Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision To Review in Part an Enforcement Initial Determination Finding a Violation of the August 13, 2010 Consent Order; Request for Written Submissions Regarding Certain Issues Under Review and Remedy, Bonding, and the Public Interest, 49022-49023 [2012-19990]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
49022
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 158 / Wednesday, August 15, 2012 / Notices
The effective date of this
boundary revision is August 15, 2012.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 16 U.S.C.
460l–9(c)(1) provides that after notifying
the House Committee on Resources and
the Senate Committee on Energy and
Resources, the Secretary of the Interior
is authorized to make this boundary
revision upon publication of notice in
the Federal Register. The Committees
were notified of this boundary revision
by letters signed by the Secretary on
May 24, 2012. This boundary revision
will restore the Wilcox property to the
boundaries that existed at the time of
President Theodore Roosevelt’s
inauguration in 1901 and will improve
the visitor experience by enhancing the
historic integrity, visibility and
appearance of the site.
DATES:
Dated: June 14, 2012.
Dennis R. Reidenbach,
Regional Director, Northeast Region.
[FR Doc. 2012–20021 Filed 8–14–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–23–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–698
(Enforcement Proceeding)]
Certain DC–DC Controllers and
Products Containing Same; Notice of
Commission Decision To Review in
Part an Enforcement Initial
Determination Finding a Violation of
the August 13, 2010 Consent Order;
Request for Written Submissions
Regarding Certain Issues Under
Review and 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 review
in part an enforcement initial
determination (‘‘EID’’) of the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’)
finding a violation of the August 13,
2010 consent order by respondent uPI
Semiconductor Corp. (‘‘uPI’’) of
Hsinchu, Taiwan, and is requesting
written submissions regarding certain
issues under review and remedy,
bonding, and the public interest.
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)
708–2310. Copies of all nonconfidential
documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 Aug 14, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 this enforcement
proceeding on September 6, 2011, based
on an enforcement complaint filed by
Richtek Technology Corp. of Hsinchu,
Taiwan and Richtek USA, Inc. of San
Jose, California (collectively ‘‘Richtek’’).
76 FR 55109–10. The complaint alleged
violations of the August 13, 2010
consent orders issued in the underlying
investigation by the continued practice
of prohibited activities such as directly
importing, offering for sale, and selling
for importation into the United States
and by knowingly aiding, abetting,
encouraging, participating in, or
inducing importation and sale in the
United States by third parties of DC–DC
controllers or products containing the
same that infringe one or more of U.S.
Patent Nos. 7,315,190 (‘‘the ‘190
patent’’); 6,414,470 (‘‘the ‘470 patent’’);
and 7,132,717 (‘‘the ‘717 patent’’); or
that contain or use Richtek’s asserted
trade secrets. The Commission’s notice
of institution of enforcement
proceedings named uPI and Sapphire
Technology Limited (‘‘Sapphire’’) of
Shatin, Hong Kong as respondents.
On April 11, 2012, the Commission
issued notice of its determination not to
review the ALJ’s ID terminating the
enforcement proceeding as to Sapphire
based on a settlement agreement.
On June 8, 2012, the ALJ issued his
EID finding a violation of the August 13,
2010 consent order by uPI. He found
that, after issuance of the consent order,
certain uPI DC–DC controllers and
downstream products containing uPI
accused controllers had been imported
and/or sold in the United States without
Richtek’s consent or agreement. He
made infringement findings as to certain
claims of the ‘190, the ‘470, and the ‘717
patents. He found no misappropriation
of Richtek’s asserted trade secrets in
violation of the consent order with
respect to uPI’s products developed
after the consent order issued. Also, he
recommended enforcement measures for
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
uPI’s violation that included: (1)
Modifying the consent order to clarify
that the order applies (and has always
applied) to all uPI affiliates; and (2)
imposing a civil penalty of $750,000
against uPI. On June 25, 2012, uPI and
Richtek each filed a petition for review
of the EID; and on July 3, 2012, Richtek,
uPI, and the Commission investigative
attorney each filed a response to the
opposing party’s petition.
