In the Matter of Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same; Notice of Institution of Formal Enforcement Proceeding, 55109-55110 [2011-22640]

Download as PDF mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2011 / Notices cease and desist order in this investigation would negatively affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers. In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that: (i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the orders are used in the United States; (ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the potential orders; (iii) Indicate the extent to which like or directly competitive articles are produced in the United States or are otherwise available in the United States, with respect to the articles potentially subject to the orders; and (iv) Indicate whether Complainant, Complainant’s licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to an exclusion order and a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time. Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, five business days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation. 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. Submissions should refer to the docket number (‘‘Docket No. 2843’’) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. The Commission’s rules authorize filing submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means only to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the rules (see Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/ secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/ documents/ handbook_on_electronic_filing. pdf). Persons with questions regarding electronic filing should contact the Secretary (202–205–2000). Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:00 Sep 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.50(a)(4) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.50(a)(4)). By order of the Commission. Issued: August 31, 2011. James Holbein, Secretary to the Commission. 55109 contained in USITC Publication 4255 (August 2011), entitled Glycine from China: Investigation No. 731–TA–718 (Third Review). By order of the Commission. Issued: August 30, 2011. James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2011–22638 Filed 9–2–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [FR Doc. 2011–22673 Filed 9–2–11; 8:45 am] [Inv. No. 337–TA–698; (Enforcement Proceeding)] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P In the Matter of Certain DC–DC Controllers and Products Containing Same; Notice of Institution of Formal Enforcement Proceeding INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731–TA–718 (Third Review)] Glycine From China On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on glycine from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Background The Commission instituted this review on October 7, 2010 (75 FR 62141) and determined on January 4, 2011 that it would conduct a full review (76 FR 8771, February 15, 2011). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission’s review and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on February 15, 2011 (76 FR 8771). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on June 30, 2011, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the Secretary of Commerce on August 30, 2011. The views of the Commission are 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has instituted a formal enforcement proceeding relating to the August 13, 2010, consent orders issued in the above-captioned investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint A. Gerdine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3061. Copies of all nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https:// edis.usitc.gov/. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on the matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted the original investigation on December 29, 2009, based on a complaint filed by Richtek Technology Corp. of Taiwan and Richtek USA, Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively ‘‘Richtek’’). 75 FR 446–47. The complaint, as amended, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United SUMMARY: Determination PO 00000 U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06SEN1.SGM 06SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55110 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2011 / Notices States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain DC–DC controllers and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,315,190; 6,414,470; and 7,132,717; and by reason of trade secret misappropriation. The Commission’s notice of investigation named the following respondents: VisionTek Products LLC (‘‘VisionTek’’) of Inverness, Illinois; uPI Semiconductor Corp. (‘‘uPI’’) of Taiwan; Sapphire Technology Limited (‘‘Sapphire’’) of Hong Kong; Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California; Best Data Products d/b/a Diamond Multimedia of Chatsworth, California; Eastcom, Inc. d/ b/a XFX Technology USA of Rowland Heights, California; Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. of Taiwan; and MSI Computer Corp. of City of Industry, California. On August 13, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the presiding administrative law judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) initial determination (‘‘ID’’) granting uPI’s and Sapphire’s joint motion to terminate the investigation as to themselves based on consent orders. The consent orders prohibit the importing, offering for sale, and selling for importation DC–DC controllers, or products containing the same, into the United States that infringe the asserted patents or that contain or use the asserted trade secrets. Subsequently, on October 21, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ’s ID granting a joint motion to terminate the investigation as to VisionTek based on a settlement agreement and terminating the investigation in its entirety because VisionTek was the sole respondent remaining in the investigation, the others having been terminated based on settlement agreements or consent orders during the investigation. On July 21, 2011, Richtek filed a complaint for enforcement proceedings under Commission Rule 210.75. Richtek asserts that uPI and Sapphire have violated the August 13, 2010 consent orders by the continued practice of prohibited activities such as importing, offering for sale, and selling for importation into the United States DC– DC controllers or products containing the same that infringe the asserted patents or that contain or use the asserted trade secrets. Having examined the complaint seeking a formal enforcement proceeding, and having found that the complaint complies with the requirements for institution of a formal enforcement proceeding contained in VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:00 Sep 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 Commission rule 210.75, the Commission has determined to institute formal enforcement proceedings to determine whether uPI and/or Sapphire are in violation of the August 13, 2010 consent orders issued in the investigation, and what, if any, enforcement measures are appropriate. The following entities are named as parties to the formal enforcement proceeding: (1) Richtek, (2) respondents uPI and Sapphire, and (3) the Office of Unfair Import Investigations. 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 210.75 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.75). By order of the Commission. Issued: August 30, 2011. James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2011–22640 Filed 9–2–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337–TA–766] In the Matter of Certain Gemcitabine and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 15) granting a motion to terminate the above-captioned investigation in its entirety, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21 (19 CFR 210.21). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clark S. Cheney, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202– 205–2661. 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. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. The Commission instituted this investigation on March 23, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Eli Lilly and Company (‘‘Lilly’’). 76 FR 16445. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain gemcitabine and products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,606,048. The complaint named Hospira, Inc. (‘‘Hospira’’); Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (‘‘Intas’’); ChemWerth, Inc. (‘‘ChemWerth’’); and Jiangsu Hansoh Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hansoh’’) as respondents. On August 9, 2011, Lilly, Hospira, and Intas filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety under Commission Rule 210.21. On August 11, 2011, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response supporting the motion. On August 15, 2011, respondents ChemWerth and Hansoh filed a response supporting termination, but for different reasons than those advanced by Lilly, Hospira, and Intas. On August 16, 2011, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 15) granting the motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety. No party petitioned for review of the ID. The Commission has determined not to review the ID. The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42(h)(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42(h)(3)). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By order of the Commission. Issued: August 31, 2011. James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2011–22668 Filed 9–2–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P E:\FR\FM\06SEN1.SGM 06SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55109-55110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22640]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-698; (Enforcement Proceeding)]


In the Matter of Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products 
Containing Same; Notice of Institution of Formal Enforcement Proceeding

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has instituted a formal enforcement proceeding relating to 
the August 13, 2010, consent orders issued in the above-captioned 
investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint A. Gerdine, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3061. Copies of all 
nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation 
are or will be available for inspection during official business hours 
(8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the 
Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server 
(https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be 
viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov/. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information 
on the matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD 
terminal on 202-205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted the original 
investigation on December 29, 2009, based on a complaint filed by 
Richtek Technology Corp. of Taiwan and Richtek USA, Inc. of San Jose, 
California (collectively ``Richtek''). 75 FR 446-47. The complaint, as 
amended, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United

[[Page 55110]]

States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States 
after importation of certain DC-DC controllers and products containing 
the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent 
Nos. 7,315,190; 6,414,470; and 7,132,717; and by reason of trade secret 
misappropriation. The Commission's notice of investigation named the 
following respondents: VisionTek Products LLC (``VisionTek'') of 
Inverness, Illinois; uPI Semiconductor Corp. (``uPI'') of Taiwan; 
Sapphire Technology Limited (``Sapphire'') of Hong Kong; Advanced Micro 
Devices, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California; Best Data Products d/b/a 
Diamond Multimedia of Chatsworth, California; Eastcom, Inc. d/b/a XFX 
Technology USA of Rowland Heights, California; Micro-Star International 
Co., Ltd. of Taiwan; and MSI Computer Corp. of City of Industry, 
California.
    On August 13, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its 
determination not to review the presiding administrative law judge's 
(``ALJ'') initial determination (``ID'') granting uPI's and Sapphire's 
joint motion to terminate the investigation as to themselves based on 
consent orders. The consent orders prohibit the importing, offering for 
sale, and selling for importation DC-DC controllers, or products 
containing the same, into the United States that infringe the asserted 
patents or that contain or use the asserted trade secrets. 
Subsequently, on October 21, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its 
determination not to review the ALJ's ID granting a joint motion to 
terminate the investigation as to VisionTek based on a settlement 
agreement and terminating the investigation in its entirety because 
VisionTek was the sole respondent remaining in the investigation, the 
others having been terminated based on settlement agreements or consent 
orders during the investigation.
    On July 21, 2011, Richtek filed a complaint for enforcement 
proceedings under Commission Rule 210.75. Richtek asserts that uPI and 
Sapphire have violated the August 13, 2010 consent orders by the 
continued practice of prohibited activities such as importing, offering 
for sale, and selling for importation into the United States DC-DC 
controllers or products containing the same that infringe the asserted 
patents or that contain or use the asserted trade secrets.
    Having examined the complaint seeking a formal enforcement 
proceeding, and having found that the complaint complies with the 
requirements for institution of a formal enforcement proceeding 
contained in Commission rule 210.75, the Commission has determined to 
institute formal enforcement proceedings to determine whether uPI and/
or Sapphire are in violation of the August 13, 2010 consent orders 
issued in the investigation, and what, if any, enforcement measures are 
appropriate. The following entities are named as parties to the formal 
enforcement proceeding: (1) Richtek, (2) respondents uPI and Sapphire, 
and (3) the Office of Unfair Import Investigations.
    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 210.75 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure 
(19 CFR 210.75).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 30, 2011.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-22640 Filed 9-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.