In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Part an Initial Determination Finding Respondents in Violation of Section 337; Denial of Respondents' Joint Motion To Extend Target Date; Schedule for Briefing on the Issues on Review and on Remedy, Public Interest, and Bonding, 16507-16509 [2010-7279]

Download as PDF mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices (a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of Subject Merchandise from each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) imports; (b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of Subject Merchandise imported from each Subject Country; and (c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of Subject Merchandise imported from each Subject Country. (11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country(ies), provide the following information on your firm’s(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2009 (report quantity data in short tons and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping or countervailing duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association. (a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) production; and (b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country (i.e., the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix); and (c) the quantity and value of your firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise from each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. (12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the Domestic Like Product that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country(ies) after 2004, and significant changes, if any, that are VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:51 Mar 31, 2010 Jkt 220001 likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Product produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in the Subject Country(ies), and such merchandise from other countries. (13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions. Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. Issued: March 19, 2010. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2010–6623 Filed 3–31–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–661] In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Part an Initial Determination Finding Respondents in Violation of Section 337; Denial of Respondents’ Joint Motion To Extend Target Date; Schedule for Briefing on the Issues on Review and on Remedy, 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 the presiding administrative law judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) Initial Determination on PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 16507 Violation of Section 337 (‘‘ID’’) and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond finding that Respondents violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation, of certain semiconductor chips having synchronous dynamic random access memory controllers and products containing same by reason of infringement of one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,405 (‘‘the ’405 patent’’), 6,591,353 (‘‘the ’353 patent’’), and 7,287,109 (‘‘the ’109 patent’’). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul M. Bartkowski, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–5432. 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 Inv. No. 337– TA–661 on December 10, 2008, based on a complaint filed by Rambus, Inc. of Los Altos, California (‘‘Rambus’’). 73 FR 75131–2. The complaint, as amended and supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic devices by reason of infringement of certain claims of the ’353 patent, the ’405 patent, the ’109 patent, as well as certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,117,998 (‘‘the ’998 patent); 7,210,016 (‘‘the ’016 patent’’); 7,287,119 (‘‘the ’119 patent’’); 7,330,952 (‘‘the ’952 patent’’); 7,330,953 (‘‘the ’953 patent’’); and 7,360,050 (‘‘the ’050 patent’’). The Commission’s notice of investigation named the following respondents: NVIDIA Corporation of Santa Clara, California; Asustek Computer, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; ASUS Computer E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM 01APN1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES 16508 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices International, Inc. of Fremont, California; BFG Technologies, Inc. of Lake Forest, Illinois; Biostar Microtech (USA) Corp. of City of Industry, California; Biostar Microtech International Corp. of Hsin Ten, Taiwan; Diablotek Inc. of Alhambra, California; EVGA Corp. of Brea, California; G.B.T. Inc. of City of Industry, California; Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan; Hewlett-Packard Co. of Palo Alto, California; MSI Computer Corp. of City of Industry, California; Micro-star International Co., Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan; Palit Multimedia Inc. of San Jose, California; Palit Microsystems Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan; Pine Technology Holdings, Ltd. of Hong Kong and Sparkle Computer Co. of Taipei, Taiwan (referred to collectively as ‘‘Respondents’’). On July 13, 2009, the Commission issued a notice terminating the ’119, ’952, ’953, and ’050 patents and certain claims of the ‘109 patent from the investigation. On January 22, 2010, the ALJ issued his ID on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond. The ALJ found that Respondents violated section 337 by importing certain semiconductor chips having synchronous dynamic random access memory controllers and products containing same with respect to various claims of the ’405, ’353, and ’109 patents. The ALJ determined that there was no violation of section 337 with respect to the asserted ’016 and ’998 patent claims. Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID and the submissions of the parties, the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part, to reject Rambus’s petition to vacate Order No. 15, and to deny Respondents’ motion to extend the target date. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review (1) the ID’s anticipation and obviousness findings with respect to the Ware patents; (2) the ID’s obviousnesstype double patenting analysis regarding the asserted Barth I claims; and (3) the ID’s analysis of the alleged obviousness of the asserted Barth I claims. The Commission requests briefing based on the evidentiary record on these issues. The Commission is particularly interested in concise responses to the following questions: Regarding the Ware patents: (1) What are the differences between the scope and content of the Coteus patent and the asserted Ware claims? (2) What is the appropriate skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art? (3) In light of the underlying facts, would the asserted claims of the Ware VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:51 Mar 31, 2010 Jkt 220001 patents have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention? In your answer, please identify which claim element(s), if any, are not disclosed in the Coteus reference but would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding the issue of obviousnesstype double patenting of the Barth I claims: Under the facts as found by the ALJ, do the differences in scope of the asserted Barth I patent claims and the claims of the Farmwald ‘037 patent render the asserted Barth I claims patentably distinct? Regarding obviousness with respect to the asserted Barth I claims: (1) What are the differences between the scope and content of the asserted prior art and the asserted Barth I claims? (2) What is the appropriate skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art? (3) In light of the underlying facts, would the asserted claims of the Barth I patents have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention? Please address only those references and combinations of references that were properly preserved under the ALJ’s Ground Rule 11.1. Furthermore, in connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease-and-desist orders that could result in the respondent being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see In the Matter of Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994) (Commission Opinion). If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease-and-desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation. If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission’s action. See Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered. Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested to file written submissions on the issues under review. The submissions should be concise and thoroughly referenced to the record in this investigation, including references to exhibits and testimony. Additionally, parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. Further, regarding the potential issuance of a general exclusion order, the Commission requests briefing specific to whether the statutory criteria set forth in section 337(d)(2) are met in this investigation. Complainants and the Commission investigative attorney are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission’s consideration. Complainants are also requested to state the dates that the patents expire and the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business on April 6, 2010. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on April 15, 2010. 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 E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM 01APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices 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 201.6. 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 section 210.42–43 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–43). BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of countervailing duty and antidumping investigations. BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE–10–005] Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES [FR Doc. 2010–7403 Filed 3–30–10; 11:15 am] Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts From China [FR Doc. 2010–7279 Filed 3–31–10; 8:45 am] AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United States International Trade Commission. TIME AND DATE: March 31, 2010 at 11 a.m. PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205–2000. STATUS: Open to the public. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Agenda for future meetings: none. 2. Minutes. 3. Ratification List. 4. Inv. No. 731–TA–1059 (Review) (Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from China)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners’ opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before April 15, 2010.) 5. Outstanding action jackets: (1) Document No. GC–10–028 concerning Inv. No. 337–TA–644 (Certain Composite Wear Components and Products Containing Same). (2) Document No. GC–10–031 concerning Inv. No. 337–TA–568 (Certain Products and Pharmaceutical Compositions Containing Recombinant Human Erythropoietin). (3) Document No. GC–10–034 concerning Inv. No. 337–TA–668 16:51 Mar 31, 2010 By order of the Commission. Issued: March 29, 2010. William R. Bishop, Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. [Investigations Nos. 701–TA–473 (Final) and 731–TA–1173 (Final)] By order of the Commission. Issued: March 25, 2010. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. VerDate Nov<24>2008 (Certain Non-Shellfish Derived Glucosamine and Products Containing Same). In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. Earlier notification of this meeting was not possible. Jkt 220001 SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of countervailing duty investigation No. 701–TA–473 (Final) under section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the Act) and the final phase of antidumping investigation No. 731–TA–1173 (Final) under section 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of subsidized and less-than-fair-value imports from China of certain potassium phosphate salts, provided for in subheadings 2835.24.00 and 2835.39.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.1 For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 1 For purposes of these investigations, the Department of Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as anhydrous Monopotassium Phosphate (MKP), anhydrous Dipotassium Phosphate (DKP) and Tetrapotassium Pyrophosphate (TKPP), whether anhydrous or in solution (collectively ‘‘phosphate salts’’). Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 12508, March 16, 2010. PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 16509 E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). DATES: Effective Date: March 16, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela M. W. Newell (202–708–5409), Office of Investigations, 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 (http:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background.—The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled as a result of affirmative preliminary determinations by the Department of Commerce that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b) are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in China of certain potassium phosphate salts, and that such products are being sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The investigations were requested in a petition filed on September 29, 2009, by ICL Performance Products, LP, St. Louis, MO and Prayon, Inc. Augusta, GA. Participation in the investigations and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the final phase of these investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission’s rules, no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance during the preliminary phase of the investigations need not file an additional notice of appearance during this final phase. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations. Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM 01APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 62 (Thursday, April 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16507-16509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7279]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-661]


In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous 
Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Products Containing Same; 
Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Part an Initial 
Determination Finding Respondents in Violation of Section 337; Denial 
of Respondents' Joint Motion To Extend Target Date; Schedule for 
Briefing on the Issues on Review and on Remedy, 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 the presiding 
administrative law judge's (``ALJ'') Initial Determination on Violation 
of Section 337 (``ID'') and Recommended Determination on Remedy and 
Bond finding that Respondents violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930 by importation into the United States, the sale for importation, 
or the sale within the United States after importation, of certain 
semiconductor chips having synchronous dynamic random access memory 
controllers and products containing same by reason of infringement of 
one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,405 (``the '405 patent''), 
6,591,353 (``the '353 patent''), and 7,287,109 (``the '109 patent'').

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul M. Bartkowski, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5432. 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 Inv. No. 337-TA-
661 on December 10, 2008, based on a complaint filed by Rambus, Inc. of 
Los Altos, California (``Rambus''). 73 FR 75131-2. The complaint, as 
amended and supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''), in 
the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and 
the sale within the United States after importation of certain 
electronic devices by reason of infringement of certain claims of the 
'353 patent, the '405 patent, the '109 patent, as well as certain 
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,117,998 (``the '998 patent); 7,210,016 
(``the '016 patent''); 7,287,119 (``the '119 patent''); 7,330,952 
(``the '952 patent''); 7,330,953 (``the '953 patent''); and 7,360,050 
(``the '050 patent''). The Commission's notice of investigation named 
the following respondents: NVIDIA Corporation of Santa Clara, 
California; Asustek Computer, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; ASUS Computer

[[Page 16508]]

International, Inc. of Fremont, California; BFG Technologies, Inc. of 
Lake Forest, Illinois; Biostar Microtech (USA) Corp. of City of 
Industry, California; Biostar Microtech International Corp. of Hsin 
Ten, Taiwan; Diablotek Inc. of Alhambra, California; EVGA Corp. of 
Brea, California; G.B.T. Inc. of City of Industry, California; Giga-
byte Technology Co., Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan; Hewlett-Packard Co. of 
Palo Alto, California; MSI Computer Corp. of City of Industry, 
California; Micro-star International Co., Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan; Palit 
Multimedia Inc. of San Jose, California; Palit Microsystems Ltd. of 
Taipei, Taiwan; Pine Technology Holdings, Ltd. of Hong Kong and Sparkle 
Computer Co. of Taipei, Taiwan (referred to collectively as 
``Respondents'').
    On July 13, 2009, the Commission issued a notice terminating the 
'119, '952, '953, and '050 patents and certain claims of the `109 
patent from the investigation.
    On January 22, 2010, the ALJ issued his ID on Violation of Section 
337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond. The ALJ found 
that Respondents violated section 337 by importing certain 
semiconductor chips having synchronous dynamic random access memory 
controllers and products containing same with respect to various claims 
of the '405, '353, and '109 patents. The ALJ determined that there was 
no violation of section 337 with respect to the asserted '016 and '998 
patent claims.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID and the submissions of the parties, the Commission has 
determined to review the final ID in part, to reject Rambus's petition 
to vacate Order No. 15, and to deny Respondents' motion to extend the 
target date. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review (1) 
the ID's anticipation and obviousness findings with respect to the Ware 
patents; (2) the ID's obviousness-type double patenting analysis 
regarding the asserted Barth I claims; and (3) the ID's analysis of the 
alleged obviousness of the asserted Barth I claims. The Commission 
requests briefing based on the evidentiary record on these issues. The 
Commission is particularly interested in concise responses to the 
following questions:
    Regarding the Ware patents:
    (1) What are the differences between the scope and content of the 
Coteus patent and the asserted Ware claims?
    (2) What is the appropriate skill level of one of ordinary skill in 
the art?
    (3) In light of the underlying facts, would the asserted claims of 
the Ware patents have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art 
at the time of invention? In your answer, please identify which claim 
element(s), if any, are not disclosed in the Coteus reference but would 
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
    Regarding the issue of obviousness-type double patenting of the 
Barth I claims:
    Under the facts as found by the ALJ, do the differences in scope of 
the asserted Barth I patent claims and the claims of the Farmwald `037 
patent render the asserted Barth I claims patentably distinct?
    Regarding obviousness with respect to the asserted Barth I claims:
    (1) What are the differences between the scope and content of the 
asserted prior art and the asserted Barth I claims?
    (2) What is the appropriate skill level of one of ordinary skill in 
the art?
    (3) In light of the underlying facts, would the asserted claims of 
the Barth I patents have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the 
art at the time of invention?
    Please address only those references and combinations of references 
that were properly preserved under the ALJ's Ground Rule 11.1.
    Furthermore, in connection with the final disposition of this 
investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result 
in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United 
States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease-and-desist orders that could 
result in the respondent being required to cease and desist from 
engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. 
Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written 
submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be 
ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the 
United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party 
should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities 
involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or 
likely to do so. For background, see In the Matter of Certain Devices 
for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, 
USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994) (Commission Opinion).
    If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must 
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The 
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an 
exclusion order and/or cease-and-desist orders would have on (1) the 
public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. 
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly 
competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. 
consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written 
submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in 
the context of this investigation.
    If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade 
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve 
or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of 
July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the 
subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under 
bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the 
Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in 
receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be 
imposed if a remedy is ordered.
    Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested 
to file written submissions on the issues under review. The submissions 
should be concise and thoroughly referenced to the record in this 
investigation, including references to exhibits and testimony. 
Additionally, parties to the investigation, interested government 
agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file 
written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and 
bonding. Such submissions should address the recommended determination 
by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. Further, regarding the potential 
issuance of a general exclusion order, the Commission requests briefing 
specific to whether the statutory criteria set forth in section 
337(d)(2) are met in this investigation. Complainants and the 
Commission investigative attorney are also requested to submit proposed 
remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainants are 
also requested to state the dates that the patents expire and the HTSUS 
numbers under which the accused products are imported. The written 
submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than 
close of business on April 6, 2010. Reply submissions must be filed no 
later than the close of business on April 15, 2010. 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

[[Page 16509]]

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 
201.6. 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 section 210.42-43 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-43).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 25, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-7279 Filed 3-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P