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
76026 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Notices 

would resolve the United States 

Government’s potential liability for 

response costs, response actions, and 

natural resource damages associated 

with the Site under CERCLA. Under the 

proposed Consent Decree, Brown 

County, Green Bay, and the United 

States would pay a total of $5.2 million 

($350,000 each from Brown County and 

Green Bay and $4.5 million from the 

United States). If the Decree is 

approved, the $5.2 million would be 

paid into a set of Site-specific special 

accounts for use in financing future 

cleanup and natural resource restoration 

work at the Site. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

comments relating to the Consent 

Decree for a period of thirty (30) days 

from the date of this publication. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and mailed either 

electronically to pubcommentees.enrd@usdoj.gov or in hard copy to 

P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611. 

Comments should refer to United States 

and the State of Wisconsin v. NCR 

Corp., et al., Case No. 10–C–910 (E.D. 

Wis.) and D.J. Ref. No. 90–11–2–1045/3. 

The Consent Decree may be examined 

at: (1) The offices of the United States 

Attorney, 517 E. Wisconsin Avenue, 

Room 530, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 

(2) the offices of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, 14th Floor, Chicago, Illinois. 

During the public comment period, the 

Consent Decree may also be examined 

on the following Department of Justice 

Web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

Consent Decree may also be obtained by 

mail from the Department of Justice 

Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, 

Washington, DC 20044–7611 or by 

faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia 

Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), 

fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone 

confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In 

requesting a copy from the Consent 

Decree Library, please enclose a check 

in the amount of $11.00 (44 pages at 25 

cents per page reproduction cost) 

payable to the U.S. Treasury. 

Maureen M. Katz, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30572 Filed 12–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

United States v. Graftech International 

Ltd., Et al.; Proposed Final Judgment 

and Competitive Impact Statement 

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the 

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 

15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed 

Final Judgment, Stipulation and 

Competitive Impact Statement have 

been filed with the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia in United States of America v. 

GrafTech International Ltd., et al., Civil 

Action No. 1:10–cv–02039. On 

November 29, 2010, the United States 

filed a Complaint alleging that the 

proposed acquisition by GrafTech 

International Ltd. (‘‘GrafTech’’) of 

Seadrift Coke L.P. (‘‘Seadrift’’) would 

violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 

U.S.C. 18. The proposed Final 

Judgment, filed the same time as the 

Complaint, requires that GrafTech and 

Seadrift modify an existing supply 

agreement with one of Seadrift’s 

competitors in the provision of 

petroleum needle coke, ConocoPhillips 

Company (‘‘Conoco’’), to remove terms 

that might have facilitated the sharing of 

pricing and production information. In 

addition, future supply agreements 

between GrafTech and Conoco must not 

provide Seadrift the means with which 

to verify customer-specific competitor 

pricing or production. In order to ensure 

compliance with these provisions, 

GrafTech must provide to the United 

States: (1) All future agreements 

between Conoco and GrafTech for the 

provision of petroleum needle coke; and 

(2) Seadrift documents prepared in the 

ordinary course of business that 

demonstrate Seadrift’s production, 

capacity and sales. GrafTech must also 

institute a firewall, which restricts the 

flow of competitively sensitive 

information to and from Conoco during 

GrafTech’s supply negotiations with 

that company, as well as preventing the 

flow of any competitively sensitive 

information to GrafTech personnel that 

may be provided to Seadrift from its 

customers. 

Copies of the Complaint, proposed 

Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact 

Statement are available for inspection at 

the Department of Justice, Antitrust 

Division, Antitrust Documents Group, 

450 Fifth Street, NW., Suite 1010, 

Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202– 

514–2481), on the Department of 

Justice’s Web site at http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/atr, and at the Office of 

the Clerk of the United States District 

Court for the District of Columbia. 

Copies of these materials may be 

obtained from the Antitrust Division 

upon request and payment of the 

copying fee set by Department of Justice 

regulations. 

Public comment is invited within 60 

days of the date of this notice. Such 

comments, and responses thereto, will 

be published in the Federal Register 

and filed with the Court. Comments 

should be directed to Maribeth Petrizzi, 

Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust 

Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 

450 Fifth Street, NW., Suite 8700, 

Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202– 

307–0924). 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Director of Civil Enforcement. 

United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia 

United States of America, Department 

of Justice, Antitrust Division, 450 5th 

Street, NW., Suite 8700, Washington, 

DC 20530, Plaintiff, 

v. 

Graftech International Ltd., 2900 

Snow Road, Parma, Ohio 44130, and 

Seadrift Coke L.P., 8618 Highway 185 

North, Port Lavaca, Texas 77979, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 1:10–Cv–02039 

Judge: Rosemary M. Collyer 

Deck Type: Antitrust 

Date Stamp: November 29, 2010 

Complaint 

Plaintiff, the United States of 

America, acting under the direction of 

the Attorney General of the United 

States, brings this civil antitrust action 

against defendants GrafTech 

International Ltd. (‘‘GrafTech’’) and 

Seadrift Coke L.P. (‘‘Seadrift’’) to obtain 

a permanent injunction and other relief 

to remedy the harm to competition 

caused by GrafTech’s acquisition of 

Seadrift. Plaintiff alleges as follows: 

I. Nature of the Action 

1. GrafTech is one of the largest 

producers of graphite electrodes in the 

world. On April 1, 2010, GrafTech 

agreed to acquire the 81.1 percent of 

Seadrift that it does not already own for 

approximately $308.1 million. Seadrift 

produces petroleum needle coke, the 

primary input in the production of 

graphite electrodes. 

2. Historically, GrafTech has sourced 

the majority of its petroleum needle 

coke from Seadrift’s competitor, 

ConocoPhillips Company (‘‘Conoco’’). At 

various times, there have been 

constraints in the supply of needle coke. 

Beginning January 1, 2001, GrafTech 

and Conoco formalized their 

relationship by negotiating two, nearlyVerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Dec 06, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES