In the Matter of Certain Mems Devices and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision To Review-in-Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions Regarding Remedy, Bonding, and the Public Interest, 13433-13434 [2011-5673]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Notices
the Commission if received not later
than 20 days after the date of service by
the Commission of the complaint and
the notice of investigation. Extensions of
time for submitting responses to the
complaint and the notice of
investigation will not be granted unless
good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely
response to each allegation in the
complaint and in this notice may be
deemed to constitute a waiver of the
right to appear and contest the
allegations of the complaint and this
notice, and to authorize the
administrative law judge and the
Commission, without further notice to
the respondent, to find the facts to be as
alleged in the complaint and this notice
and to enter an initial determination
and a final determination containing
such findings, and may result in the
issuance of an exclusion order or a cease
and desist order or both directed against
the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 7, 2011.
James R. Holbein,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011–5670 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–700]
In the Matter of Certain Mems Devices
and Products Containing Same; Notice
of Commission Decision To Review-inPart a Final Initial Determination
Finding a Violation of Section 337;
Request for Written Submissions
Regarding Remedy, Bonding, and the
Public Interest
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to reviewin-part a final initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) of the presiding administrative
law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) finding a violation of
section 337 in the above-captioned
investigation, and is requesting written
submissions regarding remedy, bonding,
and the public interest.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–2310. Copies of non-confidential
documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 31, 2009, based on a
complaint filed on December 1, 2009, by
Analog Devices, Inc. (‘‘Analog Devices’’)
of Norwood, Massachusetts. 75 FR 449–
50 (Jan. 5, 2010). The complaint, as
supplemented, alleged 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 microelectromechanical systems
(‘‘MEMS’’) devices and products
containing the same by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 7,220,614 (‘‘the ‘614 patent’’)
and 7,364,942 (‘‘the ‘942 patent’’). The
complaint further alleged that an
industry in the United States exists as
required by subsection (a)(2) of section
337. The complaint named as
respondents Knowles Electronics LLC of
Itasca, Illinois and Mouser Electronics,
Inc. of Mansfield, Texas.
On December 23, 2010, the ALJ issued
his final ID finding a violation of section
337 by respondents with respect to the
‘942 patent, and which also included
his recommendation on remedy and
bonding during the period of
Presidential review. The ALJ found no
section 337 violation with respect to the
‘614 patent due to non-infringement of
the asserted claims. On January 21,
2011, the Commission issued notice of
its determination to extend the deadline
to March 7, 2001, for determining
whether to review the final ID. On
January 18, 2011, Analog Devices,
respondents, and the Commission
investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed
petitions for review of the final ID, and
each party filed responses to the other
parties’ petitions on January 26, 2011.
On February 4, 2011, Analog Devices
and respondents each filed submissions
on the public interest.
Upon considering the parties’ filings,
the Commission has determined to
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13433
review-in-part the ID. Specifically, the
Commission has determined to review:
(1) The ALJ’s construction of the claim
term ‘‘oven’’ relating to both the ‘614 and
‘942 patents; (2) the ALJ’s construction
of the claim term ‘‘sawing’’ relating to
both the ‘614 and ‘942 patents; (3) the
ALJ’s determination that the accused
process does not infringe, either literally
or under the doctrine of equivalents,
claims 12, 15, 31–32, 34–35, and 38–39
of the ‘614 patent or claim 1 of the ‘942
patent; (4) the ALJ’s finding that U.S.
Patent No. 5,597,767 (‘‘the ‘767 patent’’)
does not incorporate by reference U.S.
Patent Nos. 5,331,454 and 5,512,374
(‘‘the ‘374 patent’’); (5) the ALJ’s finding
that claims 2–6 and 8 are infringed by
the accused process; (6) the ALJ’s
findings that claims 34–35 and 38–39 of
the ‘614 patent, and claims 2–6 and 8 of
the ‘942 patent, are not anticipated,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), by the ‘767
patent or the ‘374 patent; (7) the ALJ’s
findings that claims 34–35 and 38–39 of
the ‘614 patent are not obvious, under
35 U.S.C. § 103, in view of the ‘767
patent and the Sakata et al. prior art
reference; and (8) the ALJ’s finding that
the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement has been satisfied
as to both the ‘614 and ‘942 patents. The
Commission has determined not to
review the remainder of the ID.
