In the Matter of Certain Peripheral Devices and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting a Joint Motion To Terminate the Investigation in Its Entirety on the Basis of Settlement and Terminating the Investigation, 6174-6175 [E9-2404]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6174
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 23 / Thursday, February 5, 2009 / Notices
Effective Date: January 30, 2009.
Jim
McClure, Office of Investigations,
telephone 202–205–3191, or David
Goldfine, Office of General Counsel,
telephone 202–708–5452, 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).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background. In June 2006, the
Commission determined that revocation
of the antidumping duty orders on ball
bearings from France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, and the United Kingdom would
be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of material injury to an
industry in the United States within a
reasonably foreseeable time. The
Commission’s determinations for Japan
and the United Kingdom were appealed
to the Court of International Trade (the
‘‘Court’’). On September 9, 2008, the
Court issued a decision remanding the
matter to the Commission for further
proceedings. NSK v. United States, Slip
Op. 08–95 (Ct. Int’l Trade, Sept. 9,
2008). In its opinion, the Court issued
an order instructing the Commission to
(1) ‘‘conduct a Bratsk analysis of nonsubject imports as outlined in this
opinion;’’ (2) ‘‘reassess supply
conditions within the domestic
industry,’’ i.e., the industry’s
restructuring efforts during the period of
review, and (3) ‘‘reexamine its findings
with regard to likely impact and its
decision to cumulate imports from the
United Kingdom in light of changes in
its determinations that may result as a
consequence of the foregoing remand
instructions.’’
On October 8, 2008, in accordance
with the Court’s order, the Commission
initiated remand proceedings in the
above-captioned reviews. The notice of
initiation for the remand proceeding
was published in the Federal Register at
73 FR 63217 (Oct. 20, 2008). The
Commission noted that it was reopening the record to obtain
information to conduct an analysis of
non-subject imports as outlined in the
Court’s opinion. The Commission also
noted that it was permitting parties to
file comments pertaining to the specific
issues that are the subject of the Court’s
DATES:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:34 Feb 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
remand instructions and to comment on
the new information obtained on
remand. Id.
On October 9, 2008, the Commission
filed a motion for reconsideration with
the Court. In the motion, the
Commission requested that the Court
reconsider its decision in light of the
Federal Circuit’s decision, Mittal Steel
Point Lisas Limited v. United States,
Court No. 2007–1552 (September 18,
2008) (‘‘Mittal’’). In its motion, the
Commission also requested that the
Court issue a stay of the remand
proceeding pending the Court’s
disposition of the Commission’s motion
for reconsideration. DefendantIntervenor The Timken Company
(‘‘Timken’’) filed a similar motion for
reconsideration and a motion to stay the
remand proceeding.
On October 29, 2008, the Court
granted the requests of the Commission
and Timken to stay the Commission’s
remand proceeding pending its
reconsideration of the Commission’s
and Timken’s motions for
reconsideration. Accordingly, the
Commission stayed its remand
proceeding on November 17, 2008
pending the Court’s ruling on the
motions for reconsideration.
On December 29, 2008, the Court
denied the motions for reconsideration
by the Commission and Timken. The
Court has ordered the Commission to
file its remand determination with the
Court by May 4, 2009. Accordingly, the
Commission is hereby resuming the
remand proceeding in this review and
announcing an amended schedule for
the proceeding, as set forth herein.
Participation in the proceeding. Only
those persons who were interested
parties to the reviews (i.e., persons
listed on the Commission Secretary’s
service list) and parties to the appeal
may participate in the remand
proceeding. Such persons need not
make any additional filings with the
Commission to participate in the
remand proceeding. Business
proprietary information (‘‘BPI’’) referred
to during the remand proceeding will be
governed, as appropriate, by the
administrative protective order issued
in the reviews.
Written submissions. The Commission
is re-opening the record in this
proceeding to obtain information to
conduct an analysis of non-subject
imports as outlined in the Court’s
opinion. The Commission will permit
the parties to file comments pertaining
to the specific issues that are the subject
of the Court’s remand instructions and,
in this regard, may comment on the new
information obtained on remand.
Comments should be limited to no more
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
than fifteen (15) double-spaced and
single-sided pages of textual material.
The parties may not themselves submit
any new factual information in their
comments and may not address any
issue other than those that are the
subject of the Court’s remand
instructions. Any such comments must
be filed with the Commission no later
than March 23, 2009.
All written submissions must conform
with the provisions of section 201.8 of
the Commission’s rules; any
submissions that contain BPI must also
conform with the requirements of
sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the
Commission’s rules. The Commission’s
rules do not authorize filing of
submissions with the Secretary by
facsimile or electronic means, except to
the extent permitted by section 201.8 of
the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67
FR 68036 (Nov. 8, 2002).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c)
and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules,
each document filed by a party to the
remand proceeding must be served on
all other parties to the remand
proceeding (as identified by either the
public or BPI service list), and a
certificate of service must be timely
filed. The Secretary will not accept a
document for filing without a certificate
of service.
Parties are also advised to consult the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, part 201, subparts A through
E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207,
subpart A (19 CFR part 207) for
provisions of general applicability
concerning written submissions to the
Commission.
Issued: January 30, 2009.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9–2402 Filed 2–4–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–654]
In the Matter of Certain Peripheral
Devices and Components Thereof and
Products Containing Same; Notice of
Commission Determination Not To
Review an Initial Determination
Granting a Joint Motion To Terminate
the Investigation in Its Entirety on the
Basis of Settlement and Terminating
the Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
E:\FR\FM\05FEN1.SGM
05FEN1
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
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 23 (Thursday, February 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6174-6175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2404]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-654]
In the Matter of Certain Peripheral Devices and Components
Thereof and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission
Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting a Joint
Motion To Terminate the Investigation in Its Entirety on the Basis of
Settlement and Terminating the Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 6175]]
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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.
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
