Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, Modules, and Components Thereof; Final Determination of No Violation of Section 337 With Respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,978,063; 5,648,674; 5,621,556; and 5,375,006 and Termination of the Investigation as to Those Patents and Remand of the Investigation as to U.S. Patent No. 6,121,941, 37067-37068 [2012-15005]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Notices
Windsor County
Terraces Historic District, 22–60 Maplewood
Terr., 2–364 Fairview Terr., 12–249
Hillcrest Terr., 82, 176 Forest Hills Ave.,
Hartford, 12000410
[FR Doc. 2012–14975 Filed 6–19–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–51–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–741/749]
Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices,
Including Monitors, Televisions,
Modules, and Components Thereof;
Final Determination of No Violation of
Section 337 With Respect to U.S.
Patent Nos. 5,978,063; 5,648,674;
5,621,556; and 5,375,006 and
Termination of the Investigation as to
Those Patents and Remand of the
Investigation as to U.S. Patent No.
6,121,941
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to reverse
the determination of the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) that
found a violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 with respect to U.S.
Patent No. 5,648,674 (‘‘the ’674 patent’’),
and to affirm, with modifications, the
determination of the ALJ that found no
violation with respect to U.S. Patent
Nos. 5,978,063 (‘‘the ’063 patent’’);
5,648,674 (‘‘the ‘674 patent’’); 5,621,556
(‘‘the ’556 patent’’); and 5,375,006 (‘‘the
’006 patent’’). The Commission hereby
terminates the investigation with a
finding of no violation as to the ’006,
’063, ’556 and ’674 patents. With respect
to U.S. Patent No. 6,121,941 (‘‘the ’941
patent’’), the Commission has
determined to issue a remand to the ALJ
to determine whether the asserted
claims are invalid in view of the
ViewFrame II+2 prior art.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jia
Chen, Office of the General Counsel,
U.S. International Trade Commission,
500 E Street SW., Washington, DC
20436, telephone (202) 708–4737.
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
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Jun 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 Inv. No. 337–
TA–741 on October 18, 2010, based on
a complaint filed by Thomson Licensing
SAS of France and Thomson Licensing
LLC of Princeton, New Jersey
(collectively ‘‘Thomson’’). 75 FR 63856
(Oct. 18, 2010). The complaint alleged
violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended 19 U.S.C. 1337,
by reason of infringement of various
claims of the ’941,’063,’674,’556; and
’006 patents. The Commission instituted
Inv. No. 337–TA–749 on November 30,
2010, based on a complaint filed by
Thomson. 75 FR 74080 (Nov. 30, 2010).
The complaint alleged violations of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by
reason of infringement of various claims
of the ’063, ’556, and ’006 patents. On
January 5, 2011, the Commission
consolidated the two investigations. The
respondents are Chimei InnoLux
Corporation of Miaoli County, Taiwan
and InnoLux Corportation of Austin,
Texas (collectively, ‘‘CMI’’); MStar
Semiconductor Inc. of ChuPei, Taiwan
(‘‘MStar’’); Qisda Corporation of
Taoyuan, Taiwan and Qisda America
Corporation of Irvine, California
(collectively, ‘‘Qisda’’); and BenQ
Corporation of Taipei, Taiwan, BenQ
America Corporation of Irvine,
California, and BenQ Latin America
Corporation of Miami, Florida
(collectively ‘‘BenQ’’); Realtek
Semicondustor Corp. of Hsinchu,
Taiwan (‘‘Realtek’’); and AU Optronics
Corp. of Hsinchu, Taiwan and AU
Optronics Corp. America of Houston,
Texas (collectively ‘‘AUO’’).
