In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision To Review in Part a Final Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337, 6175-6177 [E9-2401]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 23 / Thursday, February 5, 2009 / Notices SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 4) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) terminating the above-captioned investigation in its entirety based upon a settlement agreement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Walters, 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. The Commission instituted this investigation on September 3, 2008, based on a complaint filed by Microsoft Corp. (‘‘Microsoft’’). The complaint alleged 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 peripheral devices, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of various claims of seven United States patents. The complaint named Primax Electronics Ltd. (‘‘Primax’’) as the sole respondent. On December 15, 2008, complainant Microsoft and respondent Primax filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on a settlement agreement. On December 23, 2008, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response in support of the motion. On January 5, 2009, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting the joint motion to terminate the investigation on the basis of the settlement agreement. No petitions for review were filed. The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. The investigation is terminated. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:34 Feb 04, 2009 Jkt 217001 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). Issued: January 29, 2009. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E9–2404 Filed 2–4–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337–TA–605] In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision To Review in Part a Final Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337 AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part the presiding administrative law judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) issued on December 1, 2008 finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337 in the above-captioned investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–2301. 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: The Commission instituted this investigation on May 21, 2007, based on a complaint PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 6175 filed by Tessera, Inc. of San Jose, California against Spansion, Inc. and Spansion, LLC, both of Sunnyvale, California; QUALCOMM, Inc. of San Diego, California; AT1 Technologies of Thornhill, Ontario, Canada; Motorola, Inc. of Schaumburg, Illinois; STMicroelectronics N.V. of Geneva, Switzerland; and Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. of Austin, Texas. 72 FR 28522 (May 21, 2007). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain semiconductor chips with minimized chip package size or products containing same by reason of infringement of one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,852,326, and 6,433,419. On December 1, 2008, the ALJ issued his final ID finding no violation of section 337 by Respondents. The ID included the ALJ’s recommended determination on remedy and bonding. In his ID, the ALJ found that Respondents’ accused products do not infringe asserted claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 16– 19, 21, 24–26, and 29 of the ‘326 patent. The ALJ also found that Respondents’ accused products do not infringe asserted claims 1–11, 14, 15, 19, and 22–24 of the ‘419 patent. The ALJ additionally found that the asserted claims of the ‘326 and ‘419 patents are not invalid for failing to satisfy the enablement requirement or the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112 1. The ALJ further found that the asserted claims of the ‘326 and ‘419 patents are not invalid as indefinite of 35 U.S.C. 112 2. The ALJ also found that the asserted claims of the ‘326 and ‘419 patents are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 for anticipation or under 35 U.S.C. 103 for obviousness. Finally, the ALJ found that an industry in the United States exists with respect to the ‘326 and ‘419 patents as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2) and (3). On December 15, 2008, Tessera and the Commission Investigative Attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed separate petitions seeking review of the ALJ’s determination concerning non-infringement of the asserted claims of the ‘326 and ‘419 patents. Also on December 15, 2008, Respondents filed various contingent petitions seeking review of certain aspects of the ALJ’s findings as concern both the ‘326 and ‘419 patents in the event that the Commission determines to review the ID’s findings concerning non-infringement. On December 23, 2008, Respondents filed an opposition to Tessera’s and the IA’s petitions for review and Tessera and the IA filed E:\FR\FM\05FEN1.SGM 05FEN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES 6176 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 23 / Thursday, February 5, 2009 / Notices separate responses to Respondents’ various contingent petitions for review. Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the ALJ’s finding that Respondents’ accused devices do not infringe asserted claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 16–19, 21, 24, and 29 of the ‘326 patent and asserted claims 1–8, 9–11, 14, 15, 19, and 22–24 of the ‘419 patent. The Commission has further determined to review the ALJ’s finding that Tessera has waived any argument that the accused products indirectly infringe the asserted patents. The Commission has also determined to review the ALJ’s finding that the Motorola’s OMPAC invention does not anticipate the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Finally, the Commission has determined to review the ALJ’s finding that the Motorola’s OMPAC invention does not anticipate the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. 102(g). The Commission has determined not to review the remaining issues decided in the ID. The parties are requested to brief their positions on the issues under review with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary record. In connection with its review, the Commission is particularly interested in responses to the following questions: 1. Please address how the absence of the compliant layer affects the effective CTE of the baseline packages in the sense of the material properties of the structures remaining in the baseline. Specifically, to what extent does the CTE of the compliant layer materials affect the effective CTE of the actual packages as compared to their corresponding baseline packages? Also, how specifically do the substituted materials in the baseline packages affect the effective CTE of the baseline packages? 2. Please address whether Dr. Qu’s plastic work analysis can be isolated to the validated range of the finite element analysis (‘‘FEA’’) models, and if so, whether the validated results are sufficient to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard for infringement. 3. Please address whether Tessera may prove infringement by relying on multiple tests rather than one test. In his first test, Dr. Qu demonstrated the existence of terminal-to-chip displacement and its effect on improved reliability in the accused chips by comparing the on-board behavior of FEA models of the accused packages to the on-board behavior of FEA models of VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:34 Feb 04, 2009 Jkt 217001 their corresponding baseline packages. In his second test, Dr. Qu showed that the accused chips exhibit improved reliability under external loads by directly applying simulated external loads to the accused packages and their corresponding baseline packages. Was it sufficient that Dr. Qu showed the required features of the claimed movement terminal-to-chip displacement and improved reliability under application of external loads without directly showing terminal-tochip displacement due to external loads? 4. Please address whether Motorola exercised reasonable diligence in reducing the OMPAC invention to practice by filing the applications leading to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,241,133 and 5,216,278, and whether the confidentiality agreement between Motorola and Citizen Watch amounted to ‘‘suppression’’ and/or ‘‘concealment’’ of the OMPAC invention. In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the respondent(s) being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see In the Matter of Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994) (Commission Opinion). If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation. If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission’s action. See Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered. Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested to file written submissions on the issues identified in this notice. Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. In addition, with respect to the limited exclusion order (‘‘LEO’’) sought by complainant, please address whether the Federal Circuit’s decision in Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008), has any impact on whether unnamed importers are covered by the LEO. Cf. Additional Views of Chairman Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun in Certain GPS Devices and Products Containing Same, 337–TA–602.’’ Complainants and the IA are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission’s consideration. Complainants are also requested to state the dates that the patents expire and the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business on Friday, February 13, 2009. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on Monday, February 23, 2009. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. Persons filing written submissions must file the original document and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with the Office of the Secretary. Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment unless the information has E:\FR\FM\05FEN1.SGM 05FEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 23 / Thursday, February 5, 2009 / Notices already been granted such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 210.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary. 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 210.42–46 and 210.50 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 and 210.50). Issued: January 30, 2009. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E9–2401 Filed 2–4–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Notice of Lodging of Consent Judgment Pursuant to Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act Notice is hereby given that on January 29, 2009, a proposed settlement agreement in In re Interstate Bakeries Corporation, et al., Case No. 04–45814, was lodged with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri. The settlement agreement resolves the United States’ proof of claim in the Chapter 11 reorganization of Interstate Bakeries Corporation and its affiliates (‘‘Debtors’’). The United States’ proof of claim sought recovery of cleanup costs under Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), at the Hows Corner Superfund Site in Plymouth, Maine (‘‘Site’’). The proposed settlement agreement provides for EPA to have an allowed general unsecured nonpriority claim in the total amount of $84,020. The claim will be paid in the ordinary course of the bankruptcy proceeding. The Department of Justice will receive for a period of 30 days from the date of this publication comments regarding the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to pubcommentees.enrd@usdoj.gov or mailed to P.O. VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:34 Feb 04, 2009 Jkt 217001 Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611, and should refer to In re Interstate Bakeries Corporation, et al., Case No. 04–45814, D.J. Ref. No. 90–11–3–1733/9. The proposed settlement agreement may be examined at the Region I Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114. During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, https://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone confirmation number (202) 514–1547. If requesting a copy of the proposed Consent Decree, please enclose a check in the amount of $1.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at the stated address. Ronald Gluck, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. E9–2407 Filed 2–4–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–15–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 52–034 and 52–035; NRC– 2008–0594] Luminant Generation Company LLC; Application for the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4; Notice of Order, Hearing, and Opportunity To Petition for Leave To Intervene Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 2, ‘‘Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders,’’ 10 CFR part 50, ‘‘Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,’’ and 10 CFR part 52, ‘‘Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,’’ notice is hereby given that a hearing will be held, at a time and place to be set in the future by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) or designated by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board). The hearing PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 6177 will consider the application dated September 19, 2008, as supplemented by letters dated November 4, 5, 6, and 10, and December 18, 2008, filed by Luminant Generation Company LLC (Luminant), pursuant to subpart C of 10 CFR part 52, for a combined license (COL). The application requests approval of a COL for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4 to be located at the existing Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant site in Somervell County, Texas. The application was accepted for docketing on December 2, 2008 (73 FR 75141; December 10, 2008). The docket numbers established for Units 3 and 4 are 52–034 and 52–035, respectively. The Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant COL application incorporates by reference, the U.S. Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (US-APWR) Design Control Document (DCD), currently under NRC staff review. By letter dated February 29, 2008, the NRC staff accepted the US-APWR DCD for docketing. The hearing will be conducted by a Board that will be designated by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel or will be conducted by the Commission. Notice as to the membership of the Board will be published in the Federal Register at a later date. The NRC staff will complete a detailed technical review of the application and will document its findings in a safety evaluation report. The Commission will refer a copy of the application to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) in accordance with 10 CFR 52.87, ‘‘Referral to the ACRS,’’ and the ACRS will report on those portions of the application that concern safety. The NRC staff will also prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, as required by 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2). Any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who desires to participate as a party to this proceeding must file a written petition for leave to intervene in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. A petition for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Non-timely filings will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or presiding officer designated to rule on the petition, pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 2.309(c)(i)– (viii). E:\FR\FM\05FEN1.SGM 05FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 23 (Thursday, February 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6175-6177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2401]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-605]


 In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip 
Package Size and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission 
Decision To Review in Part a Final Determination Finding No Violation 
of Section 337

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to review in part the presiding 
administrative law judge's (``ALJ'') final initial determination 
(``ID'') issued on December 1, 2008 finding no violation of section 337 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337 in the above-captioned 
investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan M. Valentine, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2301. 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: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on May 21, 2007, based on a complaint filed by Tessera, Inc. of San 
Jose, California against Spansion, Inc. and Spansion, LLC, both of 
Sunnyvale, California; QUALCOMM, Inc. of San Diego, California; AT1 
Technologies of Thornhill, Ontario, Canada; Motorola, Inc. of 
Schaumburg, Illinois; STMicroelectronics N.V. of Geneva, Switzerland; 
and Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. of Austin, Texas. 72 FR 28522 (May 
21, 2007). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 in the 
importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the 
sale within the United States after importation of certain 
semiconductor chips with minimized chip package size or products 
containing same by reason of infringement of one or more claims of U.S. 
Patent Nos. 5,852,326, and 6,433,419.
    On December 1, 2008, the ALJ issued his final ID finding no 
violation of section 337 by Respondents. The ID included the ALJ's 
recommended determination on remedy and bonding. In his ID, the ALJ 
found that Respondents' accused products do not infringe asserted 
claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 16-19, 21, 24-26, and 29 of the `326 patent. The 
ALJ also found that Respondents' accused products do not infringe 
asserted claims 1-11, 14, 15, 19, and 22-24 of the `419 patent. The ALJ 
additionally found that the asserted claims of the `326 and `419 
patents are not invalid for failing to satisfy the enablement 
requirement or the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112 1. 
The ALJ further found that the asserted claims of the `326 and `419 
patents are not invalid as indefinite of 35 U.S.C. 112 2. The ALJ also 
found that the asserted claims of the `326 and `419 patents are not 
invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 for anticipation or under 35 U.S.C. 103 for 
obviousness. Finally, the ALJ found that an industry in the United 
States exists with respect to the `326 and `419 patents as required by 
19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2) and (3).
    On December 15, 2008, Tessera and the Commission Investigative 
Attorney (``IA'') filed separate petitions seeking review of the ALJ's 
determination concerning non-infringement of the asserted claims of the 
`326 and `419 patents. Also on December 15, 2008, Respondents filed 
various contingent petitions seeking review of certain aspects of the 
ALJ's findings as concern both the `326 and `419 patents in the event 
that the Commission determines to review the ID's findings concerning 
non-infringement. On December 23, 2008, Respondents filed an opposition 
to Tessera's and the IA's petitions for review and Tessera and the IA 
filed

[[Page 6176]]

separate responses to Respondents' various contingent petitions for 
review.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, 
the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. 
Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the ALJ's finding 
that Respondents' accused devices do not infringe asserted claims 1, 2, 
6, 12, 16-19, 21, 24, and 29 of the `326 patent and asserted claims 1-
8, 9-11, 14, 15, 19, and 22-24 of the `419 patent. The Commission has 
further determined to review the ALJ's finding that Tessera has waived 
any argument that the accused products indirectly infringe the asserted 
patents. The Commission has also determined to review the ALJ's finding 
that the Motorola's OMPAC invention does not anticipate the asserted 
patents under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Finally, the Commission has determined 
to review the ALJ's finding that the Motorola's OMPAC invention does 
not anticipate the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. 102(g). The 
Commission has determined not to review the remaining issues decided in 
the ID.
    The parties are requested to brief their positions on the issues 
under review with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary 
record. In connection with its review, the Commission is particularly 
interested in responses to the following questions:
    1. Please address how the absence of the compliant layer affects 
the effective CTE of the baseline packages in the sense of the material 
properties of the structures remaining in the baseline. Specifically, 
to what extent does the CTE of the compliant layer materials affect the 
effective CTE of the actual packages as compared to their corresponding 
baseline packages? Also, how specifically do the substituted materials 
in the baseline packages affect the effective CTE of the baseline 
packages?
    2. Please address whether Dr. Qu's plastic work analysis can be 
isolated to the validated range of the finite element analysis 
(``FEA'') models, and if so, whether the validated results are 
sufficient to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard for 
infringement.
    3. Please address whether Tessera may prove infringement by relying 
on multiple tests rather than one test. In his first test, Dr. Qu 
demonstrated the existence of terminal-to-chip displacement and its 
effect on improved reliability in the accused chips by comparing the 
on-board behavior of FEA models of the accused packages to the on-board 
behavior of FEA models of their corresponding baseline packages. In his 
second test, Dr. Qu showed that the accused chips exhibit improved 
reliability under external loads by directly applying simulated 
external loads to the accused packages and their corresponding baseline 
packages. Was it sufficient that Dr. Qu showed the required features of 
the claimed movement terminal-to-chip displacement and improved 
reliability under application of external loads without directly 
showing terminal-to-chip displacement due to external loads?
    4. Please address whether Motorola exercised reasonable diligence 
in reducing the OMPAC invention to practice by filing the applications 
leading to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,241,133 and 5,216,278, and whether the 
confidentiality agreement between Motorola and Citizen Watch amounted 
to ``suppression'' and/or ``concealment'' of the OMPAC invention.
    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the 
Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of 
the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) 
issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the 
respondent(s) being required to cease and desist from engaging in 
unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, 
the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that 
address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party 
seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for 
purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate 
and provide information establishing that activities involving other 
types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. 
For background, see In the Matter of Certain Devices for Connecting 
Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 
(December 1994) (Commission Opinion).
    If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must 
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The 
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an 
exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the 
public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. 
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly 
competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. 
consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written 
submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in 
the context of this investigation.
    If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade 
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve 
or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of 
July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the 
subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under 
bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the 
Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in 
receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be 
imposed if a remedy is ordered.
    Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested 
to file written submissions on the issues identified in this notice. 
Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any 
other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on 
the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such 
submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on 
remedy and bonding.
    In addition, with respect to the limited exclusion order (``LEO'') 
sought by complainant, please address whether the Federal Circuit's 
decision in Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 
2008), has any impact on whether unnamed importers are covered by the 
LEO. Cf. Additional Views of Chairman Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman 
Daniel R. Pearson, and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun in Certain GPS 
Devices and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-602.''
    Complainants and the IA are also requested to submit proposed 
remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainants are 
also requested to state the dates that the patents expire and the HTSUS 
numbers under which the accused products are imported. The written 
submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than 
close of business on Friday, February 13, 2009. Reply submissions must 
be filed no later than the close of business on Monday, February 23, 
2009. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless 
otherwise ordered by the Commission.
    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document 
and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with 
the Office of the Secretary. Any person desiring to submit a document 
to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment 
unless the information has

[[Page 6177]]

already been granted such treatment during the proceedings. All such 
requests should be directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must 
include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant 
such treatment. See 19 CFR 210.6. Documents for which confidential 
treatment by the Commission is sought will be treated accordingly. All 
nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public 
inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
    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 210.42-46 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46 and 210.50).

    Issued: January 30, 2009.

    By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-2401 Filed 2-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.