Certain Static Random Access Memories and Products Containing Same; Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337, 25767 [2013-10354]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 85 / Thursday, May 2, 2013 / Notices Dated: April 26, 2013. Roseann Gonzales, Director, Policy and Administration, Denver Office. [FR Doc. 2013–10358 Filed 5–1–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–792] Certain Static Random Access Memories and Products Containing Same; Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337 U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part the remand initial determination (‘‘RID’’) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on February 25, 2013. 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 July 28, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Cypress Semiconductor Corporation of San Jose, California (‘‘Cypress’’). 76 FR 45295 (July 28, 2011). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (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 static random access memories VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:50 May 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 and products containing the same by reason of infringement of various claims of United States Patent Nos. 6,534,805; 6,651,134; 6,262,937 and 7,142,477. The notice of investigation named the following entities as respondents: GSI Technology, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California (‘‘GSI’’); Alcatel-Lucent of Paris, France (‘‘Alcatel-Lucent’’); Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. of Murray Hill, New Jersey (‘‘Alcatel-Lucent USA’’); Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson of Stockholm, Sweden (‘‘Ericsson LM’’); Ericsson, Inc. of Plano, Texas (‘‘Ericsson’’); Motorola Solutions, Inc. of Schaumburg, Illinois (‘‘Motorola’’); Motorola Mobility, Inc. of Libertyville, Illinois (‘‘MMI’’); Arrow Electronics, Inc. of Melville, New York (‘‘Arrow’’); Nu Horizons Electronics Corp. of Melville, New York (‘‘Nu Horizons’’); Cisco Systems, Inc. of San Jose, California (‘‘Cisco’’); Hewlett Packard Company/Tipping Point of Palo Alto, California (‘‘HP’’); Avnet, Inc. of Phoenix, Arizona (‘‘Avnet’’); Nokia Siemens Networks US, LLC of Irving, Texas (‘‘Nokia US’’); Nokia Siemens Networks B.V. of Zoetermeer, Netherlands (‘‘Nokia’’); and Tellabs of Naperville, Illinois (‘‘Tellabs’’). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not a party to this investigation. The following respondents were terminated from the investigation based on settlement agreements, consent orders, or withdrawal of allegations from the complaint: Alcatel-Lucent, Alcatel-Lucent USA, Ericsson, Arrow, Nu Horizons, Nokia US, and Nokia. The following respondents were terminated from the investigation based upon grant of summary determination of no violation of section 337: MMI, HP, Motorola, Tellabs, and Ericsson LM. The following respondents remain in the investigation: GSI, Cisco, and Avnet (collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’). On October 25, 2012, the ALJ issued his final ID (‘‘ID’’), finding no violation of section 337 by the remaining respondents. Specifically, the ALJ found that the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over the accused products, and in personam jurisdiction over the Respondents. ID at 8. The ALJ also found that the importation requirement of section 337 (19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)) has been satisfied. Id. The ALJ, however, found that the accused products do not infringe the asserted patent claims. See ID at 16, 24, 39, and 55. The ALJ also found that Cypress failed to establish the existence of a domestic industry that practices the asserted patents under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2) for failure to establish the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. See ID at 20, 31, PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 25767 45, and 58. The ALJ did not consider the validity or enforceability of the asserted patents despite Respondents’ assertion in both their pre-hearing and posthearing briefs that the asserted patents are invalid and unenforceable. See ID at 20, 31, 45–46, and 59. On November 7, 2012, Cypress filed a petition for review of the ID. That same day, Respondents filed a contingent petition for review. On November 15, 2012, the parties filed responses to the petition and contingent petition for review. On December 21, 2012, the Commission determined to review the ID in its entirety (without requesting further briefing) and remanded the investigation to the ALJ to make findings on invalidity and unenforceability, issues he did not rule on. On February 25, 2012, the ALJ issued his RID, finding that the asserted patents are enforceable and not invalid. On March 11, 2013, Respondents filed a petition for review of the RID, challenging the ALJ’s findings that the asserted patents are enforceable and not invalid. On March 19, 2013, Cypress filed a response to the petition for review. Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID and RID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the RID in part, i.e., with respect to validity. The final ID remains under Commission review. The Commission declines Respondents’ request to take judicial review of the on-going reexamination proceedings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office regarding the ’805 patent and admit filings in that case into evidence in this 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 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: April 26, 2013. By order of the Commission. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2013–10354 Filed 5–1–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P E:\FR\FM\02MYN1.SGM 02MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 85 (Thursday, May 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 25767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10354]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-792]


Certain Static Random Access Memories and Products Containing 
Same; Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial 
Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337

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 the remand initial 
determination (``RID'') issued by the presiding administrative law 
judge (``ALJ'') on February 25, 2013.

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 July 28, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Cypress Semiconductor 
Corporation of San Jose, California (``Cypress''). 76 FR 45295 (July 
28, 2011). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (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 static random access memories and products 
containing the same by reason of infringement of various claims of 
United States Patent Nos. 6,534,805; 6,651,134; 6,262,937 and 
7,142,477. The notice of investigation named the following entities as 
respondents: GSI Technology, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California (``GSI''); 
Alcatel-Lucent of Paris, France (``Alcatel-Lucent''); Alcatel-Lucent 
USA, Inc. of Murray Hill, New Jersey (``Alcatel-Lucent USA''); 
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson of Stockholm, Sweden (``Ericsson LM''); 
Ericsson, Inc. of Plano, Texas (``Ericsson''); Motorola Solutions, Inc. 
of Schaumburg, Illinois (``Motorola''); Motorola Mobility, Inc. of 
Libertyville, Illinois (``MMI''); Arrow Electronics, Inc. of Melville, 
New York (``Arrow''); Nu Horizons Electronics Corp. of Melville, New 
York (``Nu Horizons''); Cisco Systems, Inc. of San Jose, California 
(``Cisco''); Hewlett Packard Company/Tipping Point of Palo Alto, 
California (``HP''); Avnet, Inc. of Phoenix, Arizona (``Avnet''); Nokia 
Siemens Networks US, LLC of Irving, Texas (``Nokia US''); Nokia Siemens 
Networks B.V. of Zoetermeer, Netherlands (``Nokia''); and Tellabs of 
Naperville, Illinois (``Tellabs''). The Office of Unfair Import 
Investigations is not a party to this investigation.
    The following respondents were terminated from the investigation 
based on settlement agreements, consent orders, or withdrawal of 
allegations from the complaint: Alcatel-Lucent, Alcatel-Lucent USA, 
Ericsson, Arrow, Nu Horizons, Nokia US, and Nokia. The following 
respondents were terminated from the investigation based upon grant of 
summary determination of no violation of section 337: MMI, HP, 
Motorola, Tellabs, and Ericsson LM. The following respondents remain in 
the investigation: GSI, Cisco, and Avnet (collectively, 
``Respondents'').
    On October 25, 2012, the ALJ issued his final ID (``ID''), finding 
no violation of section 337 by the remaining respondents. Specifically, 
the ALJ found that the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction, in 
rem jurisdiction over the accused products, and in personam 
jurisdiction over the Respondents. ID at 8. The ALJ also found that the 
importation requirement of section 337 (19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)) has 
been satisfied. Id. The ALJ, however, found that the accused products 
do not infringe the asserted patent claims. See ID at 16, 24, 39, and 
55. The ALJ also found that Cypress failed to establish the existence 
of a domestic industry that practices the asserted patents under 19 
U.S.C. 1337(a)(2) for failure to establish the technical prong of the 
domestic industry requirement. See ID at 20, 31, 45, and 58. The ALJ 
did not consider the validity or enforceability of the asserted patents 
despite Respondents' assertion in both their pre-hearing and post-
hearing briefs that the asserted patents are invalid and unenforceable. 
See ID at 20, 31, 45-46, and 59.
    On November 7, 2012, Cypress filed a petition for review of the ID. 
That same day, Respondents filed a contingent petition for review. On 
November 15, 2012, the parties filed responses to the petition and 
contingent petition for review.
    On December 21, 2012, the Commission determined to review the ID in 
its entirety (without requesting further briefing) and remanded the 
investigation to the ALJ to make findings on invalidity and 
unenforceability, issues he did not rule on. On February 25, 2012, the 
ALJ issued his RID, finding that the asserted patents are enforceable 
and not invalid.
    On March 11, 2013, Respondents filed a petition for review of the 
RID, challenging the ALJ's findings that the asserted patents are 
enforceable and not invalid. On March 19, 2013, Cypress filed a 
response to the petition for review.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID and RID, the petitions for review, and the responses 
thereto, the Commission has determined to review the RID in part, i.e., 
with respect to validity. The final ID remains under Commission review.
    The Commission declines Respondents' request to take judicial 
review of the on-going reexamination proceedings at the United States 
Patent and Trademark Office regarding the '805 patent and admit filings 
in that case into evidence in this 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 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: April 26, 2013.

    By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-10354 Filed 5-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P