On review, with respect to violation,
the parties are requested to submit
briefing limited to the following issues:
(1) In arguing that the term ‘‘oven’’
should be construed as ‘‘a system that
includes a heated chamber,’’ is it the
contention of Complainant and the IA
that the system includes elements such
as a reservoir, heaters on the reservoir,
a delivery line that connects the
reservoir and the deposition chamber, a
vacuum line, a nitrogen line, and a
device (such as a computer) for
programming the temperature, gas
pressure, etc., of the oven? See
Complainant Analog’s Contingent
Petition at 25 and the IA’s Contingent
Petition at 6.
(2) If the term ‘‘oven’’ as it appears in
claim 1 of the ‘942 was construed
broadly to encompass the entire system,
would the claim cover a method in
which the wafer is inserted into, and the
anti-stiction compound is heated
within, any portion of the system,
including the elements listed in the
question above, such as a heater,
delivery line, or a device for
programming? In your response, please
address whether the Commission
should construe the disputed term in
light of the context supplied by the
claim, which indicates, for example,
that the anti-stiction compound is
heated within said oven.
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
13434
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Notices
(3) If the term ‘‘oven’’ is construed
broadly, then is the claim invalid based
on a failure to satisfy the written
description and enablement
requirements? For example, does the
specification disclose that the antistiction compound can be heated within
a vacuum line or a device for
programming?
(4) The ALJ determined that the ‘374
patent did not disclose the limitation
‘‘exposing said wafer, substantially at
room temperature, to the vapor of a
compound having anti-stiction
properties’’ of claim 34 of the ’614
patent, finding that a table found at
column 5 of the ‘374 does not disclose
a ‘‘process whereby the anti-stiction
compound is deposited on a wafer
‘substantially at room temperature.’ ’’ ID
at 108–09. Can the required disclosure
be found in the ‘374 at cols. 4:59–5:62?
In addressing these issues, the parties
are requested to make specific reference
to the evidentiary record and to cite
relevant authority.
In connection with the final
disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may issue an order that
results in the exclusion of the subject
articles from entry into the United
States. Accordingly, the Commission is
interested in receiving written
submissions that address the form of
remedy, if any, that should be ordered.
If a party seeks exclusion of an article
from entry into the United States for
purposes other than entry for
consumption, the party should so
indicate and provide information
establishing that activities involving
other types of entry either are adversely
affecting it or likely to do so. For
background, see In the Matter of Certain
Devices for Connecting Computers via
Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360,
USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994)
(Commission Opinion).
When the Commission contemplates
some form of remedy, it must consider
the effects of that remedy upon the
public interest. The factors the
Commission will consider include the
effect that an exclusion order and/or
cease and desist orders would have on
(1) The public health and welfare, (2)
competitive conditions in the U.S.
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles
that are like or directly competitive with
those that are subject to investigation,
and (4) U.S. consumers. The
Commission is therefore interested in
receiving written submissions that
address the aforementioned public
interest factors in the context of this
investigation, particularly in the context
of the ALJ’s recommendations on
remedy.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
When the Commission orders some
form of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the
President, has 60 days to approve or
disapprove the Commission’s action.
See section 337(j), 19 U.S.C. 1337(j) and
the Presidential Memorandum of July
21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005).
During this period, the subject articles
would be entitled to enter the United
States under bond, in an amount
determined by the Commission. The
Commission is therefore interested in
receiving submissions concerning the
amount of the bond that should be
imposed if a remedy is ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to
the investigation are requested to file
written submissions on the issues under
review in response to the abovereferenced questions. The submissions
should be concise and thoroughly
referenced to the record in this
investigation. Parties to the
investigation, interested government
agencies, and any other interested
parties are encouraged to file written
submissions on the issues of remedy,
the public interest, and bonding, and
such submissions should address the
recommended determination by the ALJ
on remedy and bonding. The
complainant and the Commission
investigative attorney are also requested
to submit proposed remedial orders for
the Commission’s consideration.
