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 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 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 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 http://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 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 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