Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Notices 11275 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2010, except as noted 

(report quantity data in short tons and 

value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). 

If you are a union/worker group or 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms in which your workers are 

employed/which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(d) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(e) the value of (i) Net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2010 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2010 

(report quantity data in short tons and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping duties). If you 

are a trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in the 

Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country after 2004, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 23, 2011. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4445 Filed 2–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–692] 

In the Matter of Certain Ceramic 

Capacitors and Products Containing 

Same; Notice of Commission 

Determination To Review in Part A 

Final Initial Determination Finding No 

Violation of Section 337; Schedule for 

Filing Written Submissions on the 

Issues Under Review and on Remedy, 

the 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 final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on 

December 22, 2010, finding no violation 

of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3042. Copies of non-confidential 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
11276 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Notices 

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 November 4, 2009, based on a 

complaint filed by Murata 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of Kyoto, Japan 

and Murata Electronics North America, 

Inc. of Smyrna, Georgia (collectively, 

‘‘Murata’’). 74 FR 57193–94 (Nov. 4, 

2009). The complaint alleged violations 

of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(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 ceramic capacitors and products 

containing the same by reason of 

infringement of various claims of United 

States Patent Nos. 6,266,229 (‘‘the ’229 

patent’’); 6,014,309 (‘‘the ’309 patent’’); 

6,243,254 (‘‘the ’254 patent’’); and 

6,377,439 (subsequently terminated 

from the investigation). The complaint 

named Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., 

Ltd. of Suwon City, Korea and Samsung 

Electro-Mechanics America, Inc. of 

Irvine, California (collectively, 

‘‘Samsung’’) as respondents. 

On December 22, 2010, the ALJ issued 

his final ID, finding no violation of 

section 337 by Respondents with 

respect to any of the asserted claims of 

the asserted patents. Specifically, the 

ALJ found that the accused products do 

not infringe the asserted claims of the 

’254 patent. The ALJ also found that 

none of the cited references anticipated 

the asserted claims and that none of the 

cited references rendered the asserted 

claims obvious. The ALJ further found 

that the asserted claims were not 

rendered unenforceable due to 

inequitable conduct. The ALJ, however, 

found that asserted claims 11–14, 19, 

and 20 of the ’254 patent failed to satisfy 

the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 for 

lack of written description. Likewise, 

the ALJ found that the accused products 

do not infringe asserted claim 3 of the 

’309 patent and that none of the cited 

references anticipated or rendered 

obvious the asserted claims. The ALJ 

further found that the asserted claim 

was not rendered unenforceable due to 

inequitable conduct. Similarly, the ALJ 

found that the accused products meet 

all the limitations of the asserted claims 

of the ’229 patent and that the claims 

are not rendered unenforceable due to 

inequitable conduct. The ALJ further 

found that the cited references do not 

anticipate the asserted claims but found 

that the prior art rendered the asserted 

claims obvious. The ALJ concluded that 

an industry exists within the United 

States that practices the ’254 and ’229 

patents but that a domestic industry 

does not exist with respect to the ’309 

patent as required by 19 U.S.C. 

1337(a)(2) and (3). 

On January 4, 2011, Murata and the 

Commission investigative attorney filed 

petitions for review of the ID. That same 

day, Samsung filed a contingent petition 

for review of the ID. On January 12, 

2011, the parties filed responses to the 

various petitions and contingent 

petition for review. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final 

ID, the petitions for review, and the 

responses thereto, the Commission has 

determined to review the final ID in 

part. Specifically, the Commission has 

determined to review the findings 

related to the ’229 patent and in 

particular the finding that AAPA 

(Applicant Admitted Prior Art) does not 

invalidate the asserted claims of the 

’229 patent. With respect to the ’309 

patent, it is unclear whether the ALJ 

made a specific finding that Nakano 

discloses a thickness ratio of 0.01 to 10. 

ID at 167. To the extent that the ALJ 

made such a finding, the Commission 

reverses and does not adopt such a 

finding as its own. The Commission has 

determined not to review the issues 

related to the ’309 patent and ’254 

patent raised by the petitions for review 

and terminates the ’309 and ’254 patents 

from the investigation. 

The parties are requested to brief their 

positions on the issues under review 

with reference to the applicable law and 

the evidentiary record. In connection 

with its review, the Commission is 

particularly interested in responses to 

the following questions: 

1. Can characterizations of the prior 

art that patent applicants make in the 

specification constitute the ‘‘single 

allegedly anticipatory reference 

pursuant to Section 102’’? See ID at 139. 

Even if those characterizations cannot 

constitute such a reference, are 

applicants bound by characterizations of 

the prior art contained in the 

specification? In your response, please 

consider Pharmastem Therapeutics, Inc. 

v. Viacell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1362 

(Fed. Cir. 2007) and Constant v. 

Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 

1560, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1988). 

2. Assume that patent applicants are 

bound by their characterizations as 

described above. Have the ’229 

applicants made concessions showing 

that the asserted claims of the ’229 

patent are anticipated or obvious? 

Please specify how the alleged applicant 

admissions disclose that a single prior 

art reference discloses each limitation of 

the asserted claims and/or that a 

combination of prior art references 

render the claims obvious. Please cite 

only record evidence and relevant legal 

authority to support your position. 

3. Assume that the specification can 

constitute a single allegedly anticipatory 

reference pursuant to Section 102. 

Please provide an analysis as to 

anticipation and obviousness. Please 

cite only record evidence and relevant 

legal authority to support your position. 

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(s) 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Notices 11277 

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. 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 

identified in this notice. 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 with respect to 

the ’29 patent. Complainants and the IA 

are also requested to submit proposed 

remedial orders for the Commission’s 

consideration. Complainants are also 

requested to state the date that the 

patent expires 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 

Tuesday, March 8, 2011. Reply 

submissions must be filed no later than 

the close of business on Tuesday, March 

15, 2011. 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 

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 210.6. 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 

sections 210.42–46 and 210.50 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 and 

210.50). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 23, 2011. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4442 Filed 2–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–728] 

In the Matter of Collaborative System 

Products and Components Thereof (II); 

Notice of Commission Determination 

Not To Review an Initial Determination 

Terminating the Investigation on the 

Basis of a Settlement Agreement; 

Termination of the Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review the final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 20) issued by the 

presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) on January 24, 2011 granting a 

consent motion to terminate the abovecaptioned investigation in its entirety 

based upon a settlement agreement. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jia 

Chen, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–4737. 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 July 19, 2010, based on a complaint 

filed by eInstruction Corporation 

(‘‘eInstruction’’) of Denton, Texas on 

May 12, 2010. 75 FR 41889 (Jul. 19, 

2010). The complaint alleged violations 

of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(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 collaborative system products 

and components thereof by reason of 

infringement of various claims of United 

States Patent No. 6,930,673. The 

complaint, as amended, named the 

following respondents: Promethean Inc. 

of Alpharetta, Georgia; Promethean 

Technology Shenzhen Ltd. of Shanghai, 

China; and Promethean Ltd. of 

Blackburn, Lancashire, United 

Kingdom. 

On January 4, 2011, eInstruction filed 

a consent motion to terminate the 

instant investigation on the ground that 

the parties have reached a settlement 

agreement pursuant to Commission Rule 

210.21(b). On January 24, 2011, the 

Commission investigative attorney filed 

a response supporting the motion. On 

January 24, 2011, the ALJ issued the 

subject ID granting the motion. No 

petitions for review of the ID were filed. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the subject 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(h) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.21(b), 210.42(h)). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 23, 2011. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4441 Filed 2–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1122–0010] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Extension of a Currently 

Approved Collection 

ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review: Semi-Annual 

Progress Report for Grantees From the 

Grants To Support Tribal Domestic 

Violence and Sexual Assault Coalitions 

Program. 

The Department of Justice, Office on 

Violence Against Women (OVW) will be 

submitting the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

Comments are encouraged and will be 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES