[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 82071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32763]



[[Page 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