Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 184 / Friday, September 23, 2005 / Notices 55919 

August 19, 2005 under section 337 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 

U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Bavarian 

Nordic A/S. A letter supplementing and 

amending the complaint was filed on 

September 9, 2005. The complaint, as 

supplemented and amended, 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 Modified Vaccinia Ankara 

viruses and vaccines and 

pharmaceutical compositions based 

thereon by reason of infringement of 

claims 1, 4, 5, and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,761,893 and claims 1, 2–9, and 13–16 

of U.S. Patent No. 6,913,752, and 

misappropriation of trade secrets. The 

complaint further alleges that there 

exists an industry in the United States 

as required by section 337. 

The complainant requests that the 

Commission institute an investigation 

and, after the investigation, issue a 

permanent exclusion order and a 

permanent cease and desist order. 

ADDRESSES: The complaint and 

supplemental letter, except for any 

confidential information contained 

therein, are 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., Room 

112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 

202–205–2000. Hearing-impaired 

individuals are advised that information 

on this matter can be obtained 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 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

D.E. Joffre, Esq., Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, telephone 202–205–2550 

or Thomas S. Fusco, Esq., Office of 

Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 

telephone 202–205–2571. 

Authority: The authority for institution of 

this investigation is contained in section 337 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 

in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 

(2005). 

Scope of Investigation: Having 

considered the complaint, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission, on 

September 19, 2005, ordered that—

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, an investigation be instituted 

to determine: 

(a) Whether there is a violation of 

subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, or the sale within 

the United States after importation of 

certain Modified Vaccinia Ankara 

(‘‘MVA’’) viruses and vaccines and 

pharmaceutical compositions based 

thereon by reason of infringement of 

claims 1, 4, 5, or 34 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,761,893 or claims 1, 2–9, 13–15 or 16 

of U.S. Patent No. 6,913,752, and 

whether an industry in the United 

States exists or is in the process of being 

established as required by subsection 

(a)(2) of section 337; and 

(b) Whether there is a violation of 

subsection (a)(1)(A) of section 337 in the 

importation of certain MVA viruses and 

vaccines and pharmaceutical 

compositions based thereon or in the 

sale of such articles by reason of 

misappropriation of trade secrets, the 

threat or effect of which is to destroy or 

substantially injure an industry in the 

United States, and whether an industry 

in the United States. 

(2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 

210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the 

presiding administrative law judge shall 

take evidence or other information and 

hear arguments from the parties and 

other interested persons with respect to 

the public interest in this investigation, 

as appropriate, and provide the 

Commission with findings of fact on 

this issue. 

(3) For the purpose of the 

investigation so instituted, the following 

are hereby named as parties upon which 

this notice of investigation shall be 

served: 

(a) The complainant is—Bavarian 

Nordic A/S, Bogeskovvej 9, DK–3490 

Kvistgard, Denmarky. 

(b) The respondent is the following 

company alleged to be in violation of 

Section 337 and upon which the 

complaint is to be served—Acambis, 

Plc, Peterhouse Technology Park, 100 

Fulbourne Road, Cambridge, CB1 9PT, 

United Kingdom. 

(c) Erin D.E. Joffre and Thomas S. 

Fusco, Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 

401, Washington, DC 20436, who shall 

be the Commission investigative 

attorneys, party to this investigation; 

(4) For the investigation so instituted, 

the Honorable Robert L. Barton, Jr. is 

designated as the presiding 

administrative law judge. 

A response to the complaint and the 

notice of investigation must be 

submitted by the named respondent in 

accordance with section 210.13 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 201.16(d) and 210.13(a), such 

response will be considered by the 

Commission if received no later than 20 

days after the date of service by the 

Commission of the complaint and notice 

of investigation. Extensions of time for 

submitting a response to the complaint 

will not be granted unless good cause 

therefor is shown. 

Failure of the respondent to file a 

timely response to each allegation in the 

complaint and in this notice may be 

deemed to constitute a waiver of the 

right to appear and contest the 

allegations of the complaint and this 

notice, and to authorize the 

administrative law judge and the 

Commission, without further notice to 

the respondent, to find the facts to be as 

alleged in the complaint and this notice 

and to enter both an initial 

determination and a final determination 

containing such findings, and may 

result in the issuance of a limited 

exclusion order or a cease and desist 

order or both directed against the 

respondent. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 19, 2005 

Marilyn Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–19037 Filed 9–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–454] 

In the Matter of Certain Set-Top Boxes 

and Components Thereof; Notice of 

Commission Determination To 

Terminate the Investigation on the 

Basis of a Settlement Agreement 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to 

terminate the above-captioned 

investigation on the basis of a settlement 

agreement. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wayne Herrington, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3090, or Michael Liberman, Esq., 

Office of the General Counsel, U.S. 

55920 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 184 / Friday, September 23, 2005 / Notices 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–3115. 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 (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 patent-based 

investigation, which concerns 

allegations of unfair acts in violation of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in 

the importation and sale of certain settop boxes, on March 21, 2001. 66 FR 

15887 (March 21, 2001). Complainants 

Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. of 

Pasadena, California, and StarSight 

Telecast, Inc. of Fremont, California 

(collectively, ‘‘Gemstar’’), named 

Pioneer Corporation, Pioneer North 

America, Inc., Pioneer Digital 

Technologies, Inc., and Pioneer New 

Media Technologies, Inc. (collectively, 

‘‘Pioneer’’); EchoStar Communications 

Corporation and SCI Systems, Inc. 

(collectively, ‘‘Echostar’’); and 

Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. (‘‘ScientificAtlanta’’) as respondents. Gemstar 

alleged that these respondents infringed 

certain claims of its patents, including: 

U.S. Patent No. 4,706,121 (‘‘the ’121 

patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 5,479,268 (‘‘the 

‘268 patent’’); and U.S. Patent No. 

5,809,204 (‘‘the ’204 patent’’). 

The presiding administrative law 

judge (‘‘the ALJ’’) issued his final initial 

determination (‘‘final ID’’) on June 21, 

2002, in which he concluded that there 

was no violation of section 337, based 

on the following findings: (a) 

Complainants had failed to establish 

that asserted claims 18–24, 26–28, 31–

33, 36, 42–43, 48–50, 54, 57, 59–61, and 

66 of the ’121 patent; claims 1, 3, 8, and 

10 of the ’268 patent; and claims 1, 3, 

8, and 10 of the ’204 patent are infringed 

by respondents; (b) respondents had 

failed to establish that the asserted 

claims are not valid; (c) respondents had 

established that the ’121 patent is 

unenforceable for failure to name a coinventor; (d) complainants had engaged 

in patent misuse with respect to the ’121 

patent; (e) no industry existed in the 

United States, as required by subsection 

(a)(2) of section 337, that exploits each 

of the ’121, ’268, and ’204 patents in 

issue; and (f) there had been an 

importation of the set-top boxes which 

are the subject of this investigation. 

On July 5, 2002, all parties to the 

investigation, including the Commission 

investigative attorney, filed petitions for 

review of various portions of the final 

ID. 

On August 29, 2002, the Commission 

issued notice that it had determined to 

review in part, to take no position in 

part, and to not review in part the ALJ’s 

final ID. Specifically, the Commission 

determined to review the issue of the 

technical prong of the domestic industry 

as it relates to claim 42 of ’204 patent 

for the purpose of making a finding as 

to claim 42 of that patent. This finding 

had been omitted by the ALJ. The 

Commission also determined to take no 

position on the issue of patent misuse 

and not to review the remainder of the 

final ID. Finally, the Commission 

determined to affirm three ALJ rulings 

(involving ALJ Order No. 62, an ALJ 

ruling excluding evidence concerning 

the doctrine of equivalents, and an ALJ 

ruling limiting the testimony time of 

one witness) that were appealed to the 

Commission by the complainants. In 

light of these determinations, the 

Commission determined that there was 

no violation of section 337 in this 

investigation. 

Gemstar appealed the Commission’s 

final determination to the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(‘‘the Federal Circuit’’ or ‘‘the Court’’). 

During the course of the appeal, 

Gemstar settled with Pioneer and 

EchoStar, and these respondents were 

dismissed from the appeal. On 

September 16, 2004, the Federal Circuit 

issued its decision in the appeal, in 

which the Commission’s final 

determination was affirmed in part, 

vacated in part, and reversed in part, 

and the case remanded for further 

proceedings consistent with the Court’s 

opinion. Gemstar-TV Guide 

International, Inc. v. International 

Trade Commission, 383 F.3d 1352 (Fed. 

Cir. 2004). 

On November 29, 2004, the Court 

denied Scientific-Atlanta’s petitions for 

rehearing and rehearing en banc. On 

January 11, 2005, the Court denied 

Scientific-Atlanta’s motion to stay 

issuance of the mandate and 

simultaneously issued its mandate, 

returning the case to the Commission, 

with Scientific-Atlanta as the sole 

respondent. 

On February 8, 2005, the Commission 

issued an order seeking comments from 

the parties as to how they believed the 

Commission should proceed with the 

remanded investigation. The original 

30-day deadline for receiving comments 

from the parties was extended twice, to 

June 13, 2005. On that date the private 

parties filed a joint motion to terminate 

the investigation based on a settlement 

agreement, including a patent license 

agreement. On June 23, 2005, the 

Commission investigative attorney filed 

a response supporting the joint motion. 

On August 5, 2005, the private parties 

filed a public version of the joint 

motion. 

Having examined the joint motion to 

terminate the investigation, the response 

thereto, and other relevant documents of 

record in this investigation, the 

Commission has determined to grant the 

joint motion, terminating this 

investigation in its entirety. 

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 210.21 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.21). 

Issued: September 19, 2005. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–19036 Filed 9–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—Controlnet International, 

Ltd 

Notice is hereby given that, on 

September 1, 2005, pursuant to Section 

6(a) of the National Cooperative 

Research and Production Act of 1993, 

15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), 

ControlNet International, Ltd. 

(‘‘ControlNet’’) 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, McNaughton-McKay 

Electric Company, Madison Heights, MI; 

IDC Corporation, Dimondale, MI; and 

Kawasaki Robotics (USA), Inc., Wixom, 

MI have withdrawn as parties to this 

venture. 

No other changes have been made in 

either the membership or planned