55014 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 20, 2006 / Notices 

investigation as to the ‘279 patent. On 

October 31, 2005, the Commission 

determined not to review the ID. 

On March 20, 2006, the ALJ issued his 

final ID and recommended 

determination on remedy and bonding. 

The ALJ concluded that there was a 

violation of section 337. Specifically, he 

found that claim 13 of the ‘187 patent 

was not invalid and was infringed by 

Actions’ accused product families 207X, 

208X, and 209X. The ALJ also 

determined that claims 1, 6, 9, and 13 

of the ‘522 patent were not invalid and 

were infringed by Actions’ accused 

product families 208X and 209X. 

On May 5, 2006, the Commission 

determined to review the ALJ’s 

construction of a claim limitation of the 

‘522 patent, infringement of the ‘522 

patent, and the ALJ’s determination that 

SigmaTel met the technical prong of the 

domestic industry requirement in regard 

to the ‘522 patent. 71 FR 27512 (May 11, 

2006). The Commission also determined 

to review the AlJ’s claim construction of 

the term ‘‘memory’’ in claim 13 of the 

‘187 patent and simultaneously to 

modify that construction by removing 

the apparently inadvertent inclusion of 

the word ‘‘firmware.’’ Id. The 

Commission declined to review the 

remainder of the ID. Id. The 

Commission requested briefing on the 

issues under review and on remedy, the 

public interest, and bonding. Id. Briefs 

and responses on the issues under 

review and on remedy, the public 

interest, and bonding were filed by all 

parties in a timely manner. 

On June 12, 2006, Actions filed a 

paper with the Commission titled 

‘‘Actions’ Identification of Erroneous 

Citations to the Evidentiary Record by 

SigmaTel and the Initial Determination 

that are Material to Remedy Issues’’

alleging that testimony regarding the 

size of memory typically used in MP3 

players incorporating the accused chips 

was inaccurately portrayed by SigmaTel 

and the ALJ. SigmaTel filed an 

opposition on June 13, 2006, and the 

Commission investigative attorney 

(‘‘IA’’) filed a response on June 15, 2006. 

SigmaTel filed another submission on 

the same subject on August 21, 2006. On 

August 24, 2006, Actions’ filed a motion 

to strike SigmaTel’s August 21, 2006, 

submission. Because the allegedly 

erroneous citations were not raised in 

Actions’ petition for review, and were in 

fact expressly agreed to by Actions in 

response to SigmaTel’s proposed 

findings of act, we do not consider 

Actions’ arguments. Thus, SigmaTel’s 

June 13, 2006, and August 21, 2006, 

submissions; the IA’s June 15, 2006, 

submission; and Actions’ August 24, 

2006, submission have all be rendered 

moot and have not been considered. 

On August 24, 2006, SigmaTel filed 

‘‘Complainant SigmaTel, Inc.’s Motion 

for Leave to File a Short Brief to Correct 

an Error in Actions’ Reply to SigmaTel’s 

Comments on the ALJ’s Remand 

Findings and Determination.’’ Both 

Actions and the IA filed responses to 

SigmaTel’s motion. We hereby deny this 

motion. 

On review, the Commission construed 

the disputed claim phrase ‘‘produce the 

system clock control signal and power 

supply control signal based on a 

processing transfer characteristic of the 

computation engine’’ to mean that both 

the system clock control signal and the 

power supply control signal are 

required to be produced during 

operation of the integrated circuit such 

that the voltage and the frequency of the 

integrated circuit are adjusted based on 

a processing transfer characteristic, but 

that the processing transfer 

characteristic is not determined in any 

particular manner. 71 FR 36358–36358 

(June 26, 2006). The Commission 

determined, with respect to the accused 

products that do not use the version 

952436 firmware, that the ALJ made 

sufficient findings to find infringement 

of the asserted claims of the ‘522 patent 

under the Commission’s claim 

construction, and adopted his findings 

with respect to those products. Id. The 

Commission determined that SigmaTel’s 

products satisfy the technical prong of 

the domestic industry requirement with 

regard to the ‘522 patent under the 

Commission’s claim construction. Id. 

The Commission remanded the 

investigation to the ALJ for the sole 

issue of determining whether Actions’

products using the 952436 version 

firmware infringe the asserted claims of 

the ‘522 patent. The Commission 

deferred addressing issues relating to 

remedy, public interest, and bonding, 

for both the ‘187 patent and the ‘522 

patent. Id. 

The ALJ issued a remand initial 

determination (‘‘Remand ID’’) on August 

3, 2006, finding that Actions’ accused 

products using the 952436 version 

firmware, other than the 2051, 2180, 

and PMA 300 models, do not infringe 

claims 1, 6, 9, and 13 of the ‘522 patent. 

In its remand notice, the Commission 

invited comments from the parties 

addressing the ALJ’s determination on 

remand (71 FR 36358 (June 26, 2006)). 

On August 11, 2006, SigmaTel filed 

non-responsive comments addressing 

the appropriate remedy, and Actions 

and the IA filed comments supporting 

the ALJ’s determination on remand. On 

August 18, 2006, Actions and the IA 

each filed responses to SigmaTel’s 

comments, supporting the ALJ’s 

determinations on remand and noting 

that SigmaTel’s comments addressed 

only remedy issues. Because the 

Commission limited the parties’

comments to the remand issue, it has 

disregarded SigmaTel’s additional 

comments on remedy. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final 

ID and Remand ID and the submissions 

of the parties, the Commission has 

determined (1) that there is a violation 

of section 337 by Actions with regard to 

claim 13 of the ‘187 patent; (2) that there 

is a violation of section 337 by Actions 

with regard to claims 1, 6, 9, and 13 of 

the ‘522 patent, except with respect to 

those products using the 952436 version 

firmware as noted in the ALJ’s Remand 

ID; and (3) to issue a limited exclusion 

order with respect to Actions’ infringing 

products. The Commission’s order was 

delivered to the President and to the 

U.S. Trade Representative on the day of 

its issuance. 

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 210.45, 210.49, and 210.50 of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.45, 210.49, and 

210.50). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 15, 2006. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 06–7794 Filed 9–19–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

Notice is hereby given that on August 

31, 2006, a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States v. City of New Orleans, et 

al., Civil Action No. 02–3618, Section 

‘‘E’’, was lodged with the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of 

Louisiana. 

In this action the United States, on 

behalf of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’), sought to recover response 

costs from certain parties. EPA incurred 

such costs in response to releases and 

threatened releases of hazardous 

substances from the Agriculture Street 

Landfill (the ‘‘Site’’) located in New 

Orleans, Louisiana. The proposed 

Consent Decree requires BFI Waste 

Systems of North America, Inc. (‘‘BFI’’), 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 20, 2006 / Notices 55015 

a third-party defendant, to pay $335,000 

towards the response costs incurred by 

EPA. The proposed Consent Decree 

resolves BFI’s liability under Section 

107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), for 

costs already incurred at the site by EPA 

or by the Department of Justice on 

behalf of EPA. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the Consent Decree. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General for the 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 

P.O. Box 7611, NW., Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to United 

States v. City of New Orleans, et al., D.J. 

Ref. 90–11–3–1683/2. 

The Consent Decree may be examined 

at the Office of the United States 

Attorney, Eastern District of Louisiana, 

500 Poydras Street, Suite 210, New 

Orleans, Louisiana 70130, and at the 

offices of EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Ave., Dallas, TX 75202–2733. During 

the public comment period, the Consent 

Decree, may also be examined on the 

following Department of Justice Web 

site, http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

open.html. A copy of the Consent 

Decree 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 $5.00 (25 cents per 

page reproduction cost) payable to the 

U.S. Treasury. 

Thomas A. Mariani, Jr., 

Assistant Section Chief, Envirionmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 06–7782 Filed 9–19–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

United States v. Alltel Corp. Proposed 

Final Judgment and Competitive 

Impact Statement 

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 

the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties 

Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a 

Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, 

Preservation of Assets Stipulation, and 

Competitive Impact Statement were 

filed with the United States District 

Court for the District of Minnesota in 

United States v. ALLTEL Corp., Civ. 

Action No. 0:06–cv–03631 (RHK/AJB). 

On September 7, 2006, the United States 

filed a Complaint alleging that the 

proposed acquisition of Midwest 

Wireless Holdings L.L.C. by ALLTEL 

Corp. would violate Section 7 of the 

Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, by 

substantially lessening competition in 

the provision of mobile wireless 

telecommunications services in four 

Minnesota markets. The proposed Final 

Judgment, lodged at the same time as 

the Complaint, requires ALLTEL to 

divest its mobile wireless 

telecommunication business assets in 

four markets in rural Minnesota in order 

to proceed with ALLTEL’s acquisition of 

Midwest Wireless. A Competitive 

Impact Statement filed by the United 

States describes the Complaint, the 

proposed Final Judgment, and the 

remedies available to private litigants 

who may have been injured by the 

alleged violation. 

Copies of the Complaint, proposed 

Final Judgment, Preservation of Assets 

Stipulation, and Competitive Impact 

Statement are available for inspection at 

the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust 

Division, 325 Seventh Street, NW., Suite 

215, Washington, DC 20530 (202–514–

2481), on the Internet at http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/atr, and at the Clerk’s 

Office of the United States District Court 

for Minnesota. Copies of these materials 

may be obtained upon request and 

payment of a copying fee. 

Public comment is invited within the 

statutory 60-day comment period. Such 

comments and responses thereto will be 

published in the Federal Register and 

filed with the Court. Comments should 

be directed to Nancy Goodman, Chief, 

Telecommunications & Media 

Enforcement Section, Antitrust 

Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 

1401 H Street, NW., Suite 8000, 

Washington, DC 20530 (202–514–5621). 

J. Robert Kramer II, 

Director of Operations Antitrust Division. 

United States of America Department of 

Justice, Antitrust Division, 1401 H Street, 

NW., Suite 8000 Washington, DC 20530, 

and State of Minnesota Minnesota Attorney 

General’s Office, 445 Minnesota Street, 

Suite 1200, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, 

Plaintiffs, v. ALLTEL Corporation, One 

Allied Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202, 

and Midwest Wireless Holdings L.L.C., 

2000 Technology Drive, Mankato, 

Minnesota 56002, Defendants 

Complaint 

The United States of America, acting 

under the direction of the Attorney 

General of the United States, and the 

State of Minnesota, by its Attorney 

General Mike Hatch, bring this civil 

action to enjoin the merger of two 

mobile wireless telecommunications 

service providers, ALLTEL Corporation 

(‘‘ALLTEL’’) and Midwest Wireless 

Holdings L.L.C. (‘‘Midwest Wireless’’), 

and to obtain other relief as appropriate. 

Plaintiffs allege as follows: 

1. ALLTEL entered into an agreement 

to acquire Midwest Wireless, dated 

November 17, 2005, under which the 

two companies would combine their 

mobile wireless telecommunications 

services businesses (‘‘Transaction 

Agreement’’). Plaintiffs seek to enjoin 

this transaction because it will 

substantially lessen competition for 

mobile wireless telecommunications 

services in several geographic markets 

where ALLTEL and Midwest Wireless 

are each other’s most significant 

competitor. 

2. ALLTEL provides mobile wireless 

telecommunications services in 35 

states serving approximately 11 million 

subscribers. Midwest Wireless provides 

mobile wireless telecommunications 

services in three Midwestern states 

serving approximately 440,000 

subscribers. The combination of 

ALLTEL and Midwest Wireless will 

substantially lessen competition for 

mobile wireless telecommunications 

services in four geographic areas in 

southern Minnesota where currently 

both ALLTEL and Midwest Wireless 

operate. As a result of the proposed 

acquisition, residents of these mostly 

rural areas will face the likelihood of 

increased prices, diminished quality or 

quantity of services provided, and less 

investment in network improvements 

for these services. 

I. Jurisdiction and Venue 

3. This Complaint is filed by the 

United States under Section 15 of the 

Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 25, to prevent 

and restrain defendants from violating 

Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 

18. Plaintiff Minnesota, by and through 

its Attorney General, brings this action 

in its sovereign capacity and as parens 

patriae on behalf of the citizens, general 

welfare, and economy of the State of 

Minnesota under Section 16 of the 

Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 26, to prevent 

defendants from violating Section 7 of 

the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. 

4. ALLTEL and Midwest Wireless 

both provide mobile wireless 

telecommunications services in the 

State of Minnesota, as well as other 

states. The provision of mobile wireless 

telecommunications services is a 

commercial activity that substantially 

affects, and is in the flow of, interstate 

trade and commerce. The defendants 

purchase substantial quantities of 

handsets and equipment from sources 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES