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
<![CDATA[
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 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 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 (https://
www.usitc.gov). The public record for
these investigations may be viewed on
the Commission’s electronic docket
(EDIS) at https://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
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 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
