13432 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Notices 

May 2009 Jun 2009 Jul 2009 Aug 2009 

Fort Belknap ............................................................................................................................ 5.35 5.28 5.38 5.39 

Fort Berthold ............................................................................................................................ 2.98 2.96 2.66 2.83 

Fort Peck Reservation ............................................................................................................. 3.99 4.22 3.98 4.56 

Navajo Allotted Leases in the Navajo Reservation ................................................................. 2.78 2.80 3.15 3.39 

Rocky Boys Reservation ......................................................................................................... 2.15 1.96 1.82 1.61 

Ute Tribal Leases in the Uintah and Ouray Reservation ........................................................ 2.19 2.27 2.43 2.69 

Sep 2009 Oct 2009 Nov 2009 Dec 2009 

Blackfeet Reservation .............................................................................................................. 2.26 3.81 3.16 4.93 

Fort Belknap ............................................................................................................................ 4.54 4.95 5.08 5.42 

Fort Berthold ............................................................................................................................ 2.68 4.20 4.13 4.68 

Fort Peck Reservation ............................................................................................................. 4.17 5.98 6.49 6.22 

Navajo Allotted Leases in the Navajo Reservation ................................................................. 2.79 3.93 4.41 4.89 

Rocky Boys Reservation ......................................................................................................... 1.96 2.95 2.84 3.90 

Ute Tribal Leases in the Uintah and Ouray Reservation ........................................................ 2.18 3.22 3.95 3.97 

For information on how to report 

additional royalties due to major portion 

prices, please refer to our Dear Payor 

letter dated December 1, 1999, on the 

ONRR Web site at http://www.onrr.gov/ 

FM/PDFDocs/991201.pdf. 

Dated: March 7, 2011. 

Gregory J. Gould, 

Director, Office of Natural Resources 

Revenue. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5591 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–765] 

In the Matter of Certain Display 

Devices, Including Digital Televisions 

and Monitors II; Notice of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of investigation 

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a 

complaint was filed with the U.S. 

International Trade Commission on 

February 9, 2011, under section 337 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 

U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Sony 

Corporation of Tokyo, Japan. The 

complaint alleges violations of section 

337 based upon the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

and the sale within the United States 

after importation of certain display 

devices, including digital televisions 

and monitors by reason of infringement 

of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 

5,731,847 (‘‘the ‘847 patent’’); U.S. 

Patent No. 5,583,577 (‘‘the ‘577 patent’’); 

U.S. Patent No. 6,661,472 (‘‘the ‘472 

patent’’) and U.S. Patent No. RE 40,468 

(‘‘the ‘468 patent’’). The complaint 

further alleges that an industry in the 

United States exists as required by 

subsection (a)(2) of section 337. 

The complainant requests that the 

Commission institute an investigation 

and, after the investigation, issue an 

exclusion order and a cease and desist 

order. 

ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for 

any confidential information contained 

therein, is 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., Room 

112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 

202–205–2000. Hearing impaired 

individuals are advised that information 

on this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons 

with mobility impairments who will 

need special assistance in gaining access 

to the Commission should contact the 

Office of the Secretary at 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Office of Unfair Import Investigations, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

telephone (202) 205–2560. 

Authority: The authority for institution of 

this investigation is contained in section 337 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 

in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 

(2010). 

Scope of Investigation: Having 

considered the complaint, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission, on 

March 7, 2011, ordered that— 

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, an investigation be instituted 

to determine whether there is a 

violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of 

section 337 in the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

or the sale within the United States after 

importation of certain display devices, 

including digital televisions and 

monitors that infringe one or more of 

claims 41–44 of the ‘468 patent; claims 

1–4, 8, and 11–15 of the ‘472 patent; 

claims 13, 15, 19, and 20 of the ‘577 

patent; and claims 11, 12, 16, 27, 33–35, 

and 39–41 of the ‘847 patent, and 

whether an industry in the United 

States exists as required by subsection 

(a)(2) of section 337; 

(2) For the purpose of the 

investigation so instituted, the following 

are hereby named as parties upon which 

this notice of investigation shall be 

served: 

(a) The complainant is: Sony 

Corporation, 1–7–1, Konan, Minato-ku, 

Tokyo, Japan. 

(b) The respondents are the following 

entities alleged to be in violation of 

section 337, and are the parties upon 

which the complaint is to be served: 

LG Electronics, Inc., LG Twin Towers, 

20 Yeouido-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, 

Seoul 150–721, Korea; 

LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., 1000 Sylvan 

Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632. 

(c) The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Suite 

401, Washington, DC 20436; and 

(3) For the investigation so instituted, 

the Honorable Paul J. Luckern, Chief 

2Administrative Law Judge, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, shall 

designate the presiding Administrative 

Law Judge. 

Responses to the complaint and the 

notice of investigation must be 

submitted by the named respondents in 

accordance with section 210.13 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 201.16(d)–(e) and 210.13(a), 

such responses will be considered by 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Notices 13433 

the Commission if received not later 

than 20 days after the date of service by 

the Commission of the complaint and 

the notice of investigation. Extensions of 

time for submitting responses to the 

complaint and the notice of 

investigation will not be granted unless 

good cause therefor is shown. 

Failure of a respondent to file a timely 

response to each allegation in the 

complaint and in this notice may be 

deemed to constitute a waiver of the 

right to appear and contest the 

allegations of the complaint and this 

notice, and to authorize the 

administrative law judge and the 

Commission, without further notice to 

the respondent, to find the facts to be as 

alleged in the complaint and this notice 

and to enter an initial determination 

and a final determination containing 

such findings, and may result in the 

issuance of an exclusion order or a cease 

and desist order or both directed against 

the respondent. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 7, 2011. 

James R. Holbein, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5670 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–700] 

In the Matter of Certain Mems Devices 

and Products Containing Same; Notice 

of Commission Decision To Review-inPart a Final Initial Determination 

Finding a Violation of Section 337; 

Request for Written Submissions 

Regarding Remedy, Bonding, and the 

Public Interest 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to reviewin-part a final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) of the presiding administrative 

law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) finding a violation of 

section 337 in the above-captioned 

investigation, and is requesting written 

submissions regarding remedy, bonding, 

and the public interest. 

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 December 31, 2009, based on a 

complaint filed on December 1, 2009, by 

Analog Devices, Inc. (‘‘Analog Devices’’) 

of Norwood, Massachusetts. 75 FR 449– 

50 (Jan. 5, 2010). The complaint, as 

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 microelectromechanical systems 

(‘‘MEMS’’) devices and products 

containing the same by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 7,220,614 (‘‘the ‘614 patent’’) 

and 7,364,942 (‘‘the ‘942 patent’’). The 

complaint further alleged that an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337. The complaint named as 

respondents Knowles Electronics LLC of 

Itasca, Illinois and Mouser Electronics, 

Inc. of Mansfield, Texas. 

On December 23, 2010, the ALJ issued 

his final ID finding a violation of section 

337 by respondents with respect to the 

‘942 patent, and which also included 

his recommendation on remedy and 

bonding during the period of 

Presidential review. The ALJ found no 

section 337 violation with respect to the 

‘614 patent due to non-infringement of 

the asserted claims. On January 21, 

2011, the Commission issued notice of 

its determination to extend the deadline 

to March 7, 2001, for determining 

whether to review the final ID. On 

January 18, 2011, Analog Devices, 

respondents, and the Commission 

investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed 

petitions for review of the final ID, and 

each party filed responses to the other 

parties’ petitions on January 26, 2011. 

On February 4, 2011, Analog Devices 

and respondents each filed submissions 

on the public interest. 

Upon considering the parties’ filings, 

the Commission has determined to 

review-in-part the ID. Specifically, the 

Commission has determined to review: 

(1) The ALJ’s construction of the claim 

term ‘‘oven’’ relating to both the ‘614 and 

‘942 patents; (2) the ALJ’s construction 

of the claim term ‘‘sawing’’ relating to 

both the ‘614 and ‘942 patents; (3) the 

ALJ’s determination that the accused 

process does not infringe, either literally 

or under the doctrine of equivalents, 

claims 12, 15, 31–32, 34–35, and 38–39 

of the ‘614 patent or claim 1 of the ‘942 

patent; (4) the ALJ’s finding that U.S. 

Patent No. 5,597,767 (‘‘the ‘767 patent’’) 

does not incorporate by reference U.S. 

Patent Nos. 5,331,454 and 5,512,374 

(‘‘the ‘374 patent’’); (5) the ALJ’s finding 

that claims 2–6 and 8 are infringed by 

the accused process; (6) the ALJ’s 

findings that claims 34–35 and 38–39 of 

the ‘614 patent, and claims 2–6 and 8 of 

the ‘942 patent, are not anticipated, 

under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), by the ‘767 

patent or the ‘374 patent; (7) the ALJ’s 

findings that claims 34–35 and 38–39 of 

the ‘614 patent are not obvious, under 

35 U.S.C. § 103, in view of the ‘767 

patent and the Sakata et al. prior art 

reference; and (8) the ALJ’s finding that 

the technical prong of the domestic 

industry requirement has been satisfied 

as to both the ‘614 and ‘942 patents. The 

Commission has determined not to 

review the remainder of the ID. 

On review, with respect to violation, 

the parties are requested to submit 

briefing limited to the following issues: 

(1) In arguing that the term ‘‘oven’’ 

should be construed as ‘‘a system that 

includes a heated chamber,’’ is it the 

contention of Complainant and the IA 

that the system includes elements such 

as a reservoir, heaters on the reservoir, 

a delivery line that connects the 

reservoir and the deposition chamber, a 

vacuum line, a nitrogen line, and a 

device (such as a computer) for 

programming the temperature, gas 

pressure, etc., of the oven? See 

Complainant Analog’s Contingent 

Petition at 25 and the IA’s Contingent 

Petition at 6. 

(2) If the term ‘‘oven’’ as it appears in 

claim 1 of the ‘942 was construed 

broadly to encompass the entire system, 

would the claim cover a method in 

which the wafer is inserted into, and the 

anti-stiction compound is heated 

within, any portion of the system, 

including the elements listed in the 

question above, such as a heater, 

delivery line, or a device for 

programming? In your response, please 

address whether the Commission 

should construe the disputed term in 

light of the context supplied by the 

claim, which indicates, for example, 

that the anti-stiction compound is 

heated within said oven. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES