In the Matter of Certain Audio Processing Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision To Remand a Portion of an Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337, and To Extend the Target Date for Completion of the Investigation, 36358-36359 [E6-9972]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
36358
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 122 / Monday, June 26, 2006 / Notices
the appeal, vacating and remanding the
Commission’s final determination as it
related to Deere European version selfpropelled forage harvesters. Bourdeau
Bros. Inc. v. International Trade
Commission, 444 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir.
2006). The Court issued its mandate on
May 22, 2006.
Upon consideration of this matter, the
Commission has determined to (1)
rescind the general exclusion order
relating to Deere European version selfpropelled forage harvesters issued in
this investigation on May 14, 2004, and
(2) rescind the cease and desist orders
relating to Deere European version selfpropelled forage harvesters issued in
this investigation on May 14, 2004, and
directed to Davey-Joans Tractor &
Chopper Supermarket, Bourdeau Bros.,
Co-Ag LLC, J & T Farms, OK Enterprises,
and Stanley Farms. The remaining
remedial orders issued in this
investigation remain in force. The
Commission has also determined to
remand the investigation to the
presiding administrative law judge for
proceedings consistent with the March
30, 2006, judgment of the Federal
Circuit in Bourdeau Bros., Inc. v.
International Trade Commission, 444
F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2006), including the
issuance of a final initial determination
on violation with respect to the subject
gray market imports of Deere European
version self-propelled forage harvesters.
This action is taken under the
authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, the
Administrative Procedure Act, and part
210 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part
210.
Issued: June 20, 2006.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E6–9973 Filed 6–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
[Inv. No. 337–TA–538]
In the Matter of Certain Audio
Processing Integrated Circuits and
Products Containing Same; Notice of
Commission Decision To Remand a
Portion of an Initial Determination
Finding a Violation of Section 337, and
To Extend the Target Date for
Completion of the Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:00 Jun 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to remand
a portion of the investigation to the
presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’). The Commission has also
determined to extend the target date for
completion of the investigation until
September 15, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven W. Crabb, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–5432. Copies of the public version
of the ALJ’s initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
and all other nonproprietary 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.
The
Commission instituted this investigation
on April 18, 2005, based on a complaint
filed on behalf of SigmaTel, Inc.
(‘‘complainant’’) of Austin, Texas. 70 FR
20172. The complaint 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 processing
integrated circuits and products
containing same by reason of
infringement of claim 10 of U.S. Patent
No. 6,137,279 (‘‘the ’279 patent’’), which
was subsequently terminated pursuant
to complainant’s motion, and claim 13
of U.S. Patent No. 6,633,187 (‘‘the ’187
patent’’). Id. The notice of investigation
named Actions Semiconductor Co. of
Guangdong, China (‘‘Actions’’) as the
only respondent.
On June 9, 2005, 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 the previously
asserted patents and to add an allegation
of a violation of section 337 by reason
of infringement of claims 1, 6, 9, and 13
of U.S. Patent No. 6,366,522 (‘‘the ’522
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
patent’’). That ID was not reviewed by
the Commission.
On October 13, 2005, the ALJ issued
an ID (Order No. 9) granting
complainant’s motion to terminate the
investigation as to the ’279 patent. On
October 31, 2005, the Commission
determined not to review the ID.
On October 31, 2005, the ALJ issued
an ID (Order No. 14) granting
complainant’s motion for summary
determination that the importation
requirement of section 337 has been
satisfied. On November 1, 2005, the ALJ
issued an ID (Order No. 15) granting
complainant’s motion for summary
determination that complainant has
satisfied the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement of
section 337 for the patents in issue.
Those IDs were not reviewed by the
Commission.
On March 20, 2006, the ALJ issued his
final ID and recommended
determination on remedy and bonding.
The ALJ concluded that there was a
violation of section 337. Specifically, he
found that claim 13 of the ’187 patent
was valid and infringed by Actions’
accused product families 207X, 208X,
and 209X. The ALJ also determined that
claims 1, 6, 9, and 13 of the ’522 patent
were valid and infringed by Actions’
accused product families 208X and
209X.
On April 3, 2006, respondent Actions
petitioned for review of portions of the
final ID. On April 10, 2006, complainant
SigmaTel and the Commission
investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed
responses in opposition to the petition
for review.
On April 17, 2006, respondent
Actions filed a motion for leave to file
a reply to complainant SigmaTel’s
response to Actions’ petition for review.
On April 19, 2006, complainant
SigmaTel filed a motion in opposition to
Actions’ motion. The Commission
determined to deny Actions’ motion for
leave to file a reply.
On May 5, 2006, the Commission
determined to review the ALJ’s
construction of a claim limitation of the
’522 patent, infringement of the ’522
patent, and whether SigmaTel met the
technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement in regard to the ’522 patent.
71 FR 27512 (May 11, 2006). The
Commission also determined to review
the ALJ’s claim construction of the term
‘‘memory’’ in claim 13 of the ’187
patent. Id. The Commission declined to
review the remainder of the ID. Id.
