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
6176 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 23 / Thursday, February 5, 2009 / Notices 

separate responses to Respondents’ 

various contingent petitions 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 to review the final ID in 

part. Specifically, the Commission has 

determined to review the ALJ’s finding 

that Respondents’ accused devices do 

not infringe asserted claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 

16–19, 21, 24, and 29 of the ‘326 patent 

and asserted claims 1–8, 9–11, 14, 15, 

19, and 22–24 of the ‘419 patent. The 

Commission has further determined to 

review the ALJ’s finding that Tessera 

has waived any argument that the 

accused products indirectly infringe the 

asserted patents. The Commission has 

also determined to review the ALJ’s 

finding that the Motorola’s OMPAC 

invention does not anticipate the 

asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). 

Finally, the Commission has determined 

to review the ALJ’s finding that the 

Motorola’s OMPAC invention does not 

anticipate the asserted patents under 35 

U.S.C. 102(g). The Commission has 

determined not to review the remaining 

issues decided in the ID. 

The parties are requested to brief their 

positions on the issues under review 

with reference to the applicable law and 

the evidentiary record. In connection 

with its review, the Commission is 

particularly interested in responses to 

the following questions: 

1. Please address how the absence of 

the compliant layer affects the effective 

CTE of the baseline packages in the 

sense of the material properties of the 

structures remaining in the baseline. 

Specifically, to what extent does the 

CTE of the compliant layer materials 

affect the effective CTE of the actual 

packages as compared to their 

corresponding baseline packages? Also, 

how specifically do the substituted 

materials in the baseline packages affect 

the effective CTE of the baseline 

packages? 

2. Please address whether Dr. Qu’s 

plastic work analysis can be isolated to 

the validated range of the finite element 

analysis (‘‘FEA’’) models, and if so, 

whether the validated results are 

sufficient to satisfy the preponderance 

of the evidence standard for 

infringement. 

3. Please address whether Tessera 

may prove infringement by relying on 

multiple tests rather than one test. In his 

first test, Dr. Qu demonstrated the 

existence of terminal-to-chip 

displacement and its effect on improved 

reliability in the accused chips by 

comparing the on-board behavior of 

FEA models of the accused packages to 

the on-board behavior of FEA models of 

their corresponding baseline packages. 

In his second test, Dr. Qu showed that 

the accused chips exhibit improved 

reliability under external loads by 

directly applying simulated external 

loads to the accused packages and their 

corresponding baseline packages. Was it 

sufficient that Dr. Qu showed the 

required features of the claimed 

movement terminal-to-chip 

displacement and improved reliability 

under application of external loads 

without directly showing terminal-tochip displacement due to external 

loads? 

4. Please address whether Motorola 

exercised reasonable diligence in 

reducing the OMPAC invention to 

practice by filing the applications 

leading to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,241,133 

and 5,216,278, and whether the 

confidentiality agreement between 

Motorola and Citizen Watch amounted 

to ‘‘suppression’’ and/or ‘‘concealment’’ 

of the OMPAC invention. 

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(s) 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 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 (December 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. 

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 and 

prescribed by the Secretary of the 

Treasury. The Commission is therefore 

interested in receiving submissions 

concerning the amount of the bond that 

should be imposed if a remedy is 

ordered. 

Written Submissions: The parties to 

the investigation are requested to file 

written submissions on the issues 

identified in this notice. 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. 

In addition, with respect to the 

limited exclusion order (‘‘LEO’’) sought 

by complainant, please address whether 

the Federal Circuit’s decision in Kyocera 

Wireless Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340 

(Fed. Cir. 2008), has any impact on 

whether unnamed importers are covered 

by the LEO. Cf. Additional Views of 

Chairman Shara L. Aranoff, Vice 

Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, and 

Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun in 

Certain GPS Devices and Products 

Containing Same, 337–TA–602.’’ 

Complainants and the IA are also 

requested to submit proposed remedial 

orders for the Commission’s 

consideration. Complainants are also 

requested to state the dates that the 

patents expire and the HTSUS numbers 

under which the accused products are 

imported. The written submissions and 

proposed remedial orders must be filed 

no later than close of business on 

Friday, February 13, 2009. Reply 

submissions must be filed no later than 

the close of business on Monday, 

February 23, 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 to the Commission 

in confidence must request confidential 

treatment unless the information has 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 23 / Thursday, February 5, 2009 / Notices 6177 

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 19 CFR 210.6. 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 and 210.50 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 and 

210.50). 

Issued: January 30, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–2401 Filed 2–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent 

Judgment Pursuant to Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act 

Notice is hereby given that on January 

29, 2009, a proposed settlement 

agreement in In re Interstate Bakeries 

Corporation, et al., Case No. 04–45814, 

was lodged with the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Western 

District of Missouri. 

The settlement agreement resolves the 

United States’ proof of claim in the 

Chapter 11 reorganization of Interstate 

Bakeries Corporation and its affiliates 

(‘‘Debtors’’). The United States’ proof of 

claim sought recovery of cleanup costs 

under Section 107(a) of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), at the Hows 

Corner Superfund Site in Plymouth, 

Maine (‘‘Site’’). The proposed settlement 

agreement provides for EPA to have an 

allowed general unsecured nonpriority 

claim in the total amount of $84,020. 

The claim will be paid in the ordinary 

course of the bankruptcy proceeding. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of 30 days from the date of 

this publication comments regarding the 

proposed Consent Decree. Comments 

should be addressed to the Assistant 

Attorney General of the Environment 

and Natural Resources Division, and 

either e-mailed to pubcommentees.enrd@usdoj.gov or mailed to P.O. 

Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC 20044–7611, and 

should refer to In re Interstate Bakeries 

Corporation, et al., Case No. 04–45814, 

D.J. Ref. No. 90–11–3–1733/9. 

The proposed settlement agreement 

may be examined at the Region I Office 

of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, One Congress Street, Suite 

1100, Boston, MA 02114. During the 

public comment period, the proposed 

Consent Decree 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 Decree may 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. If requesting a 

copy of the proposed Consent Decree, 

please enclose a check in the amount of 

$1.75 (25 cents per page reproduction 

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

by e-mail or fax, forward a check in that 

amount to the Consent Decree Library at 

the stated address. 

Ronald Gluck, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–2407 Filed 2–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 52–034 and 52–035; NRC– 

2008–0594] 

Luminant Generation Company LLC; 

Application for the Comanche Peak 

Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4; 

Notice of Order, Hearing, and 

Opportunity To Petition for Leave To 

Intervene 

Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended, and the regulations 

in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) part 2, ‘‘Rules of 

Practice for Domestic Licensing 

Proceedings and Issuance of Orders,’’ 10 

CFR part 50, ‘‘Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities,’’ 

and 10 CFR part 52, ‘‘Licenses, 

Certifications, and Approvals for 

Nuclear Power Plants,’’ notice is hereby 

given that a hearing will be held, at a 

time and place to be set in the future by 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC, the Commission) or 

designated by the Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board (Board). The hearing 

will consider the application dated 

September 19, 2008, as supplemented 

by letters dated November 4, 5, 6, and 

10, and December 18, 2008, filed by 

Luminant Generation Company LLC 

(Luminant), pursuant to subpart C of 10 

CFR part 52, for a combined license 

(COL). The application requests 

approval of a COL for Comanche Peak 

Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4 to 

be located at the existing Comanche 

Peak Nuclear Power Plant site in 

Somervell County, Texas. The 

application was accepted for docketing 

on December 2, 2008 (73 FR 75141; 

December 10, 2008). The docket 

numbers established for Units 3 and 4 

are 52–034 and 52–035, respectively. 

The Comanche Peak Nuclear Power 

Plant COL application incorporates by 

reference, the U.S. Advanced 

Pressurized Water Reactor (US-APWR) 

Design Control Document (DCD), 

currently under NRC staff review. By 

letter dated February 29, 2008, the NRC 

staff accepted the US-APWR DCD for 

docketing. 

The hearing will be conducted by a 

Board that will be designated by the 

Chairman of the Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board Panel or will be 

conducted by the Commission. Notice 

as to the membership of the Board will 

be published in the Federal Register at 

a later date. The NRC staff will complete 

a detailed technical review of the 

application and will document its 

findings in a safety evaluation report. 

The Commission will refer a copy of the 

application to the Advisory Committee 

on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) in 

accordance with 10 CFR 52.87, ‘‘Referral 

to the ACRS,’’ and the ACRS will report 

on those portions of the application that 

concern safety. The NRC staff will also 

prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement, as required by 10 CFR 

51.20(b)(2). 

Any person whose interest may be 

affected by this proceeding and who 

desires to participate as a party to this 

proceeding must file a written petition 

for leave to intervene in accordance 

with 10 CFR 2.309. Those permitted to 

intervene become parties to the 

proceeding, subject to any limitations in 

the order granting leave to intervene, 

and have the opportunity to participate 

fully in the conduct of the hearing. 

A petition for leave to intervene must 

be filed no later than 60 days from the 

date of publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register. Non-timely filings will 

not be entertained absent a 

determination by the Commission or 

presiding officer designated to rule on 

the petition, pursuant to the 

requirements of 10 CFR 2.309(c)(i)– 

(viii). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES