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
<![CDATA[
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, https://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 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 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 (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
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 (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 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