Upon review of the record and
considering the parties’ filings, the
Commission has determined to review
the EID in part. Specifically, the
Commission has determined to review
the following: the ALJ’s finding of
infringement of the ‘470 patent; the
ALJ’s finding of infringement of the ‘190
patent; and the ALJ’s determination that
uPI violated the August 13, 2010
consent order on 75 days.
On review, with respect to violation
of the August 13, 2010 consent order,
the parties are requested to submit
briefing limited to the following issues:
(1) What is the test for determining
whether uPI violated the following
consent order prohibition: ‘‘Knowingly
aid, abet, encourage, participate in, or
induce importation into the United
States, the sale for importation into the
United States, or the sale, offer for sale,
or use in the United States after
importation,’’ without the consent or
agreement of Richtek, any DC–DC
controllers or products containing same
which infringe the asserted patent
claims or are made using Richtek’s trade
secrets? August 13, 2010 consent order,
¶ A.
(2) Explain whether or not there is a
factual basis in the evidentiary record
that proves that a violation of the
‘‘knowingly aid, abet, encourage,
participate in, or induce’’ prohibition of
paragraph A of the August 13, 2010
consent order has occurred in view of
the evidence of uPI’s efforts to comply
with the consent order.
(3) Explain whether or not there is a
factual basis in the evidentiary record
that proves uPI has violated the
following consent order prohibition:
‘‘import into the United States, sell for
importation into the United States, or
sell or offer for sale in the United States
after importation’’ without the consent
or agreement of Richtek of any DC–DC
controllers or products containing same
which infringe the asserted patent
claims or contain Richtek’s asserted
trade secrets. August 13, 2010 consent
order, ¶ A.
(4) Please provide, based upon
evidence in the record, the specific
date(s) upon which an importation or
sale in the United States occurred for
E:\FR\FM\15AUN1.SGM
15AUN1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 158 / Wednesday, August 15, 2012 / Notices
each line item of the table on page 121
of the EID.
In addressing these issues, the parties
are requested to make specific reference
to the evidentiary record and to cite
relevant legal authority. The
Commission does not request additional
briefing at this time on any other issues
under review.
In connection with the final
disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may revoke the consent
order and issue an order excluding the
subject articles from entry into the
United States. See 19 CFR
210.75(b)(4)(iii). 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 Certain Devices for
Connecting Computers via Telephone
Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC
Pub. No. 2843, Comm’n Op. at 7–10
(December 1994).
If the Commission contemplates
revoking the consent order and issuing
an exclusion order, 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 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.
If the Commission were to revoke the
consent order and issue an exclusion
order, the U.S. Trade Representative, as
delegated by the President, has 60 days
to approve or disapprove the
Commission’s action. See 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 Aug 14, 2012
Jkt 226001
written submissions on the issues under
review that specifically address the
Commission’s questions set forth in this
notice. The submissions should be
concise and thoroughly referenced to
the record in this investigation. The
parties to the enforcement proceeding,
interested government agencies, and any
other interested persons are encouraged
to file written submissions on the issues
of remedy, the public interest, and
bonding, and such submissions should
address the enforcement measures
recommended by the ALJ relating to
remedy. The complainant and the IA are
also requested to submit proposed
remedial orders for the Commission’s
consideration in the event it determines
to revoke the consent order.
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 August 23,
2012. Reply submissions must be filed
no later than the close of business on
August 30, 2012. No further
submissions on these issues will be
permitted unless otherwise ordered by
the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines
stated above and submit 8 true paper
copies to the Office of the Secretary by
noon the next day pursuant to
Commission rule 210.4(f), 19 CFR
210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the
investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 337–
TA–698’’) in a prominent place on the
cover page and/or the first page. (See
Handbook for Electronic Filing
Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/
secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/
handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf).
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
and on EDIS.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49023
Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR
210.42–46.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: August 9, 2012.
William R. Bishop,
Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.
[FR Doc. 2012–19990 Filed 8–14–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree
Under the Clean Air Act
Notice is hereby given that on August
9, 2012, a proposed Consent Decree
signed by the plaintiff, the United States
of America, and the defendants, Icicle
Seafoods, Inc., Evening Star, Inc., Icicle
Acquisition Subsidiary, LLC, and LFK,
Inc., was lodged with the United States
District Court for the Western District of
Washington.
In this lawsuit the United States
sought civil penalties and injunctive
relief for defendants’ alleged violations
of regulations promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency under
Title VI of the Clean Air Act,
specifically regulations set forth in 40
CFR part 82, Subpart F. The regulations
govern the management and control of
ozone-depleting substances used as
refrigerants in defendants’ vessels and
other fish processing facilities. The
Consent Decree requires the defendants
to pay a civil penalty of $430,000.00 and
to perform injunctive relief. To ensure
the defendants’ compliance going
forward, the Consent Decree will require
the defendants to institute a
comprehensive leak inspection and
repair program for all of their vessels
and operating facilities. To mitigate the
effects of past violations, the Consent
Decree specifies that the defendants will
repair leaks in the refrigeration systems
of certain vessels and facilities when the
leak rate would result in losing more
than 20% of the refrigerant charge
during a 12-month period. This is a
stricter standard than is required by the
leak repair regulations.
For thirty (30) days after this notice,
the Department of Justice will receive
comments related to the Consent
Decree. Comments should be addressed
to the Assistant Attorney General,
Environment and Natural Resources
Division, and either emailed to
pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or
mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC
20044–7611. The comments should
refer to United States v. Icicle Seafoods,
Inc., No. 12–cv–1349 (W.D. Wash.), DOJ
No. 90–5–1–1–07395/2.
E:\FR\FM\15AUN1.SGM
15AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49022-49023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19990]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-698 (Enforcement Proceeding)]
Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same; Notice of
Commission Decision To Review in Part an Enforcement Initial
Determination Finding a Violation of the August 13, 2010 Consent Order;
Request for Written Submissions Regarding Certain Issues Under Review
and 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 an enforcement initial
determination (``EID'') of the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') finding a violation of the August 13, 2010 consent order by
respondent uPI Semiconductor Corp. (``uPI'') of Hsinchu, Taiwan, and is
requesting written submissions regarding certain issues under review
and remedy, bonding, and the public interest.
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) 708-2310. 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 this enforcement
proceeding on September 6, 2011, based on an enforcement complaint
filed by Richtek Technology Corp. of Hsinchu, Taiwan and Richtek USA,
Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively ``Richtek''). 76 FR 55109-
10. The complaint alleged violations of the August 13, 2010 consent
orders issued in the underlying investigation by the continued practice
of prohibited activities such as directly importing, offering for sale,
and selling for importation into the United States and by knowingly
aiding, abetting, encouraging, participating in, or inducing
importation and sale in the United States by third parties of DC-DC
controllers or products containing the same that infringe one or more
of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,315,190 (``the `190 patent''); 6,414,470 (``the
`470 patent''); and 7,132,717 (``the `717 patent''); or that contain or
use Richtek's asserted trade secrets. The Commission's notice of
institution of enforcement proceedings named uPI and Sapphire
Technology Limited (``Sapphire'') of Shatin, Hong Kong as respondents.
On April 11, 2012, the Commission issued notice of its
determination not to review the ALJ's ID terminating the enforcement
proceeding as to Sapphire based on a settlement agreement.
