In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Final Determination of Violation of Section 337; Termination of Investigation; Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders, 25579-25581 [E9-12371]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices SUMMARY: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Colorado State Office, Lakewood, Colorado, hereby gives notice that the public meeting will be held to receive comments on the Environmental Analysis (EA), Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), Maximum Economic Recovery (MER), and Fair Market Value (FMV) of federal coal to be offered for a competitive lease sale. Coal Lease By Application (LBA) COC–70615 was filed by Oxbow Mining, LLC. The BLM plans to offer for competitive lease 789.79 acres of Federal coal in Gunnison County, Colorado. DATES: The public meeting will be held at 7 p.m., Wednesday, July 8, 2009. Written comments should be received no later than July 22, 2009. The public meeting will be held in the Paonia Town Hall located at 214 Grand Avenue, Paonia, Colorado. Written comments should be addressed to the Uncompahgre Field Office Manager, Uncompahgre Field Office, 2505 South Townsend Avenue, Montrose, Colorado 81401. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Office Manager, Uncompahgre Field Office at the address above, or by telephone at 970–240–5300. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BLM hereby gives notice that a public meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 8, 2009, at 7 p.m., at the Paonia Town Hall at the address given above. An LBA was filed by Oxbow Mining, LLC. The BLM offers for competitive lease federal coal in the lands outside established coal production regions described as: T. 13 S., R. 90 NW., 6th P.M., Sections 3, 4, 5, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North Section line at the Section Corner common to Sections 4 and 5; thence S. 87°22′08″ E. 5765.75 feet; thence S. 87°32′05″ E. 1604.94 feet; thence S. 0°04′31″ W. 4246.44 feet; thence N. 86°45′23″ W. 1558.38 feet; thence N. 84°12′17″ W. 5148.60 feet; thence N. 86°44′37″ W. 1321.91 feet; to the existing lease line for Coal lease COC– 61357; thence along said existing lease line N. 10°00′13″ W. 1382.68 feet; thence N. 86°08′20″ W. 390.65 feet; thence N. 00°1135.85 feet; to the southeasterly boundary of Tract 4; thence N. 14°36′45″ E. 1463.19 feet; along said southeasterly boundary of Tract 4; thence S. 87°18′59″ E. 902.22 feet; along the north section line of section 5 to the Point of beginning. Containing approximately 789.79 acres in Gunnison County, Colorado. ADDRESSES: VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:16 May 27, 2009 Jkt 217001 The coal resource to be offered is limited to coal recoverable by underground mining methods. One purpose of the meeting is to obtain public comments on the following items: (1) The method of mining to be employed to obtain maximum economic recovery of the coal, (2) The impact that mining the coal in the proposed leasehold may have on the area, and (3) The methods of determining the fair market value of the coal to be offered. (4) EA and the FONSI. In addition, the public is invited to submit written comments concerning the MER and FMV of the coal resource. Public comments will be utilized in establishing FMV for the coal resource in the described lands. Comments should address specific factors related to fair market value including, but not limited to: 1. The quality and quantity of the coal resource. 2. The price that the mined coal would bring in the market place. 3. The cost of producing the coal. 4. The interest rate at which anticipated income streams would be discounted. 5. Depreciation and other accounting factors. 6. The mining method or methods which would achieve maximum economic recovery of the coal. 7. Documented information on the terms and conditions of recent and similar coal land transactions in the lease area, and 8. Any comparable sales data of similar coal lands in the lease area. Written requests to testify orally at the July 8, 2009, public meeting should be received at the Uncompahgre Field Office prior to the close of business July 8, 2009. Those who indicate they wish to testify when they register at the meeting may have an opportunity if time is available. If any information submitted as comments are considered to be proprietary by the commenter, the information should be labeled as such and stated in the first page of the submission. Written comments on the MER, and FMV should be sent to the Uncompahgre Field Office at the above address prior to the close of business on July 22, 2009, the end of the 30 day public comment period. Substantive comments, whether written or oral, will receive equal consideration prior to any lease offering. The MER Report is available from the Uncompahgre Field Office upon request. A copy of the MER Report, the case file, and the comments submitted PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 25579 by the public, except those portions identified as proprietary by the commenter and meeting exemptions stated in the Freedom of Information Act, will be available for public inspection after July 22, 2009, at the Colorado State Office, 2850 Youngfield, Lakewood, Colorado 80215. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Dated: May 21, 2009. Kurt M. Barton, Solid Minerals LLE, Division of Energy, Lands and Minerals. [FR Doc. E9–12333 Filed 5–27–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–JB–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–605] In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Final Determination of Violation of Section 337; Termination of Investigation; Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders 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 19 U.S.C. 1337 by Spansion, Inc. and Spansion, LLC, both of Sunnyvale, California (collectively ‘‘Spansion’’); QUALCOMM, Inc. of San Diego, California (‘‘Qualcomm’’); ATI Technologies of Thornhill, Ontario, Canada (‘‘ATI’’); Motorola, Inc. of Schaumburg, Illinois (‘‘Motorola’’); STMicroelectronics N.V. of Geneva, Switzerland (‘‘ST–NV’’); and Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. of Austin, Texas (‘‘Freescale’’) (collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’) in the above-captioned investigation. The investigation is terminated. 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) E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM 28MYN1 25580 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices 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 http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 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 against Spansion, Qualcomm, ATI, Motorola, ST–NV, and Freescale. 72 FR 28522 (May 21, 2007). The complaint alleges violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 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 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 presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued his final ID finding no violation of Section 337 by Respondents. The ID included the ALJ’s recommended determination (‘‘RD’’) on remedy and bonding. In his ID, the ALJ found that Respondents’ accused products do not infringe the asserted claims the ‘326 patent or the asserted claims 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). In his RD, the ALJ recommended that, should the Commission determine that a violation exists, a limited exclusion order VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:11 May 27, 2009 Jkt 217001 (‘‘LEO’’) would be properly directed to Respondents’ accused chip packages and to the downstream products of Motorola, a named respondent. 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 determined 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 separate responses to Respondents’ various contingent petitions for review. On January 30, 2009, the Commission determined to review the final ID in part and requested briefing on the issues it determined to review, remedy, the public interest, and bonding. 74 FR 6175–6 (Feb. 5, 2009). The Commission determined to review: (1) The ALJ’s finding that Respondents’ accused devices do not infringe the asserted claims the ‘326 and ‘419 patents; (2) the ALJ’s finding that Tessera has waived any argument that the accused products indirectly infringe the ‘419 patent; (3) the ALJ’s finding that Motorola’s invention of the 1989 68HC11 OMPAC chip (‘‘OMPAC’’) does not anticipate the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. 102(b); and (4) the ALJ’s finding that the Motorola’s OMPAC invention does not anticipate the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. 102(g). Id. The Commission determined not to review the remaining issues decided in the ID. On February 6, 2009, Respondents filed a motion to extend the briefing schedule. On February 10, 2009, the Commission issued a Notice extending the deadline for receiving initial submissions and reply submissions in light of the fact that the ALJ did not issue the public version of the final ID until February 9, 2009. The Commission also extended the target date to April 14, 2009. The Commission issued a corrected version of the Notice on February 18, 2009, clarifying the deadline for reply submissions of issues relating to violation of Section 337. On February 23, 2009, the parties filed initial written submissions regarding the issues on review, remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On March 5, 2009, the parties filed response submissions. Several respondents (‘‘the 649 Respondents) in co-pending investigation Certain Semiconductor PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337–TA–649 (‘‘the 649 Investigation’’), also filed reply briefs on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. In its initial submission on remedy, Tessera requested that the Commission issue a ‘‘tailored’’ general exclusion order (‘‘GEO’’) should the Commission determine that there is a violation of Section 337. Tessera also requested that, should the Commission determine that the current record is not adequate to support issuance of a GEO, the Commission should issue the LEO recommended by the ALJ immediately, and then conduct further proceedings regarding the availability of a tailored GEO. The IA concurred. Respondents in this investigation and the 649 Respondents opposed Tessera’s request for a ‘‘tailored’’ GEO. On March 9, 2009, Siliconware Precision Industries Co., Ltd. and Siliconware U.S.A., Inc. (collectively ‘‘SPIL Respondents’’), who are respondents in the 649 Investigation, filed a motion to extend the date for filing reply submissions to the Commission’s Notice of Review of the final ID and to compel the production of Tessera’s initial confidential briefing in response to the Commission’s Notice. In support its February 23, 2009, brief on Remedy, the Public Interest and Bonding, Tessera submitted an affidavit from Dr. Stephen Prowse and a statement from Mr. Bernard Cassidy. On March 5, 2009, Respondents filed a motion to strike Dr. Prowse’s affidavit and Mr. Cassidy’s statement. On March 16, 2009, the IA filed a response in support of Respondents’ Motion to Strike. On March 11, 2009, Spansion filed a Notice of Commencement of Bankruptcy Proceedings and of Automatic Stay, requesting a stay of the investigation because it and certain of its subsidiaries had filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 101 et seq. Tessera filed an opposition to Spansion’s request on March 18, 2009, and the IA filed an opposition on March 23, 2009. On March 26, 2009, the Commission issued a Notice requesting additional briefing on remedy and extending the target date. 74 FR 14820–1 (April 1, 2009). In the Notice, the Commission asked the parties and any interested non-parties to address whether Tessera is entitled to a GEO under 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(2), whether the Commission has the authority to issue a ‘‘tailored’’ GEO, which would ostensibly reach only specified downstream products, and whether the Commission has the authority to issue an LEO immediately and then issue a GEO at a later date E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM 28MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices when the Commission concludes the investigation. On April 10, 2009, Tessera, the IA, Respondents, and several interested non-parties filed initial written submissions in response to the Commission’s request for additional briefing on remedy. Respondent Spansion did not submit any briefing in response to the Commission’s request. On April 20, 2009, Tessera, the IA, Respondents, and the SPIL Respondents filed reply submissions in response to the Commission’s request for additional briefing on remedy. On April 20, 2009, the Commission issued a Notice in response to a motion from Broadcom extending the due date for reply submissions from interested non-parties to April 29, 2009, since the public versions of the parties’ initial submissions were not due to be filed until April 22, 2009. Notice of Commission Determination to Extend the Deadline for Receiving Reply Submission from Interested Parties in Response to the Commission’s Request for Additional Briefing on Remedy (April 20, 2009). On April 29, 2009, the interested non-parties submitted their reply briefs. On April 24, 2009, respondent Qualcomm filed a motion for leave to file a petition for reconsideration pursuant to 19 CFR 210.47 of the Commission’s determination not to review the ID’s finding that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are not indefinite. Qualcomm argued that the United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected as ‘‘indefinite’’ under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 2, new claims submitted by Tessera in connection with the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,133,627, one of the parent patents of the ‘419 patent. Tessera filed an opposition to Qualcomm’s motion on April 30, 2009. The IA filed an opposition on May 4, 2009. Qualcomm filed a reply to Tessera’s and the IA’s oppositions on May 5, 2009. Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID, the Commission has determined to reverse the ID’s determination of no violation of the ‘326 patent and ‘419 patent. Specifically, the Commission reverses the ID’s finding that Respondents’ accused devices do not infringe asserted claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 16– 19, 21, 24–26, and 29 of the ‘326 patent and asserted claims 1–11, 14, 15, 19, and 22–24 of the ‘419 patent. The Commission further reverses the ID’s conclusion regarding waiver with respect to any claims that the accused chip packages indirectly infringe the asserted claims of the ‘419 patent. Moreover, the Commission finds that VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:11 May 27, 2009 Jkt 217001 Respondents have contributorily infringed the asserted claims of the ‘419 patent. The Commission also modifies the ID’s analysis concerning its finding that the ‘326 and ‘419 patents are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) to clarify that the statute requires comparing the on-sale date of alleged prior art against the priority date of the asserted patents, not against the conception date of the asserted patents. The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief is (1) a limited exclusion order under 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1) prohibiting the unlicensed entry of semiconductor chips with minimized chip package size and products incorporating these chips that infringe one or more of claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 16–19, 21, 24–26, and 29 of the ‘326 patent and claims 1–11, 14, 15, 19, and 22–24 of the ’419 patent, and are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of, Spansion, Qualcomm, ATI, Motorola, ST–NV, and Freescale; and (2) cease and desist orders directed to Motorola, Qualcomm, Freescale, and Spansion. The Commission has further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in Section 337(d) and (f) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d), (f)) do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order and the cease and desist orders. The Commission has determined that the bond for temporary importation during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)) shall be in the amount of 3.5% of the value of the imported articles that are subject to the order. The Commission’s order was delivered to the President and the United States Trade Representative on the day of its issuance. Additionally, the Commission denies the motion by the SPIL Respondents to extend the date for reply submissions to the Commission’s Notice of Review of the final ID and to compel the production of Tessera’s initial confidential briefing in response to the Commission’s Notice of Review. The Commission further denies Spansion’s motion for a stay of the investigation in light of the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings involving it. The Commission also denies respondent Qualcomm’s motion for leave to file a petition for reconsideration of the Commission’s determination not to review the ID’s finding that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are not indefinite. Finally, the Commission denies Respondents’ motion to strike the Prowse Affidavit and the Cassidy Statement. The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 25581 amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in sections 210.42–50 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–50). Issued: May 20, 2009. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E9–12371 Filed 5–27–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice: (09–044)] Notice of Centennial Challenges—2009 Power Beaming Challenge AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of Centennial Challenges—2009 Power Beaming Challenge. SUMMARY: This notice is issued in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 2459f–1(d). This is an update to a previous notice (09–12) on the 2009 Power Beaming and Tether Challenges. The 2009 Power Beaming Challenge is now scheduled and teams that wish to compete may register. A notice on the Tether Challenge will be issued at a later time. The NASA Centennial Challenges is a program of prize contests to stimulate innovation and competition in technologies of interest and value to NASA and the nation. The 2009 Power Beaming Challenge is a prize competition designed to promote the development of new power transmission technologies with applications in energy systems, transportation and emergency operations. Significant improvements in power beaming could contribute to revolutionary advances in space transportation as well as other areas. The Spaceward Foundation administers the Power Beaming Challenge for NASA. The prize purse is funded by NASA. DATES: The 2009 Power Beaming Challenge will be held on July 14–16, 2009. Location: The 2009 Power Beaming Challenge will be held at the Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To register for and get additional information regarding the 2009 Power Beaming Challenge including rules, team agreements, eligibility and prize criteria, visit: http://www.spaceward.org or contact Mr. Ben Shelef at the E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM 28MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 101 (Thursday, May 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25579-25581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12371]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-605]


In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip 
Package Size and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Final 
Determination of Violation of Section 337; Termination of 
Investigation; Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist 
Orders

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 19 U.S.C. 1337 
by Spansion, Inc. and Spansion, LLC, both of Sunnyvale, California 
(collectively ``Spansion''); QUALCOMM, Inc. of San Diego, California 
(``Qualcomm''); ATI Technologies of Thornhill, Ontario, Canada 
(``ATI''); Motorola, Inc. of Schaumburg, Illinois (``Motorola''); 
STMicroelectronics N.V. of Geneva, Switzerland (``ST-NV''); and 
Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. of Austin, Texas (``Freescale'') 
(collectively, ``Respondents'') in the above-captioned investigation. 
The investigation is terminated.

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)

[[Page 25580]]

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 http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this 
investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket 
(EDIS) at http://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 against 
Spansion, Qualcomm, ATI, Motorola, ST-NV, and Freescale. 72 FR 28522 
(May 21, 2007). The complaint alleges violations of Section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 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 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 presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ'') issued his final ID finding no violation of Section 337 by 
Respondents. The ID included the ALJ's recommended determination 
(``RD'') on remedy and bonding. In his ID, the ALJ found that 
Respondents' accused products do not infringe the asserted claims the 
`326 patent or the asserted claims 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. Sec.  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). In his RD, the ALJ 
recommended that, should the Commission determine that a violation 
exists, a limited exclusion order (``LEO'') would be properly directed 
to Respondents' accused chip packages and to the downstream products of 
Motorola, a named respondent.
    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 determined 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 separate responses to Respondents' various contingent petitions 
for review.
    On January 30, 2009, the Commission determined to review the final 
ID in part and requested briefing on the issues it determined to 
review, remedy, the public interest, and bonding. 74 FR 6175-6 (Feb. 5, 
2009). The Commission determined to review: (1) The ALJ's finding that 
Respondents' accused devices do not infringe the asserted claims the 
`326 and `419 patents; (2) the ALJ's finding that Tessera has waived 
any argument that the accused products indirectly infringe the `419 
patent; (3) the ALJ's finding that Motorola's invention of the 1989 
68HC11 OMPAC chip (``OMPAC'') does not anticipate the asserted patents 
under 35 U.S.C. 102(b); and (4) the ALJ's finding that the Motorola's 
OMPAC invention does not anticipate the asserted patents under 35 
U.S.C. 102(g). Id. The Commission determined not to review the 
remaining issues decided in the ID. On February 6, 2009, Respondents 
filed a motion to extend the briefing schedule. On February 10, 2009, 
the Commission issued a Notice extending the deadline for receiving 
initial submissions and reply submissions in light of the fact that the 
ALJ did not issue the public version of the final ID until February 9, 
2009. The Commission also extended the target date to April 14, 2009. 
The Commission issued a corrected version of the Notice on February 18, 
2009, clarifying the deadline for reply submissions of issues relating 
to violation of Section 337.
    On February 23, 2009, the parties filed initial written submissions 
regarding the issues on review, remedy, the public interest, and 
bonding. On March 5, 2009, the parties filed response submissions. 
Several respondents (``the 649 Respondents) in co-pending investigation 
Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and 
Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-649 (``the 649 
Investigation''), also filed reply briefs on remedy, the public 
interest, and bonding. In its initial submission on remedy, Tessera 
requested that the Commission issue a ``tailored'' general exclusion 
order (``GEO'') should the Commission determine that there is a 
violation of Section 337. Tessera also requested that, should the 
Commission determine that the current record is not adequate to support 
issuance of a GEO, the Commission should issue the LEO recommended by 
the ALJ immediately, and then conduct further proceedings regarding the 
availability of a tailored GEO. The IA concurred. Respondents in this 
investigation and the 649 Respondents opposed Tessera's request for a 
``tailored'' GEO. On March 9, 2009, Siliconware Precision Industries 
Co., Ltd. and Siliconware U.S.A., Inc. (collectively ``SPIL 
Respondents''), who are respondents in the 649 Investigation, filed a 
motion to extend the date for filing reply submissions to the 
Commission's Notice of Review of the final ID and to compel the 
production of Tessera's initial confidential briefing in response to 
the Commission's Notice.
    In support its February 23, 2009, brief on Remedy, the Public 
Interest and Bonding, Tessera submitted an affidavit from Dr. Stephen 
Prowse and a statement from Mr. Bernard Cassidy. On March 5, 2009, 
Respondents filed a motion to strike Dr. Prowse's affidavit and Mr. 
Cassidy's statement. On March 16, 2009, the IA filed a response in 
support of Respondents' Motion to Strike.
    On March 11, 2009, Spansion filed a Notice of Commencement of 
Bankruptcy Proceedings and of Automatic Stay, requesting a stay of the 
investigation because it and certain of its subsidiaries had filed for 
relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 
101 et seq. Tessera filed an opposition to Spansion's request on March 
18, 2009, and the IA filed an opposition on March 23, 2009.
    On March 26, 2009, the Commission issued a Notice requesting 
additional briefing on remedy and extending the target date. 74 FR 
14820-1 (April 1, 2009). In the Notice, the Commission asked the 
parties and any interested non-parties to address whether Tessera is 
entitled to a GEO under 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(2), whether the Commission 
has the authority to issue a ``tailored'' GEO, which would ostensibly 
reach only specified downstream products, and whether the Commission 
has the authority to issue an LEO immediately and then issue a GEO at a 
later date

[[Page 25581]]

when the Commission concludes the investigation. On April 10, 2009, 
Tessera, the IA, Respondents, and several interested non-parties filed 
initial written submissions in response to the Commission's request for 
additional briefing on remedy. Respondent Spansion did not submit any 
briefing in response to the Commission's request. On April 20, 2009, 
Tessera, the IA, Respondents, and the SPIL Respondents filed reply 
submissions in response to the Commission's request for additional 
briefing on remedy. On April 20, 2009, the Commission issued a Notice 
in response to a motion from Broadcom extending the due date for reply 
submissions from interested non-parties to April 29, 2009, since the 
public versions of the parties' initial submissions were not due to be 
filed until April 22, 2009. Notice of Commission Determination to 
Extend the Deadline for Receiving Reply Submission from Interested 
Parties in Response to the Commission's Request for Additional Briefing 
on Remedy (April 20, 2009). On April 29, 2009, the interested non-
parties submitted their reply briefs.
    On April 24, 2009, respondent Qualcomm filed a motion for leave to 
file a petition for reconsideration pursuant to 19 CFR 210.47 of the 
Commission's determination not to review the ID's finding that the 
asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are not indefinite. Qualcomm 
argued that the United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected as 
``indefinite'' under 35 U.S.C. 112, ] 2, new claims submitted by 
Tessera in connection with the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 
6,133,627, one of the parent patents of the `419 patent. Tessera filed 
an opposition to Qualcomm's motion on April 30, 2009. The IA filed an 
opposition on May 4, 2009. Qualcomm filed a reply to Tessera's and the 
IA's oppositions on May 5, 2009.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID, the Commission has determined to reverse the ID's 
determination of no violation of the `326 patent and `419 patent. 
Specifically, the Commission reverses the ID's finding that 
Respondents' accused devices do not infringe asserted claims 1, 2, 6, 
12, 16-19, 21, 24-26, and 29 of the `326 patent and asserted claims 1-
11, 14, 15, 19, and 22-24 of the `419 patent. The Commission further 
reverses the ID's conclusion regarding waiver with respect to any 
claims that the accused chip packages indirectly infringe the asserted 
claims of the `419 patent. Moreover, the Commission finds that 
Respondents have contributorily infringed the asserted claims of the 
`419 patent. The Commission also modifies the ID's analysis concerning 
its finding that the `326 and `419 patents are not invalid under 35 
U.S.C. 102(b) to clarify that the statute requires comparing the on-
sale date of alleged prior art against the priority date of the 
asserted patents, not against the conception date of the asserted 
patents.
    The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief 
is (1) a limited exclusion order under 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1) prohibiting 
the unlicensed entry of semiconductor chips with minimized chip package 
size and products incorporating these chips that infringe one or more 
of claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 16-19, 21, 24-26, and 29 of the `326 patent and 
claims 1-11, 14, 15, 19, and 22-24 of the '419 patent, and are 
manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of, 
Spansion, Qualcomm, ATI, Motorola, ST-NV, and Freescale; and (2) cease 
and desist orders directed to Motorola, Qualcomm, Freescale, and 
Spansion.
    The Commission has further determined that the public interest 
factors enumerated in Section 337(d) and (f) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d), (f)) 
do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order and the cease 
and desist orders. The Commission has determined that the bond for 
temporary importation during the period of Presidential review (19 
U.S.C. 1337(j)) shall be in the amount of 3.5% of the value of the 
imported articles that are subject to the order. The Commission's order 
was delivered to the President and the United States Trade 
Representative on the day of its issuance.
    Additionally, the Commission denies the motion by the SPIL 
Respondents to extend the date for reply submissions to the 
Commission's Notice of Review of the final ID and to compel the 
production of Tessera's initial confidential briefing in response to 
the Commission's Notice of Review. The Commission further denies 
Spansion's motion for a stay of the investigation in light of the 
commencement of bankruptcy proceedings involving it. The Commission 
also denies respondent Qualcomm's motion for leave to file a petition 
for reconsideration of the Commission's determination not to review the 
ID's finding that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are not 
indefinite. Finally, the Commission denies Respondents' motion to 
strike the Prowse Affidavit and the Cassidy Statement.
    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 210.42-50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-50).

    Issued: May 20, 2009.

    By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-12371 Filed 5-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P