In the Matter of Certain Mems Devices and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision to Affirm-In-Part and Reverse-In-Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order; and Termination of the Investigation, 28809-28810 [2011-12183]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Notices on January 19, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Remy International, Inc. and Remy Technologies, L.L.C. (collectively, ‘‘Remy’’). 76 FR 3158. The complaint alleges 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 starter motors and alternators by reason of infringement of various United States Patents. The original complaint named eight respondents. On April 11, 2011, Remy filed a motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add Yun Sheng and EMS as respondents. On April 21, 2011, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response in support of the motion. No other responses were filed. On April 27, 2011, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting Remy’s motion to add Yun Sheng and EMS as respondents. No petitions for review of the ID were filed. The Commission has determined not to review the ID. The Notice of Investigation is amended to include the following respondents alleged to be in violation of section 337 and are parties upon which the amended complaint is to be served: Yun Sheng USA, Inc. 395 Oyster Point, Blvd., Ste 230, San Francisco, California 94080; Electric Motor Services, 70 River Rd., Logan, West Virginia 25601–4042. 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 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42). By order of the Commission. Issued: May 13, 2011. James R. Holbein, Acting Secretary to the Commission. Trade Commission (‘‘Commission’’) instituted a five-year review concerning the countervailing duty order on stainless steel plate from Belgium (75 FR 30777 and 75 FR 30434). On May 5, 2011, Commerce published notice in the Federal Register of the final results of its full five-year review of the countervailing duty order concerning stainless steel plate from Belgium, finding that revocation of the countervailing duty order would not likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. Therefore, Commerce revoked the countervailing duty order (76 FR 25666). Accordingly, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the subject review is terminated. DATES: Effective Date: May 5, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keysha Martinez (202–205–2136), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (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. Authority: This review is being terminated under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.69 of the Commission’s rules (19 CFR 207.69). BILLING CODE P By order of the Commission. Issued: May 12, 2011. James R. Holbein, Acting Secretary to the Commission. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [FR Doc. 2011–12181 Filed 5–17–11; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 2011–12182 Filed 5–17–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES [Investigation No. 701–TA–376 (Second Review)] Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium; Termination of Five-Year Review United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Effective June 1, 2010, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) initiated and the U.S. International SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:31 May 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 28809 INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–700] In the Matter of Certain Mems Devices and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision to Affirm-InPart and Reverse-In-Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order; and Termination of the Investigation U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to affirmin-part and reverse-in-part a final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) of the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) finding a violation of section 337 by respondents in the above-captioned investigation, and has issued a limited exclusion order directed against products of respondents Knowles Electronics LLC (‘‘Knowles’’) of Itasca, Illinois and Mouser Electronics, Inc. (‘‘Mouser’’) of Mansfield, Texas. 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) 708–5468. 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 January 5, 2010, based on a complaint filed on December 1, 2009, by Analog Devices, Inc. (‘‘Analog Devices’’) of Norwood, Massachusetts. 75 FR 449– 50 (January 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 SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\18MYN1.SGM 18MYN1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES 28810 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Notices 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 and Mouser. On December 23, 2010, the ALJ issued his final ID finding a violation of section 337 by respondents as to the ‘942 patent only, and issued his recommended determinations on remedy and bonding. On January 18, 2011, respondents, Analog Devices, and the Commission investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) each filed a petition for review of the final ID, and each party filed a response on January 27, 2011. On March 7, 2011, the Commission 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 (‘‘the ‘454 patent’’) 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. (‘‘Sakata’’) prior art reference; and (8) the ALJ’s finding that the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement is satisfied as to both the ‘614 and ‘942 patents. The determinations made in the final ID that were not reviewed became final determinations of the Commission by operation of rule. See 19 U.S.C. 210.42(h). The Commission requested the parties to respond to certain questions concerning the issues under review and requested written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding from the parties and interested non-parties. 74 FR 13433–34 (March 11, 2011). VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:31 May 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 On March 18 and March 25, 2011, respectively, complainant Analog Devices, respondents, and the IA each filed a brief and a reply brief on the issues for which the Commission requested written submissions. Also, on March 21, 2001, respondents filed a motion for leave to file a corrected submission that clarified that the March 18, 2011 submission was filed on behalf of both Knowles and Mouser. On March 29, 2011, respondents filed a motion for leave to file a corrected submission that strikes a portion of their initial brief. On March 31, 2011, respondents filed notice of their withdrawal of their March 29, 2011 motion. The Commission has determined to grant respondents’ remaining motion of March 21, 2011. Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the final ID and the parties’ written submissions, the Commission has determined to affirmin-part and reverse-in-part the ID’s findings under review. Particularly, the Commission has reversed the ALJ’s finding and has determined that the ‘767 patent incorporates by reference the ‘374 and ‘454 patents. The Commission has affirmed all other issues under review including the following: (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 claims 2–6 and 8 of the ‘942 patent are infringed by the accused process; (5) 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; (6) 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 Sakata; and (7) the ALJ’s finding that Analog Devices satisfies the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the ‘614 and ‘942 patents, based on his finding that respondents’ argument based on NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1313–1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005), is waived. The Commission has taken no position on the ALJ’s finding that the domestic industry is satisfied even if respondents’ argument based on NTP is not waived. These actions result in a finding of a violation of section 337 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 with respect to claims 2–6 and 8 of the ‘942 patent. Further, the Commission has made its determination on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief is a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of MEMS devices and products containing the same that infringe claims 2–6 and 8 of the ‘942 patent that are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf of, Knowles or Mouser, or any of their affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other related business entities, or successors or assigns. The Commission further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in section 337(d)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order. Finally, the Commission determined that no bond is required to permit temporary importation during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)). The Commission’s order and opinion were delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance. The Commission has terminated this investigation. 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, 210.45, and 210.50 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42, 210.45, 210.50). By order of the Commission. Issued: May 10, 2011. James R. Holbein, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2011–12183 Filed 5–17–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Park System Resource Protection Act Notice is hereby given that on May 9, 2011, the United States lodged a proposed Consent Decree in United States et al. v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Case No. 2–11–cv– 1110–CWH (D. S. Car. May 9, 2011). The proposed Consent Decree resolves environmental claims brought by plaintiffs including the United States Department of Interior, National E:\FR\FM\18MYN1.SGM 18MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28809-28810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12183]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

 [Investigation No. 337-TA-700]


In the Matter of Certain Mems Devices and Products Containing 
Same; Notice of Commission Decision to Affirm-In-Part and Reverse-In-
Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; 
Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order; and Termination of the 
Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part a final 
initial determination (``ID'') of the presiding administrative law 
judge (``ALJ'') finding a violation of section 337 by respondents in 
the above-captioned investigation, and has issued a limited exclusion 
order directed against products of respondents Knowles Electronics LLC 
(``Knowles'') of Itasca, Illinois and Mouser Electronics, Inc. 
(``Mouser'') of Mansfield, Texas.

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) 708-5468. 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 January 5, 2010, based on a complaint filed on December 1, 2009, by 
Analog Devices, Inc. (``Analog Devices'') of Norwood, Massachusetts. 75 
FR 449-50 (January 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

[[Page 28810]]

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 and Mouser.
    On December 23, 2010, the ALJ issued his final ID finding a 
violation of section 337 by respondents as to the `942 patent only, and 
issued his recommended determinations on remedy and bonding. On January 
18, 2011, respondents, Analog Devices, and the Commission investigative 
attorney (``IA'') each filed a petition for review of the final ID, and 
each party filed a response on January 27, 2011.
    On March 7, 2011, the Commission 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 (``the 
`454 patent'') 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. (``Sakata'') prior art reference; and (8) the ALJ's finding that 
the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement is satisfied 
as to both the `614 and `942 patents. The determinations made in the 
final ID that were not reviewed became final determinations of the 
Commission by operation of rule. See 19 U.S.C. 210.42(h).
    The Commission requested the parties to respond to certain 
questions concerning the issues under review and requested written 
submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding 
from the parties and interested non-parties. 74 FR 13433-34 (March 11, 
2011).
    On March 18 and March 25, 2011, respectively, complainant Analog 
Devices, respondents, and the IA each filed a brief and a reply brief 
on the issues for which the Commission requested written submissions. 
Also, on March 21, 2001, respondents filed a motion for leave to file a 
corrected submission that clarified that the March 18, 2011 submission 
was filed on behalf of both Knowles and Mouser. On March 29, 2011, 
respondents filed a motion for leave to file a corrected submission 
that strikes a portion of their initial brief. On March 31, 2011, 
respondents filed notice of their withdrawal of their March 29, 2011 
motion. The Commission has determined to grant respondents' remaining 
motion of March 21, 2011.
    Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the 
final ID and the parties' written submissions, the Commission has 
determined to affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part the ID's findings 
under review. Particularly, the Commission has reversed the ALJ's 
finding and has determined that the `767 patent incorporates by 
reference the `374 and `454 patents.
    The Commission has affirmed all other issues under review including 
the following: (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 claims 2-6 and 8 of the `942 
patent are infringed by the accused process; (5) 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; (6) 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 Sakata; and (7) the ALJ's finding that 
Analog Devices satisfies the technical prong of the domestic industry 
requirement with respect to the `614 and `942 patents, based on his 
finding that respondents' argument based on NTP, Inc. v. Research In 
Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1313-1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005), is waived. The 
Commission has taken no position on the ALJ's finding that the domestic 
industry is satisfied even if respondents' argument based on NTP is not 
waived. These actions result in a finding of a violation of section 337 
with respect to claims 2-6 and 8 of the `942 patent.
    Further, the Commission has made its determination on the issues of 
remedy, the public interest, and bonding. The Commission has determined 
that the appropriate form of relief is a limited exclusion order 
prohibiting the unlicensed entry of MEMS devices and products 
containing the same that infringe claims 2-6 and 8 of the `942 patent 
that are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or are imported by or 
on behalf of, Knowles or Mouser, or any of their affiliated companies, 
parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other related 
business entities, or successors or assigns.
    The Commission further determined that the public interest factors 
enumerated in section 337(d)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)) do not preclude 
issuance of the limited exclusion order. Finally, the Commission 
determined that no bond is required to permit temporary importation 
during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)). The 
Commission's order and opinion were delivered to the President and to 
the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.
    The Commission has terminated this investigation. 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, 210.45, and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42, 210.45, 210.50).

    By order of the Commission.

     Issued: May 10, 2011.
James R. Holbein,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-12183 Filed 5-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P