Complainant is also requested to state
the dates that the patents at issue expire
and the HTSUS numbers under which
the accused articles are imported. The
written submissions and proposed
remedial orders must be filed no later
than close of business on March 18,
2011. Reply submissions must be filed
no later than the close of business on
March 25, 2011. No further submissions
on these issues will be permitted unless
otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document and 12
true copies thereof on or before the
deadlines stated above with the Office
of the Secretary. Any person desiring to
submit a document to the Commission
in confidence must request confidential
treatment unless the information has
already been granted such treatment
during the proceedings. All such
requests should be directed to the
Secretary of the Commission and must
include a full statement of the reasons
why the Commission should grant such
treatment. See 19 CFR 210.6. Documents
for which confidential treatment by the
Commission is sought will be treated
accordingly. All nonconfidential written
submissions will be available for public
inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
The authority for the Commission’s
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
determination is contained in section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in
sections 210.42–46 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR
210.42–46.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 7, 2011.
James R. Holbein,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011–5673 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–732]
In the Matter of Certain Devices Having
Elastomeric Gel and Components
Thereof; Notice of a Commission
Determination Not To Review an Initial
Determination Terminating the
Investigation in Its Entirety
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) of the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in the
above-captioned investigation
terminating the investigation in its
entirety.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark B. Rees, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3116. 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://
www.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 August 4, 2010, based on the
complaint, as supplemented, of
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13433-13434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5673]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-700]
In the Matter of Certain Mems Devices and Products Containing
Same; Notice of Commission Decision To Review-in-Part a Final Initial
Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Request for Written
Submissions Regarding Remedy, Bonding, and the Public Interest
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review-in-part a final initial
determination (``ID'') of the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') finding a violation of section 337 in the above-captioned
investigation, and is requesting written submissions regarding remedy,
bonding, and the public interest.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. 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 31, 2009, based on a complaint filed on December 1, 2009,
by Analog Devices, Inc. (``Analog Devices'') of Norwood, Massachusetts.
75 FR 449-50 (Jan. 5, 2010). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged
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 microelectromechanical systems (``MEMS'') devices and products
containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 7,220,614 (``the `614 patent'') and 7,364,942 (``the `942
patent''). The complaint further alleged that an industry in the United
States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The
complaint named as respondents Knowles Electronics LLC of Itasca,
Illinois and Mouser Electronics, Inc. of Mansfield, Texas.
On December 23, 2010, the ALJ issued his final ID finding a
violation of section 337 by respondents with respect to the `942
patent, and which also included his recommendation on remedy and
bonding during the period of Presidential review. The ALJ found no
section 337 violation with respect to the `614 patent due to non-
infringement of the asserted claims. On January 21, 2011, the
Commission issued notice of its determination to extend the deadline to
March 7, 2001, for determining whether to review the final ID. On
January 18, 2011, Analog Devices, respondents, and the Commission
investigative attorney (``IA'') filed petitions for review of the final
ID, and each party filed responses to the other parties' petitions on
January 26, 2011. On February 4, 2011, Analog Devices and respondents
each filed submissions on the public interest.
Upon considering the parties' filings, the Commission has
determined to review-in-part the ID. Specifically, the Commission has
determined to review: (1) The ALJ's construction of the claim term
``oven'' relating to both the `614 and `942 patents; (2) the ALJ's
construction of the claim term ``sawing'' relating to both the `614 and
`942 patents; (3) the ALJ's determination that the accused process does
not infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
claims 12, 15, 31-32, 34-35, and 38-39 of the `614 patent or claim 1 of
the `942 patent; (4) the ALJ's finding that U.S. Patent No. 5,597,767
(``the `767 patent'') does not incorporate by reference U.S. Patent
Nos. 5,331,454 and 5,512,374 (``the `374 patent''); (5) the ALJ's
finding that claims 2-6 and 8 are infringed by the accused process; (6)
the ALJ's findings that claims 34-35 and 38-39 of the `614 patent, and
claims 2-6 and 8 of the `942 patent, are not anticipated, under 35
U.S.C. Sec. 102(a), by the `767 patent or the `374 patent; (7) the
ALJ's findings that claims 34-35 and 38-39 of the `614 patent are not
obvious, under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 103, in view of the `767 patent and the
Sakata et al. prior art reference; and (8) the ALJ's finding that the
technical prong of the domestic industry requirement has been satisfied
as to both the `614 and `942 patents. The Commission has determined not
to review the remainder of the ID.