On May 15, 2006, the IA filed its brief
on the issues under review and on
remedy, the public interest, and
bonding. On May 16, 2006, both
SigmaTel and Actions filed briefs on the
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 122 / Monday, June 26, 2006 / Notices
issues under review and on remedy, the
public interest, and bonding.
On May 17, 2006, SigmaTel filed a
motion to strike portions of Actions’
initial brief concerning the issues under
review or in the alternative for an
extension of two days to respond. On
May 19, 2006, Actions filed an
opposition to SigmaTel’s motion to
strike. Also on May 19, 2006, the
Chairman of the Commission granted
the motion for the two-day extension,
thus rendering the motion to strike
moot.
On May 24, 2006, all parties filed
responses to the initial briefs concerning
the issues under review and on remedy,
the public interest, and bonding.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID and the submissions of the parties,
the Commission has (1) determined to
reverse the ALJ’s construction of the
claim phrase ‘‘produce the system clock
control signal and power supply control
signal based on a processing transfer
characteristic of the computation
engine’’ and provide as its own
construction that both the system clock
control signal and the power supply
control signal are required to be
produced during operation of the
integrated circuit such that the voltage
and the frequency of the integrated
circuit are adjusted based on a
processing transfer characteristic, but
that the processing transfer
characteristic is not determined in any
particular manner; (2) determined to
remand this investigation in part to the
ALJ for the purpose of determining
whether the accused products utilizing
the version 952436 firmware infringe
the ’522 patent under the Commission’s
claim construction; (3) determined with
respect to the accused products that do
not use the version 952436 firmware,
that the ALJ made sufficient findings to
find infringement of the asserted claims
of the ’522 patent under our claim
construction, and to adopt his findings
with respect to those products; (4)
determined that SigmaTel’s 35XX
products satisfy the technical prong of
the domestic industry requirement with
regard to the ’522 patent under the
Commission’s claim construction; (5)
determined to delete the term
‘‘firmware’’ from the ALJ’s construction
of the claim term ‘‘memory’’ in claim 13
of the ’187 patent; (6) determined to
defer addressing issues relating to
remedy, public interest, and bonding,
for both the ’187 patent and the ’522
patent until after the ALJ issues his
initial determination on remand
regarding the ’522 patent; and (7)
determined to extend the target date in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:00 Jun 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
the investigation until September 15,
2006.
Further, the Commission has
determined not to consider Actions’
discussion in its submissions on the
issues under review with respect to the
’187 patent because this discussion is
outside the scope of the Commission’s
review.
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 sections 210.45 and 210.51 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.45, 210.51).
Issued: June 19, 2006.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E6–9972 Filed 6–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–309–A–B and
731–TA–696 (Second Review)]
Pure and Alloy Magnesium From
Canada and Pure Magnesium From
China
On the basis of the record 1 developed
in the subject five-year reviews, the
United States International Trade
Commission (Commission) determines,
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the
Act), that revocation of the
countervailing duty orders on pure and
alloy magnesium from Canada would
not be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of material injury to an
industry in the United States within a
reasonably foreseeable time.
With respect to China, revocation of
the antidumping duty order on pure
magnesium would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the Untied
States within a reasonably foreseeable
time.
Background
With respect to Canada, the
Commission instituted the reviews on
July 1, 2005 (70 FR 38199) and
determined on October 4, 2005 that it
would conduct full reviews (70 FR
60108, October 14, 2005). With respect
to China, the Commission instituted the
review on September 1, 2005 (70 FR
52122) and determined on December 5,
1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 207.2(f)).
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
2005 that it would conduct a full review
(70 FR 75483, December 20, 2005).
Notice of the scheduling of the
Commission’s reviews 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 on January 12, 2006 (71 FR
2065). The hearing was held in
Washington, DC, on April 25, 2006, and
all persons who requested the
opportunity were permitted to appear in
person or by counsel.
The Commission transmitted its
determinations in these reviews to the
Secretary of Commerce on June 26,
2006. The views of the Commission are
contained in USITC Publication 3859
(June 2006), entitled Pure and Alloy
Magnesium from Canada and Pure
Magnesium from China: Investigation
Nos. 701–TA–309–A–B and 731–TA–696
(Second Review).
Issued: June 21, 2006.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06–5668 Filed 6–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–M
Determinations
PO 00000
36359
Sfmt 4703
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–678, 679, 681,
and 682 (Second Review)]
Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil, India,
Japan, and Spain
United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Scheduling of full five-year
reviews concerning the antidumping
duty orders on stainless steel bar from
Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives
notice of the scheduling of full reviews
pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5))
(the Act) to determine whether
revocation of the antidumping duty
orders on stainless steel bar from Brazil,
India, Japan, and Spain would be likely
to lead to continuation or recurrence of
material injury within a reasonably
foreseeable time. For further
information concerning the conduct of
these reviews and rules of general
application, consult the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure, part
201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part
201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and
F (19 CFR part 207).
DATES: Effective Date: June 20, 2006.
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 122 (Monday, June 26, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36358-36359]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-9972]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337-TA-538]
In the Matter of Certain Audio Processing Integrated Circuits and
Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision To Remand a
Portion of an Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337,
and To Extend the Target Date for Completion of the Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to remand a portion of the investigation to
the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ''). The Commission has
also determined to extend the target date for completion of the
investigation until September 15, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven W. Crabb, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5432. Copies of the
public version of the ALJ's initial determination (``ID'') and all
other nonproprietary 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 18, 2005, based on a complaint filed on behalf of SigmaTel,
Inc. (``complainant'') of Austin, Texas. 70 FR 20172. The complaint
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 processing integrated circuits and
products containing same by reason of infringement of claim 10 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,137,279 (``the '279 patent''), which was subsequently
terminated pursuant to complainant's motion, and claim 13 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,633,187 (``the '187 patent''). Id. The notice of
investigation named Actions Semiconductor Co. of Guangdong, China
(``Actions'') as the only respondent.
On June 9, 2005, 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 the previously asserted patents
and to add an allegation of a violation of section 337 by reason of
infringement of claims 1, 6, 9, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 6,366,522
(``the '522 patent''). That ID was not reviewed by the Commission.
On October 13, 2005, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 9) granting
complainant's motion to terminate the investigation as to the '279
patent. On October 31, 2005, the Commission determined not to review
the ID.
On October 31, 2005, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 14) granting
complainant's motion for summary determination that the importation
requirement of section 337 has been satisfied. On November 1, 2005, the
ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 15) granting complainant's motion for
summary determination that complainant has satisfied the economic prong
of the domestic industry requirement of section 337 for the patents in
issue. Those IDs were not reviewed by the Commission.
On March 20, 2006, the ALJ issued his final ID and recommended
determination on remedy and bonding. The ALJ concluded that there was a
violation of section 337. Specifically, he found that claim 13 of the
'187 patent was valid and infringed by Actions' accused product
families 207X, 208X, and 209X. The ALJ also determined that claims 1,
6, 9, and 13 of the '522 patent were valid and infringed by Actions'
accused product families 208X and 209X.
On April 3, 2006, respondent Actions petitioned for review of
portions of the final ID. On April 10, 2006, complainant SigmaTel and
the Commission investigative attorney (``IA'') filed responses in
opposition to the petition for review.
On April 17, 2006, respondent Actions filed a motion for leave to
file a reply to complainant SigmaTel's response to Actions' petition
for review. On April 19, 2006, complainant SigmaTel filed a motion in
opposition to Actions' motion. The Commission determined to deny
Actions' motion for leave to file a reply.
On May 5, 2006, the Commission determined to review the ALJ's
construction of a claim limitation of the '522 patent, infringement of
the '522 patent, and whether SigmaTel met the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement in regard to the '522 patent. 71 FR 27512
(May 11, 2006). The Commission also determined to review the ALJ's
claim construction of the term ``memory'' in claim 13 of the '187
patent. Id. The Commission declined to review the remainder of the ID.
Id.
On May 15, 2006, the IA filed its brief on the issues under review
and on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On May 16, 2006, both
SigmaTel and Actions filed briefs on the
[[Page 36359]]
issues under review and on remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
On May 17, 2006, SigmaTel filed a motion to strike portions of
Actions' initial brief concerning the issues under review or in the
alternative for an extension of two days to respond. On May 19, 2006,
Actions filed an opposition to SigmaTel's motion to strike. Also on May
19, 2006, the Chairman of the Commission granted the motion for the
two-day extension, thus rendering the motion to strike moot.
On May 24, 2006, all parties filed responses to the initial briefs
concerning the issues under review and on remedy, the public interest,
and bonding.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID and the submissions of the parties, the Commission has
(1) determined to reverse the ALJ's construction of the claim phrase
``produce the system clock control signal and power supply control
signal based on a processing transfer characteristic of the computation
engine'' and provide as its own construction that both the system clock
control signal and the power supply control signal are required to be
produced during operation of the integrated circuit such that the
voltage and the frequency of the integrated circuit are adjusted based
on a processing transfer characteristic, but that the processing
transfer characteristic is not determined in any particular manner; (2)
determined to remand this investigation in part to the ALJ for the
purpose of determining whether the accused products utilizing the
version 952436 firmware infringe the '522 patent under the Commission's
claim construction; (3) determined with respect to the accused products
that do not use the version 952436 firmware, that the ALJ made
sufficient findings to find infringement of the asserted claims of the
'522 patent under our claim construction, and to adopt his findings
with respect to those products; (4) determined that SigmaTel's 35XX
products satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement with regard to the '522 patent under the Commission's claim
construction; (5) determined to delete the term ``firmware'' from the
ALJ's construction of the claim term ``memory'' in claim 13 of the '187
patent; (6) determined to defer addressing issues relating to remedy,
public interest, and bonding, for both the '187 patent and the '522
patent until after the ALJ issues his initial determination on remand
regarding the '522 patent; and (7) determined to extend the target date
in the investigation until September 15, 2006.
Further, the Commission has determined not to consider Actions'
discussion in its submissions on the issues under review with respect
to the '187 patent because this discussion is outside the scope of the
Commission's review.
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 sections 210.45
and 210.51 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.45, 210.51).
Issued: June 19, 2006.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E6-9972 Filed 6-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
