In the Matter of Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation, 65655 [2010-27043]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Notices 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. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION 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. The presiding administrative law judge issued the subject ID on September 30, 2010, granting Freescale’s motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to (1) change the name of one respondent from BestBuy.com, Inc. to BestBuy.com, LLC; (2) correct the addresses of BestBuy.com, LLC and Best Buy Purchasing, LLC; and (3) terminate the investigation as to respondent Liberty Media Corp. No party filed a petition for review of the ID. 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). AGENCY: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By order of the Commission. Issued: October 21, 2010. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES [FR Doc. 2010–27044 Filed 10–25–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:09 Oct 25, 2010 Jkt 223001 [Investigation No. 337–TA–698] In the Matter of Certain DC–DC Controllers and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Corrected notice. Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge’s initial determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 56) granting a joint motion to terminate the investigation as to one respondent and terminating the investigation in its entirety. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–2532. 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 this investigation on December 29, 2009, based on a complaint filed by Richtek Technology Corp. (Taiwan) and Richtek USA, Inc. (San Jose, California) (collectively ‘‘Richtek’’), alleging a violation of section 337 in the importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain DC– DC controllers by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,315,190; 6,414,470; and 7,132,717; and by reason of trade secret misappropriation. 75 FR 446 (Jan. 5, 2010). The complaint, as amended, named eight respondents: uPI Semiconductor Corp. (Taiwan) (‘‘uPI’’); Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (Sunnyvale, California) (‘‘AMD’’); SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 65655 Sapphire Technology Ltd. (Hong Kong) (‘‘Sapphire’’); Best Data Products d/b/a Diamond Multimedia (Chatsworth, California) (‘‘Diamond’’); Eastcom, Inc. d/b/a XFX Technology USA (Rowland Heights, California) (‘‘XFX’’); Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. (Taiwan) and MSI Computer Corp. (City of Industry, California) (collectively, ‘‘MSI’’); and VisionTek Products LLC (Inverness, Illinois) (‘‘VisionTek’’). See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 12–34 (May 20, 2010). The investigation has been terminated by settlement agreement or consent order against all parties other than VisionTek: On July 12, 2010, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ’s termination of the investigation as against AMD, Diamond, and XFX. On August 13, 2010, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ’s termination of the investigation against uPI and Sapphire. On August 20, 2010, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ’s termination of the investigation against the MSI respondents. On July 27, 2010, VisionTek and Richek jointly moved to terminate the investigation based on a consent order stipulation and proposed consent order. The ALJ denied the motion. Order No. 51 (July 29, 2010). On August 5, 2010, VisionTek and Richtek jointly moved to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement. On August 17, 2010, the ALJ granted the motion. Order No. 56. Because VisionTek is the last respondent, termination against VisionTek results in termination of the investigation. No petitions for review of the ID were filed. The Commission has determined not to review 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 210.21(b) and 210.42 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR. 210.21(b), 210.42). By order of the Commission. Issued: October 21, 2010, Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2010–27043 Filed 10–25–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM 26OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 65655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27043]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-698]


In the Matter of Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products 
Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial 
Determination Terminating the Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Corrected notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative 
law judge's initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 56) granting a 
joint motion to terminate the investigation as to one respondent and 
terminating the investigation in its entirety.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. 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 this investigation 
on December 29, 2009, based on a complaint filed by Richtek Technology 
Corp. (Taiwan) and Richtek USA, Inc. (San Jose, California) 
(collectively ``Richtek''), alleging a violation of section 337 in the 
importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States 
after importation of certain DC-DC controllers by reason of 
infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,315,190; 
6,414,470; and 7,132,717; and by reason of trade secret 
misappropriation. 75 FR 446 (Jan. 5, 2010). The complaint, as amended, 
named eight respondents: uPI Semiconductor Corp. (Taiwan) (``uPI''); 
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (Sunnyvale, California) (``AMD''); 
Sapphire Technology Ltd. (Hong Kong) (``Sapphire''); Best Data Products 
d/b/a Diamond Multimedia (Chatsworth, California) (``Diamond''); 
Eastcom, Inc. d/b/a XFX Technology USA (Rowland Heights, California) 
(``XFX''); Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. (Taiwan) and MSI Computer 
Corp. (City of Industry, California) (collectively, ``MSI''); and 
VisionTek Products LLC (Inverness, Illinois) (``VisionTek''). See 
Second Am. Compl. ]] 12-34 (May 20, 2010).
    The investigation has been terminated by settlement agreement or 
consent order against all parties other than VisionTek: On July 12, 
2010, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's termination of 
the investigation as against AMD, Diamond, and XFX. On August 13, 2010, 
the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's termination of the 
investigation against uPI and Sapphire. On August 20, 2010, the 
Commission determined not to review the ALJ's termination of the 
investigation against the MSI respondents.
    On July 27, 2010, VisionTek and Richek jointly moved to terminate 
the investigation based on a consent order stipulation and proposed 
consent order. The ALJ denied the motion. Order No. 51 (July 29, 2010). 
On August 5, 2010, VisionTek and Richtek jointly moved to terminate the 
investigation based on a settlement agreement. On August 17, 2010, the 
ALJ granted the motion. Order No. 56. Because VisionTek is the last 
respondent, termination against VisionTek results in termination of the 
investigation.
    No petitions for review of the ID were filed. The Commission has 
determined not to review 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 210.21(b) and 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (19 CFR. 210.21(b), 210.42).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: October 21, 2010,
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-27043 Filed 10-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P