In the Matter of Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision Not To Review the ALJ'S Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Termination of Investigation, 82071-82072 [2010-32759]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–664]
In the Matter of Certain Flash Memory
Chips and Products Containing Same;
Notice of Commission Decision Not To
Review the ALJ’s Final Initial
Determination Finding No Violation of
Section 337; Termination 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 the presiding administrative law
judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) final initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) issued on October
22, 2010, finding no violation of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.
1337, in this investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Panyin A. Hughes, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3042. 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 18, 2008, based on a
complaint filed by Spansion, Inc. and
Spansion LLC both of Sunnyvale,
California (collectively, ‘‘Spansion’’). 73
FR 77059–061 (Dec. 18, 2008). 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 flash memory
chips and products containing the same
by reason of infringement of various
claims of United States Patent Nos.
6,380,029 (‘‘the ’029 patent’’); 6,080,639
(‘‘the ’639 patent’’); 6,376,877 (‘‘the ’877
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
02:10 Dec 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
patent’’); and 5,715,194 (‘‘the ’194
patent’’). The ’029 patent and the ’639
patent were subsequently terminated
from the investigation. The complaint
named over thirty respondents. On
March 12, 2010, the complaint and
notice of investigation were amended to
terminate several respondents from the
investigation and to add certain entities
as respondents. 75 FR 11909–910 (Mar.
12, 2010).
On October 22, 2010, the ALJ issued
his final ID, finding no violation of
section 337 by Respondents with
respect to any of the asserted claims of
the two remaining patents. Specifically,
the ALJ found that the accused products
do not infringe the asserted claims of
the ’877 patent. The ALJ also found that
none of the cited references anticipated
the asserted claims and that none of the
cited references rendered the asserted
claims of the ’877 patent obvious. The
ALJ further found that an industry in
the United States that practices or
exploits the ’877 patent does not exist,
nor is such an industry in the process
of being established, and concluded that
Spansion failed to satisfy the domestic
industry requirement of section 337 (19
U.S.C. 1337(a)(2) and (3)). With respect
to the ’194 patent, the ALJ found that
certain accused products do not infringe
its asserted claims. The ALJ, however,
found that other accused products met
all the limitations of the asserted claims
but found that a prior art reference,
United States Patent No. 5,621,684 to
Jung, anticipated the asserted claims
and rendered them invalid. The ALJ
also found that the asserted claims were
not obvious in light of the references
respondents relied upon to prove
obviousness. The ALJ further found that
an industry in the United States that
practices or exploits the ’194 patent
does not exist, nor is such an industry
in the process of being established, and
concluded that Spansion failed to
satisfy the domestic industry
requirement of section 337.
On November 8, 2010, the
Commission investigative attorney
(‘‘IA’’) filed a petition for review of the
ID, seeking review of the ALJ’s
determination that Spansion failed to
satisfy the domestic industry
requirement by relying on licensing
efforts that occurred after the complaint
was filed. The next day, Respondents
filed a joint contingent petition for
review, asking the Commission to
review certain findings in the ID in the
event that the Commission decides to
review the ID. Spansion did not petition
the Commission for review of any
findings in the ID. On November 16,
2010, Spansion filed a combined
response to the IA’s petition for review
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
82071
and Respondents’ joint contingent
petition for review. Also on November
16, 2010, Respondents filed a joint
response to the IA’s petition for review.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the petitions for review, and the
responses thereto, 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
section 210.42(h) of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42(h)).
Issued: December 23, 2010.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010–32763 Filed 12–28–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–664]
In the Matter of Certain Flash Memory
Chips and Products Containing Same;
Notice of Commission Decision Not To
Review the ALJ’S Final Initial
Determination Finding No Violation of
Section 337; Termination 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 the presiding administrative law
judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) final initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) issued on October
22, 2010, finding no violation of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.
1337, in this investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Panyin A. Hughes, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3042. 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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
29DEN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
82072
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices
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 18, 2008, based on a
complaint filed by Spansion, Inc. and
Spansion LLC both of Sunnyvale,
California (collectively, ‘‘Spansion’’). 73
FR 77059–061 (Dec. 18, 2008). 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 flash memory
chips and products containing the same
by reason of infringement of various
claims of United States Patent Nos.
6,380,029 (‘‘the ’029 patent’’); 6,080,639
(‘‘the ’639 patent’’); 6,376,877 (‘‘the ’877
patent’’); and 5,715,194 (‘‘the ’194
patent’’). The ’029 patent and the ’639
patent were subsequently terminated
from the investigation. The complaint
named over thirty respondents. On
March 12, 2010, the complaint and
notice of investigation were amended to
terminate several respondents from the
investigation and to add certain entities
as respondents. 75 FR 11909–910 (Mar.
12, 2010).
On October 22, 2010, the ALJ issued
his final ID, finding no violation of
section 337 by Respondents with
respect to any of the asserted claims of
the two remaining patents. Specifically,
the ALJ found that the accused products
do not infringe the asserted claims of
the ’877 patent. The ALJ also found that
none of the cited references anticipated
the asserted claims and that none of the
cited references rendered the asserted
claims of the ’877 patent obvious. The
ALJ further found that an industry in
the United States that practices or
exploits the ’877 patent does not exist,
nor is such an industry in the process
of being established, and concluded that
Spansion failed to satisfy the domestic
industry requirement of section 337 (19
U.S.C. 1337(a)(2) and (3)). With respect
to the ’194 patent, the ALJ found that
certain accused products do not infringe
its asserted claims. The ALJ, however,
found that other accused products met
all the limitations of the asserted claims
but found that a prior art reference,
United States Patent No. 5,621,684 to
Jung, anticipated the asserted claims
and rendered them invalid. The ALJ
also found that the asserted claims were
not obvious in light of the references
respondents relied upon to prove
obviousness. The ALJ further found that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
02:10 Dec 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
an industry in the United States that
practices or exploits the ’194 patent
does not exist, nor is such an industry
in the process of being established, and
concluded that Spansion failed to
satisfy the domestic industry
requirement of section 337.
On November 8, 2010, the
Commission investigative attorney
(‘‘IA’’) filed a petition for review of the
ID, seeking review of the ALJ’s
determination that Spansion failed to
satisfy the domestic industry
requirement by relying on licensing
efforts that occurred after the complaint
was filed. The next day, Respondents
filed a joint contingent petition for
review, asking the Commission to
review certain findings in the ID in the
event that the Commission decides to
review the ID. Spansion did not petition
the Commission for review of any
findings in the ID. On November 16,
2010, Spansion filed a combined
response to the IA’s petition for review
and Respondents’ joint contingent
petition for review. Also on November
16, 2010, Respondents filed a joint
response to the IA’s petition for review.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the petitions for review, and the
responses thereto, 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
section 210.42(h) of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42(h)).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: December 23, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010–32759 Filed 12–28–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of a Consent Decree
Under the Clean Water Act
Notice is hereby given that on
December 22, 2010, a proposed Consent
Decree in United States and the State of
Ohio v. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District, Civil Action No. 10–cv–02895
was lodged with the United States
District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio.
In this action the United States and
the State of Ohio seeks civil penalties
and injunctive relief for violations of the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.,
in connection with the Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District’s (‘‘NEORSD’’)
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
operation of its municipal wastewater
and sewer system. The Complaint
alleges that the NEORSD’s discharges
from its combined sewer overflows
(‘‘CSOs’’) violate the Clean Water Act
because the discharge of sewage violates
limitations and conditions in NEORSD’s
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
The Complaint further alleges that
NEORSD’s bypasses of wastewater of its
treatment plants’ processes also violate
its NPDES permits.
Under the proposed Consent Decree,
NEORSD will be required to implement
injunctive measures, including the
construction of seven deep underground
tunnel systems—to reduce its CSO
discharges—and construction of
treatment plant expansions, for a total
cost of approximately $3 billion.
NEORSD will also invest $42 million in
green infrastructure that will further
reduce its CSO discharge by 44 million
gallons. The Consent Decree allows
NEORSD the opportunity to propose
additional green infrastructure projects
in exchange for a reduction in scope of
the traditional infrastructure projects.
NEORSD will pay $1.2 million in civil
penalties to be split evenly between the
United States and the State of Ohio.
NEORSD will also spend $1 million to
operate a permanent hazardous waste
collection center in Cuyahoga County
and $800,000 to improve other water
resources. Under the proposed Consent
Decree, the injunctive relief is to be
implemented over a 25-year period.
The Department of Justice will receive
for a period of thirty (30) days from the
date of this publication comments
relating to the proposed Consent Decree.
Comments should be addressed to the
Assistant Attorney General,
Environment and Natural Resources
Division, and either emailed to
pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or
mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC
20044–7611, and should refer to United
States v. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District, D.J. Ref. 90–5–1–1–08177/1.
The proposed Consent Decree may be
examined at the Office of the United
States Attorney, Northern District of
Ohio, 801 West Superior Avenue, Suite
400, Cleveland, OH 44113 (contact
Assistant United States Attorney Steven
J. Paffilas (216) 622–3698), and at U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 60604–3590 (contact
Associate Regional Counsel Nicole
Cantello (312) 886–2870)). During the
public comment period, the proposed
Consent Decree, may also be examined
on the following Department of Justice
Web site, to https://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
29DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82071-82072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32759]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-664]
In the Matter of Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products
Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision Not To Review the ALJ'S
Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337;
Termination 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 the presiding administrative
law judge's (``ALJ'') final initial determination (``ID'') issued on
October 22, 2010, finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panyin A. Hughes, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. 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
[[Page 82072]]
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 18, 2008, based on a complaint filed by Spansion, Inc. and
Spansion LLC both of Sunnyvale, California (collectively,
``Spansion''). 73 FR 77059-061 (Dec. 18, 2008). 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 flash
memory chips and products containing the same by reason of infringement
of various claims of United States Patent Nos. 6,380,029 (``the '029
patent''); 6,080,639 (``the '639 patent''); 6,376,877 (``the '877
patent''); and 5,715,194 (``the '194 patent''). The '029 patent and the
'639 patent were subsequently terminated from the investigation. The
complaint named over thirty respondents. On March 12, 2010, the
complaint and notice of investigation were amended to terminate several
respondents from the investigation and to add certain entities as
respondents. 75 FR 11909-910 (Mar. 12, 2010).
On October 22, 2010, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding no
violation of section 337 by Respondents with respect to any of the
asserted claims of the two remaining patents. Specifically, the ALJ
found that the accused products do not infringe the asserted claims of
the '877 patent. The ALJ also found that none of the cited references
anticipated the asserted claims and that none of the cited references
rendered the asserted claims of the '877 patent obvious. The ALJ
further found that an industry in the United States that practices or
exploits the '877 patent does not exist, nor is such an industry in the
process of being established, and concluded that Spansion failed to
satisfy the domestic industry requirement of section 337 (19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(2) and (3)). With respect to the '194 patent, the ALJ found
that certain accused products do not infringe its asserted claims. The
ALJ, however, found that other accused products met all the limitations
of the asserted claims but found that a prior art reference, United
States Patent No. 5,621,684 to Jung, anticipated the asserted claims
and rendered them invalid. The ALJ also found that the asserted claims
were not obvious in light of the references respondents relied upon to
prove obviousness. The ALJ further found that an industry in the United
States that practices or exploits the '194 patent does not exist, nor
is such an industry in the process of being established, and concluded
that Spansion failed to satisfy the domestic industry requirement of
section 337.
On November 8, 2010, the Commission investigative attorney (``IA'')
filed a petition for review of the ID, seeking review of the ALJ's
determination that Spansion failed to satisfy the domestic industry
requirement by relying on licensing efforts that occurred after the
complaint was filed. The next day, Respondents filed a joint contingent
petition for review, asking the Commission to review certain findings
in the ID in the event that the Commission decides to review the ID.
Spansion did not petition the Commission for review of any findings in
the ID. On November 16, 2010, Spansion filed a combined response to the
IA's petition for review and Respondents' joint contingent petition for
review. Also on November 16, 2010, Respondents filed a joint response
to the IA's petition for review.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto,
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 section 210.42(h) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42(h)).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: December 23, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-32759 Filed 12-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