On June 8, 2012, the ALJ issued his EID finding a violation of the
August 13, 2010 consent order by uPI. He found that, after issuance of
the consent order, certain uPI DC-DC controllers and downstream
products containing uPI accused controllers had been imported and/or
sold in the United States without Richtek's consent or agreement. He
made infringement findings as to certain claims of the `190, the `470,
and the `717 patents. He found no misappropriation of Richtek's
asserted trade secrets in violation of the consent order with respect
to uPI's products developed after the consent order issued. Also, he
recommended enforcement measures for uPI's violation that included: (1)
Modifying the consent order to clarify that the order applies (and has
always applied) to all uPI affiliates; and (2) imposing a civil penalty
of $750,000 against uPI. On June 25, 2012, uPI and Richtek each filed a
petition for review of the EID; and on July 3, 2012, Richtek, uPI, and
the Commission investigative attorney each filed a response to the
opposing party's petition.
Upon review of the record and considering the parties' filings, the
Commission has determined to review the EID in part. Specifically, the
Commission has determined to review the following: the ALJ's finding of
infringement of the `470 patent; the ALJ's finding of infringement of
the `190 patent; and the ALJ's determination that uPI violated the
August 13, 2010 consent order on 75 days.
On review, with respect to violation of the August 13, 2010 consent
order, the parties are requested to submit briefing limited to the
following issues:
(1) What is the test for determining whether uPI violated the
following consent order prohibition: ``Knowingly aid, abet, encourage,
participate in, or induce importation into the United States, the sale
for importation into the United States, or the sale, offer for sale, or
use in the United States after importation,'' without the consent or
agreement of Richtek, any DC-DC controllers or products containing same
which infringe the asserted patent claims or are made using Richtek's
trade secrets? August 13, 2010 consent order, ] A.
(2) Explain whether or not there is a factual basis in the
evidentiary record that proves that a violation of the ``knowingly aid,
abet, encourage, participate in, or induce'' prohibition of paragraph A
of the August 13, 2010 consent order has occurred in view of the
evidence of uPI's efforts to comply with the consent order.
(3) Explain whether or not there is a factual basis in the
evidentiary record that proves uPI has violated the following consent
order prohibition: ``import into the United States, sell for
importation into the United States, or sell or offer for sale in the
United States after importation'' without the consent or agreement of
Richtek of any DC-DC controllers or products containing same which
infringe the asserted patent claims or contain Richtek's asserted trade
secrets. August 13, 2010 consent order, ] A.
(4) Please provide, based upon evidence in the record, the specific
date(s) upon which an importation or sale in the United States occurred
for
[[Page 49023]]
each line item of the table on page 121 of the EID.
In addressing these issues, the parties are requested to make
specific reference to the evidentiary record and to cite relevant legal
authority. The Commission does not request additional briefing at this
time on any other issues under review.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may revoke the consent order and issue an order excluding
the subject articles from entry into the United States. See 19 CFR
210.75(b)(4)(iii). 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 Certain
Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-
360, USITC Pub. No. 2843, Comm'n Op. at 7-10 (December 1994).
If the Commission contemplates revoking the consent order and
issuing an exclusion order, 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 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.
If the Commission were to revoke the consent order and issue an
exclusion order, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the
President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's
action. See 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 that
specifically address the Commission's questions set forth in this
notice. The submissions should be concise and thoroughly referenced to
the record in this investigation. The parties to the enforcement
proceeding, interested government agencies, and any other interested
persons are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of
remedy, the public interest, and bonding, and such submissions should
address the enforcement measures recommended by the ALJ relating to
remedy. The complainant and the IA are also requested to submit
proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration in the
event it determines to revoke the consent order. 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 August 23, 2012. Reply submissions must be
filed no later than the close of business on August 30, 2012. No
further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise
ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8
true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day
pursuant to Commission rule 210.4(f), 19 CFR 210.4(f). Submissions
should refer to the investigation number (``Inv. No. 337-TA-698'') in a
prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook
for Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf).
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 and on EDIS.
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: August 9, 2012.
William R. Bishop,
Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.
[FR Doc. 2012-19990 Filed 8-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