On January 12, 2012, the ALJ issued
the subject ID finding a violation of
Section 337 with respect to the ’674
patent. The ALJ found that the CMI
accused products including the Type 2
Array Circuitry and any Qisda or BenQ
accused products incorporating these
CMI accused products infringe the
asserted claims of the ’674 patent. The
ALJ found that no other accused
products infringe the ’674 patent. The
ALJ also found that no accused products
infringe the asserted claims of the ’063
patent, the ’006 patent, the ’556 patent,
or the ’941 patent. The ALJ also found
that claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 14, and
18 of the ’063 patent are invalid for
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37067
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, and
that claims 4 and 14 of the ’006 patent
are invalid as anticipated under 35
U.S.C. 102. The ALJ further found that
claim 17 of the ’063 patent, claim 7 of
the ’006 patent, and the asserted claims
of the ’556 patent, the ’674 patent, and
the ’941 patent are not invalid. The ALJ
concluded that a domestic industry
exists in the United States that exploits
the asserted patents as required by 19
U.S.C. 1337(a)(2). On January 25, 2011,
Thomson, CMI, MStar, Realtek, and
AUO each filed a petition for review of
the ID. BenQ and Qisda filed a joint
petition for review incorporating the
other respondents’ arguments by
reference.
On March 26, 2012 the Commission
determined to review (1) Claim
construction of the limitation ‘‘layer’’ of
the asserted claims of the ’006 patent;
(2) infringement of the asserted claims
of the ’006 patent; (3) anticipation of
claims 4 and 7 of the ’006 patent by
Scheuble; (4) the claim construction of
the limitations ‘‘mechanically rubbing’’/
‘‘mechanically rubbed,’’ ‘‘a plurality of
spacing elements,’’ and ‘‘an affixing
layer’’ of the asserted claims of the ’063
patent; (5) infringement of the asserted
claims of the ’063 patent; (6)
obviousness of the asserted claims of the
’063 patent in view of Sugata and
Tsuboyama; (7) whether Lowe and
Miyazaki are prior art to the asserted
claims of the ’063 patent; (8)
anticipation of the asserted claims of the
’063 patent by Lowe; (9) anticipation of
the asserted claims of the ’063 patent by
Miyazaki; (10) obviousness of the
asserted claim of the ’556 patent in view
of Takizawa and Possin; (11)
anticipation and obviousness of the
asserted claims of the ’674 patent in
view of Fujitsu; (12) claim construction
of the ‘‘second rate’’ ‘‘determined by’’
limitation of the asserted claims of the
’941 patent and the ‘‘input video signal’’
limitation of claim 4 of the ’941 patent;
(13) infringement of the asserted claims
of the ’941 patent; (14) anticipation of
the asserted claims of the ’941 patent by
Baba; (15) exclusion of evidence of the
ViewFrame II+2 LCD Panel; and (16)
economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement.
On March 26, 2012, the Commission
also determined to review and to take
no position on the claim construction of
the terms ‘‘drain electrodes’’ and
‘‘source electrodes’’ of the ’556 patent.
The Commission requested briefing
from the parties on the issues on review,
as well as on remedy, the public
interest, and bonding.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID and the submissions of the parties,
E:\FR\FM\20JNN1.SGM
20JNN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
37068
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Notices
the Commission has determined to
reverse the ALJ’s finding of violation of
section 337 by the ’674 patent and
affirm, with modifications, the findings
of no violation of section 337 as to the
’006, ’063 and ’566 patents. Specifically,
the Commission finds that the asserted
claims of the ‘674 patent are infringed
by respondents CMI, Qsida, and BenQ,
and that respondents have shown that
claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 16, 17, and 18 of the
’674 patent are anticipated by Fujitsu
and that claims 9, 11, and 13 are
obvious in view of Fujitsu and the
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in
the art. The Commission also finds that
(a) Respondents do not infringe the
asserted claims of the ’006 patent; (b)
Scheuble does not anticipate claims 4
and 7 of the ’006 patent; (c) respondent
AUO, Qsida, and BenQ infringe claims
11, 12, 14, 17, and 18, but not the
remaining asserted claims of the ’063
patent; (d) respondent CMI does not
infringe the asserted claims of the ’063
patent; (e) the ’063 patent are obvious in
view of Sugata and Tsuboyama; (f) Lowe
and Miyazaki are prior art to claims 1–
4 and 8 of the ’063 patent, but not the
remaining asserted claims of the ’063
patent; (g) respondents have not shown
that Lowe anticipates the asserted
claims of the ’063 patent; (h) Miyazaki
anticipates claims 11, 12, 14, 17, and 18
of the ’063 patent, but not any of the
remaining asserted claims of the ’063
patent; (i) respondents have not shown
that claim 3 of the ’556 patent is obvious
in view of Takizawa and Possin; and (j)
complainant satisfied the economic
prong of the domestic industry
requirement under 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(3)(C). Therefore, the
investigation is terminated with a
finding of no violation as to the ’006,
’063, ’556 and ’674 patents. With respect
to the ’941 patent, the Commission
affirms that (a) respondents do not
infringe the asserted claims of the ‘941
patent; and (b) respondents have not
shown that the asserted claims of the
‘941 patent are obvious in view of Baba.
The Commission reverses the ALJ’s
ruling to exclude from the record
evidence of the ViewFrame II+2 prior
art, and remands to the ALJ to decide
whether the ViewFrame II+2 anticipates
the asserted claims of the ’941 patent
(the Commission notes that this patent
expires on August 26, 2012).
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 and 210.50 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 and
210.50).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:14 Jun 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
By order of the Commission.
Issued: June 14, 2012.
Lisa Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012–15005 Filed 6–19–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Muzaffer Aslan, M.D.; Decision and
Order
On December 14, 2011, I, the
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause and Immediate Suspension
of Registration to Muzaffer Aslan, M.D.
(hereinafter, Respondent), of Los
Angeles, California. GX 2. The Show
Cause Order proposed the revocation of
Respondent’s DEA Certificate of
Registration AA0044040, which
authorizes him to dispense controlled
substances as a practitioner, on the
ground that Respondent does not
possess authority under the laws of the
State of California, the State in which he
is registered with DEA, to dispense
controlled substances. Id. at 1 (citing
21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). The Order further
proposed the denial of any applications
to renew or modify Respondent’s
registration, as well as for any
additional registration, on the ground
that his ‘‘continued registration is
inconsistent with the public interest.’’
Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f)).
The Show Cause Order specifically
alleged that on December 2, 2010, the
Medical Board of California had revoked
Respondent’s State medical license and
that the Board had found, inter alia, that
Respondent had, on multiple occasions,
prescribed controlled substances
‘‘without performing a prior good faith
examination.’’ Id. at 1–2. The Order thus
alleged that Respondent is currently
without authority to handle controlled
substances in California. Id. at 2.
The Show Cause Order further alleged
that notwithstanding that Respondent is
‘‘prohibited from practicing medicine in
* * * California,’’ he has continued to
prescribe controlled substances as
evidenced by data from the State’s
prescription monitoring program. Id.
Based on the forgoing, I concluded that
Respondent’s continued registration
during the pendency of the proceedings
would constitute an ‘‘imminent danger
to the public health and safety.’’ Id.
(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4)). I therefore
authorized the immediate suspension of
Respondent’s registration. Id.
On or about December 15, 2011, a
DEA Diversion Investigator personally
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
served the Order on Respondent by
hand-delivering a copy to his
residence.1 GX 7, at 2. The DI also
mailed a copy of the Order to
Respondent. Id.
On December 28, 2011, Respondent
submitted a letter to the Hearing Clerk,
Office of Administrative Law Judges. GX
3. Therein, Respondent stated that he
was waiving his right to a hearing but
submitting a written statement of his
position regarding the allegations. GX 3.
Pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c),
Respondent’s statement has been made
a part of the record of this proceeding
and has been considered in this
decision.
On February 7, 2012, the Government
submitted its Request for Final Agency
Action and forwarded the record to me.
Having considered the entire record, I
find that substantial evidence supports
a finding that Respondent no longer
possesses authority under the laws of
the State of California to dispense
controlled substances. I also find that
substantial evidence supports a finding
that Respondent dispensed controlled
substances even after the Medical Board
of California revoked his state license,
and was no longer lawfully authorized
to dispense controlled substances under
his CSA registration. I thus conclude
that the Government has made out a
prima facie case for revocation of
Respondent’s registration. Finally,
because nothing in Respondent’s
statement refutes the Government’s
prima facie case, I will order that his
registration be revoked and that any
application be denied. I make the
following findings of fact.
Findings
Respondent is the holder of DEA
Certificate of Registration AA0044040,
which authorized him (prior to the
Immediate Suspension Order), to
dispense controlled substances in
schedules II through V as a practitioner
at the registered location of 11847
Wilshire Blvd., Suite 303–A, Los
Angeles, CA 90025. GX 1. Respondent’s
registration does not expire until
June 30, 2012. Id.
Respondent previously held
Physician’s and Surgeon’s Certificate
Number A18999, which was issued by
the Medical Board of California (MBC).
However, on November 3, 2010, the
1 The Order further explained the procedures
available to Respondent to contest the allegations.
GX 2, at 2–3. These included his right to request
a hearing, his right to submit a written statement
regarding the matters of fact and law alleged in the
Show Cause Order while waiving his right to a
hearing, and finally, the consequences for failing to
do either within the thirty-day time limit. See id.
(citing 21 CFR 1301.43 and 1316.47).
E:\FR\FM\20JNN1.SGM
20JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37067-37068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15005]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-741/749]
Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors,
Televisions, Modules, and Components Thereof; Final Determination of No
Violation of Section 337 With Respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,978,063;
5,648,674; 5,621,556; and 5,375,006 and Termination of the
Investigation as to Those Patents and Remand of the Investigation as to
U.S. Patent No. 6,121,941
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to reverse the determination of the presiding
administrative law judge (``ALJ'') that found a violation of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 with respect to U.S. Patent No. 5,648,674
(``the '674 patent''), and to affirm, with modifications, the
determination of the ALJ that found no violation with respect to U.S.
Patent Nos. 5,978,063 (``the '063 patent''); 5,648,674 (``the `674
patent''); 5,621,556 (``the '556 patent''); and 5,375,006 (``the '006
patent''). The Commission hereby terminates the investigation with a
finding of no violation as to the '006, '063, '556 and '674 patents.
With respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,121,941 (``the '941 patent''), the
Commission has determined to issue a remand to the ALJ to determine
whether the asserted claims are invalid in view of the ViewFrame II+2
prior art.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jia Chen, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4737. 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 Inv. No. 337-TA-
741 on October 18, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Thomson
Licensing SAS of France and Thomson Licensing LLC of Princeton, New
Jersey (collectively ``Thomson''). 75 FR 63856 (Oct. 18, 2010). The
complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of infringement of various claims
of the '941,'063,'674,'556; and '006 patents. The Commission instituted
Inv. No. 337-TA-749 on November 30, 2010, based on a complaint filed by
Thomson. 75 FR 74080 (Nov. 30, 2010). The complaint alleged violations
of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by reason of infringement of
various claims of the '063, '556, and '006 patents. On January 5, 2011,
the Commission consolidated the two investigations. The respondents are
Chimei InnoLux Corporation of Miaoli County, Taiwan and InnoLux
Corportation of Austin, Texas (collectively, ``CMI''); MStar
Semiconductor Inc. of ChuPei, Taiwan (``MStar''); Qisda Corporation of
Taoyuan, Taiwan and Qisda America Corporation of Irvine, California
(collectively, ``Qisda''); and BenQ Corporation of Taipei, Taiwan, BenQ
America Corporation of Irvine, California, and BenQ Latin America
Corporation of Miami, Florida (collectively ``BenQ''); Realtek
Semicondustor Corp. of Hsinchu, Taiwan (``Realtek''); and AU Optronics
Corp. of Hsinchu, Taiwan and AU Optronics Corp. America of Houston,
Texas (collectively ``AUO'').
On January 12, 2012, the ALJ issued the subject ID finding a
violation of Section 337 with respect to the '674 patent. The ALJ found
that the CMI accused products including the Type 2 Array Circuitry and
any Qisda or BenQ accused products incorporating these CMI accused
products infringe the asserted claims of the '674 patent. The ALJ found
that no other accused products infringe the '674 patent. The ALJ also
found that no accused products infringe the asserted claims of the '063
patent, the '006 patent, the '556 patent, or the '941 patent. The ALJ
also found that claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 18 of the '063
patent are invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, and that claims
4 and 14 of the '006 patent are invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
102. The ALJ further found that claim 17 of the '063 patent, claim 7 of
the '006 patent, and the asserted claims of the '556 patent, the '674
patent, and the '941 patent are not invalid. The ALJ concluded that a
domestic industry exists in the United States that exploits the
asserted patents as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2). On January 25,
2011, Thomson, CMI, MStar, Realtek, and AUO each filed a petition for
review of the ID. BenQ and Qisda filed a joint petition for review
incorporating the other respondents' arguments by reference.
On March 26, 2012 the Commission determined to review (1) Claim
construction of the limitation ``layer'' of the asserted claims of the
'006 patent; (2) infringement of the asserted claims of the '006
patent; (3) anticipation of claims 4 and 7 of the '006 patent by
Scheuble; (4) the claim construction of the limitations ``mechanically
rubbing''/``mechanically rubbed,'' ``a plurality of spacing elements,''
and ``an affixing layer'' of the asserted claims of the '063 patent;
(5) infringement of the asserted claims of the '063 patent; (6)
obviousness of the asserted claims of the '063 patent in view of Sugata
and Tsuboyama; (7) whether Lowe and Miyazaki are prior art to the
asserted claims of the '063 patent; (8) anticipation of the asserted
claims of the '063 patent by Lowe; (9) anticipation of the asserted
claims of the '063 patent by Miyazaki; (10) obviousness of the asserted
claim of the '556 patent in view of Takizawa and Possin; (11)
anticipation and obviousness of the asserted claims of the '674 patent
in view of Fujitsu; (12) claim construction of the ``second rate''
``determined by'' limitation of the asserted claims of the '941 patent
and the ``input video signal'' limitation of claim 4 of the '941
patent; (13) infringement of the asserted claims of the '941 patent;
(14) anticipation of the asserted claims of the '941 patent by Baba;
(15) exclusion of evidence of the ViewFrame II+2 LCD Panel; and (16)
economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.
On March 26, 2012, the Commission also determined to review and to
take no position on the claim construction of the terms ``drain
electrodes'' and ``source electrodes'' of the '556 patent. The
Commission requested briefing from the parties on the issues on review,
as well as on remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID and the submissions of the parties,
[[Page 37068]]
the Commission has determined to reverse the ALJ's finding of violation
of section 337 by the '674 patent and affirm, with modifications, the
findings of no violation of section 337 as to the '006, '063 and '566
patents. Specifically, the Commission finds that the asserted claims of
the `674 patent are infringed by respondents CMI, Qsida, and BenQ, and
that respondents have shown that claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 16, 17, and 18 of
the '674 patent are anticipated by Fujitsu and that claims 9, 11, and
13 are obvious in view of Fujitsu and the knowledge of one of ordinary
skill in the art. The Commission also finds that (a) Respondents do not
infringe the asserted claims of the '006 patent; (b) Scheuble does not
anticipate claims 4 and 7 of the '006 patent; (c) respondent AUO,
Qsida, and BenQ infringe claims 11, 12, 14, 17, and 18, but not the
remaining asserted claims of the '063 patent; (d) respondent CMI does
not infringe the asserted claims of the '063 patent; (e) the '063
patent are obvious in view of Sugata and Tsuboyama; (f) Lowe and
Miyazaki are prior art to claims 1-4 and 8 of the '063 patent, but not
the remaining asserted claims of the '063 patent; (g) respondents have
not shown that Lowe anticipates the asserted claims of the '063 patent;
(h) Miyazaki anticipates claims 11, 12, 14, 17, and 18 of the '063
patent, but not any of the remaining asserted claims of the '063
patent; (i) respondents have not shown that claim 3 of the '556 patent
is obvious in view of Takizawa and Possin; and (j) complainant
satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under
19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). Therefore, the investigation is terminated
with a finding of no violation as to the '006, '063, '556 and '674
patents. With respect to the '941 patent, the Commission affirms that
(a) respondents do not infringe the asserted claims of the `941 patent;
and (b) respondents have not shown that the asserted claims of the `941
patent are obvious in view of Baba. The Commission reverses the ALJ's
ruling to exclude from the record evidence of the ViewFrame II+2 prior
art, and remands to the ALJ to decide whether the ViewFrame II+2
anticipates the asserted claims of the '941 patent (the Commission
notes that this patent expires on August 26, 2012).
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 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46 and 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: June 14, 2012.
Lisa Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-15005 Filed 6-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
