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 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 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 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 http://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 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 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 http://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 
http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be 
viewed on the Commission's

[[Page 82072]]

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 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