[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 58 (Friday, March 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14628-14629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6757]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-648]
Notice of Commission Decision
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to reverse a remand initial determination
(``remand ID'') of the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ''),
and to affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and modify-in-part a final
initial determination (``ID'') of the presiding administrative law
judge (``ALJ''). The Commission has determined that there is no
violation of section 337 in the above-captioned
[[Page 14629]]
investigation, and has terminated the investigation. The Commission
will issue an opinion shortly.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., 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 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 May 21, 2008, based on a complaint filed on April 18, 2008, by LSI
Corporation of Milpitas, California and Agere Systems Inc. of
Allentown, Pennsylvania. The complaint, as amended, 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
semiconductor integrated circuits using tungsten metallization and
products containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more
of claims 1, 3, and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 5,227,335. The amended
complaint named numerous respondents. Several respondents have been
terminated from the investigation due to settlement or failure to name
the proper party. The following six respondents remain in the
investigation: Tower Semiconductor, Ltd. (``Tower'') of Israel; Jazz
Semiconductor (``Jazz'') of Newport Beach, California; Powerchip
Semiconductor Corporation of Taiwan; Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing
Corporation of China; Integrated Device Technology, Inc. of San Jose,
California; and Nanya Technology Corporation of Taiwan. The complaint
further alleged that an industry in the United States exists as
required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
On September 21, 2009, the ALJ issued his final ID finding no
violation of section 337 by the remaining respondents. On November 23,
2009, the Commission issued notice of its determination to review-in-
part the ID and issued an order remanding the investigation to the ALJ
for further proceedings relating to whether claim 4 is rendered obvious
by IBM Process A in light of the other prior art asserted by
respondents and the Commission investigative attorney (``IA'').
Specifically, the Commission determined to review: (1) Invalidity of
claims 1, 3, and 4 of the `335 patent under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) & 103 with
respect to IBM Process A, IBM Process B, and the AMD prior art; and (2)
Jazz's stipulation regarding whether its process meets the complete,
third recited step of claim 1, i.e., ``depositing a tungsten layer by
chemical vapor deposition, said tungsten layer covering said glue layer
on said dielectric and said exposed material.'' The Commission
determined not to review the remainder of the ID. Also, the Commission
requested written submissions on the ALJ's remand determination and
responses to the written submissions, and briefing on remedy, the
public interest, and bonding.
On January 15, 2010, the ALJ issued his remand ID finding that
claim 4 is not rendered obvious by IBM Process A and other prior art
asserted by respondents and the IA. On February 2 and 12, 2010,
respectively, complainants and respondents each filed a brief and reply
brief on the issues for which the Commission requested written
submissions. On February 2 and 16, 2010, respectively, the IA filed a
brief and a reply brief on the issues for which the Commission
requested written submissions. Also, on February 12, 2010, Tower and
Jazz filed a joint, separate reply brief.
Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the
remand and final IDs and the parties' written submissions, the
Commission has determined to reverse the remand ID, and affirm-in-part,
reverse-in-part, and modify-in-part the final ID. The Commission has
determined that there is no violation of section 337 by the remaining
respondents. Particularly, the Commission has reversed the ALJ's
finding that claim 4 is invalid due to anticipation in view of IBM
Process A, but has found claim 4 to be invalid due to obviousness in
view of IBM Process A in combination with the other prior art asserted
by the IA and respondents. Also, the Commission has affirmed the ALJ's
finding that claims 1 and 3 are invalid due to anticipation in view of
IBM Process A. The Commission has also modified the ALJ's ruling that
Jazz stipulated to the complete, third recited step of claim 1, and
instead it has determined that Jazz's stipulation to the third step
only includes the step of ``depositing a tungsten layer by chemical
vapor deposition.'' The Commission has determined to take no position
on the ALJ's rulings that claims 1 and 3 are not anticipated in view of
IBM Process B, claim 1 is not anticipated in view of the AMD prior art,
and claims 1, 3, and/or 4 are not obvious in view of IBM Process B or
the AMD prior art.
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 section 210.45 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
(19 CFR 210.45).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 22, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-6757 Filed 3-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P