[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65651-65652]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27024]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-698]
In the Matter of Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products
Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial
Determination Terminating The Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Corrected Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative
law judge's initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 56) granting a
joint motion to terminate the investigation as to one respondent and
terminating the investigation in its entirety.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of 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 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 December 29, 2009, based on a complaint filed by Richtek Technology
Corp. (Taiwan) and Richtek USA, Inc. (San Jose, California)
(collectively ``Richtek''), alleging a violation of section 337 in the
importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States
after importation of certain DC-DC controllers by reason of
infringement
[[Page 65652]]
of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,315,190; 6,414,470; and
7,132,717; and by reason of trade secret misappropriation. 75 FR 446
(Jan. 5, 2010). The complaint, as amended, named eight respondents: uPI
Semiconductor Corp. (Taiwan) (``uPI''); Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
(Sunnyvale, California) (``AMD''); Sapphire Technology Ltd. (Hong Kong)
(``Sapphire''); Best Data Products d/b/a Diamond Multimedia
(Chatsworth, California) (``Diamond''); Eastcom, Inc. d/b/a XFX
Technology USA (Rowland Heights, California) (``XFX''); Micro-Star
International Co., Ltd. (Taiwan) and MSI Computer Corp. (City of
Industry, California) (collectively, ``MSI''); and VisionTek Products
LLC (Inverness, Illinois) (``VisionTek''). See Second Am. Compl. ]] 12-
34 (May 20, 2010).
The investigation has been terminated by settlement agreement or
consent order against all parties other than VisionTek: On July 12,
2010, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's termination of
the investigation as against AMD, Diamond, and XFX. On August 13, 2010,
the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's termination of the
investigation against uPI and Sapphire. On August 20, 2010, the
Commission determined not to review the ALJ's termination of the
investigation against the MSI respondents.
On July 27, 2010, VisionTek and Richtek jointly moved to terminate
the investigation based on a consent order stipulation and proposed
consent order. The ALJ denied the motion. Order No. 51 (July 29, 2010).
On August 5, 2010, VisionTek and Richtek jointly moved to terminate the
investigation based on a settlement agreement. On August 17, 2010, the
ALJ granted the motion. Order No. 56. Because VisionTek is the last
respondent, termination against VisionTek results in termination of the
investigation.
No petitions for review of the ID were filed. The Commission has
determined not to review the ID.
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 210.21(b) and 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (19 CFR 210.21(b), 210.42).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: October 21, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-27024 Filed 10-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P