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, 65654-65655 [2010-27044]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
65654
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Notices
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–703]
In the Matter of: Certain Mobile
Telephones and Wireless
Communication Devices Featuring
Digital Cameras, and Components
Thereof;Notice of Commission
Determination ThatJune 22, 2010,
Initial Determination Is an OrderRather
Than an Initial Determination
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined that the
June 22, 2010, initial determination on
claim construction (‘‘ID’’) issued by the
presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’) in the above-captioned
investigation under section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’) is properly
issued in the form of an order rather
than an initial determination.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James A. Worth, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3065. 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 (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: This
investigation was instituted on February
23, 2010, based upon a complaint filed
on behalf of Eastman Kodak Company of
Rochester, New York (‘‘Kodak’’) on
January 14, 2010, and supplemented on
February 4, 2010. 75 FR 8112. 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 mobile
telephones and wireless communication
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:09 Oct 25, 2010
Jkt 223001
devices featuring digital cameras, and
components thereof, that infringe
certain claims of U.S. Patent No.
6,292,218. The complaint named as
respondents Apple, Inc., of Cupertino,
Calif. (‘‘Apple’’); Research in Motion,
Ltd., of Ontario, Canada; and Research
in Motion Corp., of Irving, Texas
(collectively, ‘‘RIM’’).
On June 22, 2010, the ALJ issued the
subject Markman hearing initial
determination (‘‘ID’’), finding that a
Markman ruling was appropriate in this
case and that summary determination
was an appropriate vehicle for that
ruling. He then proceeded to construe
certain terms of the asserted patent
claims. ID 8–92.
On June 30, 2010, the parties filed
four petitions and contingent petitions
for review. On September 1, 2009, each
of the parties filed responses thereto.
On July 22, 2010, the Commission
issued notice of its determination to
review the subject ID and requested
briefing on the issues on review,
including the following proposed
analysis:
As used in rule 210.18(a), the term ‘‘issues
to be determined in the investigation’’ can be
viewed as limited to claims and affirmative
defenses; a ‘‘part’’ of such an issue includes
an element (or subpart thereof) of a claim or
affirmative defense. Thus, the following
could be a non-exhaustive list of examples of
issues or parts thereof that are covered by
rule 210.18(a): Violation, importation,
infringement, domestic industry (technical or
economic prong), invalidity on any basis
(such as anticipation or obviousness),
unenforceability. Claim construction may be
a necessary underpinning to the resolution of
certain issues or elements, and may be part
of a summary determination that addresses
an issue or element. On its own, however,
claim construction might not be viewed as
constituting such an issue or element.
75 FR 44282 (July 28, 2010).
On August 5, 2010, each of the parties
filed a submission in response to the
notice of review. On August 16, 2010,
each of the parties filed a reply thereto.
Upon review of Commission rules
210.18 and 210.42, 19 CFR 210.18,
210.42, and the parties’ submissions, the
Commission has determined that the
June 22, 2010, initial determination on
claim construction issued by the
presiding administrative law judge is an
order rather than an initial
determination. Commission rule 210.42
does not include claim construction in
the list of issues that must be decided
in the form of an initial determination.
Nor is claim construction properly the
subject of a motion for summary
determination under Commission rule
210.18 since claim construction,
standing alone, is not an ‘‘issue’’ or ‘‘any
part of an issue’’ within the meaning of
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
that rule. While the Commission finds
that the rules are unambiguous, to the
extent interpretation is required, the
Commission determines in its discretion
and in the interest of the expeditious
conclusion of section 337 investigations
that a ruling on claim construction is
properly issued in the form of an order.
This action is taken under the
authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),
and under sections 210.18 and 210.42–
.46 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.18,
210.42–.46).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: October 20, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010–26976 Filed 10–25–10; 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. 20) 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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Notices
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.
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 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 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]
[Pages 65654-65655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27044]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 20) 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
[[Page 65655]]
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.
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).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: October 21, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-27044 Filed 10-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