On review, with respect to violation, the parties are requested to
submit briefing limited to the following issues:
(1) In arguing that the term ``oven'' should be construed as ``a
system that includes a heated chamber,'' is it the contention of
Complainant and the IA that the system includes elements such as a
reservoir, heaters on the reservoir, a delivery line that connects the
reservoir and the deposition chamber, a vacuum line, a nitrogen line,
and a device (such as a computer) for programming the temperature, gas
pressure, etc., of the oven? See Complainant Analog's Contingent
Petition at 25 and the IA's Contingent Petition at 6.
(2) If the term ``oven'' as it appears in claim 1 of the `942 was
construed broadly to encompass the entire system, would the claim cover
a method in which the wafer is inserted into, and the anti-stiction
compound is heated within, any portion of the system, including the
elements listed in the question above, such as a heater, delivery line,
or a device for programming? In your response, please address whether
the Commission should construe the disputed term in light of the
context supplied by the claim, which indicates, for example, that the
anti-stiction compound is heated within said oven.
[[Page 13434]]
(3) If the term ``oven'' is construed broadly, then is the claim
invalid based on a failure to satisfy the written description and
enablement requirements? For example, does the specification disclose
that the anti-stiction compound can be heated within a vacuum line or a
device for programming?
(4) The ALJ determined that the `374 patent did not disclose the
limitation ``exposing said wafer, substantially at room temperature, to
the vapor of a compound having anti-stiction properties'' of claim 34
of the '614 patent, finding that a table found at column 5 of the `374
does not disclose a ``process whereby the anti-stiction compound is
deposited on a wafer `substantially at room temperature.' '' ID at 108-
09. Can the required disclosure be found in the `374 at cols. 4:59-
5:62?
In addressing these issues, the parties are requested to make
specific reference to the evidentiary record and to cite relevant
authority.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may issue an order that results in the exclusion of the
subject articles from entry into the United States. Accordingly, the
Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address
the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks
exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes
other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and
provide information establishing that activities involving other types
of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For
background, see In the Matter of Certain Devices for Connecting
Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843
(December 1994) (Commission Opinion).
When the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) The
public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S.
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly
competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written
submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in
the context of this investigation, particularly in the context of the
ALJ's recommendations on remedy.
When the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve
or disapprove the Commission's action. See section 337(j), 19 U.S.C.
1337(j) and the Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251
(July 26, 2005). During this period, the subject articles would be
entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined
by the Commission. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving
submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed if
a remedy is ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the issues under review in response to
the above-referenced questions. The submissions should be concise and
thoroughly referenced to the record in this investigation. Parties to
the investigation, interested government agencies, and any other
interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the
issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding, and such
submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on
remedy and bonding. The complainant and the Commission investigative
attorney are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the
Commission's consideration. Complainant is also requested to state the
dates that the patents at issue expire and the HTSUS numbers under
which the accused articles are imported. The written submissions and
proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business
on March 18, 2011. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the
close of business on March 25, 2011. No further submissions on these
issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with
the Office of the Secretary. Any person desiring to submit a document
to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment
unless the information has already been granted such treatment during
the proceedings. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary
of the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why
the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 210.6. Documents
for which confidential treatment by the Commission is sought will be
treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be
available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary. 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 210.42-46 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
19 CFR 210.42-46.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 7, 2011.
James R. Holbein,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-5673 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P