57620 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Notices 

(b) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject 

Country(ies) accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country(ies) after 1999, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country(ies), and such merchandise 

from other countries. 

(11) (Optional) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industries; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: September 27, 2005. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–19593 Filed 9–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–506] 

Certain Optical Disk Controller Chips 

and Chipsets and Products Containing 

Same, Including DVD Players and PC 

Optical Storage Devices; Notice of 

Final Determination; Issuance of 

Limited Exclusion Order and Cease 

and Desist Orders; Termination of 

Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has found a violation of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

U.S.C. 337) based on the infringement of 

one asserted claim of one asserted 

patent and has issued a limited 

exclusion order and cease and desist 

orders in the above-captioned 

investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clara Kuehn, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3012. Copies of the Commission 

orders, 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. 

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 (EDISON-LINE) 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 April 14, 2004, based on a complaint 

filed on behalf of Zoran Corporation and 

Oak Technology, Inc. both of 

Sunnyvale, CA (collectively 

‘‘complainants’’). 69 FR 19876. The 

complaint, as supplemented, alleged 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 in the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

and the sale within the United States 

after importation of certain optical disk 

controller chips and chipsets and 

products containing same, including 

DVD players and PC optical storage 

devices, by reason of infringement of 

claims 1–12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,466,736 

(the ’736 patent), claims 1–3 of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,584,527 (the ’527 patent), 

and claims 1–35 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,546,440 (the ’440 patent). Id. 

The notice of investigation identified 

12 respondents. 69 FR 19876. On June 

7, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 

5) terminating the investigation as to 

two respondents on the basis of a 

consent order and settlement agreement. 

On June 22, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID 

(Order No. 7) granting complainants’

motion to amend the complaint and 

notice of investigation to add nine 

additional respondents. Those IDs were 

not reviewed by the Commission. 

On December 22, 2004, the ALJ issued 

an ID (Order No. 33) granting 

complainants’ motion to terminate the 

investigation in part with respect to 

claims 2–6, 8–10, and 11 of the ’736 

patent and claims 2–4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15–

18, 20, 22–34, and 35 of the ’440 patent. 

On January 28, 2005, the ALJ issued an 

ID (Order No. 37) granting 

complainants’ motion to terminate the 

investigation in part with respect to 

claim 12 of the ’736 patent. Neither ID 

was reviewed by the Commission. Thus, 

at the time that Order No. 37 issued, the 

claims remaining for determination on 

the merits were claims 1 and 7 of the 

’736 patent; claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 

19, and 21 of the ’440 patent; and claims 

1, 2, and 3 of the ’527 patent. 

An eight-day evidentiary hearing was 

held on February 7–12, and 14–15, 

2005. 

On May 16, 2005, the ALJ issued his 

final ID, findings of fact and conclusions 

of law, and recommended 

determination on remedy and bonding. 

The ALJ concluded that there was a 

violation of section 337 based on his 

findings that (a) the accused products 

infringe claim 3 of the ’527 patent, (b) 

the ’527 patent is not unenforceable, (c) 

claim 3 of the ’527 patent is not invalid, 

and (d) complainants have satisfied the 

domestic industry requirement with 

respect to the ’527 patent. Although the 

ALJ found that the other asserted claims 

of the ’527 patent (claims 1 and 2) are 

not invalid, he found that the accused 

products do not infringe those claims. 

The ALJ found no violation with respect 

to the other patents in issue. He found 

that the accused products do not 

infringe any asserted claim of the ’440 

or ’736 patents and that complainants 

have not satisfied the domestic industry 

requirement with respect to those 

patents. He also found that the asserted 

claims of the ’440 and ’736 patents are 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Notices 57621 

not invalid and that those patents are 

not unenforceable. 

On May 27, 2005, complainants and 

respondents each petitioned for review 

of portions of the final ID. On June 6, 

2005, complainants, respondents, and 

the IA filed responses to the petitions 

for review. 

On July 19, 2005, the Commission 

determined to review the ID in part. 70 

FR 42589–91. Specifically, the 

Commission determined to review the 

ID’s findings of fact and conclusions of 

law with respect to the ’527 and ’440 

patents. Id. The Commission 

determined not to review the ID’s 

findings of fact and conclusions of law 

with respect to the ’736 patent, thereby 

adopting them. Id. Accordingly, the 

Commission found no violation of 

section 337 with respect to the ’736 

patent. Id. The Commission also 

determined to review and modify the ID 

to clarify that respondents accused of 

infringing only the asserted claims of 

the ’736 patent (viz., respondents 

Audiovox Corporation; Initial 

Technology, Inc.; Mintek Digital, Inc.; 

Shinco International AV Co., Ltd.; 

Changzhou Shinco Digital Technology 

Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Shinco Electronic 

Group Co., Ltd.; Terapin Technology 

Pte., Ltd. [formerly known as Teraoptix 

d/b/a Terapin Technology] of Singapore; 

and Terapin Technology U.S. [formerly 

also known as Teraoptix]) are not in 

violation of Section 337. Id. 

In its notice of review, the 

Commission invited the parties to file 

written submissions on the issues under 

review, posed briefing questions for the 

parties to answer, and invited interested 

persons to file written submissions on 

the issues of remedy, the public interest, 

and bonding. Id. 

All parties filed initial submissions on 

August 1, 2005. Also on August 1, 2005, 

respondents filed a letter requesting 

clarification of the scope of briefing 

question 3(a) in the Commission’s 

notice of review, and permission to brief 

new issues not previously raised. On 

August 8, 2005, all parties filed reply 

submissions. 

The Commission has determined to 

deny respondents’ August 1, 2005, letter 

request for permission to brief new 

issues that were not previously raised, 

and respondents’ August 8, 2005, 

request under 19 CFR 210.45(a). 

Having examined the record in this 

investigation, including the submissions 

and responses thereto, the Commission 

has determined that there is a violation 

of section 337 as to claim 3 of the ’527 

patent, but no violation of the statute as 

to the remaining claims in issue of the 

’527 patent (viz., claims 1 and 2) and no 

violation as to the claims in issue of the 

’440 patent (viz., claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 

13, 14, 19, and 21). 

The Commission has determined that 

respondents waived their arguments (1) 

that the asserted claims are invalid 

under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) for non-joinder of 

Western Digital engineers other than 

Shishir Shah and (2) concerning the 

respective dates of reduction to practice 

for Western Digital’s HISIDE chip and 

the claims of the ’440 and ’527 patents. 

The Commission has determined to 

adopt the ID with the following 

modifications and exceptions. The 

Commission has determined to modify 

the ID’s construction of ‘‘controller’’ to 

reflect that, although the limitation 

‘‘optical drive controller’’ means ‘‘a 

device or group of devices to control 

data communications between a host 

computer and the optical disk drive 

electronics’ (ID at 80), configurations 

wherein a ‘‘controller requires a 

translator card or other intervening 

circuitry between the controller and the 

IDE bus to translate or manipulate 

command data’’ were disclaimed during 

prosecution. The Commission has 

determined to affirm the balance of the 

ID’s claim construction. 

The Commission has determined to 

vacate the ID’s finding that there is a 

conception date of the asserted claims of 

the ’527 and ’440 patents at least by 

April 21, 1993, (see ID at 129 n.45, 142), 

and has further determined to vacate the 

statement (ID at 142) that expressly 

relies on the April 21, 1993, conception 

date to make an alternate finding, viz., 

‘‘[e]ven assuming that conception of a 

transport mechanism that attached a 

CD-ROM drive to an IDE/ATA bus was 

relevant, there is no contemporaneous 

documentation showing conception in 

December 1992 or a conception even 

before the April 1993 conception of the 

claimed inventions in issue.’’

The Commission has determined to 

vacate the ALJ’s infringement findings 

with respect to the MT1528, MT1558, 

and MT1668 because the record does 

not support such findings. 

The Commission has determined to 

clarify that complainants met the 

economic prong of the domestic 

industry requirement based on 

‘‘substantial investment’’ in 

‘‘engineering, research and 

development,’’ rather than through 

licensing. The Commission has also 

determined to correct certain 

typographical errors on pages 75–76, 

129, and 156 of the ID. 

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 

unlicensed entry of chips or chipsets 

covered by claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,584,527 manufactured abroad or 

imported by or on behalf of Mediatek, 

Inc. of Hsin-Chu City, Taiwan, and 

optical storage devices containing such 

covered chips or chipsets that are 

manufactured abroad or imported by or 

on behalf of Artronix Technology, Inc. 

of Brea, CA; ASUSTek Computer, Inc. of 

Taipei, Taiwan; ASUS Computer 

International of Fremont, CA; MSI 

Computer Corporation of City of 

Industry, CA; TEAC America Inc. of 

Montebello, CA; EPO Science and 

Technology, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; 

LITE-ON Information Technology Corp. 

of Taipei, Taiwan; Micro-Star 

International Co., Ltd. of Taipei Hsien, 

Taiwan; TEAC Corp. of Tokyo, Japan; or 

Ultima Electronics Corp. of Taipei 

Hsien, Taiwan. The Commission has 

also determined to issue cease and 

desist orders directed to Artronix 

Technology, Inc.; ASUSTek Computer, 

Inc.; ASUS Computer International; MSI 

Computer Corporation; TEAC America 

Inc.; EPO Science and Technology, Inc.; 

and LITE-ON Information Technology 

Corp. 

The Commission also determined that 

the public interest factors enumerated in 

19 U.S.C. 1337(d) and (f) do not 

preclude issuance of the remedial 

orders, and that the bond during the 

Presidential period of review shall be 

set at 100 percent of the entered value 

for any covered chips or chipsets and 

$4.43 per unit for any optical storage 

device containing covered chips or 

chipsets. 

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 

§§ 210.45–210.51 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.45–210.51). 

Issued: September 28, 2005. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–19703 Filed 9–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

Hearing of the Judicial Conference 

Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil 

Procedure 

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the 

United States Advisory Committee on 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of open 

hearing.