In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Integration Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review-In-Part A Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337 and To Remand A Portion of the Investigation; Schedule for Written Submissions Relating To Remand, and To Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding, 62592-62593 [E9-28465]
Download as PDF
62592
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 228 / Monday, November 30, 2009 / Notices
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: November 23, 2009.
By order of the Commission.
William R. Bishop,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9–28464 Filed 11–27–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[ Investigation No. 337–TA–623]
In the Matter of Certain R–134a Coolant
(Otherwise Known as 1,1,1,2Tetrafluoroethane) Enforcement
Proceeding; Notice of Commission
Determination Not To Review An
Enforcement Initial Determination
Finding No Violation of a Consent
Order; Termination of the Enforcement
Proceeding
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to
review the enforcement initial
determination (‘‘EID’’) issued by the
presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’) on September 21, 2009 in the
above-captioned investigation, finding
no violation of a September 11, 2008
consent order.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michelle Walters Klancnik, 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:58 Nov 27, 2009
Jkt 220001
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission instituted this enforcement
proceeding, based on a complaint filed
by INEOS Fluor Holdings Ltd., INEOS
Fluor Ltd., and INEOS Fluor Americas
LLC (‘‘INEOS’’). The complaint alleged
that respondent Sinochem
Environmental Protection Chemicals
(Taicang) Co. Ltd. (‘‘Sinochem
(Taicang)’’) violated the Commission’s
September 11, 2008 Consent Order. The
Commission referred the proceeding to
the Chief ALJ, who held a prehearing
conference and evidentiary hearing on
June 22, 2009 with all parties
participating.
On September 21, 2009, the ALJ
issued the subject EID, finding that
respondent Sinochem (Taicang) did not
violate the Consent Order. On October
6, 2009, INEOS filed a petition for
review challenging the ALJ’s
conclusion. On October 13, 2009,
respondent Sinochem (Taicang) and the
Commission investigative attorney each
filed oppositions to INEOS’s petition.
The Commission has determined not
to review the EID.
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 210.75 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 & 210.75).
By order of the Commission.
Issued November 23, 2009.
William R. Bishop,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9–28466 Filed 11–27–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–648]
In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor
Integration Circuits Using Tungsten
Metallization and Products Containing
Same; Notice of Commission
Determination To Review-In-Part A
Final Initial Determination Finding No
Violation of Section 337 and To
Remand A Portion of the Investigation;
Schedule for Written Submissions
Relating To Remand, and To Remedy,
the Public Interest, and Bonding
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Commission has determined to reviewin-part a final initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) of the presiding administrative
law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) finding no violation
of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930
(19 U.S.C. 1337) in the above-captioned
investigation, and has determined to
remand a portion of the investigation to
the ALJ.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–2310. 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, 2008 based on a complaint
filed on April 18, 2008, by LSI
Corporation of Milpitas, California and
Agere Systems Inc. of Allentown,
Pennsylvania (collectively
‘‘complainants’’). The complaint, as
amended, alleged 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 integrated
circuits using tungsten metallization
and products containing same by reason
of infringement of one or more of claims
1, 3, and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 5,227,335.
The amended complaint named
numerous respondents. Several
respondents have been terminated from
the investigation due to settlement. The
following seven respondents remain in
the investigation: Tower
Semiconductor, Ltd. (‘‘Tower’’) of Israel;
Jazz Semiconductor (‘‘Jazz’’) of Newport
Beach, California; Powerchip
Semiconductor Corporation
(‘‘Powerchip’’) of Taiwan; Grace
Semiconductor Manufacturing
Corporation (‘‘Grace’’) of China;
Integrated Device Technology, Inc.
(‘‘IDT’’) of San Jose, California;
E:\FR\FM\30NON1.SGM
30NON1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 228 / Monday, November 30, 2009 / Notices
Spansion, Inc. (‘‘Spansion’’) of
Sunnyvale, California; and Nanya
Technology Corporation (‘‘Nanya’’) of
Taiwan. The complaint further alleged
that an industry in the United States
exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of
section 337.
On September 21, 2009, the ALJ
issued his final ID finding no violation
of section 337 by the remaining
respondents. He concluded that each
accused process was covered by one or
more of asserted claims 1, 3, and 4 of
the ‘335 patent, but also that all asserted
claims were anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
102(g) in view of the IBM Process A
prior art. On October 5, 2009,
complainants, respondents, and the
Commission investigative attorney
(‘‘IA’’) filed petitions for review of the
final ID. Also, four separate petitions for
review were filed on the same date by
respondents Grace, IDT, Tower/Jazz,
and Nanya/Powerchip/Spansion. The
IA, complainants, and respondents filed
responses to the other parties’ petitions
on October 13, 2009.
Upon considering the parties’ filings,
the Commission has determined to
review-in-part the ID. Specifically, the
Commission has determined to review:
(1) Invalidity of claims 1, 3, and 4 of the
‘335 patent under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) & 103
with respect to the IBM Process A, IBM
Process B, and AMD prior art; and (2)
Jazz’s stipulation regarding whether its
process meets the complete, third
recited step of claim 1, i.e., ‘‘depositing
a tungsten layer by chemical vapor
deposition, said tungsten layer covering
said glue layer on said dielectric and
said exposed material.’’ The
Commission has determined not to
review the remainder of the ID.
In addition, the Commission has
determined to issue an order remanding
the investigation to the ALJ for further
proceedings relating to whether claim 4
is rendered obvious by IBM Process A
in light of the other prior art asserted by
respondents.
The Commission has instructed the
ALJ to make his determination on
remand at the earliest practicable time,
and to extend the target date of the
above-captioned investigation as he
deems necessary to accommodate the
remand proceedings. The parties are
invited to file written submissions on
the ALJ’s remand determination within
fourteen days after service of the ALJ’s
determination and to file responses to
the written submissions within seven
days after service of the written
submissions. The Commission also
requests briefing on remedy, the public
interest, and bonding from the parties,
consistent with these submission dates,
as described in detail below.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:58 Nov 27, 2009
Jkt 220001
In connection with the final
disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may issue an order that
results in the exclusion of the subject
articles from entry into the United
States. 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).
When 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.
When 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 section 337(j), 19 U.S.C. 1337(j) and
the 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. 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: 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, and
such submissions should address the
recommended determination by the ALJ
on remedy and bonding. The
complainant and the IA are also
requested to submit proposed remedial
orders for the Commission’s
consideration. Complainant is also
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
62593
requested to state the date that the
patent at issue expires and the HTSUS
numbers under which the accused
articles are imported. The written
submissions and proposed remedial
orders, and any reply submissions, must
be filed consistent with the dates stated
above relating to the remand ID. 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
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 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR
210.42–46.
By order of the Commission.
Issued November 23, 2009.
William R. Bishop,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9–28465 Filed 11–27–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 731–TA–1047 (Review)]
Ironing Tables From China
AGENCY: United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Scheduling of a full five-year
review concerning the antidumping
duty order on ironing tables from China.
SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives
notice of the scheduling of a full review
pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5))
(the Act) to determine whether
revocation of the antidumping duty
order on ironing tables from China
would be likely to lead to continuation
or recurrence of material injury within
a reasonably foreseeable time. For
E:\FR\FM\30NON1.SGM
30NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 228 (Monday, November 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62592-62593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-28465]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-648]
In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Integration Circuits
Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same; Notice of
Commission Determination To Review-In-Part A Final Initial
Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337 and To Remand A
Portion of the Investigation; Schedule for Written Submissions Relating
To Remand, and To Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding
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 a final initial
determination (``ID'') of the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930
(19 U.S.C. 1337) in the above-captioned investigation, and has
determined to remand a portion of the investigation to the ALJ.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. 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, 2008 based on a complaint filed on April 18, 2008, by LSI
Corporation of Milpitas, California and Agere Systems Inc. of
Allentown, Pennsylvania (collectively ``complainants''). The complaint,
as amended, alleged 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 integrated circuits using
tungsten metallization and products containing same by reason of
infringement of one or more of claims 1, 3, and 4 of U.S. Patent No.
5,227,335. The amended complaint named numerous respondents. Several
respondents have been terminated from the investigation due to
settlement. The following seven respondents remain in the
investigation: Tower Semiconductor, Ltd. (``Tower'') of Israel; Jazz
Semiconductor (``Jazz'') of Newport Beach, California; Powerchip
Semiconductor Corporation (``Powerchip'') of Taiwan; Grace
Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (``Grace'') of China;
Integrated Device Technology, Inc. (``IDT'') of San Jose, California;
[[Page 62593]]
Spansion, Inc. (``Spansion'') of Sunnyvale, California; and Nanya
Technology Corporation (``Nanya'') of Taiwan. The complaint further
alleged that an industry in the United States exists as required by
subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
On September 21, 2009, the ALJ issued his final ID finding no
violation of section 337 by the remaining respondents. He concluded
that each accused process was covered by one or more of asserted claims
1, 3, and 4 of the `335 patent, but also that all asserted claims were
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) in view of the IBM Process A prior
art. On October 5, 2009, complainants, respondents, and the Commission
investigative attorney (``IA'') filed petitions for review of the final
ID. Also, four separate petitions for review were filed on the same
date by respondents Grace, IDT, Tower/Jazz, and Nanya/Powerchip/
Spansion. The IA, complainants, and respondents filed responses to the
other parties' petitions on October 13, 2009.
Upon considering the parties' filings, the Commission has
determined to review-in-part the ID. Specifically, the Commission has
determined to review: (1) Invalidity of claims 1, 3, and 4 of the `335
patent under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) & 103 with respect to the IBM Process A,
IBM Process B, and AMD prior art; and (2) Jazz's stipulation regarding
whether its process meets the complete, third recited step of claim 1,
i.e., ``depositing a tungsten layer by chemical vapor deposition, said
tungsten layer covering said glue layer on said dielectric and said
exposed material.'' The Commission has determined not to review the
remainder of the ID.
In addition, the Commission has determined to issue an order
remanding the investigation to the ALJ for further proceedings relating
to whether claim 4 is rendered obvious by IBM Process A in light of the
other prior art asserted by respondents.
The Commission has instructed the ALJ to make his determination on
remand at the earliest practicable time, and to extend the target date
of the above-captioned investigation as he deems necessary to
accommodate the remand proceedings. The parties are invited to file
written submissions on the ALJ's remand determination within fourteen
days after service of the ALJ's determination and to file responses to
the written submissions within seven days after service of the written
submissions. The Commission also requests briefing on remedy, the
public interest, and bonding from the parties, consistent with these
submission dates, as described in detail below.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may issue an order that results in the exclusion of the
subject articles from entry into the United States. 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).
When 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.
When 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 section 337(j), 19 U.S.C.
1337(j) and the 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. 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: 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, and such submissions should address the recommended
determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. The complainant and the
IA are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the
Commission's consideration. Complainant is also requested to state the
date that the patent at issue expires and the HTSUS numbers under which
the accused articles are imported. The written submissions and proposed
remedial orders, and any reply submissions, must be filed consistent
with the dates stated above relating to the remand ID. 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 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 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR 210.42-46.
By order of the Commission.
Issued November 23, 2009.
William R. Bishop,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-28465 Filed 11-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P