Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same; Decision To Affirm-in-Part, Reverse-in-Part, Modify-in-Part, and Vacate-in-Part an Enforcement Initial Determination Finding a Violation of the August 13, 2010 Consent Order; Issuance of Modified Consent Order and Civil Penalty; and Termination of Enforcement Proceeding, 69501-69502 [2012-28101]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 223 / Monday, November 19, 2012 / Notices 210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 337–TA–804’’) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/ secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/ handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). Persons with questions regarding 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 treated accordingly. A redacted nonconfidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with the any confidential filing. 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 and 210.50 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 and 210.50). Issued: November 13, 2012. By order of the Commission. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2012–28064 Filed 11–16–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–809] pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Certain Devices for Mobile Data Communication; Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting a Motion By Complainant To Terminate the Investigation in Its Entirety Based Upon Withdrawal of the Complaint; 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 not to review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:04 Nov 16, 2012 Jkt 229001 (Order No. 60) of the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) granting a motion by complainant to terminate the investigation in its entirety based upon withdrawal of the complaint. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3042. 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 October 13, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Openwave Systems Inc. of Redwood City, California (‘‘Openwave’’). 76 FR 63657–58 (Oct. 13, 2011). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain devices for mobile data communication by reason of infringement of certain claims of United States Patent Nos. 6,233,608; 6,289,212; 6,405,037; 6,430,409; and 6,625,447. The notice of investigation named Research In Motion Ltd. of Ontario, Canada; Research In Motion Corp. of Irving, Texas; and Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California as respondents. During pendency of the investigation, Openwave changed its name to Unwired Planet, Inc. On October 12, 2012, Openwave filed an unopposed motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based upon withdrawal of the complaint. No responses to the motion were filed. That same day, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 60) terminating the investigation. The ALJ found that the motion complied with the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(a) (19 CFR 210.21(a)) and that no extraordinary circumstances prohibited PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 69501 granting the motion. None of the parties petitioned for review of the ID. The Commission has determined not to review the ID. The Commission notes that in Order No. 57 the ALJ denied a request by the parties to terminate the investigation prior to the evidentiary hearing based upon Openwave’s stipulation that, under the ALJ’s claim construction, the accused products do not infringe the asserted claims. The Commission clarifies that it encourages early disposition of investigations on dispositive issues, when possible, before the evidentiary hearing in the interest of mitigating litigation costs and conserving resources of the parties and the Commission. See, e.g., Certain Drill Bits and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337–TA–844, 77 FR 51825–26 (Aug. 27, 2012) (affirming grant of summary determination of no importation on the merits and terminating 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 section 210.42 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42). Issued: November 13, 2012. By order of the Commission. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2012–27989 Filed 11–16–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–698 (Enforcement Proceeding)] Certain DC–DC Controllers and Products Containing Same; Decision To Affirm-in-Part, Reverse-in-Part, Modify-in-Part, and Vacate-in-Part an Enforcement Initial Determination Finding a Violation of the August 13, 2010 Consent Order; Issuance of Modified Consent Order and Civil Penalty; and Termination of Enforcement Proceeding U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to affirmin-part, reverse-in-part, modify-in-part, and vacate-in-part an enforcement initial determination (‘‘EID’’) of the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) finding a violation of the SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM 19NON1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 69502 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 223 / Monday, November 19, 2012 / Notices August 13, 2010 consent order (‘‘Consent Order’’) by respondent uPI Semiconductor Corp. (‘‘uPI’’) of Hsinchu, Taiwan, and has issued a modified consent order and civil penalty order in the amount of $620,000 directed against uPI. 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 (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 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 importing, offering for sale, and selling for importation into the United States 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 investigation as to Sapphire based on a settlement agreement. On June 8, 2012, the ALJ issued his EID finding a violation of the Consent Order by uPI. He found importation and sale of accused products that infringe all asserted claims of the patents at issue, VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:04 Nov 16, 2012 Jkt 229001 and importation and sale of formerly accused products that contain or use Richtek’s asserted trade secrets. He found that uPI’s products developed after the consent order issued did not misappropriate Richtek’s asserted trade secrets. Also, he recommended enforcement measures for uPI’s violation that included the following: (1) Modifying the Consent Order to clarify that the Order applies (and has always applied) to all uPI affiliates, past, present, or future; 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; on July 3, 2012, Richtek, uPI, and the Commission investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) each filed a response to the opposing party’s petition. On August 9, 2012, the Commission issued notice of its determination to review the following: (1) The ALJ’s finding of infringement of the ’470 patent; (2) the ALJ’s finding of infringement of the ’190 patent; and (3) the ALJ’s determination that uPI violated the Consent Order on 75 days. 77 FR 49022–23 (Aug. 15, 2012). The determinations made in the EID that were not reviewed became final determinations of the Commission by operation of rule. See 19 CFR 210.75(b)(3). The Commission also 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. On August 23 and 30, 2012, respectively, complainant Richtek, respondent uPI, and the IA each filed a brief and a reply brief on the issues for which the Commission requested written submissions. Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the EID and the parties’ written submissions, the Commission has determined to affirmin-part, reverse-in-part, modify-in-part, and vacate-in-part the EID’s findings under review. Specifically, the Commission has affirmed the ALJ’s finding that uPI violated the consent order, and determined that the number of violation days is 62 days. The Commission has also affirmed the ALJ’s finding of direct infringement of claims 1–11 and 26–27 of the ’190 patent with respect to uPI’s formerly accused products. In addition, the Commission has vacated the ALJ’s finding that uPI does not induce infringement of claims 1–11 and 26–27 of the ’190 patent. The Commission has also determined to reverse the ALJ’s finding that claims 29 and 34 of the ’470 patent are directly infringed by respondent uPI’s accused PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DC–DC controllers and products containing the same, and has determined that Richtek waived any allegations of indirect infringement with respect to the ’470 patent. This action results in a finding of no violation of the Consent Order with respect to the ’470 patent. Further, the Commission has vacated as moot the portion of the EID relating to the ’717 patent because the asserted claims 1–3 and 6–9 have been cancelled following issuance of Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate No. U.S. 7,132,717 C1 on October 3, 2012. Further, the Commission has made its determination on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. The Commission has determined to impose a civil penalty of $620,000 on respondent uPI for violation of the Consent Order on 62 days. The Commission has also determined to modify the Consent Order to clarify that the consent order applies (and has always applied) to all uPI affiliates, past, present, or future. Further, the Commission has modified the Consent Order to remove the portions relating to the ’717 patent based on issuance of the reexamination certificate. The Commission has terminated the enforcement proceeding. 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. Issued: November 14, 2012. By order of the Commission. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2012–28101 Filed 11–16–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act On November 13, 2012, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Davenport, in the lawsuit entitled United States v. Roquette America, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:12–cv– 00131–JEG–RAW. The Consent Decree resolves the United States’ complaint for civil penalties and injunctive relief against Roquette America, Inc., associated with its corn-milling facility in Keokuk, Iowa, pursuant to sections 309(b) and (d) of the Clean Water Act for violations of E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM 19NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 223 (Monday, November 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69501-69502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28101]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

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


Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same; Decision 
To Affirm-in-Part, Reverse-in-Part, Modify-in-Part, and Vacate-in-Part 
an Enforcement Initial Determination Finding a Violation of the August 
13, 2010 Consent Order; Issuance of Modified Consent Order and Civil 
Penalty; and Termination of Enforcement Proceeding

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, reverse-in-part, modify-
in-part, and vacate-in-part an enforcement initial determination 
(``EID'') of the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') finding a 
violation of the

[[Page 69502]]

August 13, 2010 consent order (``Consent Order'') by respondent uPI 
Semiconductor Corp. (``uPI'') of Hsinchu, Taiwan, and has issued a 
modified consent order and civil penalty order in the amount of 
$620,000 directed against uPI.

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 (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 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 importing, offering for sale, and 
selling for importation into the United States 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 investigation 
as to Sapphire based on a settlement agreement.
    On June 8, 2012, the ALJ issued his EID finding a violation of the 
Consent Order by uPI. He found importation and sale of accused products 
that infringe all asserted claims of the patents at issue, and 
importation and sale of formerly accused products that contain or use 
Richtek's asserted trade secrets. He found that uPI's products 
developed after the consent order issued did not misappropriate 
Richtek's asserted trade secrets. Also, he recommended enforcement 
measures for uPI's violation that included the following: (1) Modifying 
the Consent Order to clarify that the Order applies (and has always 
applied) to all uPI affiliates, past, present, or future; 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; on July 3, 
2012, Richtek, uPI, and the Commission investigative attorney (``IA'') 
each filed a response to the opposing party's petition.
    On August 9, 2012, the Commission issued notice of its 
determination to review the following: (1) The ALJ's finding of 
infringement of the '470 patent; (2) the ALJ's finding of infringement 
of the '190 patent; and (3) the ALJ's determination that uPI violated 
the Consent Order on 75 days. 77 FR 49022-23 (Aug. 15, 2012). The 
determinations made in the EID that were not reviewed became final 
determinations of the Commission by operation of rule. See 19 CFR 
210.75(b)(3). The Commission also 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.
    On August 23 and 30, 2012, respectively, complainant Richtek, 
respondent uPI, and the IA each filed a brief and a reply brief on the 
issues for which the Commission requested written submissions.
    Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the EID 
and the parties' written submissions, the Commission has determined to 
affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, modify-in-part, and vacate-in-part the 
EID's findings under review. Specifically, the Commission has affirmed 
the ALJ's finding that uPI violated the consent order, and determined 
that the number of violation days is 62 days. The Commission has also 
affirmed the ALJ's finding of direct infringement of claims 1-11 and 
26-27 of the '190 patent with respect to uPI's formerly accused 
products. In addition, the Commission has vacated the ALJ's finding 
that uPI does not induce infringement of claims 1-11 and 26-27 of the 
'190 patent.
    The Commission has also determined to reverse the ALJ's finding 
that claims 29 and 34 of the '470 patent are directly infringed by 
respondent uPI's accused DC-DC controllers and products containing the 
same, and has determined that Richtek waived any allegations of 
indirect infringement with respect to the '470 patent. This action 
results in a finding of no violation of the Consent Order with respect 
to the '470 patent.
    Further, the Commission has vacated as moot the portion of the EID 
relating to the '717 patent because the asserted claims 1-3 and 6-9 
have been cancelled following issuance of Ex Parte Reexamination 
Certificate No. U.S. 7,132,717 C1 on October 3, 2012.
    Further, the Commission has made its determination on the issues of 
remedy, the public interest, and bonding. The Commission has determined 
to impose a civil penalty of $620,000 on respondent uPI for violation 
of the Consent Order on 62 days. The Commission has also determined to 
modify the Consent Order to clarify that the consent order applies (and 
has always applied) to all uPI affiliates, past, present, or future. 
Further, the Commission has modified the Consent Order to remove the 
portions relating to the '717 patent based on issuance of the 
reexamination certificate.
    The Commission has terminated the enforcement proceeding. 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.

    Issued: November 14, 2012.

    By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-28101 Filed 11-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P