[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30430-30431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12742]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337-TA-695]
In the Matter of Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products
Containing the Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review in
Part an Initial Determination Denying Temporary Relief and on Review To
Take No Position on Likelihood of Success on the Merits
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 initial determination
(``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') on
March 24, 2010, denying complainant's motion for temporary relief. On
review, the Commission has determined to take no position on the
likelihood of success on the merits. The Commission has determined not
to review the remainder of the ID, namely the ID's denial of temporary
relief, and its analyses of irreparable harm, the balance of hardships
and the public interest.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Esq., Office of
[[Page 30431]]
the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. 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
(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 voted to institute this
investigation on December 16, 2009, based on a complaint filed by
Knowles Electronics LLC of Itasca, Illinois (``Knowles''). 74 FR 68077
(Dec. 22, 2009). The complaint named as the sole respondent Analog
Devices Inc. of Norwood, Massachusetts (``Analog''). The accused
products are microphone packages. Knowles' complaint asserts one claim
of U.S. Patent No. 6,781,231, and numerous claims of U.S. Patent No.
7,242,089.
Knowles also filed with its complaint a motion for temporary relief
that requested that the Commission issue a temporary limited exclusion
order and temporary cease and desist order. The ID at issue is the
ALJ's denial of Knowles' motion. In that ID, the ALJ analyzed the four
factors for preliminary relief: likelihood of success on the merits,
irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and public interest.
On the likelihood of success on the merits, the ALJ found that all
but one of the asserted patent claims were likely anticipated by U.S.
Patent No. 6,324,907 to Halteren. Some of these same claims were also
likely anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,594,369 to Une. The remaining
claim, while not invalid, was not likely infringed. There was no patent
claim for which Knowles demonstrated a likelihood of success on the
merits (i.e., as to both validity and infringement).
The ID also found that Knowles had not demonstrated irreparable
harm. In particular, the ID found that Analog's sales of accused
microphone packages had not caused Knowles lost sales, had not damaged
Knowles' relationships with its customers, and otherwise had no proven
detrimental effect on Knowles. The ALJ found that these two factors
(likelihood of success and irreparable harm) precluded temporary relief
here. Nonetheless, the ALJ considered the remaining two factors
(balance of hardships and the public interest). As to these remaining
two factors, the ID found that the balance of hardships favored
Knowles, and the ID also found that the public interest would not
preclude preliminary relief.
On review to the Commission, the parties filed opening and reply
comments, as authorized by 19 CFR 210.66(c) & (e)(1). These comments do
not take issue with the ALJ's findings regarding the balance of
hardships or the public interest. Instead, the comments principally
deal with Knowles' likelihood of success on the merits, challenging
various aspects of the ALJ's analyses of validity and infringement. The
private parties also dispute whether the Commission should address at
all the likelihood of success, as Knowles now concedes to the
Commission that it has not suffered irreparable harm. Thus, Knowles
believes that the question of likelihood of success is moot and urges
the Commission not to reach likelihood of success. Analog has taken the
position that Knowles' concession is inappropriate and that the
Commission should decide likelihood of success.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's ID and the subsequent comments and reply comments, the Commission
finds that even absent Knowles' concession, irreparable harm has not
been demonstrated. It was Knowles' burden to demonstrate that such harm
was likely absent temporary relief, and it failed to meet that burden.
Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 375
(2008). The Commission notes, in addition to the reasons discussed in
the ID, that Knowles did not seek temporary relief to exclude the only
product it has identified that allegedly contains the accused
microphone package. See Complaint of Knowles Elecs. LLC Under Section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended ]] 6, 18, 48-49 (Nov. 12,
2009). The Commission has therefore determined not to review the ID's
finding of lack of irreparable harm and the ID's denial of temporary
relief. The parties have not sought the Commission's review as to the
balance of hardships and public interest analyses, and the Commission
has determined not to review the ID's findings on those issues.
Because irreparable harm is dispositive here, the Commission need
not evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits, and therefore,
the Commission has determined to review the ID's finding on likelihood
of success and to take no position on it. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet
Oy, 742 F.2d 1421 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Commission's decision enables
the ALJ to assess the merits unburdened by Commission impressions that
may have been formed on a limited temporary-relief record.
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 210.52 and 210.66 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.52, 210.66).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: May 21, 2010.
William R. Bishop,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-12742 Filed 5-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P