76024 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices 

CA; LSI Corporation of Milpitas, CA; 

MediaTek Inc. of Hsin-Chu, Taiwan; 

nVidia Corporation of Santa Clara, CA; 

STMicroelectronics of Geneva, 

Switzerland; STMicroelectronics Inc., of 

Carrollton, TX; Asustek Computer Inc. 

of Taipei City, Taiwan; Asus Computer 

International Inc. of Fremont, CA; 

Audio Partnership PLC of London, 

United Kingdom; Biostar Microtech 

(U.S.A.) Corp. of City of Industry, CA; 

Biostar Microtech International Corp. of 

Hsin Tien, Taiwan; Cisco Systems, Inc. 

of San Jose, CA; Elitegroup Computer 

Systems of Taipei, Taiwan; EVGA 

Corporation of Brea, CA; Galaxy 

Microsystems Ltd. of Kowloon Bay, 

KLN, Hong Kong; Garmin International 

of Olathe, KS; G.B.T. Inc. of City of 

Industry, CA; Giga-Byte Technology Co., 

Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan; Gracom 

Technologies LLC of City of Industry, 

CA; Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo 

Alto, CA; Hitachi Global Storage of San 

Jose, CA; Jaton Corporation of Fremont, 

CA; Jaton Technology TPE of Hsi-Chih, 

Taiwan; Micro-Star International Co., 

Ltd. of Taipei Hsien, Taiwan; MSI 

Computer Corporation of City of 

Industry, CA; Motorola, Inc. of 

Schaumburg, IL; Oppo Digital, Inc. of 

Mountain View, CA; Palit Microsystems 

Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan; Pine 

Techonology Holdings, Ltd of North 

Point, Hong Kong; Seagate Technology 

of Scotts Valley, CA; Sparkle Computer 

Co., Ltd. of Taipepi County, Taiwan; 

Zotac International (MCO) Ltd. of 

Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong; and Zotac 

USA Inc. of City of Industry, CA. 

The complainant, proposed 

respondents, other interested parties, 

and members of the public are invited 

to file comments, not to exceed five 

pages in length, on any public interest 

issues raised by the complaint. 

Comments should address whether 

issuance of an exclusion order and/or a 

cease and desist order in this 

investigation would negatively affect the 

public health and welfare in the United 

States, competitive conditions in the 

United States economy, the production 

of like or directly competitive articles in 

the United States, or United States 

consumers. 

In particular, the Commission is 

interested in comments that: 

(i) Explain how the articles 

potentially subject to the orders are used 

in the United States; 

(ii) Identify any public health, safety, 

or welfare concerns in the United States 

relating to the potential orders; 

(iii) Indicate the extent to which like 

or directly competitive articles are 

produced in the United States or are 

otherwise available in the United States, 

with respect to the articles potentially 

subject to the orders; and 

(iv) Indicate whether Complainant, 

Complainant’s licensees, and/or third 

party suppliers have the capacity to 

replace the volume of articles 

potentially subject to an exclusion order 

and a cease and desist order within a 

commercially reasonable time. 

Written submissions must be filed no 

later than by close of business, five 

business days after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. There will be further 

opportunities for comment on the 

public interest after the issuance of any 

final initial determination in this 

investigation. 

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. Submissions should 

refer to the docket number (‘‘Docket No. 

2771’’) in a prominent place on the 

cover page and/or the first page. The 

Commission’s rules authorize filing 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means only to the 

extent permitted by section 201.8 of the 

rules (see Handbook for Electronic 

Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/ 

secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/ 

documents/ 

handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf ). 

Persons with questions regarding 

electronic filing should contact the 

Secretary (202–205–2000). 

Any person desiring to submit a 

document to the Commission in 

confidence must request confidential 

treatment. All such requests should be 

directed to the Secretary to 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 properly sought will be 

treated accordingly. All nonconfidential 

written submissions will be available for 

public inspection at the Office of the 

Secretary. 

This action is taken under the 

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), 

and of sections 201.10 and 210.50(a)(4) 

of the Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 

210.50(a)(4)). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: December 2, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30610 Filed 12–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–602] 

In the Matter of Certain GPS Devices 

and Products Containing Same; 

Enforcement Proceeding; Notice of 

Institution of Formal Enforcement 

Proceeding; Denial of Motion for 

Sanctions 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has instituted a formal 

enforcement proceeding relating to the 

limited exclusion order and cease-anddesist orders issued at the conclusion of 

the above-captioned investigation. The 

Commission has also denied a motion 

for sanctions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel E. Valencia, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–1999. Copies of all nonconfidential 

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 

the matter can be obtained by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

underlying investigation was instituted 

on May 7, 2007, based on a complaint 

filed by Global Locate, Inc., a subsidiary 

of Broadcom Corporation (collectively, 

‘‘Broadcom’’). 72 FR 25777 (2007). The 

complaint alleged violations 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 global positioning 

system (‘‘GPS’’) devices and products 

containing the same by reason of 

infringement of various claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 6,704,651 (‘‘the ‘651 

patent’’); 6,651,000 (‘‘the ‘000 patent’’); 

6,606,346 (‘‘the ‘346 patent’’); 6,937,187 

(‘‘the ‘187 patent’’); 6,417,801 (‘‘the ‘801 

patent’’); and 7,158,080 (‘‘the ‘080 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices 76025 

patent’’). The complaint in the 

underlying investigation named as 

respondents SiRF Technology, Inc. 

(‘‘SiRF’’), E–TEN Corp. (‘‘E–TEN’’), 

Pharos Science & Applications, Inc. 

(‘‘Pharos’’), MiTAC International 

Corporation (‘‘MiTAC’’), and Mio 

Technology Limited (‘‘Mio’’) 

(collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’). 

On January 15, 2009, the Commission 

found a violation of section 337 by 

Respondents by reason of infringement 

of all six asserted patents. The 

Commission issued a limited exclusion 

and cease-and-desist orders against 

SiRF, Pharos, and Mio. The remedial 

orders are directed to GPS devices and 

products containing the same that 

infringe or are covered by certain claims 

of the ‘346, ‘651, ‘000, ‘080, ‘187, and/ 

or ‘801 patents. Respondents 

subsequently appealed the 

Commission’s final determination to the 

United States Court of Appeals for 

Federal Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’). In a 

precedential opinion issued April 12, 

2010, the Federal Circuit affirmed the 

Commission’s Final Determination in all 

respects. 

On August 16, 2010, the Commission 

instituted modification proceedings 

under 19 CFR 210.76 based on a petition 

for modification filed by Respondents. 

At the same time, the Commission 

denied a petition for modification filed 

by Broadcom. The modification 

proceedings are currently ongoing. 

On October 7, 2010, Broadcom filed a 

complaint seeking institution of a 

formal enforcement proceeding to 

enforce the limited exclusion order and 

cease-and-desist orders against 

Respondents under Commission rule 

210.75(b), 19 CFR 210.75(b). The 

enforcement complaint named SiRF, 

MiTAC, Mio, Pharos, E–TEN, MiTAC 

Digitial Corporation (‘‘MiTAC Digital’’), 

and CSR plc (‘‘CSR’’) as proposed 

enforcement respondents. Shortly after 

the enforcement complaint was filed, 

Broadcom withdrew its allegations with 

respect to E–TEN. 

On October 22, 2010, the proposed 

enforcement respondents filed a motion 

with the Commission requesting 

sanctions against Broadcom. The motion 

alleges, among other things, that 

Broadcom’s enforcement complaint 

does not comply with Commission rule 

210.4(c), 19 CFR 210.4(c), regarding 

representations made to the 

Commission. On November 3, 2010, 

Broadcom opposed the motion. On 

November 9, 2010, the proposed 

enforcement respondents filed a motion 

for leave to reply in support of their 

motion for sanctions. The Commission 

has denied the motion for sanctions and 

the motion for leave. 

Having examined the complaint 

seeking a formal enforcement 

proceeding, and having found that the 

complaint complies with the 

requirements for institution of a formal 

enforcement proceeding contained in 

Commission rule 210.75, 19 CFR 210.75, 

the Commission has determined to 

institute a formal enforcement 

proceeding to determine whether the 

respondents are in violation of the 

Commission’s limited exclusion order 

and cease-and-desist orders issued in 

the investigation, and what, if any, 

enforcement measures are appropriate. 

The following entities are named as 

parties to the formal enforcement 

proceeding: (1) Complainant Broadcom, 

(2) respondents SiRF, MiTAC, MiTAC 

Digital, Mio, Pharos, and CSR; and (3) 

a Commission investigative attorney to 

be designated by the Director, Office of 

Unfair Import Investigations. 

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 210.75 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.75). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: December 1, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30617 Filed 12–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–376 and 563– 

564 (Third Review)] 

Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 

From Japan, Korea, and Taiwan 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Termination of five-year 

reviews. 

SUMMARY: The subject five-year reviews 

were initiated in September 2010 to 

determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on stainless 

steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Japan, 

Korea, and Taiwan would be likely to 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury. On November 5, 2010, 

the Department of Commerce published 

notice that it was revoking the orders 

effective October 20, 2010, ‘‘{b}ecause 

no interested domestic party responded 

to the sunset review notice of initiation 

by the applicable deadline * * *’’ (75 

FR 68324). Accordingly, pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the subject reviews 

are terminated. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 20, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired 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 http:// 

www.usitc.gov. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

terminated under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.69 of the 

Commission’s rules (19 CFR 207.69). 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

Issued: December 1, 2010. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30611 Filed 12–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

Pursuant to Department of Justice 

policy, notice is hereby given that on 

December 1, 2010 a proposed Consent 

Decree with Brown County and the City 

of Green Bay was lodged with the 

United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Wisconsin in a case 

captioned United States and the State of 

Wisconsin v. NCR Corp., et al., Case No. 

10–C–910 (E.D. Wis.). The Complaint in 

that case alleges claims under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9601–75, 

against Brown County, the City of Green 

Bay, and twelve other defendants 

concerning polychlorinated biphenyl 

contamination at the Lower Fox River 

and Green Bay Superfund Site in 

northeastern Wisconsin (the ‘‘Site’’). 

If approved by the Court after a public 

comment period, the proposed Consent 

Decree would resolve Brown County’s 

and the City of Green Bay’s potential 

liability for response costs, response 

actions, and natural resource damages 

associated with the Site, on the terms 

and conditions set forth in the Decree. 

The proposed Consent Decree also 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES