[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 62 (Thursday, April 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16507-16509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7279]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-661]
In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous
Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Products Containing Same;
Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Part an Initial
Determination Finding Respondents in Violation of Section 337; Denial
of Respondents' Joint Motion To Extend Target Date; Schedule for
Briefing on the Issues on Review and on Remedy, Public Interest, and
Bonding
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 presiding
administrative law judge's (``ALJ'') Initial Determination on Violation
of Section 337 (``ID'') and Recommended Determination on Remedy and
Bond finding that Respondents violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930 by importation into the United States, the sale for importation,
or the sale within the United States after importation, of certain
semiconductor chips having synchronous dynamic random access memory
controllers and products containing same by reason of infringement of
one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,405 (``the '405 patent''),
6,591,353 (``the '353 patent''), and 7,287,109 (``the '109 patent'').
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul M. Bartkowski, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5432. 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 Inv. No. 337-TA-
661 on December 10, 2008, based on a complaint filed by Rambus, Inc. of
Los Altos, California (``Rambus''). 73 FR 75131-2. The complaint, as
amended and supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''), in
the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and
the sale within the United States after importation of certain
electronic devices by reason of infringement of certain claims of the
'353 patent, the '405 patent, the '109 patent, as well as certain
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,117,998 (``the '998 patent); 7,210,016
(``the '016 patent''); 7,287,119 (``the '119 patent''); 7,330,952
(``the '952 patent''); 7,330,953 (``the '953 patent''); and 7,360,050
(``the '050 patent''). The Commission's notice of investigation named
the following respondents: NVIDIA Corporation of Santa Clara,
California; Asustek Computer, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; ASUS Computer
[[Page 16508]]
International, Inc. of Fremont, California; BFG Technologies, Inc. of
Lake Forest, Illinois; Biostar Microtech (USA) Corp. of City of
Industry, California; Biostar Microtech International Corp. of Hsin
Ten, Taiwan; Diablotek Inc. of Alhambra, California; EVGA Corp. of
Brea, California; G.B.T. Inc. of City of Industry, California; Giga-
byte Technology Co., Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan; Hewlett-Packard Co. of
Palo Alto, California; MSI Computer Corp. of City of Industry,
California; Micro-star International Co., Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan; Palit
Multimedia Inc. of San Jose, California; Palit Microsystems Ltd. of
Taipei, Taiwan; Pine Technology Holdings, Ltd. of Hong Kong and Sparkle
Computer Co. of Taipei, Taiwan (referred to collectively as
``Respondents'').
On July 13, 2009, the Commission issued a notice terminating the
'119, '952, '953, and '050 patents and certain claims of the `109
patent from the investigation.
On January 22, 2010, the ALJ issued his ID on Violation of Section
337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond. The ALJ found
that Respondents violated section 337 by importing certain
semiconductor chips having synchronous dynamic random access memory
controllers and products containing same with respect to various claims
of the '405, '353, and '109 patents. The ALJ determined that there was
no violation of section 337 with respect to the asserted '016 and '998
patent claims.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID and the submissions of the parties, the Commission has
determined to review the final ID in part, to reject Rambus's petition
to vacate Order No. 15, and to deny Respondents' motion to extend the
target date. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review (1)
the ID's anticipation and obviousness findings with respect to the Ware
patents; (2) the ID's obviousness-type double patenting analysis
regarding the asserted Barth I claims; and (3) the ID's analysis of the
alleged obviousness of the asserted Barth I claims. The Commission
requests briefing based on the evidentiary record on these issues. The
Commission is particularly interested in concise responses to the
following questions:
Regarding the Ware patents:
(1) What are the differences between the scope and content of the
Coteus patent and the asserted Ware claims?
(2) What is the appropriate skill level of one of ordinary skill in
the art?
(3) In light of the underlying facts, would the asserted claims of
the Ware patents have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of invention? In your answer, please identify which claim
element(s), if any, are not disclosed in the Coteus reference but would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the issue of obviousness-type double patenting of the
Barth I claims:
Under the facts as found by the ALJ, do the differences in scope of
the asserted Barth I patent claims and the claims of the Farmwald `037
patent render the asserted Barth I claims patentably distinct?
Regarding obviousness with respect to the asserted Barth I claims:
(1) What are the differences between the scope and content of the
asserted prior art and the asserted Barth I claims?
(2) What is the appropriate skill level of one of ordinary skill in
the art?
(3) In light of the underlying facts, would the asserted claims of
the Barth I patents have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of invention?
Please address only those references and combinations of references
that were properly preserved under the ALJ's Ground Rule 11.1.
Furthermore, in connection with the final disposition of this
investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result
in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United
States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease-and-desist orders that could
result in the respondent being required to cease and desist from
engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles.
Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written
submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be
ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the
United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party
should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities
involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or
likely to do so. For background, see In the Matter of Certain Devices
for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360,
USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994) (Commission Opinion).
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease-and-desist orders would have on (1) the
public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S.
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly
competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written
submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in
the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve
or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of
July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the
subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under
bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the
Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in
receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be
imposed if a remedy is ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the issues under review. The submissions
should be concise and thoroughly referenced to the record in this
investigation, including references to exhibits and testimony.
Additionally, parties to the investigation, interested government
agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file
written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and
bonding. Such submissions should address the recommended determination
by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. Further, regarding the potential
issuance of a general exclusion order, the Commission requests briefing
specific to whether the statutory criteria set forth in section
337(d)(2) are met in this investigation. Complainants and the
Commission investigative attorney are also requested to submit proposed
remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainants are
also requested to state the dates that the patents expire and the HTSUS
numbers under which the accused products are imported. The written
submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than
close of business on April 6, 2010. Reply submissions must be filed no
later than the close of business on April 15, 2010. No further
submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered
by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with
the Office of the Secretary. Any person desiring to submit a document
to the Commission in confidence must request confidential
[[Page 16509]]
treatment unless the information has already been granted such
treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be directed
to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full statement of
the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR
201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is
sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written
submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of
the Secretary.
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 210.42-43 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-43).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 25, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-7279 Filed 3-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P