In the Matter of Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions, Media Players, and Cameras; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting a Motion To Amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation, 49524 [2010-19984]

Download as PDF emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES 49524 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 156 / Friday, August 13, 2010 / Notices or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of the respondents, including Vizio and AmTran, or any of their affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, or other related business entities, or any of their successors or assigns; and (2) cease and desist orders directed to several respondents, including Vizio. On August 14, 2009, Funai filed a complaint, asserting that certain respondents, including and Suzhou Raken Technology, Ltd. (‘‘Suzhou’’), have violated the Commission’s limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders and seeking enforcement under Commission Rule 210.75 (19 CFR 210.75) and temporary emergency action under Commission Rule 210.77 (19 CFR 210.77). Suzhou is a joint venture company established in September 2009 by AmTran and LG Display Co., Ltd. Funai included Suzhou in its enforcement complaint pursuant to the provisions in the limited exclusion order that cover ‘‘affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, or other related business entities’’ and the provisions in the Cease and Desist orders that applies to ‘‘controlled (whether by stock ownership or otherwise) and majority owned business entities engaging in [prohibited conduct], for, with, or otherwise on behalf of’’ a named Respondent. Funai accused Suzhou of selling infringing digital televisions sold under at least the brand names Vizio® and Gallevia® in China and then importing them into the United States. On May 25, 2010, Funai and Vizio, AmTran, and Suzhou (collectively ‘‘the Vizio Respondents’’) filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation and the enforcement proceeding as to the Vizio Respondents based on a settlement agreement. On May 28, 2010, the ALJ issued an ID granting the joint motion. On June 18, 2010, the Commission determined not to review the ID. On June 29, 2010, Funai and the Vizio Respondents filed a joint motion for rescission of the remedial orders against Vizio and AmTran pursuant to the settlement agreement. On July 7, 2010, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response supporting the motion. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Commission has determined that the settlement agreement satisfies the requirement of Commission Rule 210.76 (a)(1) (19 CFR 210.76(a)(1)) that there be changed conditions of fact or law. The Commission therefore has issued an order rescinding the limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders previously issued in this investigation with respect to Vizio and AmTran. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:35 Aug 12, 2010 Jkt 220001 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 210.76(a)(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.76(a)(1)). By order of the Commission. Issued: August 9, 2010. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2010–19982 Filed 8–12–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–709] In the Matter of Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions, Media Players, and Cameras; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting a Motion To Amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 10) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) granting a motion filed by complainant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (‘‘Freescale’’) for leave to amend its complaint and the notice of investigation. SUMMARY: 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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on April 2, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Freescale Semiconductor of Austin, Texas (‘‘Freescale’’). 75 FR 16837–38. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain integrated circuits, chipsets, and products containing same including televisions, media players, and cameras by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,467,455; 5,715,014; and 7,199,306 (‘‘the ‘306 patent’’). The Commission’s notice of investigation named numerous respondents (‘‘Respondents’’). The ALJ issued the subject ID on July 8, 2010, granting a motion filed by complainant Freescale for leave to amend its complaint to (1) correct ‘‘clear typographical errors’’; (2) replace one respondent whose counsel has represented that it does not sell for importation, import, or sell after importation any accused products; and (3) add a dependent claim of the ‘306 patent to the investigation. Respondents filed a petition for review of the ID. Freescale and the Commission investigative attorney filed responses in opposition to Respondents’ petition. The Commission has determined not to review the subject 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 part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210). Issued: August 9, 2010. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2010–19984 Filed 8–12–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–73,695] Woodland Mills Corporation, Mill Spring, NC; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated July 22, 2010, petitioners requested administrative E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM 13AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 156 (Friday, August 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 49524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-19984]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-709]


In the Matter of Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and 
Products Containing Same Including Televisions, Media Players, and 
Cameras; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial 
Determination Granting a Motion To Amend the Complaint and Notice of 
Investigation

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 an initial determination 
(``ID'') (Order No. 10) issued by the presiding administrative law 
judge (``ALJ'') granting a motion filed by complainant Freescale 
Semiconductor, Inc. (``Freescale'') for leave to amend its complaint 
and the notice of investigation.

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 this investigation 
on April 2, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Freescale Semiconductor 
of Austin, Texas (``Freescale''). 75 FR 16837-38. The complaint alleges 
violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 
U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for 
importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of 
certain integrated circuits, chipsets, and products containing same 
including televisions, media players, and cameras by reason of 
infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,467,455; 
5,715,014; and 7,199,306 (``the `306 patent''). The Commission's notice 
of investigation named numerous respondents (``Respondents'').
    The ALJ issued the subject ID on July 8, 2010, granting a motion 
filed by complainant Freescale for leave to amend its complaint to (1) 
correct ``clear typographical errors''; (2) replace one respondent 
whose counsel has represented that it does not sell for importation, 
import, or sell after importation any accused products; and (3) add a 
dependent claim of the `306 patent to the investigation. Respondents 
filed a petition for review of the ID. Freescale and the Commission 
investigative attorney filed responses in opposition to Respondents' 
petition. The Commission has determined not to review the subject 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 part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 
part 210).

    Issued: August 9, 2010.

    By order of the Commission.

Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-19984 Filed 8-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.