under the
authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),
and section 210.45 of the Commission’s
Interim Rules of Practice and Procedure
(19 CFR 210.45).
Issued: December 8, 2005.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E5–7350 Filed 12–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Dec 14, 2005
Jkt 208001
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Notice Pursuant to the National
Cooperative Research and Production
Act of 1993—American Society of
Mechanical Engineers
Notice is hereby given that, on
November 25, 2005, pursuant to section
6(a) of the national Cooperative
Research and Production Act of 1993,
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’),
American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (‘‘ASME’’) has filed written
notifications simultaneously with the
Attorney General and the Federal Trade
Commission disclosing additions or
changes to its standards development
activities. The notifications were filed
for the purpose of extending the Act’s
provisions limiting the recovery of
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages
under specified circumstances.
Specifically, since July 29, 2005, ASME
has published several new standards,
has initiated several new standards
development projects, and has initiated
a new conformity assessment program,
all within the general nature and scope
of ASME’s standards development
activities, as specified in its original
notification. More detail regarding these
changes can be found at https://
www.asme.org.
On September 15, 2004, ASME filed
its original notification pursuant to
section 6(a) of the Act. The Department
of Justice published a notice in the
Federal Register pursuant to section
6(b) of the Act on October 13, 2004 (69
FR 60895).
The last notification was filed with
the Department on August 2, 2005. A
notice was published in the Federal
Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the
Act on August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50406).
Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust
Division.
[FR Doc. 05–24092 Filed 12–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4418–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Notice Pursuant to the National
Cooperative Research and Production
Act of 1993—Polyurea Development
Association
Notice is hereby given that, on
November 21, 2005, pursuant to section
6(a) of the National Cooperative
Research and Production Act of 1993,
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’),
Polyurea Development Association
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
74333
(‘‘PDA’’) has filed written notifications
simultaneously with the Attorney
General and the Federal Trade
Commission disclosing additions or
changes to its standards development
activities. The notifications were filed
for the purpose of extending the Act’s
provisions limiting the recovery of
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damage
under specified circumstances.
Specifically, PDA has added a new
development activity to include a
voluntary consensus standard for
Polyurea/Geotextile Elastomeric Lining
Systems.
On May 9, 2005, PDA filed its original
notification pursuant to section 6(a) of
the Act. The Department of Justice
published a notice in the Federal
Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the
Act on June 13, 2005 (70 FR 34151).
Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust
Division.
[FR Doc. 05–24095 Filed 12–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4418–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Notice Pursuant to the National
Cooperative Research and Production
Act of 1993—USB Implementers
Forum, Inc.
Notice is hereby given that, on
November 23, 2005, pursuant to section
6(a) of the National Cooperative
Research and Production Act of 1993,
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), USB
Implementers Forum, Inc. (‘‘USB–IF’’)
has filed written notifications
simultaneously with the Attorney
General and the Federal Trade
Commission disclosing (1) the name and
principal place of business of the
standards development organization
and (2) the nature and scope of its
standards development activities. The
notifications were filed for the purpose
of invoking the Act’s provisions limiting
the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to
actual damages under specified
circumstances.
Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the
name and principal place of business of
the standards development organization
is: USB Implementers forum, Inc.,
Portland, OR. The nature and scope of
USB–IF’s standards development
activities are: providing a support
organization and forum for the
advancement and adoption of USB
technology, by facilitating the
development of high quality compatible
USB devices and promoting USB to
accelerate end-user demand for USB
E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM
15DEN1
74334
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 240 / Thursday, December 15, 2005 / Notices
products through increaded public
awareness of the benefits of USB and
the quality of products that have passed
compliance testing. These purposes
include:
(i) Defining, establishing and
supporting a USB-product review
program, testing protocol and logolicensing program in support of the USB
Primary Specifications (as defined
below) and to foster and encourage the
voluntary adoption of accurate labels,
tests, and specifications by developers
and test houses of products and services
which utilize USB;
(ii) Developing and distributing
specifications and other documents that
augment, enhance or extend the USB
Primary Specifications for the purposes
of enabling and promoting increased
interoperability and reliability among
USB products; provided, however, that
USB–IF’s purposes do not include
amending or developing USB Primary
Specifications (the ‘‘USB Primary
Specifications’’ include the USB
Specification, the On-Tghe-Go
Supplement, the Wireless USB
Specification, and any other USB
specification that USB—IF promoter
members jointly designate a ‘‘USB
Primary Specification’’);
(iii) Providing a forum and
environment whereby the members of
the corporation may meet to review
requirements for product
interoperability and general usability;
(iv) Educating the business and
consumer communities as to the value,
benefits and applications for USB-based
products through the web site, public
statements, publications, tradeshow
demonstrations, seminar sponsorships
and other programs established by USB–
IF;
(v) Protecting the needs of consumers,
promoting ease of use, and increasing
competition among vendors by
supporting the creating and
implementation of reliable, uniform,
industry-standard compliance test
procedures and processes which
support the interoperability of USB–
based products and services;
(vi) Maintaining relationships and
liaison with educational institutions,
government research institutes, other
technology consortia, and other
organizations that support and
contribute to the development of
specifications and standards for USBbased products; and
(vii) Fostering competition in the
development of new products and
services based on USB Primary
Specifications, in conformance with all
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Dec 14, 2005
Jkt 208001
applicable antitrust laws and
regulations.
Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust
Division.
[FR Doc. 05–24093 Filed 12–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4418–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
United States v. SBC Communications
Inc. and AT&T Corp.; Competitive
Impact Statement, Proposed Final
Judgment, Complaint, Amended
Stipulation
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,
15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a Complaint,
proposed Final Judgment, Amended
Stipulation, and Competitive Impact
Statement have been filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of
Columbia in United States v. SBC
Communications Inc., Civil Case No.
1:05CV02102 (EGS). On October 27,
2005, the United States filed a
complaint alleging that the proposed
acquisition of AT&T Corp. (‘‘AT&T’’) by
SBC Communications Inc. (‘‘SBC’’)
would violate Section 7 of the Clayton
Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, by substantially
lessening competition in the provision
of local private lines (also called
‘‘special access’’) and other
telecommunications services that rely
on local private lines in eleven
metropolitan areas: Chicago; Dallas-Fort
Worth; Detroit; Hartford-New Haven,
Connecticut; Indianapolis; Kansas City;
Los Angeles; Milawaukee; San Diego;
San Francisco-San Jose; and St. Louis.
The proposal Final Judgment requires
the defendants to divest assets in those
eleven metropolitan areas in order to
proceed with SBC’s $16 billion
acquisition of AT&T. A Competitive
Impact Statement filed by the United
States on November 16, 2005 describes
the Complaint, the proposed Final
Judgment, the industry, and the
remedies available to private litigants
who may have been injured by the
alleged violation.
Copies of the Complaint, proposed
Final Judgment, Amended Stipulation,
Competitive Impact Statement, and all
further papers filed with the Court in
connection with this Complaint will be
available for inspection at the Antitrust
Documents Group, Antitrust Division,
Liberty Place Building, Room 215, 325
7th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503
(202–514–2481), and at the Office of the
Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia. Copies of these
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
materials may be obtained from the
Antitrust Division upon request and
payment of the copying fee set by
Department of Justice regulations.
Interested persons may submit
comments in writing regarding the
proposed consent decree to the United
States. Such comments must be received
by the Antitrust Division within sixty
(60) days and will be filed with the
Court by the United States. Comments
should be addressed to Nancy
Goodman, Chief, Telecommunications &
Media Enforcement Section, Antitrust
Division, U.S. Department of Justice,
1401 H Street, NW., Suite 8000,
Washington, DC 20530 (202–514–5621).
At the conclusion of the sixty (60) day
comment period, the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia may enter
the proposed consent decree upon
finding that it serves the public interest.
J. Robert Kramer II,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
In the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia
United States of America, United States
Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, 1401 H Street, NW., Suite
8000, Washington, DC 20530, Plaintiff;
v. SBC Communications, Inc., 175 East
Houston, San Antonio, TX 78205; and
AT&T Corp., One AT&T Way,
Bedminster, NJ 07921, Defendants
Case Number 1:05CV02102
Judge: Emmet G. Sullivan
Deck Type: Antitrust
Date Stamp: 10/27/2005
Complaint
The United States of America, acting
under the direction of the Attorney
General of the United States, brings this
civil action to enjoin the merger of two
of the largest providers of
telecommunications services in the
United States, SBC Communications,
Inc. (‘‘SBC’’) and AT&T Corp. (‘‘AT&T’’),
and alleges as follows:
1. On January 30, 2005, SBC entered
into an agreement to acquire AT&T. If
approved, the transaction would create
the nation’s largest provider of
telecommunications services. Plaintiff
seeks to enjoin this transaction because
it will substantially lessen competition
for (a) Local Private Lines that connect
hundreds of commercial buildings in
SBC’s franchised territory to a carrier’s
network or other local destination, and
(b) other telecommunications services
that rely on Local Private Lines.
2. SBC and AT&T compete in the sale
of wireline telecommunications services
to retail and wholesale customers in the
United States.
E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM
15DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 240 (Thursday, December 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74333-74334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-24093]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and
Production Act of 1993--USB Implementers Forum, Inc.
Notice is hereby given that, on November 23, 2005, pursuant to
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), USB Implementers Forum,
Inc. (``USB-IF'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1)
the name and principal place of business of the standards development
organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development
activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to
actual damages under specified circumstances.
Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place
of business of the standards development organization is: USB
Implementers forum, Inc., Portland, OR. The nature and scope of USB-
IF's standards development activities are: providing a support
organization and forum for the advancement and adoption of USB
technology, by facilitating the development of high quality compatible
USB devices and promoting USB to accelerate end-user demand for USB
[[Page 74334]]
products through increaded public awareness of the benefits of USB and
the quality of products that have passed compliance testing. These
purposes include:
(i) Defining, establishing and supporting a USB-product review
program, testing protocol and logo-licensing program in support of the
USB Primary Specifications (as defined below) and to foster and
encourage the voluntary adoption of accurate labels, tests, and
specifications by developers and test houses of products and services
which utilize USB;
(ii) Developing and distributing specifications and other documents
that augment, enhance or extend the USB Primary Specifications for the
purposes of enabling and promoting increased interoperability and
reliability among USB products; provided, however, that USB-IF's
purposes do not include amending or developing USB Primary
Specifications (the ``USB Primary Specifications'' include the USB
Specification, the On-Tghe-Go Supplement, the Wireless USB
Specification, and any other USB specification that USB--IF promoter
members jointly designate a ``USB Primary Specification'');
(iii) Providing a forum and environment whereby the members of the
corporation may meet to review requirements for product
interoperability and general usability;
(iv) Educating the business and consumer communities as to the
value, benefits and applications for USB-based products through the web
site, public statements, publications, tradeshow demonstrations,
seminar sponsorships and other programs established by USB-IF;
(v) Protecting the needs of consumers, promoting ease of use, and
increasing competition among vendors by supporting the creating and
implementation of reliable, uniform, industry-standard compliance test
procedures and processes which support the interoperability of USB-
based products and services;
(vi) Maintaining relationships and liaison with educational
institutions, government research institutes, other technology
consortia, and other organizations that support and contribute to the
development of specifications and standards for USB-based products; and
(vii) Fostering competition in the development of new products and
services based on USB Primary Specifications, in conformance with all
applicable antitrust laws and regulations.
Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 05-24093 Filed 12-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4418-11-M
