In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (III); Notice of the Commission's Final Determination of No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the Investigation, 447-448 [E9-31253]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Notices srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Central Plaza, 138 Shatin Rural Committee Road, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong. Best Data Products Inc., d/b/a Diamond Multimedia, Inc., 9650 De Soto Avenue, Chatsworth, CA 91311. XFX Technology, Inc., 1931 Lynx PlaceOntario, CA 91761. (c) The Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation, is Heidi E. Strain, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and (3) For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Paul J. Luckern, Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge. Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown. Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent. By order of the Commission. Issued: December 29, 2009. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E9–31252 Filed 1–4–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:41 Jan 04, 2010 Jkt 220001 INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–630] In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (III); Notice of the Commission’s Final Determination of No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the Investigation AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined that there has been no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation, and has terminated the investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panyin A. Hughes, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3042. 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: This investigation was instituted on January 14, 2008, based on a complaint filed by Tessera, Inc. of San Jose, California (‘‘Tessera’’) on December 21, 2007, and supplemented on December 28, 2007. 73 FR 2276 (Jan. 14, 2008). 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 semiconductor chips with minimized chip package size or products containing the same by reason of infringement of various claims of United States Patent Nos. 5,663,106 (‘‘the ’106 patent’’); 5,679,977 (‘‘the ’977 patent’’); 6,133,627 (‘‘the ’627 patent’’); and 6,458,681 (‘‘the ’681 patent’’). The PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 447 complaint named eighteen respondents. Several respondents were terminated from the investigation based on settlement agreements and consent orders. Two respondents defaulted. The following respondents remain in the investigation: Acer Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; Acer America Corp. of San Jose, CA; Centon Electronics, Inc. of Aliso Viejo, CA; Elpida Memory, Inc. of Tokyo, Japan and Elpida Memory (USA), Inc. of Sunnyvale, CA (collectively, ‘‘Elpida’’); Kingston Technology Co., Inc. of Fountain Valley, CA; Nanya Technology Corporation of Taoyuan, Taiwan; Nanya Technology Corp. USA of San Jose, CA; Powerchip Semiconductor Corporation of Hsinchu, Taiwan; ProMOS Technologies, Inc. of Hsinchu, Taiwan; Ramaxel Technology Ltd. of Hong Kong, China; and SMART Modular Technologies, Inc. of Fremont, CA. The ’681 patent was terminated from the investigation prior to the hearing. On August 28, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued his final Initial Determination (‘‘ID’’), finding no violation of section 337 by Respondents with respect to any of the asserted claims of the asserted patents. Specifically, the ALJ found that the accused products do not infringe the asserted claims of the ’106 patent. The ALJ also found that none of the cited references anticipates the asserted claims and that none of the cited references renders the asserted claims obvious. The ALJ further found that the asserted claims of the ’106 patent satisfy the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first, second and fourth paragraphs. Likewise, the ALJ found that the accused products do not infringe the asserted claims of the ’977 and ’627 patents and that none of the cited references anticipates the asserted claims of the patents. The ALJ further found that the asserted claims of the ’977 and ’627 patents satisfy the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, and that Respondents waived their argument with respect to obviousness. The ALJ also found that all chips Respondents purchased from Tessera licensees were authorized to be sold by Tessera and, thus, Tessera’s rights in those chips became subject to exhaustion, but that Respondents, except Elpida, did not purchase all their chips from Tessera licensees. On September 17, 2009, Tessera and the Commission investigative attorney filed petitions for review of the ID. That same day, Respondents filed contingent petitions for review of the ID. On October 1, 2009, the parties filed responses to the various petitions and contingent petitions for review. E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM 05JAN1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 448 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Notices On October 30, 2009, the Commission determined to review the final ID in part and requested briefing on several issues it determined to review, and on remedy, the public interest and bonding. 74 FR 57192 (Nov. 4, 2009). The Commission determined to review (1) the finding that the claim term ‘‘top layer’’ recited in claim 1 of the ’106 patent means ‘‘an outer layer of the chip assembly upon which the terminals are fixed,’’ the requirement that ‘‘the ‘top layer’ is a single layer,’’ and the effect of the findings on the infringement analysis, invalidity analysis and domestic industry analysis; (2) the finding that the claim term ‘‘thereon’’ recited in claim 1 of the ’106 patent requires ‘‘disposing the terminals on the top surface of the top layer,’’ and its effect on the infringement analysis, invalidity analysis and domestic industry analysis; (3) the finding that the Direct Loading testing methodology employed by Tessera’s expert to prove infringement is unreliable; and (4) the finding that the 1989 Motorola OMPAC 68-pin chip package fails to anticipate claims 17 and 18 of the ’977 patent. Id. On November 13, 2009, the parties filed written submissions on the issues under review, remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On November 20, 2009, the parties filed response submissions on the issues on review, remedy, the public interest and bonding. Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID, the Commission has determined that there is no violation of section 337. Specifically, the Commission has determined to (1) modify the ALJ’s construction of the claim terms ‘‘top layer’’ and ‘‘thereon’’ recited in claim 1 of the ’106 patent; (2) reverse the ALJ’s finding that the accused wBGA products do not meet all of the limitations of the asserted claims of the ’106 patent but affirm his finding that there is no infringement due to patent exhaustion; (3) affirm the ALJ’s finding that the accused wBGA products do not infringe the asserted claims of the ’106 patent; (4) affirm the ALJ’s validity and domestic industry analyses pertaining to the asserted claims of the ’106 patent; (5) affirm the ALJ’s finding that the Direct Loading testing methodology employed by Tessera’s expert fails to prove infringement; and (6) affirm the ALJ’s finding that the 1989 Motorola OMPAC 68-pin chip package fails to anticipate claims 17 and 18 of the ’977 patent under the on-sale bar provision of 35 U.S.C. 102(b), but modify a portion of the ID. The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in section VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:41 Jan 04, 2010 Jkt 220001 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: December 29, 2009. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E9–31253 Filed 1–4–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337–TA–697] In the Matter of: Certain Authentication Systems, Including Software and Handheld Electronic Devices; Notice of Investigation AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 2, 2009, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Prism Technologies LLC. A supplement to the complaint was filed on December 18, 2009. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain authentication systems, including software and handheld electronic devices, by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No 7,290,288. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and a cease and desist order. ADDRESSES: The complaint and supplement, except for any confidential information contained therein, are 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., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–205–2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vu Q. Bui, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205–2582. Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2009). Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on December 29, 2009, ordered that— (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of authentication systems, including software and handheld electronic devices, that infringe one or more of claims 31–35, 38, 41, 51, 54, 56, 58, 59, 61, 87–92, 95, 98, 109–113, 115, 117, 119–126, 129–132, 143–145, 149, 150, 152–159, 164–167, 178–180, and 184–187 of U.S. Patent No. 7,290,288, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337; (2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served: (a) The complainant is: Prism Technologies LLC, 2323 South 171st Street, Suite 106, Omaha, Nebraska 68130. (b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served: Research In Motion, Ltd., 295 Phillip Street, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 2W8. Research In Motion Corp., 122 W. John Carpenter Parkway, Suite 430, Irving, Texas 75039. (c) The Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation, is Vu Q. Bui, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM 05JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 447-448]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-31253]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-630]


In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip 
Package Size and Products Containing Same (III); Notice of the 
Commission's Final Determination of No Violation of Section 337; 
Termination of the Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined that there has been no violation of section 
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation, 
and has terminated the investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panyin A. Hughes, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. 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: This investigation was instituted on January 
14, 2008, based on a complaint filed by Tessera, Inc. of San Jose, 
California (``Tessera'') on December 21, 2007, and supplemented on 
December 28, 2007. 73 FR 2276 (Jan. 14, 2008). 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 
semiconductor chips with minimized chip package size or products 
containing the same by reason of infringement of various claims of 
United States Patent Nos. 5,663,106 (``the '106 patent''); 5,679,977 
(``the '977 patent''); 6,133,627 (``the '627 patent''); and 6,458,681 
(``the '681 patent''). The complaint named eighteen respondents. 
Several respondents were terminated from the investigation based on 
settlement agreements and consent orders. Two respondents defaulted. 
The following respondents remain in the investigation: Acer Inc. of 
Taipei, Taiwan; Acer America Corp. of San Jose, CA; Centon Electronics, 
Inc. of Aliso Viejo, CA; Elpida Memory, Inc. of Tokyo, Japan and Elpida 
Memory (USA), Inc. of Sunnyvale, CA (collectively, ``Elpida''); 
Kingston Technology Co., Inc. of Fountain Valley, CA; Nanya Technology 
Corporation of Taoyuan, Taiwan; Nanya Technology Corp. USA of San Jose, 
CA; Powerchip Semiconductor Corporation of Hsinchu, Taiwan; ProMOS 
Technologies, Inc. of Hsinchu, Taiwan; Ramaxel Technology Ltd. of Hong 
Kong, China; and SMART Modular Technologies, Inc. of Fremont, CA. The 
'681 patent was terminated from the investigation prior to the hearing.
    On August 28, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge (``ALJ'') issued 
his final Initial Determination (``ID''), finding no violation of 
section 337 by Respondents with respect to any of the asserted claims 
of the asserted patents. Specifically, the ALJ found that the accused 
products do not infringe the asserted claims of the '106 patent. The 
ALJ also found that none of the cited references anticipates the 
asserted claims and that none of the cited references renders the 
asserted claims obvious. The ALJ further found that the asserted claims 
of the '106 patent satisfy the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first, 
second and fourth paragraphs. Likewise, the ALJ found that the accused 
products do not infringe the asserted claims of the '977 and '627 
patents and that none of the cited references anticipates the asserted 
claims of the patents. The ALJ further found that the asserted claims 
of the '977 and '627 patents satisfy the definiteness requirement of 35 
U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, and that Respondents waived their 
argument with respect to obviousness. The ALJ also found that all chips 
Respondents purchased from Tessera licensees were authorized to be sold 
by Tessera and, thus, Tessera's rights in those chips became subject to 
exhaustion, but that Respondents, except Elpida, did not purchase all 
their chips from Tessera licensees.
    On September 17, 2009, Tessera and the Commission investigative 
attorney filed petitions for review of the ID. That same day, 
Respondents filed contingent petitions for review of the ID. On October 
1, 2009, the parties filed responses to the various petitions and 
contingent petitions for review.

[[Page 448]]

    On October 30, 2009, the Commission determined to review the final 
ID in part and requested briefing on several issues it determined to 
review, and on remedy, the public interest and bonding. 74 FR 57192 
(Nov. 4, 2009). The Commission determined to review (1) the finding 
that the claim term ``top layer'' recited in claim 1 of the '106 patent 
means ``an outer layer of the chip assembly upon which the terminals 
are fixed,'' the requirement that ``the `top layer' is a single 
layer,'' and the effect of the findings on the infringement analysis, 
invalidity analysis and domestic industry analysis; (2) the finding 
that the claim term ``thereon'' recited in claim 1 of the '106 patent 
requires ``disposing the terminals on the top surface of the top 
layer,'' and its effect on the infringement analysis, invalidity 
analysis and domestic industry analysis; (3) the finding that the 
Direct Loading testing methodology employed by Tessera's expert to 
prove infringement is unreliable; and (4) the finding that the 1989 
Motorola OMPAC 68-pin chip package fails to anticipate claims 17 and 18 
of the '977 patent. Id.
    On November 13, 2009, the parties filed written submissions on the 
issues under review, remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On 
November 20, 2009, the parties filed response submissions on the issues 
on review, remedy, the public interest and bonding.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID, the Commission has determined that there is no 
violation of section 337. Specifically, the Commission has determined 
to (1) modify the ALJ's construction of the claim terms ``top layer'' 
and ``thereon'' recited in claim 1 of the '106 patent; (2) reverse the 
ALJ's finding that the accused wBGA products do not meet all of the 
limitations of the asserted claims of the '106 patent but affirm his 
finding that there is no infringement due to patent exhaustion; (3) 
affirm the ALJ's finding that the accused wBGA products do not infringe 
the asserted claims of the '106 patent; (4) affirm the ALJ's validity 
and domestic industry analyses pertaining to the asserted claims of the 
'106 patent; (5) affirm the ALJ's finding that the Direct Loading 
testing methodology employed by Tessera's expert fails to prove 
infringement; and (6) affirm the ALJ's finding that the 1989 Motorola 
OMPAC 68-pin chip package fails to anticipate claims 17 and 18 of the 
'977 patent under the on-sale bar provision of 35 U.S.C. 102(b), but 
modify a portion of the ID.
    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: December 29, 2009.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-31253 Filed 1-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P