Certain Static Random Access Memories and Products Containing Same; Commission Determination Affirming a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the Investigation, 35645-35646 [2013-14011]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Notices
Authority: These investigations are being
conducted under authority of title VII of the
Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published
pursuant to section 207.21 of the
Commission’s rules.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: June 7, 2013.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–14010 Filed 6–12–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–792]
Certain Static Random Access
Memories and Products Containing
Same; Commission Determination
Affirming a Final Initial Determination
Finding No Violation of Section 337;
Termination of the Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to affirm
the initial determination issued by the
presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’) finding no violation of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.
1337, (‘‘section 337’’) in the above
identified investigation. The
investigation is terminated.
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 July 28, 2011, based on a complaint
filed by Cypress Semiconductor
Corporation of San Jose, California
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:58 Jun 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
(‘‘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 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. The
ALJ also found that the importation
requirement of section 337 (19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(1)(B)) has been satisfied. The
ALJ, however, found that the accused
products do not infringe the asserted
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35645
patent claims. 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. The ALJ did not consider
the validity or enforceability of the
asserted patents.
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 and remanded the
investigation to the ALJ to make
findings on invalidity and
unenforceability, issues litigated by the
parties but not addressed in the final ID.
On February 25, 2013, the ALJ issued
his Remand ID (‘‘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.
On April 26, 2013, the Commission
determined to review the RID in part,
i.e., with respect to invalidity. See 78 FR
25767 (May 2, 2013). The Commission
declined Respondents’ request to take
judicial notice 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.
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 affirm the ALJ’s
finding of no violation of section 337
with the modifications set forth in the
Commission opinion issued herewith.
Specifically, with respect to the ’805
patent, the Commission affirms the
following findings: (1) Cypress failed to
prove that the accused products infringe
the asserted claims; (2) Cypress failed to
establish the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement; and (3)
Respondents failed to establish by clear
and convincing evidence that U.S.
Patent No. 6,677,649 to Osada et al. or
U.S. Patent No. 6,445,041 to Ishida et al.
anticipate the asserted claims. The
Commission reverses the ALJ’s finding
that the publication by Ishida, entitled
‘‘Novel 6T–SRAM Cell Technology
Designed with Rectangular Patterns
E:\FR\FM\13JNN1.SGM
13JNN1
35646
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Notices
Scalable beyond 0.18 mm Generation
and Desirable for Ultra High Speed
Operation’’ does not anticipate the
asserted claims of the ’805 patent.
Regarding the ’134, ’937, and ’477
patents, the Commission affirms the
following findings: (1) Cypress failed to
prove that the accused products infringe
the asserted claims; (2) Cypress failed to
establish the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement; and (3)
Respondents failed to establish by clear
and convincing evidence that the cited
prior art references anticipate the
asserted claims. The Commission adopts
the ID and RID in their entirety as
modified and/or supplemented by the
Commission opinion. The investigation
is terminated.
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 7, 2013.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–14011 Filed 6–12–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[USITC SE–13–013]
Sunshine Act Meetings
United
States International Trade Commission
TIME AND DATE: June 18, 2013 at 12:00
p.m.
PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, Telephone:
(202) 205–2000.
STATUS: Open to the public.
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1. Agendas for future meetings: none.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. No. 731–TA–1110
(Review) (Sodium Hexametaphosphate
from China). The Commission is
currently scheduled to transmit its
determination and Commissioners’
opinions to the Secretary of Commerce
on or before June 28, 2013.
5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
In accordance with Commission
policy, subject matter listed above, not
disposed of at the scheduled meeting,
may be carried over to the agenda of the
following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013–14177 Filed 6–11–13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Notice Pursuant to the National
Cooperative Research and Production
Act of 1993—Pistoia Alliance, Inc.
Notice is hereby given that, on May
16, 2013, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the
National Cooperative Research and
Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Pistoia Alliance, Inc.
has filed written notifications
simultaneously with the Attorney
General and the Federal Trade
Commission disclosing changes in its
membership. The notifications were
filed for the purpose of extending the
Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages
under specified circumstances.
Specifically, Nicola Fantini (individual),
Zurich, SWITZERLAND; and Ingrid
Akerblom (individual), Lansdale, PA,
have been added as parties to this
venture.
No other changes have been made in
either the membership or planned
activity of the group research project.
Membership in this group research
project remains open, and Pistoia
Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional
written notifications disclosing all
changes in membership.
On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance,
Inc. filed its original notification
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The
Department of Justice published a notice
in the Federal Register pursuant to
Section 6(b) of the Act on July 15, 2009
(74 FR 34364).
The last notification was filed with
the Department on March 8, 2013. A
notice was published in the Federal
Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the
Act on April 3, 2013 (78 FR 20141).
Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust
Division.
[FR Doc. 2013–14002 Filed 6–12–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–11–P
16:58 Jun 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Antitrust Division
Notice Pursuant to the National
Cooperative Research and Production
Act of 1993—ASTM International
Standards
Notice is hereby given that, on May
10, 2013, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the
National Cooperative Research and
Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), ASTM International
(‘‘ASTM’’) has filed written notifications
simultaneously with the Attorney
General and the Federal Trade
Commission disclosing additions or
changes to its standards development
activities. The notifications were filed
for the purpose of extending the Act’s
provisions limiting the recovery of
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages
under specified circumstances.
Specifically, ASTM has provided an
updated list of current, ongoing ASTM
standards activities originating between
February 2013 and May 2013 designated
as Work Items. A complete listing of
ASTM Work Items, along with a brief
description of each, is available at
https://www.astm.org.
On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed
its original notification pursuant to
Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department
of Justice published a notice in the
Federal Register pursuant to Section
6(b) of the Act on November 10, 2004
(69 FR 65226).
The last notification was filed with
the Department on February 11, 2013. A
notice was published in the Federal
Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the
Act on March 7, 2013 (78 FR 14836).
Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust
Division.
[FR Doc. 2013–13995 Filed 6–12–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–11–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos.: 50–454, 50–455, 50–456, 50–
457; NRC–2013–0126]
Byron Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
and Braidwood Nuclear Station, Units
1 and 2
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: License renewal application;
Notice of receipt and availability.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has received an
application, dated May 29, 2013, from
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, filed
Issued: June 11, 2013.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\13JNN1.SGM
13JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 114 (Thursday, June 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35645-35646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14011]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-792]
Certain Static Random Access Memories and Products Containing
Same; Commission Determination Affirming a Final Initial Determination
Finding No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to affirm the initial determination issued by
the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') finding no violation
of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, (``section
337'') in the above identified investigation. The investigation is
terminated.
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 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 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. The ALJ also found that the importation
requirement of section 337 (19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)) has been
satisfied. The ALJ, however, found that the accused products do not
infringe the asserted patent claims. 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. The
ALJ did not consider the validity or enforceability of the asserted
patents.
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 and remanded the investigation to the ALJ to make findings
on invalidity and unenforceability, issues litigated by the parties but
not addressed in the final ID. On February 25, 2013, the ALJ issued his
Remand ID (``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.
On April 26, 2013, the Commission determined to review the RID in
part, i.e., with respect to invalidity. See 78 FR 25767 (May 2, 2013).
The Commission declined Respondents' request to take judicial notice 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.
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 affirm the ALJ's finding of
no violation of section 337 with the modifications set forth in the
Commission opinion issued herewith. Specifically, with respect to the
'805 patent, the Commission affirms the following findings: (1) Cypress
failed to prove that the accused products infringe the asserted claims;
(2) Cypress failed to establish the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement; and (3) Respondents failed to establish by clear
and convincing evidence that U.S. Patent No. 6,677,649 to Osada et al.
or U.S. Patent No. 6,445,041 to Ishida et al. anticipate the asserted
claims. The Commission reverses the ALJ's finding that the publication
by Ishida, entitled ``Novel 6T-SRAM Cell Technology Designed with
Rectangular Patterns
[[Page 35646]]
Scalable beyond 0.18 [micro]m Generation and Desirable for Ultra High
Speed Operation'' does not anticipate the asserted claims of the '805
patent. Regarding the '134, '937, and '477 patents, the Commission
affirms the following findings: (1) Cypress failed to prove that the
accused products infringe the asserted claims; (2) Cypress failed to
establish the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement; and
(3) Respondents failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence
that the cited prior art references anticipate the asserted claims. The
Commission adopts the ID and RID in their entirety as modified and/or
supplemented by the Commission opinion. The investigation is
terminated.
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 7, 2013.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-14011 Filed 6-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
