In the Matter of Certain Audio Processing Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Final Determination of a Violation of Section 337 as to Two Patents and Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order; Termination of Investigation, 55013-55014 [06-7794]

Download as PDF jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 20, 2006 / Notices There are a number of objectives for this plan. The plan would develop and implement informed, scientificallybased vegetation impact levels and corresponding measures of deer population size that would serve as a threshold for taking management actions. In addition, it would maintain, restore and promote the natural abundance, distribution, and diversity of native plant species by reducing excessive deer browsing, trampling, and non-native seed dispersal. The plan would allow for white-tailed deer populations within the park while protecting the natural abundance, distribution, and diversity of other native wildlife, including ground nesting birds, from the adverse effects of deer. The plan would also protect the habitat of rare plant and animal species from deer impacts. In addition, the protection of cultural landscapes and visitor safety conflicts with deer would also be addressed. Finally, an objective of the plan would be to call for the sharing of information regarding the role and management of white-tailed deer among park staff, surrounding communities, the public, and other nearby governmental entities managing deer. Preliminary alternatives that will be considered to meet the purpose and need include: reproductive control, fencing of large park areas to exclude park deer, lethal reduction with and without firearms, limited capture and euthanasia, and a combination of these management strategies. The continuation of current management (no action alternative) will also be analyzed. Persons commenting on the purpose, need, objectives, preliminary alternatives, or any other issues associated with the plan, may submit comments by any one of several methods. To be most helpful to the scoping process, comments should be received within 60 days of the publication of this Notice of Intent. Comments may be mailed to Natural Resource Management, Rock Creek Park, 3545 Williamsburg Lane, NW., Washington, DC 20008. Comments may also be sent via the Internet at https:// parkplanning.nps.gov. Please submit Internet comments as a text file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please put ‘‘Deer Management’’ in the subject line and include your name and return address in your Internet message. If commenters do not receive a receipt confirmation from the system, please contact the Natural Resources Division at (202) 895–6221. Comments may also be handdelivered to Rock Creek Park VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:40 Sep 19, 2006 Jkt 205001 Headquarters, 3545 Williamsburg Lane, NW., Washington, DC 20008. It is the NPS’s practice to make comments, including names, home addresses, home phone numbers and email addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their names and/or home addresses, etc., but if they wish us to consider withholding this information they must state this prominently at the beginning of their comments. In addition, they must present a rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must demonstrate that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. In the absence of exceptional, documentable circumstances, this information will be released. The NPS will always make submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. If commenters wish to have names and/or addresses withheld and comment through the NPS Web site, it is still possible to receive additional information on the project in the future by filling in the name and address field and marking ‘‘keep my contact information private’’ where indicated. If commenters do not want to receive any additional information on the project in the future, they may type ‘‘N/A’’ in the name and address field. Dated: August 4, 2006. Joseph M. Lawler, Regional Director, National Capital Region. [FR Doc. 06–7981 Filed 9–19–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312–34–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337–TA–538] In the Matter of Certain Audio Processing Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Final Determination of a Violation of Section 337 as to Two Patents and Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order; Termination of Investigation U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined that there PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 55013 is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by Actions Semiconductor Co. of Guangdong, China (‘‘Actions’’) with respect to United States Patent Nos. 6,633,187 (‘‘the ‘187 patent’’), and 6,366,522 (‘‘the ‘522 patent’’) and has issued a limited exclusion order in the above-captioned investigation. 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, sales 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’’), and claim 13 of the ‘187 patent. Id. The notice of investigation named 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 further 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 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 E:\FR\FM\20SEN1.SGM 20SEN1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES 55014 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 20, 2006 / Notices investigation as to the ‘279 patent. On October 31, 2005, the Commission determined not to review the ID. 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 not invalid and was 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 not invalid and were infringed by Actions’ accused product families 208X and 209X. 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 the ALJ’s determination that 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 and simultaneously to modify that construction by removing the apparently inadvertent inclusion of the word ‘‘firmware.’’ Id. The Commission declined to review the remainder of the ID. Id. The Commission requested briefing on the issues under review and on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Id. Briefs and responses on the issues under review and on remedy, the public interest, and bonding were filed by all parties in a timely manner. On June 12, 2006, Actions filed a paper with the Commission titled ‘‘Actions’ Identification of Erroneous Citations to the Evidentiary Record by SigmaTel and the Initial Determination that are Material to Remedy Issues’’ alleging that testimony regarding the size of memory typically used in MP3 players incorporating the accused chips was inaccurately portrayed by SigmaTel and the ALJ. SigmaTel filed an opposition on June 13, 2006, and the Commission investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed a response on June 15, 2006. SigmaTel filed another submission on the same subject on August 21, 2006. On August 24, 2006, Actions’ filed a motion to strike SigmaTel’s August 21, 2006, submission. Because the allegedly erroneous citations were not raised in Actions’ petition for review, and were in fact expressly agreed to by Actions in response to SigmaTel’s proposed findings of act, we do not consider Actions’ arguments. Thus, SigmaTel’s June 13, 2006, and August 21, 2006, submissions; the IA’s June 15, 2006, submission; and Actions’ August 24, VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:40 Sep 19, 2006 Jkt 205001 2006, submission have all be rendered moot and have not been considered. On August 24, 2006, SigmaTel filed ‘‘Complainant SigmaTel, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File a Short Brief to Correct an Error in Actions’ Reply to SigmaTel’s Comments on the ALJ’s Remand Findings and Determination.’’ Both Actions and the IA filed responses to SigmaTel’s motion. We hereby deny this motion. On review, the Commission construed the disputed claim phrase ‘‘produce the system clock control signal and power supply control signal based on a processing transfer characteristic of the computation engine’’ to mean 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. 71 FR 36358–36358 (June 26, 2006). The Commission 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 the Commission’s claim construction, and adopted his findings with respect to those products. Id. The Commission determined that SigmaTel’s products satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with regard to the ‘522 patent under the Commission’s claim construction. Id. The Commission remanded the investigation to the ALJ for the sole issue of determining whether Actions’ products using the 952436 version firmware infringe the asserted claims of the ‘522 patent. The Commission deferred addressing issues relating to remedy, public interest, and bonding, for both the ‘187 patent and the ‘522 patent. Id. The ALJ issued a remand initial determination (‘‘Remand ID’’) on August 3, 2006, finding that Actions’ accused products using the 952436 version firmware, other than the 2051, 2180, and PMA 300 models, do not infringe claims 1, 6, 9, and 13 of the ‘522 patent. In its remand notice, the Commission invited comments from the parties addressing the ALJ’s determination on remand (71 FR 36358 (June 26, 2006)). On August 11, 2006, SigmaTel filed non-responsive comments addressing the appropriate remedy, and Actions and the IA filed comments supporting the ALJ’s determination on remand. On August 18, 2006, Actions and the IA each filed responses to SigmaTel’s PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 comments, supporting the ALJ’s determinations on remand and noting that SigmaTel’s comments addressed only remedy issues. Because the Commission limited the parties’ comments to the remand issue, it has disregarded SigmaTel’s additional comments on remedy. Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID and Remand ID and the submissions of the parties, the Commission has determined (1) that there is a violation of section 337 by Actions with regard to claim 13 of the ‘187 patent; (2) that there is a violation of section 337 by Actions with regard to claims 1, 6, 9, and 13 of the ‘522 patent, except with respect to those products using the 952436 version firmware as noted in the ALJ’s Remand ID; and (3) to issue a limited exclusion order with respect to Actions’ infringing products. The Commission’s order was delivered to the President and to the U.S. Trade Representative on the day of its issuance. 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 sections 210.45, 210.49, and 210.50 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.45, 210.49, and 210.50). By order of the Commission. Issued: September 15, 2006. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 06–7794 Filed 9–19–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Notice is hereby given that on August 31, 2006, a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. City of New Orleans, et al., Civil Action No. 02–3618, Section ‘‘E’’, was lodged with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In this action the United States, on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’), sought to recover response costs from certain parties. EPA incurred such costs in response to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Agriculture Street Landfill (the ‘‘Site’’) located in New Orleans, Louisiana. The proposed Consent Decree requires BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. (‘‘BFI’’), E:\FR\FM\20SEN1.SGM 20SEN1

Agencies

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 20, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55013-55014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7794]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-538]


In the Matter of Certain Audio Processing Integrated Circuits and 
Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Final Determination of a 
Violation of Section 337 as to Two Patents and Issuance of a Limited 
Exclusion Order; Termination of Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined that there is a violation of section 337 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by Actions Semiconductor Co. of 
Guangdong, China (``Actions'') with respect to United States Patent 
Nos. 6,633,187 (``the `187 patent''), and 6,366,522 (``the `522 
patent'') and has issued a limited exclusion order in the above-
captioned investigation.

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, sales 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''), and claim 13 of the `187 
patent. Id. The notice of investigation named 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 further 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 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

[[Page 55014]]

investigation as to the `279 patent. On October 31, 2005, the 
Commission determined not to review the ID.
    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 not invalid and was 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 not invalid and were 
infringed by Actions' accused product families 208X and 209X.
    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 the ALJ's determination that 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 and simultaneously to modify that construction by 
removing the apparently inadvertent inclusion of the word ``firmware.'' 
Id. The Commission declined to review the remainder of the ID. Id. The 
Commission requested briefing on the issues under review and on remedy, 
the public interest, and bonding. Id. Briefs and responses on the 
issues under review and on remedy, the public interest, and bonding 
were filed by all parties in a timely manner.
    On June 12, 2006, Actions filed a paper with the Commission titled 
``Actions' Identification of Erroneous Citations to the Evidentiary 
Record by SigmaTel and the Initial Determination that are Material to 
Remedy Issues'' alleging that testimony regarding the size of memory 
typically used in MP3 players incorporating the accused chips was 
inaccurately portrayed by SigmaTel and the ALJ. SigmaTel filed an 
opposition on June 13, 2006, and the Commission investigative attorney 
(``IA'') filed a response on June 15, 2006. SigmaTel filed another 
submission on the same subject on August 21, 2006. On August 24, 2006, 
Actions' filed a motion to strike SigmaTel's August 21, 2006, 
submission. Because the allegedly erroneous citations were not raised 
in Actions' petition for review, and were in fact expressly agreed to 
by Actions in response to SigmaTel's proposed findings of act, we do 
not consider Actions' arguments. Thus, SigmaTel's June 13, 2006, and 
August 21, 2006, submissions; the IA's June 15, 2006, submission; and 
Actions' August 24, 2006, submission have all be rendered moot and have 
not been considered.
    On August 24, 2006, SigmaTel filed ``Complainant SigmaTel, Inc.'s 
Motion for Leave to File a Short Brief to Correct an Error in Actions' 
Reply to SigmaTel's Comments on the ALJ's Remand Findings and 
Determination.'' Both Actions and the IA filed responses to SigmaTel's 
motion. We hereby deny this motion.
    On review, the Commission construed the disputed claim phrase 
``produce the system clock control signal and power supply control 
signal based on a processing transfer characteristic of the computation 
engine'' to mean 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. 71 FR 36358-
36358 (June 26, 2006). The Commission 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 the Commission's claim construction, 
and adopted his findings with respect to those products. Id. The 
Commission determined that SigmaTel's products satisfy the technical 
prong of the domestic industry requirement with regard to the `522 
patent under the Commission's claim construction. Id. The Commission 
remanded the investigation to the ALJ for the sole issue of determining 
whether Actions' products using the 952436 version firmware infringe 
the asserted claims of the `522 patent. The Commission deferred 
addressing issues relating to remedy, public interest, and bonding, for 
both the `187 patent and the `522 patent. Id.
    The ALJ issued a remand initial determination (``Remand ID'') on 
August 3, 2006, finding that Actions' accused products using the 952436 
version firmware, other than the 2051, 2180, and PMA 300 models, do not 
infringe claims 1, 6, 9, and 13 of the `522 patent.
    In its remand notice, the Commission invited comments from the 
parties addressing the ALJ's determination on remand (71 FR 36358 (June 
26, 2006)). On August 11, 2006, SigmaTel filed non-responsive comments 
addressing the appropriate remedy, and Actions and the IA filed 
comments supporting the ALJ's determination on remand. On August 18, 
2006, Actions and the IA each filed responses to SigmaTel's comments, 
supporting the ALJ's determinations on remand and noting that 
SigmaTel's comments addressed only remedy issues. Because the 
Commission limited the parties' comments to the remand issue, it has 
disregarded SigmaTel's additional comments on remedy.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID and Remand ID and the submissions of the parties, the 
Commission has determined (1) that there is a violation of section 337 
by Actions with regard to claim 13 of the `187 patent; (2) that there 
is a violation of section 337 by Actions with regard to claims 1, 6, 9, 
and 13 of the `522 patent, except with respect to those products using 
the 952436 version firmware as noted in the ALJ's Remand ID; and (3) to 
issue a limited exclusion order with respect to Actions' infringing 
products. The Commission's order was delivered to the President and to 
the U.S. Trade Representative on the day of its issuance.
    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 sections 210.45, 210.49, and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.45, 210.49, and 210.50).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 15, 2006.

Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06-7794 Filed 9-19-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

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