63096 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 204 / Friday, October 20, 2000 / Notices

the case had been appealed to the

Federal Circuit.

The Federal Circuit denied Winbond’s

petition for a writ of mandamus on

April 16, 1999, and remanded Atmel’s

appeal to the Commission, stating that

‘‘[a]fter its proceedings are complete, the

ITC shall issue a final determination

encompassing Atmel’s complaint

regarding all three patents so that the

parties may seek [judicial] review at that

time.’’ In Re Winbond Electronics

Corporation and Winbond Electronics

North America Corporation, Appeal No.

98–1580, Miscellaneous Docket No. 579

(Fed. Cir. April 16, 1999) (Mandate

issued on June 7, 1999) at p. 4. As a

result of this ruling, and the Federal

Circuit’s subsequent reversal of the U.S.

district court decision in Atmel Corp. v.

Information Storage Devices, Inc., all

three Atmel patents at issue were before

the Commission for final determination.

The U.S. district court decision

(Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage

Devices, Inc., No. C–95–1987–FMS,

1998 WL 184274 (N.D. Cal. April 14,

1998)) was appealed by Atmel to the

Federal Circuit. On December 28, 1999,

the Federal Circuit reversed and

remanded the case to the district court.

Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage

Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.

1999).

On April 3, 2000, the Commission

issued an order allowing the parties to

file main briefs and reply briefs setting

forth their views on intervening

developments in the law as they relate

to the remaining issues in investigation

concerning the ’811 patent, the ’829

patent, and the ’903 patent (all issues

other than inventorship).

Having examined the record in this

investigation, including the briefs and

the responses thereto, the Commission

determined, as noted, that there is a

violation of section 337. More

specifically, the Commission found that

the claims in issue of the ’903 patent are

valid, enforceable (no incorrect

inventorship), and infringed by the

imports from intervenor SST and

respondents Sanyo and Winbond (but

not respondent Macronix), and found a

violation of section 337 with regard to

the ’903 patent as to SST, Sanyo, and

Winbond. As to the ’811 and ’829

patents, the Commission found that the

claims in issue of those patents are valid

and enforceable, but not infringed by

the imports of intervenor SST or

respondents Sanyo and Winbond

(Atmel did not allege that Macronix

infringed the claims in issue of the ’811

or ’829 patents), and thus found no

violation of section 337 with regard to

the ’811 and ’829 patents. The

Commission also determined to affirm

the result of ALJ Order No. 50, which

ordered the production of certain Atmel

documents. The Commission also

reversed Order No. 69 to the extent that

it placed the burden of proving that the

certificate of correction of the ’903

patent listed the correct inventors on

Atmel and vacated the ALJ’s

determination in Order No. 69 that PTO

rule 324 does not comport with its

enabling statute.

The Commission also made

determinations on the issues of remedy,

the public interest, and bonding. The

Commission determined that the

appropriate form of relief is a limited

exclusion order prohibiting the

importation of EPROMs, EEPROMs,

flash memories, and flash

microcontroller semiconductor devices,

and circuit boards containing such

devices, that infringe claims 1 or 9 of

the ’903 patent manufactured by or on

behalf of Sanyo and Winbond.

The Commission also determined that

the public interest factors enumerated in

19 U.S.C. 1337(d) do not preclude the

issuance of the limited exclusion and

that the bond during the Presidential

review period should be set at $0.78 per

device.

The authority for the Commission’s

determinations is contained in section

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in

sections 210.45–210.51 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (19 CFR 210.45–210.51).

Copies of the Commission order, the

Commission opinion in support thereof,

and all other nonconfidential

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. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that

information on this matter can be

obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. General information

concerning the Commission may also be

obtained by accessing its Internet server

(http://www.usitc.gov).

Issued: October 16, 2000.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–27056 Filed 10–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337–TA–434]

Certain Magnetic Resonance Injection

Systems and Components Thereof;

Notice of Decision To Extend the

Deadline for Determining Whether To

Review an Initial Determination

Granting a Motion for Summary

Determination of Invalidity

AGENCY: International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the U.S. International Trade

Commission has determined to extend

by forty (40) days, or until December 6,

2000, the deadline for determining

whether to review an initial

determination (ID) (Order No. 16) issued

by the presiding administrative law

judge (ALJ) in the above-captioned

investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean

Jackson, Esq., Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. International Trade

Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)

205–3104. Hearing-impaired persons are

advised that information on this matter

can be obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. General information

concerning the Commission may also be

obtained by accessing its Internet server

(http://www.usitc.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission instituted this investigation

on May 26, 2000, based on a complaint

filed by Medrad, Inc. of Indianola,

Pennsylvania. The complaint alleged a

violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, 337 U.S.C. 1337, based on

infringement of U.S. Letters Patent Re.

36,648, (the ’648 patent) owned by

complainant. The respondents named in

the investigation are Nemoto Kyorindo

Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan; LiebelFlarshiem Co. of Cincinnati Ohio; and

Mallinckrodt Inc., a New York

corporation based in Hazelwood, Mo. 65

Fed. Reg. 34231. On September 26,

2000, the ALJ issued an ID finding the

’648 patent invalid due to certain

omissions that occurred during patent

reissue proceedings at the U.S. Patent

and Trademark Office.

This action is taken under the

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and section

210.42(h)(3) of the Commission of

Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R.

210.42(h)(3).

Copies of the nonconfidential version

of the ID and all other nonconfidential

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 204 / Friday, October 20, 2000 / Notices 63097

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. Hearing

impaired persons are advised that

information on this matter can be

obtained by contacting the Commission

TDD terminal on 202–205–1810.

Issued: October 16, 2000.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–27055 Filed 10–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Pursuant to Sections 104 and 107 of

CERCLA

Notice is hereby given that on

September 22, 2000, the United States

lodged a proposed Consent Decree with

the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas, in United

States of America v. Advanced Resin

Systems, Inc., No. H–99–4357, pursuant

to sections 104 and 107 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9604

and 9607. The proposed Consent Decree

resolves civil claims of the United States

against twenty-three separate parties in

connection with the Archem Site,

located in Houston, Texas. The settling

parties will pay a total of $1,070,000 to

the United States in reimbursement of

response costs incurred at the Site by

the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Department of Justice will receive

for a period of thirty (30) days from the

date of this publication comments

relating to the proposed Consent Decree.

Comments should be addressed to the

Assistant Attorney General,

Environment and Natural Resources

Division, United States Department of

Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin

Station, Washington, DC 20044–7611,

and should refer to United States of

America v. Advanced Resin Systems,

Inc., DJ No. 90–11–2–1328/1.

The proposed Consent Decree may be

examined at the Office of the United

States Attorney for the Southern District

of Texas, 515 Rusk, Ste. 3300, Houston,

Texas 77002, and the Region VI Office

of the United States Environmental

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas, 75202. A copy of the

proposed Consent Decree may be

obtained by mail from the Department

of Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O.

Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044–7611.

In requesting a copy, please enclose a

check for reproduction costs (at 25 cents

per page) in the amount of $10.25,

payable to the Consent Decree Library.

Walker B. Smith,

Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement

Section, Environment and Natural Resources

Division.

[FR Doc. 00–27008 Filed 10–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Under the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

(‘‘CERCLA’’)

In accordance with Departmental

policy, 28 CFR 50.7, 38 FR 19029, and

42 U.S.C. 9622(d)(2), notice is hereby

given that on September 28, 2000, a

proposed Consent Decree in United

States v. American Cyanamid Company,

et al., Civil Action No. 00–Civ.–6015

(LMM), was lodged with the United

States District Court for the Southern

District of New York. The proposed

consent decree resolves the United

States’ claims for past and future costs

against John Giannattasio, the principal

officer and shareholder of Haul-A-Way

and J&G Refuse Company for the Sarney

Farm Superfund Site under Section 107

of the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9607. Under

the terms of the proposed consent

decree, the settler will pay $482,000 to

the United States as reimbursement for

the costs the United States incurred or

will incur at the Sarney Farm Superfund

Site.

The Department of Justice will receive

for a period of thirty (30) days from the

date of this publication comments

relating to the proposed consent decree.

Comments should be addressed to the

Assistant Attorney General for the

Environment and Natural Resources

Division, Department of Justice, P.O.

Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station,

Washington, DC 20044–7611, and

should refer to United States v.

American Cyanamid Company, et al.,

D.J. Ref. 90–11–3–854/1.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at EPA Region II, Office of the

Environmental Protection Agency, 290

Broadway, New York, New York 10007–

1866. A copy of the consent decree may

also be obtained by mail from the

Department of Justice Consent Decree

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

20044. In requesting a copy, with the

attachment, please enclose a check in

the amount of $11.75 (25 cents per page

reproduction cost) payable to the

Consent Decree Library.

Bruce S. Gelber,

Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement

Section, Environment and Natural Resources

Division.

[FR Doc. 00–27002 Filed 10–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Pursuant to the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act

In accordance with Departmental

policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby

given that two Consent Decrees in

United States v. Baureis Realty Co., Inc.,

et al., Civil No. 95–2732 (D.N.J.), were

lodged on October 6, 2000 with the

United States District Court for the

District of New Jersey.

The complaint in this action seeks to

recover, pursuant to the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

(‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9601, et al.,

response costs incurred and to be

incurred by EPA at the Caldwell

Trucking Superfund Site located in the

Fairfield, New Jersey (‘‘Site’’).

One of the proposed Consent Decrees

embodies an agreement with 76

potentially responsible parties (‘‘PRPs’’)

at the Site pursuant to section 107 of

CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607, to pay $2.75

million in settlement of claims for EPA’s

past and future response costs at the

Site.

The other proposed Consent Decree

embodies an agreement with eight PRPs

at the Site pursuant to Section 107 of

CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607, to pay, in

aggregate, $1.65 million in settlement of

claims for EPA’s past and future

response costs at the Site.

The monies paid by the settling

defendants under both decrees will be

used to reimburse past costs incurred at

the Site. Both Consent Decrees provide

the settling defendants with releases for

civil liability for EPA’s past and future

CERCLA response costs at the Site.

The Department of Justice will

receive, for a period of thirty (30) days

from the date of this publication,

comments relating to the two proposed

Consent Decrees.

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, Washington, D.C. 20044–