61168 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Notices 

The area described contains 878.34 acres, 

more or less. 

The 1986 BLM Shoshone-Eureka 

Resource Management Plan identifies 

these parcels of public land as suitable 

for disposal. The sale meets the disposal 

qualification of Section 205 of the 

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation 

Act of July 25, 2000, 43 U.S.C. 2304. 

The sale will be subject to the 

provisions of FLPMA and applicable 

regulations of the Secretary of the 

Interior, and will contain the reservation 

to the United States of a right-of-way 

thereon for ditches or canals 

constructed by the authority of the 

United States, Act of August 30, 1890 

(43 U.S.C. 945). Conveyance of the 

identified public land will be subject to 

valid existing rights and encumbrances 

of record, including but not limited to, 

rights-of-way for roads and public 

utilities. Conveyance of any mineral 

interests pursuant to Section 209 of the 

Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1719) 

will be analyzed during processing of 

the proposed sale. 

On publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register, the described land 

will be segregated from appropriation 

under the public land laws, including 

the mining laws, except the sale 

provisions of the FLPMA. On 

segregation, the BLM will no longer 

accept land use applications affecting 

the identified public land, except 

applications for the amendment of 

previously filed right-of-way 

applications or existing authorizations 

to increase the term of the grants in 

accordance with 43 CFR 2807.15 and 

2886.15. The segregative effect will 

terminate upon issuance of a patent, 

publication in the Federal Register of a 

termination of the segregation, or two 

years after the date of publication of this 

notice, unless extended by the BLM 

Nevada State Director in accordance 

with 43 CFR 2711.1–2(d) prior to the 

termination date. 

Interested parties and the general 

public may submit in writing any 

comments concerning the land being 

considered for sale, including 

notification of any encumbrances or 

other claims relating to the identified 

land to Field Manager, BLM Battle 

Mountain Field Office. 

Only written comments submitted by 

postal service or overnight mail to the 

Field Manager, BLM Battle Mountain 

District Office will be considered 

properly filed. Facsimiles, telephone 

calls, and electronic mails are 

unacceptable means of notification. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail, or other personal 

identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. If you wish to have your name or 

address withheld from public disclosure 

under the Freedom of Information Act, 

you must state this prominently at the 

beginning of your comments. Any 

determination by the BLM to release or 

withhold the names and/or addresses of 

those who comment will be made on a 

case-by-case basis. Such requests will be 

honored to the extent allowed by law. 

The BLM will make available for public 

review, in their entirety, all comments 

submitted by businesses or 

organizations, including comments by 

individuals in their capacity as an 

official or representative of a business or 

organization. 

Any adverse comments will be 

reviewed by the BLM Nevada State 

Director who may sustain, vacate, or 

modify this realty action. In the absence 

of any adverse comments, this realty 

action will become the final 

determination of the Department of the 

Interior. 

(Authority: 43 CFR 2711.1–2) 

Dated: September 30, 2008. 

Stephen C. Drummond, 

Acting Field Manager, Mount Lewis Field 

Office. 

[FR Doc. E8–24386 Filed 10–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–648] 

In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor 

Integration Circuits Using Tungsten 

Metallization and Products Containing 

Same; Notice of Commission Decision 

Not To Review an Initial Determination 

Granting Motion To Amend the 

Complaint and Notice of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 13) of the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) 

granting a joint motion to amend the 

complaint and the notice of 

investigation in the above-captioned 

investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2310. 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, 2008 based on a complaint 

filed on April 18, 2008 by LSI 

Corporation of Milpitas, California and 

Agere Systems Inc. of Allentown, 

Pennsylvania. 73 FR 29534–35 (May 21, 

2008). The complaint alleges violations 

of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended, 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 semiconductor integrated 

circuits using tungsten metallization 

and products containing same by reason 

of infringement of claim 1 of U.S. Patent 

No. 5,227,335. The complaint named 

numerous respondents including NXP 

B.V. of the Netherlands and Micronas 

Semiconductor Holding AG (‘‘Micronas 

AG’’) of Switzerland. The complaint 

further alleged that an industry in the 

United States exists as required by 

subsection (a)(2) of section 337. 

On September 2, 2008, the 

Commission issued notice of its 

determination not to review an ID 

granting the motion of complainants, 

NXP B.V. and proposed respondent 

NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc. (‘‘NXP 

Semiconductors’’) of San Jose, 

California to amend the complaint and 

notice of investigation to substitute NXP 

Semiconductors for NXP B.V. 73 FR 

52064–65 (Sept. 9, 2008). 

On July 23, 2008, complainants, 

Micronas AG, and proposed respondent 

Micronas GmbH of Germany moved to 

amend the complaint and notice of 

investigation to substitute Micronas 

GmbH for Micronas AG. No party 

opposed the motion. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Notices 61169 

On September 17, 2008, the ALJ 

issued the subject ID granting the joint 

motion to amend. No party petitioned 

for review of the ID. The Commission 

has determined not to review this ID. 

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 210.14 and 210.42(c) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.14, 210.42(c). 

Issued: October 8, 2008 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–24555 Filed 10–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–602] 

In the Matter of Certain GPS Devices 

and Products Containing Same; Notice 

of Commission Determination To 

Review in Part a Final Determination 

on Violation of Section 337; Schedule 

for Filing Written Submissions on the 

Issues Under Review and on Remedy, 

the Public Interest and Bonding 

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 final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on 

August 8, 2008, regarding whether there 

is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the 

above-captioned investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel E. Valencia, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–1999. 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 7, 2007, based on a complaint 

filed by Global Locate, Inc. (‘‘Global 

Locate’’). 72 FR 25777 (May 7, 2007). 

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 GPS (Global 

Positioning System) devices and 

products containing the same by reason 

of infringement of various claims of 

United States Patent Nos. 6,417,801 

(‘‘the ‘801 patent’’); 6,606,346 (‘‘the ‘346 

patent’’); 6,651,000 (‘‘the ‘000 patent’’); 

6,704,651 (‘‘the ‘651 patent’’); 6,937,187 

(‘‘the ‘187 patent’’); and 7,158,080 (‘‘the 

‘080 patent’’). The complaint named five 

respondents: SiRF Technology, Inc. 

(‘‘SiRF’’); Pharos Science & 

Applications, Inc. (‘‘Pharos’’); MiTAC 

International Corp. (‘‘MiTAC’’); Mio 

Technology Ltd., USA (‘‘Mio’’); and ETEN Information Systems Co., Ltd. (‘‘ETEN’’) (collectively, ‘‘respondents’’). 

The notice of investigation was 

subsequently amended to add Broadcom 

Corporation (‘‘Broadcom’’) as a 

complainant inasmuch as Broadcom 

acquired Global Locate. 

On August 8, 2008, the ALJ issued his 

final ID, and on August 22, 2008, he 

issued his recommended determination 

on remedy and bonding. In his ID, the 

ALJ found a violation of section 337 in 

the importation and the sale after 

importation of certain GPS devices and 

products containing the same, in 

connection with the asserted claims of 

each of the six patents at issue. 

Respondents and the Commission 

investigative attorney (IA) each filed 

petitions for review on August 25, 2008. 

On September 5, 2008, Complainants 

and the IA each filed responses to the 

petitions for review. 

On September 16, 2008, Respondents 

filed a motion for leave to reply in 

support of their petition for review of 

the ID. On September 22, 2008, 

Complainants opposed the motion. 

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 (1) ALJ’s finding 

that Global Locate has standing to assert 

the ’346 patent; (2) the ALJ’s finding 

that SiRF directly infringes claim 1 of 

the ‘651 patent through its commercial 

activities; and (3) the ALJ’s finding that 

SiRF directly infringes claim 1 of the 

‘000 patent through its commercial 

activities. The Commission has 

determined not to review the remaining 

issues raised by the petitions for review, 

and has denied Respondents’ motion for 

leave to file a reply. 

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 the issue of whether 

Global Locate has standing to assert the 

‘346 patent in light of provision 2.1 in 

RX–286. Please cite record evidence 

and/or relevant legal precedent to 

support your position. 

2. Does SiRF practice the element 

‘‘processing satellite signals * * *’’ of 

the method of claim 1 of the ‘651 patent 

vicariously through end users of the 

accused products? See BMC Resources, 

Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 

(Fed. Cir. 2007) and Muniauction, Inc. v. 

Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. 

Cir. 2008). Please cite record evidence 

and relevant legal authority to support 

your position. 

3. Does SiRF practice the third 

element (‘‘at the remote receiver, 

representing said formatted data in a 

second format supported by the remote 

receiver’’) of the method of claim 1 of 

the ‘000 patent vicariously through end 

users of the accused products? See BMC 

Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 

F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and 

Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 

532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Please 

cite record evidence and any relevant 

legal authority to support your position. 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES