47822 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Notices 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–621] 

In the Matter of Certain Probe Card 

Assemblies, Components Thereof and 

Certain Tested DRAM and NAND Flash 

Memory Devices and Products 

Containing Same; Notice of 

Commission Determination To Review 

a Final Initial Determination in Part and 

Set a Schedule for Filing Written 

Submissions on the Issues Under 

Review and on Remedy, the Public 

Interest, and Bonding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to review 

in part the final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on 

June 29, 2009, in the above-captioned 

investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3116. 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: This 

investigation was instituted on 

December 19, 2007, based on a 

complaint filed by FormFactor, Inc. 

(‘‘FormFactor’’) of Livermore, California. 

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 probe card 

assemblies, components thereof, and 

certain tested DRAM and NAND flash 

memory devices and products 

containing same by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 5,994,152; 6,509,751 (‘‘the 

‘751 patent’’); 6,615,485; 6,624,648 (‘‘the 

‘648’’patent); 7,168,162 (‘‘the ‘162 

patent’’); and 7,225,538. The complaint 

named Micronics Japan Co., Ltd.; MJC 

Electronics Corp.; Phicom Corporation; 

and Phiam Corporation as respondents 

(collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’). 

Subsequently, the ‘162 patent was 

terminated from the investigation. 

On December 5, 2008, respondents 

Phicom Corp. and Phiam Corp., 

(collectively, ‘‘Phicom’’) jointly filed a 

motion for partial summary 

determination that claims 20 and 34 of 

the ‘648 patent are invalid as indefinite 

under 35 U.S.C. 112. On February 11, 

2009, the ALJ issued an ID by Order No. 

46. The subject ID states that ‘‘Phicom’s 

motion * * * for summary 

determination that the ‘648 patent is 

invalid is * * * granted.’’ The ID 

determines that claims 20 and 34, and 

any asserted claims depending 

therefrom, are invalid. Complainant 

FormFactor filed a petition for review of 

Order No. 46, which Respondents and 

the Commission investigative attorney 

oppose. On March 11, 2009, the 

Commission determined to review 

Order No. 46. 

The evidentiary hearing in this 

investigation was held from February 

24, 2009 through March 6, 2009. On 

June 29, 2009, the ALJ issued an Initial 

Determination on Violation of Section 

337 and Recommended Determination 

on Remedy and Bond, finding no 

violation of section 337. All parties to 

this investigation, including the 

Commission investigative attorney, filed 

timely petitions for review of various 

portions of the final ID, as well as timely 

responses to the petitions. 

Having examined the record in this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final 

ID, the petitions for review, and the 

responses thereto, the Commission has 

determined to review the ID in part. In 

particular, the Commission has 

determined to review: (1) The ID’s 

finding that Japanese Patent Application 

Publication H10–31034 to Amamiya et 

al. (‘‘Amamiya’’ or RX–166) does not 

anticipate the asserted claims of the ‘751 

patent under 35 U.S.C. 102; (2) the ID’s 

conclusion of law regarding noninfringement of the ‘751 patent by 

Phicom’s accused products; (3) the ID’s 

conclusion that no analysis of the 

validity of the asserted claims that 

depend from claim 21 of the ‘152 patent 

is needed. The Commission has 

determined not to review the remainder 

of the final ID. 

On review, the Commission requests 

the parties to brief their positions on the 

issues under review with reference to 

the applicable law and the evidentiary 

record. The Commission is particularly 

interested in responses to the following 

questions: 

(1) With respect to the ‘751 patent: 

(a) What, if any, limitations are 

missing from the Amamiya reference 

such that it does not render the asserted 

claims of the ‘751 patent invalid as 

anticipated? 

(b) Is there support for the 

Commission investigative attorney’s and 

Phicom’s argument that Amamiya 

anticipates the asserted claims of the 

‘751 patent, inter alia, by inherency? In 

answering this question, address 

paragraphs 0012 and 0013 on p. 6/8 of 

Amamiya. 

(c) Is the ID’s conclusion that there 

has been no violation of section 337 

with respect to the ‘751 patent 

supported by its own findings? 

(2) With respect to the ‘152 patent: 

(a) Is the ID’s statement that ‘‘no 

analysis of the invalidity arguments 

related to anticipation and obviousness 

of the dependent claims will be made,’’ 

ID at 191, consistent with the proper 

analysis under patent law? If not, what, 

if any, impact would such an error have 

on the ID’s validity and infringement 

analyses as to the ‘152 patent? 

In connection with the final 

disposition of this investigation, the 

Commission may (1) issue an order that 

could result in the exclusion of the 

subject articles from entry into the 

United States, and/or (2) issue one or 

more cease and desist orders that could 

result in the respondent being required 

to cease and desist from engaging in 

unfair acts in the importation and sale 

of such articles. Accordingly, the 

Commission is interested in receiving 

written submissions that address the 

form of remedy, if any, that should be 

ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an 

article from entry into the United States 

for purposes other than entry for 

consumption, the party should so 

indicate and provide information 

establishing that activities involving 

other types of entry either are adversely 

affecting it or are likely to do so. For 

background, see In the Matter of Certain 

Devices for Connecting Computers via 

Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, 

USITC Pub. No. 2843 (Dec. 1994) 

(Commission Opinion). 

If the Commission contemplates some 

form of remedy, it must consider the 

effects of that remedy upon the public 

interest. The factors the Commission 

will consider include the effect that an 

exclusion order and/or cease and desist 

orders would have on (1) The public 

health and welfare, (2) competitive 

conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Notices 47823 

production of articles that are like or 

directly competitive with those that are 

subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. 

consumers. The Commission is 

therefore interested in receiving written 

submissions that address the 

aforementioned public interest factors 

in the context of this investigation. 

If the Commission orders some form 

of remedy, the U.S. Trade 

Representative, as delegated by the 

President, has 60 days to approve or 

disapprove the Commission’s action. 

See Presidential Memorandum of July 

21, 2005. 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). 

During this period, the subject articles 

would be entitled to enter the United 

States under bond, in an amount 

determined by the Commission. The 

Commission is therefore interested in 

receiving submissions concerning the 

amount of the bond that should be 

imposed. 

Written Submissions: The parties to 

the investigation are requested to file 

written submissions on the issues under 

review. The submissions should be 

concise and thoroughly referenced to 

the record in this investigation. Parties 

to the investigation, interested 

government agencies, and any other 

interested parties are encouraged to file 

written submissions on the issues of 

remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding. Such submissions should 

address the recommended 

determination by the ALJ on remedy 

and bonding. Complainant and the 

Commission investigative attorney are 

also requested to submit proposed 

remedial orders for the Commission’s 

consideration. Complainant is further 

requested to provide the expiration date 

of the ‘751 patent and state the HTSUS 

number under which the accused 

articles are imported. The written 

submissions and proposed remedial 

orders must be filed no later than the 

close of business on September 25, 

2009. Reply submissions must be filed 

no later than the close of business on 

October 2, 2009. No further submissions 

on these issues will be permitted unless 

otherwise ordered by the Commission. 

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. Any person desiring to 

submit a document (or portion thereof) 

to the Commission in confidence must 

request confidential treatment unless 

the information has already been 

granted such treatment during the 

proceedings. All such requests should 

be directed to the Secretary of the 

Commission and must include a full 

statement of the reasons why the 

Commission should grant such 

treatment. See section 201.6 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for 

which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is sought will be treated 

accordingly. All nonconfidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection at the Office of the Secretary. 

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 

sections 210.42–.46 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42–.46). 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

Issued: September 14, 2009. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–22381 Filed 9–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act 

Notice is hereby given that on 

September 10, 2009, a proposed Consent 

Judgment in United States v. Genesco 

Inc. No. CV–09–3917, was lodged with 

the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of New York. 

The proposed Consent Judgment 

resolves certain claims of the United 

States, on behalf of the Environmental 

Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’), under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., 

in connection with the Fulton Avenue 

Superfund Site located in and around 

the Village of Garden City Park in 

Nassau County, New York (‘‘Site’’), 

against defendant Genesco Inc. 

(‘‘Genesco’’). The proposed Consent 

Judgment requires Genesco to 

implement the interim groundwater 

extraction and treatment remedy 

contained in EPA’s September 28, 2007 

First Operable Unit (‘‘OU1’’) Record of 

Decision (‘‘ROD’’) for the Site. 

The proposed Consent Judgment 

provides that Genesco is entitled to 

contribution protection as provided by 

section 113(f)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 

9613(f)(2) for matters addressed by the 

settlement. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of 30 days from the date of 

this publication comments relating to 

the proposed Consent Judgment. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and either e-mailed 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. Genesco Inc., No. CV–09–3917, 

DOJ Ref. No. 90–11–2–09329. 

The proposed Consent Judgment may 

be examined at the Office of the United 

States Attorney, Eastern District of New 

York, 610 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, 

New York 11722–4454. During the 

public comment period, the proposed 

Consent Judgment may also be 

examined on the following Department 

of Justice Web site, http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

proposed Consent Judgment may also be 

obtained by mail from the Consent 

Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, 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 

$46.50 (25 cents per page reproduction 

cost), payable to the U.S. Treasury. 

Maureen Katz, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–22350 Filed 9–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—Pistoia Alliance, Inc. 

Notice is hereby given that, on August 

19, 2009, pursuant to section 6(a) of the 

National Cooperative Research and 

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Pistoia 

Alliance, Inc. has filed written 

notifications simultaneously with the 

Attorney General and the Federal Trade 

Commission disclosing changes in its 

membership. The notifications were 

filed for the purpose of extending the 

Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of 

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages 

under specified circumstances. 

Specifically, H. Lundbeck A/S, Valby, 

Denmark; UPCO, Woking, United 

Kingdom; Rescentris, Columbus, OH; F. 

Hoffmann-La Roche LTD, Basel, 

Switzerland; Bristol-Myers Squibb, 

Princeton, NJ; KNIME.com GmbH, 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES