Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 82071 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–664] 

In the Matter of Certain Flash Memory 

Chips and Products Containing Same; 

Notice of Commission Decision Not To 

Review the ALJ’s Final Initial 

Determination Finding No Violation of 

Section 337; Termination of 

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 presiding administrative law 

judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) final initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) issued on October 

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, Esq., 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 

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 18, 2008, based on a 

complaint filed by Spansion, Inc. and 

Spansion LLC both of Sunnyvale, 

California (collectively, ‘‘Spansion’’). 73 

FR 77059–061 (Dec. 18, 2008). 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 flash memory 

chips and products containing the same 

by reason of infringement of various 

claims of United States Patent Nos. 

6,380,029 (‘‘the ’029 patent’’); 6,080,639 

(‘‘the ’639 patent’’); 6,376,877 (‘‘the ’877 

patent’’); and 5,715,194 (‘‘the ’194 

patent’’). The ’029 patent and the ’639 

patent were subsequently terminated 

from the investigation. The complaint 

named over thirty respondents. On 

March 12, 2010, the complaint and 

notice of investigation were amended to 

terminate several respondents from the 

investigation and to add certain entities 

as respondents. 75 FR 11909–910 (Mar. 

12, 2010). 

On October 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 two remaining patents. Specifically, 

the ALJ found that the accused products 

do not infringe the asserted claims of 

the ’877 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 of the ’877 patent obvious. The 

ALJ further found that an industry in 

the United States that practices or 

exploits the ’877 patent does not exist, 

nor is such an industry in the process 

of being established, and concluded that 

Spansion failed to satisfy the domestic 

industry requirement of section 337 (19 

U.S.C. 1337(a)(2) and (3)). With respect 

to the ’194 patent, the ALJ found that 

certain accused products do not infringe 

its asserted claims. The ALJ, however, 

found that other accused products met 

all the limitations of the asserted claims 

but found that a prior art reference, 

United States Patent No. 5,621,684 to 

Jung, anticipated the asserted claims 

and rendered them invalid. The ALJ 

also found that the asserted claims were 

not obvious in light of the references 

respondents relied upon to prove 

obviousness. The ALJ further found that 

an industry in the United States that 

practices or exploits the ’194 patent 

does not exist, nor is such an industry 

in the process of being established, and 

concluded that Spansion failed to 

satisfy the domestic industry 

requirement of section 337. 

On November 8, 2010, the 

Commission investigative attorney 

(‘‘IA’’) filed a petition for review of the 

ID, seeking review of the ALJ’s 

determination that Spansion failed to 

satisfy the domestic industry 

requirement by relying on licensing 

efforts that occurred after the complaint 

was filed. The next day, Respondents 

filed a joint contingent petition for 

review, asking the Commission to 

review certain findings in the ID in the 

event that the Commission decides to 

review the ID. Spansion did not petition 

the Commission for review of any 

findings in the ID. On November 16, 

2010, Spansion filed a combined 

response to the IA’s petition for review 

and Respondents’ joint contingent 

petition for review. Also on November 

16, 2010, Respondents filed a joint 

response to the IA’s 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 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 

section 210.42(h) of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42(h)). 

Issued: December 23, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32763 Filed 12–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–664] 

In the Matter of Certain Flash Memory 

Chips and Products Containing Same; 

Notice of Commission Decision Not To 

Review the ALJ’S Final Initial 

Determination Finding No Violation of 

Section 337; Termination of 

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 presiding administrative law 

judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) final initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) issued on October 

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, Esq., 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 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
82072 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 

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 18, 2008, based on a 

complaint filed by Spansion, Inc. and 

Spansion LLC both of Sunnyvale, 

California (collectively, ‘‘Spansion’’). 73 

FR 77059–061 (Dec. 18, 2008). 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 flash memory 

chips and products containing the same 

by reason of infringement of various 

claims of United States Patent Nos. 

6,380,029 (‘‘the ’029 patent’’); 6,080,639 

(‘‘the ’639 patent’’); 6,376,877 (‘‘the ’877 

patent’’); and 5,715,194 (‘‘the ’194 

patent’’). The ’029 patent and the ’639 

patent were subsequently terminated 

from the investigation. The complaint 

named over thirty respondents. On 

March 12, 2010, the complaint and 

notice of investigation were amended to 

terminate several respondents from the 

investigation and to add certain entities 

as respondents. 75 FR 11909–910 (Mar. 

12, 2010). 

On October 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 two remaining patents. Specifically, 

the ALJ found that the accused products 

do not infringe the asserted claims of 

the ’877 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 of the ’877 patent obvious. The 

ALJ further found that an industry in 

the United States that practices or 

exploits the ’877 patent does not exist, 

nor is such an industry in the process 

of being established, and concluded that 

Spansion failed to satisfy the domestic 

industry requirement of section 337 (19 

U.S.C. 1337(a)(2) and (3)). With respect 

to the ’194 patent, the ALJ found that 

certain accused products do not infringe 

its asserted claims. The ALJ, however, 

found that other accused products met 

all the limitations of the asserted claims 

but found that a prior art reference, 

United States Patent No. 5,621,684 to 

Jung, anticipated the asserted claims 

and rendered them invalid. The ALJ 

also found that the asserted claims were 

not obvious in light of the references 

respondents relied upon to prove 

obviousness. The ALJ further found that 

an industry in the United States that 

practices or exploits the ’194 patent 

does not exist, nor is such an industry 

in the process of being established, and 

concluded that Spansion failed to 

satisfy the domestic industry 

requirement of section 337. 

On November 8, 2010, the 

Commission investigative attorney 

(‘‘IA’’) filed a petition for review of the 

ID, seeking review of the ALJ’s 

determination that Spansion failed to 

satisfy the domestic industry 

requirement by relying on licensing 

efforts that occurred after the complaint 

was filed. The next day, Respondents 

filed a joint contingent petition for 

review, asking the Commission to 

review certain findings in the ID in the 

event that the Commission decides to 

review the ID. Spansion did not petition 

the Commission for review of any 

findings in the ID. On November 16, 

2010, Spansion filed a combined 

response to the IA’s petition for review 

and Respondents’ joint contingent 

petition for review. Also on November 

16, 2010, Respondents filed a joint 

response to the IA’s 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 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 

section 210.42(h) of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42(h)). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: December 23, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32759 Filed 12–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of a Consent Decree 

Under the Clean Water Act 

Notice is hereby given that on 

December 22, 2010, a proposed Consent 

Decree in United States and the State of 

Ohio v. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer 

District, Civil Action No. 10–cv–02895 

was lodged with the United States 

District Court for the Northern District 

of Ohio. 

In this action the United States and 

the State of Ohio seeks civil penalties 

and injunctive relief for violations of the 

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 

in connection with the Northeast Ohio 

Regional Sewer District’s (‘‘NEORSD’’) 

operation of its municipal wastewater 

and sewer system. The Complaint 

alleges that the NEORSD’s discharges 

from its combined sewer overflows 

(‘‘CSOs’’) violate the Clean Water Act 

because the discharge of sewage violates 

limitations and conditions in NEORSD’s 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits. 

The Complaint further alleges that 

NEORSD’s bypasses of wastewater of its 

treatment plants’ processes also violate 

its NPDES permits. 

Under the proposed Consent Decree, 

NEORSD will be required to implement 

injunctive measures, including the 

construction of seven deep underground 

tunnel systems—to reduce its CSO 

discharges—and construction of 

treatment plant expansions, for a total 

cost of approximately $3 billion. 

NEORSD will also invest $42 million in 

green infrastructure that will further 

reduce its CSO discharge by 44 million 

gallons. The Consent Decree allows 

NEORSD the opportunity to propose 

additional green infrastructure projects 

in exchange for a reduction in scope of 

the traditional infrastructure projects. 

NEORSD will pay $1.2 million in civil 

penalties to be split evenly between the 

United States and the State of Ohio. 

NEORSD will also spend $1 million to 

operate a permanent hazardous waste 

collection center in Cuyahoga County 

and $800,000 to improve other water 

resources. Under the proposed Consent 

Decree, the injunctive relief is to be 

implemented over a 25-year period. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the proposed Consent Decree. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and either emailed to 

pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or 

mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to United 

States v. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer 

District, D.J. Ref. 90–5–1–1–08177/1. 

The proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined at the Office of the United 

States Attorney, Northern District of 

Ohio, 801 West Superior Avenue, Suite 

400, Cleveland, OH 44113 (contact 

Assistant United States Attorney Steven 

J. Paffilas (216) 622–3698), and at U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, IL 60604–3590 (contact 

Associate Regional Counsel Nicole 

Cantello (312) 886–2870)). During the 

public comment period, the proposed 

Consent Decree, may also be examined 

on the following Department of Justice 

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES