[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 42 (Thursday, March 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 9928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4556]
[[Page 9928]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337-TA-634]
In the Matter of: Certain Liquid Crystal Display Modules,
Products Containing Same, and Methods Using the Same; Notice of
Commission Determination to Rescind a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease
and Desist Orders
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to rescind the limited exclusion order issued
in the above-captioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint A. Gerdine, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. 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 instituted this investigation
on March 4, 2008, based on a complaint filed by Sharp Corporation
(``Sharp'') of Japan. 73 FR 11678. The complaint, as amended and
supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, 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 liquid crystal display devices, products
containing same, and methods for using the same by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,879,364 (``the
`364 patent''); 6,952,192 (``the `192 patent''); 7,304,703 (``the `703
patent''); and 7,304,626 (``the `626 patent''). The complaint further
alleged the existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's notice
of investigation named the following respondents: Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. of Korea; Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield
Park, New Jersey; and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. of San Jose,
California (collectively, ``Samsung'').
On June 12, 2009, the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'')
issued his final initial determination (``ID'') finding a violation of
section 337 by Samsung with respect to all four patents at issue and
his recommendations on remedy and bonding. On June 29, 2009, Samsung
and the Commission investigative attorney (``IA'') filed petitions for
review of the final ID. The IA and Sharp filed responses to the
petitions on July 7, 2009. On September 9, 2009, the Commission issued
notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's final ID and
requested written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public
interest, and bonding from the parties and interested non-parties. 74
FR 47616-17 (Sept. 16, 2009).
On September 16 and 23, 2009, respectively, complainant Sharp, the
Samsung respondents, and the IA filed briefs and reply briefs on the
issues for which the Commission requested written submissions. On
September 21, 2009, Samsung filed a petition for reconsideration of the
Commission's determination not to review certain portions of the final
ID. On October 19, 2009, the Commission issued an order denying the
petition for reconsideration.
On October 30, 2009, Samsung filed a supplemental submission on the
issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On November 2 and
3, 2009, respectively, Sharp and the IA filed a response to Samsung's
supplemental submission.
On November 9, 2009, the Commission issued notice of its
determination to terminate the investigation with a finding of a
violation of section 337, and issued: (1) A limited exclusion order
prohibiting the unlicensed entry of LCD devices, including display
panels and modules, and products containing the same that infringe one
or more of (i) claims 5-7 of the `364 patent; (ii) claims 1 and 4 of
the `192 patent; (iii) claims 1-2, 6-8, 13-14, and 16-17 of the `703
patent; and (iv) claims 10, 17, and 20 of the `626 patent, where the
infringing LCD devices are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or
are imported by or on behalf of, Samsung, or any of its affiliated
companies, parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other
related business entities, or successors or assigns; and (2) cease and
desist orders prohibiting Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung
Semiconductor, Inc. from conducting any of the following activities in
the United States: importing, selling, marketing, advertising,
distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation),
and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for, LCD devices, including
display panels and modules, and products containing the same that
infringe one or more of (i) claims 5-7 of the `364 patent; (ii) claims
1 and 4 of the `192 patent; (iii) claims 1-2, 6-8, 13-14, and 16-17 of
the `703 patent; and (iv) claims 10, 17, and 20 of the `626 patent. 74
FR 58978-79 (November 16, 2009).
On February 12, 2010, complainant Sharp and respondent Samsung
filed a joint petition to rescind the remedial orders under Commission
Rule 210.76(a)(1) on the basis of a settlement agreement between the
parties. The parties asserted that their settlement agreement
constitutes ``changed conditions of fact or law'' sufficient to justify
rescission of the order under Commission Rule 210.76(a)(1), 19 CFR
210.76(a)(1). The IA did not oppose the joint petition.
Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the Commission has
determined that the settlement agreement satisfies the requirement of
Commission Rule 210.76(a)(1), 19 CFR 210.76(a)(1), that there be
changed conditions of fact or law. The Commission therefore has issued
an order rescinding the limited exclusion order and cease and desist
orders previously issued in this investigation.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and section 210.76(a)(1) of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.76(a)(1)).
Issued: March 1, 2010.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-4556 Filed 3-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P