6174 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 23 / Thursday, February 5, 2009 / Notices 

DATES: Effective Date: January 30, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

McClure, Office of Investigations, 

telephone 202–205–3191, or David 

Goldfine, Office of General Counsel, 

telephone 202–708–5452, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter 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). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. In June 2006, the 

Commission determined that revocation 

of the antidumping duty orders on ball 

bearings from France, Germany, Italy, 

Japan, and the United Kingdom would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to an 

industry in the United States within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. The 

Commission’s determinations for Japan 

and the United Kingdom were appealed 

to the Court of International Trade (the 

‘‘Court’’). On September 9, 2008, the 

Court issued a decision remanding the 

matter to the Commission for further 

proceedings. NSK v. United States, Slip 

Op. 08–95 (Ct. Int’l Trade, Sept. 9, 

2008). In its opinion, the Court issued 

an order instructing the Commission to 

(1) ‘‘conduct a Bratsk analysis of nonsubject imports as outlined in this 

opinion;’’ (2) ‘‘reassess supply 

conditions within the domestic 

industry,’’ i.e., the industry’s 

restructuring efforts during the period of 

review, and (3) ‘‘reexamine its findings 

with regard to likely impact and its 

decision to cumulate imports from the 

United Kingdom in light of changes in 

its determinations that may result as a 

consequence of the foregoing remand 

instructions.’’ 

On October 8, 2008, in accordance 

with the Court’s order, the Commission 

initiated remand proceedings in the 

above-captioned reviews. The notice of 

initiation for the remand proceeding 

was published in the Federal Register at 

73 FR 63217 (Oct. 20, 2008). The 

Commission noted that it was reopening the record to obtain 

information to conduct an analysis of 

non-subject imports as outlined in the 

Court’s opinion. The Commission also 

noted that it was permitting parties to 

file comments pertaining to the specific 

issues that are the subject of the Court’s 

remand instructions and to comment on 

the new information obtained on 

remand. Id. 

On October 9, 2008, the Commission 

filed a motion for reconsideration with 

the Court. In the motion, the 

Commission requested that the Court 

reconsider its decision in light of the 

Federal Circuit’s decision, Mittal Steel 

Point Lisas Limited v. United States, 

Court No. 2007–1552 (September 18, 

2008) (‘‘Mittal’’). In its motion, the 

Commission also requested that the 

Court issue a stay of the remand 

proceeding pending the Court’s 

disposition of the Commission’s motion 

for reconsideration. DefendantIntervenor The Timken Company 

(‘‘Timken’’) filed a similar motion for 

reconsideration and a motion to stay the 

remand proceeding. 

On October 29, 2008, the Court 

granted the requests of the Commission 

and Timken to stay the Commission’s 

remand proceeding pending its 

reconsideration of the Commission’s 

and Timken’s motions for 

reconsideration. Accordingly, the 

Commission stayed its remand 

proceeding on November 17, 2008 

pending the Court’s ruling on the 

motions for reconsideration. 

On December 29, 2008, the Court 

denied the motions for reconsideration 

by the Commission and Timken. The 

Court has ordered the Commission to 

file its remand determination with the 

Court by May 4, 2009. Accordingly, the 

Commission is hereby resuming the 

remand proceeding in this review and 

announcing an amended schedule for 

the proceeding, as set forth herein. 

Participation in the proceeding. Only 

those persons who were interested 

parties to the reviews (i.e., persons 

listed on the Commission Secretary’s 

service list) and parties to the appeal 

may participate in the remand 

proceeding. Such persons need not 

make any additional filings with the 

Commission to participate in the 

remand proceeding. Business 

proprietary information (‘‘BPI’’) referred 

to during the remand proceeding will be 

governed, as appropriate, by the 

administrative protective order issued 

in the reviews. 

Written submissions. The Commission 

is re-opening the record in this 

proceeding to obtain information to 

conduct an analysis of non-subject 

imports as outlined in the Court’s 

opinion. The Commission will permit 

the parties to file comments pertaining 

to the specific issues that are the subject 

of the Court’s remand instructions and, 

in this regard, may comment on the new 

information obtained on remand. 

Comments should be limited to no more 

than fifteen (15) double-spaced and 

single-sided pages of textual material. 

The parties may not themselves submit 

any new factual information in their 

comments and may not address any 

issue other than those that are the 

subject of the Court’s remand 

instructions. Any such comments must 

be filed with the Commission no later 

than March 23, 2009. 

All written submissions must conform 

with the provisions of section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (Nov. 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

remand proceeding must be served on 

all other parties to the remand 

proceeding (as identified by either the 

public or BPI service list), and a 

certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Parties are also advised to consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subpart A (19 CFR part 207) for 

provisions of general applicability 

concerning written submissions to the 

Commission. 

Issued: January 30, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–2402 Filed 2–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–654] 

In the Matter of Certain Peripheral 

Devices and Components Thereof and 

Products Containing Same; Notice of 

Commission Determination Not To 

Review an Initial Determination 

Granting a Joint Motion To Terminate 

the Investigation in Its Entirety on the 

Basis of Settlement and Terminating 

the Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 23 / Thursday, February 5, 2009 / Notices 6175 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 4) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) 

terminating the above-captioned 

investigation in its entirety based upon 

a settlement agreement. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michelle Walters, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–5468. 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 September 3, 2008, based on a 

complaint filed by Microsoft Corp. 

(‘‘Microsoft’’). 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 peripheral devices, components 

thereof, and products containing the 

same by reason of infringement of 

various claims of seven United States 

patents. The complaint named Primax 

Electronics Ltd. (‘‘Primax’’) as the sole 

respondent. 

On December 15, 2008, complainant 

Microsoft and respondent Primax filed a 

joint motion to terminate the 

investigation in its entirety based on a 

settlement agreement. On December 23, 

2008, the Commission investigative 

attorney filed a response in support of 

the motion. 

On January 5, 2009, the ALJ issued 

the subject ID, granting the joint motion 

to terminate the investigation on the 

basis of the settlement agreement. No 

petitions for review were filed. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the subject ID. The 

investigation is terminated. 

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 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42). 

Issued: January 29, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–2404 Filed 2–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–605] 

In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor 

Chips With Minimized Chip Package 

Size and Products Containing Same; 

Notice of Commission Decision To 

Review in Part a Final Determination 

Finding No Violation of Section 337 

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 presiding administrative law 

judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) final initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) issued on 

December 1, 2008 finding no violation 

of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

19 U.S.C. 1337 in the above-captioned 

investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Megan M. Valentine, Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2301. 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 May 21, 2007, based on a complaint 

filed by Tessera, Inc. of San Jose, 

California against Spansion, Inc. and 

Spansion, LLC, both of Sunnyvale, 

California; QUALCOMM, Inc. of San 

Diego, California; AT1 Technologies of 

Thornhill, Ontario, Canada; Motorola, 

Inc. of Schaumburg, Illinois; 

STMicroelectronics N.V. of Geneva, 

Switzerland; and Freescale 

Semiconductor, Inc. of Austin, Texas. 

72 FR 28522 (May 21, 2007). The 

complaint alleges violations of section 

337 in the importation into the United 

States, the sale for importation, and the 

sale within the United States after 

importation of certain semiconductor 

chips with minimized chip package size 

or products containing same by reason 

of infringement of one or more claims of 

U.S. Patent Nos. 5,852,326, and 

6,433,419. 

On December 1, 2008, the ALJ issued 

his final ID finding no violation of 

section 337 by Respondents. The ID 

included the ALJ’s recommended 

determination on remedy and bonding. 

In his ID, the ALJ found that 

Respondents’ accused products do not 

infringe asserted claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 16– 

19, 21, 24–26, and 29 of the ‘326 patent. 

The ALJ also found that Respondents’ 

accused products do not infringe 

asserted claims 1–11, 14, 15, 19, and 

22–24 of the ‘419 patent. The ALJ 

additionally found that the asserted 

claims of the ‘326 and ‘419 patents are 

not invalid for failing to satisfy the 

enablement requirement or the written 

description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 

112 1. The ALJ further found that the 

asserted claims of the ‘326 and ‘419 

patents are not invalid as indefinite of 

35 U.S.C. 112 2. The ALJ also found that 

the asserted claims of the ‘326 and ‘419 

patents are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 

102 for anticipation or under 35 U.S.C. 

103 for obviousness. Finally, the ALJ 

found that an industry in the United 

States exists with respect to the ‘326 and 

‘419 patents as required by 19 U.S.C. 

1337(a)(2) and (3). 

On December 15, 2008, Tessera and 

the Commission Investigative Attorney 

(‘‘IA’’) filed separate petitions seeking 

review of the ALJ’s determination 

concerning non-infringement of the 

asserted claims of the ‘326 and ‘419 

patents. Also on December 15, 2008, 

Respondents filed various contingent 

petitions seeking review of certain 

aspects of the ALJ’s findings as concern 

both the ‘326 and ‘419 patents in the 

event that the Commission determines 

to review the ID’s findings concerning 

non-infringement. On December 23, 

2008, Respondents filed an opposition 

to Tessera’s and the IA’s petitions for 

review and Tessera and the IA filed 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES