[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 42 (Thursday, March 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 9928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4556]



[[Page 9928]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-634]


In the Matter of: Certain Liquid Crystal Display Modules, 
Products Containing Same, and Methods Using the Same; Notice of 
Commission Determination to Rescind a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease 
and Desist Orders

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to rescind the limited exclusion order issued 
in the above-captioned investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint A. Gerdine, 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 
(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 March 4, 2008, based on a complaint filed by Sharp Corporation 
(``Sharp'') of Japan. 73 FR 11678. The complaint, as amended and 
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 liquid crystal display devices, products 
containing same, and methods for using the same by reason of 
infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,879,364 (``the 
`364 patent''); 6,952,192 (``the `192 patent''); 7,304,703 (``the `703 
patent''); and 7,304,626 (``the `626 patent''). The complaint further 
alleged the existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's notice 
of investigation named the following respondents: Samsung Electronics 
Co., Ltd. of Korea; Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield 
Park, New Jersey; and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. of San Jose, 
California (collectively, ``Samsung'').
    On June 12, 2009, the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') 
issued his final initial determination (``ID'') finding a violation of 
section 337 by Samsung with respect to all four patents at issue and 
his recommendations on remedy and bonding. On June 29, 2009, Samsung 
and the Commission investigative attorney (``IA'') filed petitions for 
review of the final ID. The IA and Sharp filed responses to the 
petitions on July 7, 2009. On September 9, 2009, the Commission issued 
notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's final ID and 
requested written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public 
interest, and bonding from the parties and interested non-parties. 74 
FR 47616-17 (Sept. 16, 2009).
    On September 16 and 23, 2009, respectively, complainant Sharp, the 
Samsung respondents, and the IA filed briefs and reply briefs on the 
issues for which the Commission requested written submissions. On 
September 21, 2009, Samsung filed a petition for reconsideration of the 
Commission's determination not to review certain portions of the final 
ID. On October 19, 2009, the Commission issued an order denying the 
petition for reconsideration.
    On October 30, 2009, Samsung filed a supplemental submission on the 
issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On November 2 and 
3, 2009, respectively, Sharp and the IA filed a response to Samsung's 
supplemental submission.
    On November 9, 2009, the Commission issued notice of its 
determination to terminate the investigation with a finding of a 
violation of section 337, and issued: (1) A limited exclusion order 
prohibiting the unlicensed entry of LCD devices, including display 
panels and modules, and products containing the same that infringe one 
or more of (i) claims 5-7 of the `364 patent; (ii) claims 1 and 4 of 
the `192 patent; (iii) claims 1-2, 6-8, 13-14, and 16-17 of the `703 
patent; and (iv) claims 10, 17, and 20 of the `626 patent, where the 
infringing LCD devices are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or 
are imported by or on behalf of, Samsung, or any of its affiliated 
companies, parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other 
related business entities, or successors or assigns; and (2) cease and 
desist orders prohibiting Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung 
Semiconductor, Inc. from conducting any of the following activities in 
the United States: importing, selling, marketing, advertising, 
distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation), 
and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for, LCD devices, including 
display panels and modules, and products containing the same that 
infringe one or more of (i) claims 5-7 of the `364 patent; (ii) claims 
1 and 4 of the `192 patent; (iii) claims 1-2, 6-8, 13-14, and 16-17 of 
the `703 patent; and (iv) claims 10, 17, and 20 of the `626 patent. 74 
FR 58978-79 (November 16, 2009).
    On February 12, 2010, complainant Sharp and respondent Samsung 
filed a joint petition to rescind the remedial orders under Commission 
Rule 210.76(a)(1) on the basis of a settlement agreement between the 
parties. The parties asserted that their settlement agreement 
constitutes ``changed conditions of fact or law'' sufficient to justify 
rescission of the order under Commission Rule 210.76(a)(1), 19 CFR 
210.76(a)(1). The IA did not oppose the joint petition.
    Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the Commission has 
determined that the settlement agreement satisfies the requirement of 
Commission Rule 210.76(a)(1), 19 CFR 210.76(a)(1), that there be 
changed conditions of fact or law. The Commission therefore has issued 
an order rescinding the limited exclusion order and cease and desist 
orders previously issued in this investigation.
    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and section 210.76(a)(1) of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.76(a)(1)).

    Issued: March 1, 2010.

    By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-4556 Filed 3-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P