In the Matter of Certain Optical Disk Controller Chips, and Chipsets and Products Containing, Same, Including Dvd Players and Pc Optical, Storage Devices II; Notice of Commission Decisions: To Grant Joint Motions To Terminate the Investigation as to All Respondents on the Basis of Settlement Agreements; To Grant-in-Part and Deny-in-Part Requests To Vacate a Final Initial Determination; To Grant a Motion for Leave To File Corrected Versions of a Joint Motion To Terminate; To Deny Motions for Leave To File Reply; To Deny a Petition for Reconsideration, 17136-17138 [E6-4935]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
17136
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 2006 / Notices
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Martin Bonorden, Cadastral Surveyor,
Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of
Land Management, 5001 Southgate
Drive, Billings, Montana, 59101–4669,
telephone (701) 227–7730 or (406) 896–
5009.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
survey was executed at the request of
the Crow Agency, through the Rocky
Mountain Regional Director, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, and was necessary to
determine Trust and Tribal land.
The lands we surveyed are:
Principal Meridian, Montana
Tps. 3 and 4 S., Rs. 32 E.
The plat, in one sheet, representing the
dependent resurvey of a portion of the north
boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines
(including Township 3 South, Range 32
East), a portion of the subdivision of section
2, and the adjusted original meanders of the
former right bank of the Big Horn River,
through section 2 (and the south half of
section 35, Township 3 South, Range 32
East), the subdivision of section 2, and the
survey of the meanders of the present right
bank of the Big Horn River, through section
2, and certain division of accretion lines in
section 2, Townships 3 and 4 South, Range
32 East, Principal Meridian, Montana, was
accepted March 27, 2006.
We will place copies of the plat, in one
sheet, and related field notes we described in
the open files. They will be available to the
public as a matter of information.
If BLM receives a protest against this
survey, as shown on the plat, in one sheet,
prior to the date of the official filing, we will
stay the filing pending our consideration of
the protest.
We will not officially file this plat, in one
sheet, until the day after we have accepted
or dismissed all protests and they have
become final, including decisions or appeals.
Dated: March 30, 2006.
Thomas M. Deiling,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Division of
Resources.
[FR Doc. E6–4918 Filed 4–4–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–$$–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
[Investigation No. 337–TA–559]
In the Matter of Certain Digital
Processors and Digital Processing
Systems, Components Thereof, and
Products Containing Same; Notice of
Commission 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:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:34 Apr 04, 2006
Jkt 208001
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’’) granting
complainant’s motion to amend the
complaint and notice of investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michelle Walters, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–5468. 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: This
investigation was instituted on January
9, 2006, based on a complaint filed by
Biax Corporation (‘‘Biax’’) of Boulder,
Colorado. The complaint alleges
violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain digital processors or digital
processing systems, components
thereof, or products containing the same
by reason of infringement of various
claims of United States Patent Nos.
5,021,945, 5,517,628, and 6,253,313.
The complaint named four respondents:
Philips Semiconductors B.V. of the
Netherlands; Philips Consumer
Electronics Services B.V. of the
Netherlands; Philips Consumer
Electronics North America Corp. of
Atlanta, Georgia; and 2Wire, Inc. of San
Jose, California.
On February 3, 2006, Biax moved to
amend the complaint and notice of
investigation in order to remove
respondent Philips Consumer
Electronics North America Corp. and to
add Philips Electronics North America
Corp. Biax requested the switch because
it recently learned that Philips
Consumer Electronics North America
Corp. is not an independent legal entity,
but rather is a division of proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
respondent Philips Electronics North
America Corp. None of the respondents
nor the Commission investigative
attorney opposed Biax’s motion.
On March 1, 2006, the ALJ issued an
ID granting Biax’s motion to amend the
complaint and notice of investigation.
The ALJ found that, pursuant to
Commission Rule 210.14(b)(1) (19 CFR
210.14(b)(1)), there was good cause to
amend the complaint and notice of
investigation in order to remove
respondent Philips Consumer
Electronics North America Corp. and to
add Philips Electronics North America
Corp. No petitions for review of the ID
were filed. Having examined the record
of this investigation, the Commission
has determined not to review 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: March 30, 2006.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E6–4936 Filed 4–4–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337–TA–523]
In the Matter of Certain Optical Disk
Controller Chips, and Chipsets and
Products Containing, Same, Including
Dvd Players and Pc Optical, Storage
Devices II; Notice of Commission
Decisions: To Grant Joint Motions To
Terminate the Investigation as to All
Respondents on the Basis of
Settlement Agreements; To Grant-inPart and Deny-in-Part Requests To
Vacate a Final Initial Determination; To
Grant a Motion for Leave To File
Corrected Versions of a Joint Motion
To Terminate; To Deny Motions for
Leave To File Reply; To Deny a Petition
for Reconsideration
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to grant
joint motions to terminate the abovecaptioned investigation as to all
respondents on the basis of settlement
agreements. The Commission has also
granted-in-part and denied-in-part the
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 2006 / Notices
private parties’ requests to vacate the
presiding administrative law judge’s
(‘‘ALJ’s’’) final initial determination
(‘‘ID’’). Specifically, the Commission has
determined to vacate those portions of
the final ID that are presently under
review by the Commission, and has
determined to deny the request for
vacatur as to those portions of the final
ID that were previously adopted by the
Commission.
The Commission has also granted a
joint motion for leave to file corrected
versions of the joint motion to terminate
the investigation as to respondent
Sunext Technology Co., Ltd.; denied
motions for leave to reply; and denied
a petition for reconsideration.
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 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.
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 August 31, 2004, based on a
complaint filed on behalf of MediaTek
Corporation (‘‘complainant’’) of HsinChu City, Taiwan. 69 FR 53089 (Aug.
31, 2004). 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 optical disk
controller chips and chipsets by reason
of infringement of claims 1, 3–6, and 8–
10 of U.S. Patent No. 5,970,031 (‘‘the
’031 patent’’) and claims 1–4 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,229,773 (‘‘the ’773 patent’’).
Id. The notice of investigation named
two respondents: Zoran Corporation
(‘‘Zoran’’) and Oak Technology, Inc.
(‘‘Oak’’), both of Sunnyvale, California.
Id.
On October 7, 2004, the ALJ issued an
ID (Order No. 5) granting complainant’s
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:34 Apr 04, 2006
Jkt 208001
motion to amend the complaint and
notice of investigation to add Sunext
Technology Co., Ltd. (‘‘Sunext’’) of
Hsin-Chu City, Taiwan, as a respondent
and to add claims of another patent,
viz., claims 1–2, 5–6, 15–19, 21, and 22
of U.S. Patent No. 6,170,043 (‘‘the ’043
patent’’) to the scope of the
investigation. 69 FR 64588. That ID was
not reviewed by the Commission. Id.
A tutorial was held on June 24, 2005,
and an eight-day evidentiary hearing
was held from June 27, 2005, through
July 7, 2005.
On September 30, 2005, the ALJ
issued his final ID concluding that there
was no violation of section 337.
Although the ALJ found that respondent
Oak infringes claims 1, 2, and 3 of the
’773 patent, he found that those claims
are invalid as anticipated by Japanese
patent application number 08–015834
(RX–518) (‘‘the Okuda prior art
reference’’). He found no infringement
of claim 4 of the ’773 patent, and no
infringement of any asserted claim of
the ’031 or ’043 patents. The ALJ
concluded that the asserted claims of
the ’031 patent are invalid for lack of
enablement, the asserted claims of the
’043 patent are not invalid, and the
asserted claims of the ’043 patent are
not unenforceable. He also found that
complainant did not establish the
technical or economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement for any
of the three patents in issue.
On December 16, 2005, the
Commission determined to review the
final ID in part. 70 FR 76074.
(1) The Commission determined to
review the ALJ’s analysis of the
technical and economic prongs of the
domestic industry requirement in its
entirety.
(2) With respect to the ’773 patent, the
Commission determined to review the
following portions of the ALJ’s
infringement analysis: (a) The findings
and analysis under the doctrine of
equivalents concerning the SC series
chips relating to the ‘‘radio frequency
(RF) amplifier chip’’ limitation of claims
1 and 3 of the ’773 patent (ID at 89–93,
97); (b) the finding that Sunext’s
reference designs incorporating the SC
series controller chips do not infringe
claim 4 under the doctrine of
equivalents (ID at 99–100); (c) the
finding that the ‘‘working optical
drives’’ of Sunext’s customers that
incorporate the accused OTI–9510 and
SC series controller chips infringe
claims 1–3 of the ’773 patent (ID at 79,
89, 100); and (d) the finding that Sunext
does not indirectly infringe the asserted
claims of the ’773 patent (ID at 102–04).
As to invalidity, the Commission
determined to review the ALJ’s finding
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17137
that the Okuda prior art reference
anticipates claims 1, 2, and 3 of the ’773
patent (ID at 104–06), and his
conclusion that respondents failed to
establish that claims 1, 2, or 3 of the
’773 patent are made obvious by certain
prior art (ID at 109–111).
(3) With respect to the ’043 patent, the
Commission determined to review the
ALJ’s finding that PCT Publication No.
W097/38367 (Hagiwara) does not
anticipate claims 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, or
22 of the ’043 patent. The Commission
also determined to review portions of
the ALJ’s determination that the ’043
patent is not unenforceable for
inequitable conduct before the PTO,
specifically sections X.E.1 and X.E.2 of
the ID (ID at 154–56).
The Commission determined not to
review the remainder of the ID, thereby
adopting those portions of the ID. 70 FR
76074. In its notice of review, the
Commission requested briefing from the
parties on the issues under review, and
requested interested persons to file
written submissions on remedy, the
public interest, and bonding. Id.
On December 21, 2005, MediaTek
petitioned for reconsideration of the
Commission’s determination not to
review the ALJ’s claim construction
with respect to one of the three patents
in issue. Zoran, Oak, and the
Commission investigative attorney
(‘‘IA’’) opposed MediaTek’s petition,
and on December 30, 2005, MediaTek
filed a reply to those oppositions. On
January 4, 2006, Zoran and Oak filed an
opposition to MediaTek’s motion for
leave to file a reply, and on January 5,
2006, MediaTek filed a reply. The
Commission has determined to deny
MediaTek’s motions for leave to file a
reply.
Having considered MediaTek’s
December 21, 2005, petition for
reconsideration and the responses
thereto, the Commission has determined
to deny the petition. Pursuant to
Commission rule 210.47 (19 CFR
210.47), within 14 days after service of
a Commission determination, any party
may file a petition for reconsideration.
Any such petition, however, ‘‘must be
confined to new questions raised by the
determination or action ordered to be
taken thereunder and upon which the
petitioner had no opportunity to submit
arguments.’’ Commission rule 210.47
(19 CFR 210.47). The Commission has
found that MediaTek’s petition is not
confined to new questions. Accordingly,
the Commission has denied the petition
for reconsideration for failure to comply
with Commission rule 210.47 (19 CFR
210.47).
Initial submissions in response to the
Commission’s notice of review were
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
17138
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 2006 / Notices
filed by all parties on January 9, 2006.
On January 16, 2006, all parties filed
reply submissions.
On February 10, 2006, complainant
MediaTek and respondents Zoran and
Oak filed a joint motion pursuant to
Commission rules 210.21(a) and (b) (19
CFR 210.21(a) and (b)) to terminate the
investigation as to Zoran and Oak on the
basis of a settlement agreement. On the
same day, MediaTek and the third
respondent, Sunext, filed a joint motion
pursuant to Commission rules 210.21(a)
and (b) (19 CFR 210.21(a) and (b)) to
terminate the investigation as to Sunext
on the basis of a settlement agreement.
On February 14, 2006, MediaTek and
Sunext filed a joint motion for leave to
file corrected versions of their joint
motion to terminate. The Commission
determined to grant the joint motion for
leave to file corrected versions. On
February 22, 2006, the IA filed a
response supporting the joint motions to
terminate. In their joint motions to
terminate the investigation, MediaTek,
Zoran, Oak, and Sunext requested that,
if the Commission grants their joint
motions, the Commission vacate the
ALJ’s final ID in its entirety. The IA
supported the private parties’ request to
vacate the final ID.
Having examined the joint motions to
terminate and the IA’s response thereto,
the Commission determined that the
motions comply with the procedural
requirements of Commission rule
210.21(b)(1) (19 CFR 210.21(b)(1)). The
Commission further determined that the
proposed settlement of the Commission
investigation will not have an adverse
effect on the public health and welfare,
competitive conditions in the U.S.
economy, the production of like or
directly competitive articles in the
United States, or U.S. consumers.
Accordingly, the Commission
determined to grant the joint motion of
complainant MediaTek and respondents
Zoran and Oak to terminate the
investigation as to Zoran and Oak, and
determined to grant the joint motion of
MediaTek and Sunext to terminate the
investigation as to Sunext. As to
vacatur, the Commission determined to
vacate those portions of the final ID that
are presently under review by the
Commission and to deny the request for
vacatur as to those portions of the final
ID previously adopted by the
Commission. See 70 FR 76074 (Dec. 22,
2005).
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
§§ 210.21, 210.45, and 210.50 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:34 Apr 04, 2006
Jkt 208001
Procedure (19 CFR 210.21, 210.45, and
210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 31, 2006.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E6–4935 Filed 4–4–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan:
Dismissal of Request for Institution of
a Section 751(b) Review Investigation
United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Dismissal of a request to
institute a section 751(b) review
concerning the Commission’s
affirmative finding in investigation No.
AA1921–129: Polychloroprene Rubber
from Japan.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Commission determines,
pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (the Act) 1 and Commission
rule 207.45,2 that the subject request
does not show changed circumstances
sufficient to warrant institution of an
investigation to review the
Commission’s affirmative finding in
investigation No. AA1921–129,
Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George L. Deyman (202–205–3197),
Office of Investigations, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Hearing-impaired persons can obtain
information on this matter by contacting
the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–
205–1810. Persons with mobility
impairments who will need special
assistance in gaining access to the
Commission should contact the Office
of the Secretary at 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 matter may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov.
Background Information
On July 31, 1973, the Treasury
Department (Treasury) determined that
imports of polychloroprene rubber
(PCR) from Japan are being sold in the
United States at less than fair value
(LTFV) within the meaning of the
Antidumping Act, 1921, as amended (19
U.S.C. 160 et seq.) (38 FR 20630, August
1 19
2 19
PO 00000
U.S.C. 1675(b).
CFR 207.45.
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2, 1973), and on October 31, 1973, the
Commission determined that an
industry in the United States is being,
or is likely to be, injured by reason of
imports of such LTFV merchandise.
Accordingly, Treasury ordered that
antidumping duties be imposed on such
imports (38 FR 33593, December 6,
1973). On December 8, 1998, the
Commerce Department (Commerce)
determined that revocation of the
antidumping finding on PCR from Japan
would be likely to lead to continuation
or recurrence of dumping (63 FR 67656,
December 8, 1998), and on July 30,
1999, the Commission determined that
revocation of the antidumping finding
would be likely to lead to continuation
or recurrence of material injury to an
industry in the United States within a
reasonably foreseeable time (64 FR
41458, July 30, 1999, and 64 FR 42962,
August 6, 1999). Accordingly,
Commerce ordered that the
antidumping finding be continued (64
FR 47765, September 1, 1999). On
November 4, 2004, Commerce
determined that revocation of the
antidumping finding on PCR from Japan
would be likely to lead to continuation
or recurrence of dumping (69 FR 64276,
November 4, 2004), and on July 21,
2005, the Commission determined that
revocation of the antidumping finding
would be likely to lead to continuation
or recurrence of material injury to an
industry in the United States within a
reasonably foreseeable time (70 FR
42101, July 21, 2005). Accordingly,
Commerce again ordered that the
antidumping finding be continued (70
FR 44893, August 4, 2005).
On November 22, 2005, the
Commission received a request to
review its affirmative determination in
investigation No. AA1921–129 pursuant
to section 751(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C.
1675(b)). The request was filed by the
Gates Corp. (‘‘Gates’’). Gates alleged that
the October 2005 announcement by the
European PCR producer Polimeri
Europa (‘‘Polimeri’’) that it was
permanently closing its sole
manufacturing plant is a fundamental
change that constitutes changed
circumstances sufficient to warrant a
review of the antidumping finding.
Specifically, Gates contended that this
development ‘‘represents a very
important change in the status quo,’’
that the loss of a supplier of this
magnitude will have a major impact on
the availability of supply and conditions
of competition of PCR, that continuation
of the antidumping finding undermines
access to PCR, and that revocation of the
antidumping finding is not likely to
result in the continuation or recurrence
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17136-17138]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-4935]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337-TA-523]
In the Matter of Certain Optical Disk Controller Chips, and
Chipsets and Products Containing, Same, Including Dvd Players and Pc
Optical, Storage Devices II; Notice of Commission Decisions: To Grant
Joint Motions To Terminate the Investigation as to All Respondents on
the Basis of Settlement Agreements; To Grant-in-Part and Deny-in-Part
Requests To Vacate a Final Initial Determination; To Grant a Motion for
Leave To File Corrected Versions of a Joint Motion To Terminate; To
Deny Motions for Leave To File Reply; To Deny a Petition for
Reconsideration
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to grant joint motions to terminate the
above-captioned investigation as to all respondents on the basis of
settlement agreements. The Commission has also granted-in-part and
denied-in-part the
[[Page 17137]]
private parties' requests to vacate the presiding administrative law
judge's (``ALJ's'') final initial determination (``ID''). Specifically,
the Commission has determined to vacate those portions of the final ID
that are presently under review by the Commission, and has determined
to deny the request for vacatur as to those portions of the final ID
that were previously adopted by the Commission.
The Commission has also granted a joint motion for leave to file
corrected versions of the joint motion to terminate the investigation
as to respondent Sunext Technology Co., Ltd.; denied motions for leave
to reply; and denied a petition for reconsideration.
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 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.
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 August 31, 2004, based on a complaint filed on behalf of MediaTek
Corporation (``complainant'') of Hsin-Chu City, Taiwan. 69 FR 53089
(Aug. 31, 2004). 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 optical disk controller chips and chipsets by reason of
infringement of claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10 of U.S. Patent No. 5,970,031
(``the '031 patent'') and claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 6,229,773
(``the '773 patent''). Id. The notice of investigation named two
respondents: Zoran Corporation (``Zoran'') and Oak Technology, Inc.
(``Oak''), both of Sunnyvale, California. Id.
On October 7, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 5) granting
complainant's motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation
to add Sunext Technology Co., Ltd. (``Sunext'') of Hsin-Chu City,
Taiwan, as a respondent and to add claims of another patent, viz.,
claims 1-2, 5-6, 15-19, 21, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 6,170,043 (``the
'043 patent'') to the scope of the investigation. 69 FR 64588. That ID
was not reviewed by the Commission. Id.
A tutorial was held on June 24, 2005, and an eight-day evidentiary
hearing was held from June 27, 2005, through July 7, 2005.
On September 30, 2005, the ALJ issued his final ID concluding that
there was no violation of section 337. Although the ALJ found that
respondent Oak infringes claims 1, 2, and 3 of the '773 patent, he
found that those claims are invalid as anticipated by Japanese patent
application number 08-015834 (RX-518) (``the Okuda prior art
reference''). He found no infringement of claim 4 of the '773 patent,
and no infringement of any asserted claim of the '031 or '043 patents.
The ALJ concluded that the asserted claims of the '031 patent are
invalid for lack of enablement, the asserted claims of the '043 patent
are not invalid, and the asserted claims of the '043 patent are not
unenforceable. He also found that complainant did not establish the
technical or economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for
any of the three patents in issue.
On December 16, 2005, the Commission determined to review the final
ID in part. 70 FR 76074.
(1) The Commission determined to review the ALJ's analysis of the
technical and economic prongs of the domestic industry requirement in
its entirety.
(2) With respect to the '773 patent, the Commission determined to
review the following portions of the ALJ's infringement analysis: (a)
The findings and analysis under the doctrine of equivalents concerning
the SC series chips relating to the ``radio frequency (RF) amplifier
chip'' limitation of claims 1 and 3 of the '773 patent (ID at 89-93,
97); (b) the finding that Sunext's reference designs incorporating the
SC series controller chips do not infringe claim 4 under the doctrine
of equivalents (ID at 99-100); (c) the finding that the ``working
optical drives'' of Sunext's customers that incorporate the accused
OTI-9510 and SC series controller chips infringe claims 1-3 of the '773
patent (ID at 79, 89, 100); and (d) the finding that Sunext does not
indirectly infringe the asserted claims of the '773 patent (ID at 102-
04). As to invalidity, the Commission determined to review the ALJ's
finding that the Okuda prior art reference anticipates claims 1, 2, and
3 of the '773 patent (ID at 104-06), and his conclusion that
respondents failed to establish that claims 1, 2, or 3 of the '773
patent are made obvious by certain prior art (ID at 109-111).
(3) With respect to the '043 patent, the Commission determined to
review the ALJ's finding that PCT Publication No. W097/38367 (Hagiwara)
does not anticipate claims 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, or 22 of the '043
patent. The Commission also determined to review portions of the ALJ's
determination that the '043 patent is not unenforceable for inequitable
conduct before the PTO, specifically sections X.E.1 and X.E.2 of the ID
(ID at 154-56).
The Commission determined not to review the remainder of the ID,
thereby adopting those portions of the ID. 70 FR 76074. In its notice
of review, the Commission requested briefing from the parties on the
issues under review, and requested interested persons to file written
submissions on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Id.
On December 21, 2005, MediaTek petitioned for reconsideration of
the Commission's determination not to review the ALJ's claim
construction with respect to one of the three patents in issue. Zoran,
Oak, and the Commission investigative attorney (``IA'') opposed
MediaTek's petition, and on December 30, 2005, MediaTek filed a reply
to those oppositions. On January 4, 2006, Zoran and Oak filed an
opposition to MediaTek's motion for leave to file a reply, and on
January 5, 2006, MediaTek filed a reply. The Commission has determined
to deny MediaTek's motions for leave to file a reply.
Having considered MediaTek's December 21, 2005, petition for
reconsideration and the responses thereto, the Commission has
determined to deny the petition. Pursuant to Commission rule 210.47 (19
CFR 210.47), within 14 days after service of a Commission
determination, any party may file a petition for reconsideration. Any
such petition, however, ``must be confined to new questions raised by
the determination or action ordered to be taken thereunder and upon
which the petitioner had no opportunity to submit arguments.''
Commission rule 210.47 (19 CFR 210.47). The Commission has found that
MediaTek's petition is not confined to new questions. Accordingly, the
Commission has denied the petition for reconsideration for failure to
comply with Commission rule 210.47 (19 CFR 210.47).
Initial submissions in response to the Commission's notice of
review were
[[Page 17138]]
filed by all parties on January 9, 2006. On January 16, 2006, all
parties filed reply submissions.
On February 10, 2006, complainant MediaTek and respondents Zoran
and Oak filed a joint motion pursuant to Commission rules 210.21(a) and
(b) (19 CFR 210.21(a) and (b)) to terminate the investigation as to
Zoran and Oak on the basis of a settlement agreement. On the same day,
MediaTek and the third respondent, Sunext, filed a joint motion
pursuant to Commission rules 210.21(a) and (b) (19 CFR 210.21(a) and
(b)) to terminate the investigation as to Sunext on the basis of a
settlement agreement. On February 14, 2006, MediaTek and Sunext filed a
joint motion for leave to file corrected versions of their joint motion
to terminate. The Commission determined to grant the joint motion for
leave to file corrected versions. On February 22, 2006, the IA filed a
response supporting the joint motions to terminate. In their joint
motions to terminate the investigation, MediaTek, Zoran, Oak, and
Sunext requested that, if the Commission grants their joint motions,
the Commission vacate the ALJ's final ID in its entirety. The IA
supported the private parties' request to vacate the final ID.
Having examined the joint motions to terminate and the IA's
response thereto, the Commission determined that the motions comply
with the procedural requirements of Commission rule 210.21(b)(1) (19
CFR 210.21(b)(1)). The Commission further determined that the proposed
settlement of the Commission investigation will not have an adverse
effect on the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the
U.S. economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles
in the United States, or U.S. consumers. Accordingly, the Commission
determined to grant the joint motion of complainant MediaTek and
respondents Zoran and Oak to terminate the investigation as to Zoran
and Oak, and determined to grant the joint motion of MediaTek and
Sunext to terminate the investigation as to Sunext. As to vacatur, the
Commission determined to vacate those portions of the final ID that are
presently under review by the Commission and to deny the request for
vacatur as to those portions of the final ID previously adopted by the
Commission. See 70 FR 76074 (Dec. 22, 2005).
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 Sec. Sec. 210.21, 210.45, and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.21, 210.45, and 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 31, 2006.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E6-4935 Filed 4-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
