Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Notices 63857 

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 

(2010). 

Scope of Investigation: Having 

considered the amended complaint, the 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

on October 8, 2010, ordered that— 

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, an investigation be instituted 

to determine 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 liquid crystal 

display devices, including monitors, 

televisions, and modules, and 

components thereof that infringe one or 

more of claims 1 and 4 of the ‘941 

patent; claims 1–4, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, and 

18 of the ‘063 patent; claims 1, 7–9, 11, 

13, 14, and 16–18 of the ‘674 patent; 

claim 3 of the ‘556 patent; and claims 

4, 7–10, and 14 of the ‘006 patent, and 

whether an industry in the United 

States exists as required by subsection 

(a)(2) of section 337; 

(2) 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 complainants are: 

Thomson Licensing SAS, 1–5 rue Jeanne 

d’Arc, 92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux, 

France. 

Thomson Licensing LLC, 2 

Independence Way, Princeton, New 

Jersey 08543. 

(b) The respondents are the following 

entities alleged to be in violation of 

section 337, and are the parties upon 

which the amended complaint is to be 

served: 

Chimei Innolux Corporation, No. 160 

Kesyue Road, Jhunan Science Park, 

Miaoli County 350, Taiwan. 

Innolux Corporation, 2525 Brockton 

Drive, Suite 300, Austin, TX 78758. 

Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., 101 

Metro Drive, Suite 510, San Jose, CA 

95110. 

MStar Semiconductor, Inc., 4F–1, No. 

26, Tai-Yuan Street, ChuPei, Hsinchu 

Hsien, Taiwan 302. 

Qisda Corporation, 157 Shan-Ying Road, 

Gueishan, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan. 

Qisda America Corporation, 8941 

Research Drive, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 

92618. 

Qisda (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., No. 169 

Zhujiang Road, Suzhou, China 

215015. 

BenQ Corporation, 16 Jihu Road, Neihu, 

Taipei 114, Taiwan. 

BenQ America Corp., 15375 Barranca 

Parkway, Suite A–205, Irvine, CA 

92618. 

BenQ Latin America, 8200 NW 33rd 

Street, Suite 301, Miami, FL 33122. 

Realtek Semiconductor Corporation, No. 

2 Innovation Road II, Hsinchu Science 

Park, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan. 

(c) The Commission investigative 

attorney, party to this investigation, is 

Daniel L. Girdwood, Esq., Office of 

Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 

20436; and 

(3) For the investigation so instituted, 

the Honorable Paul J. Luckern, Chief 

Administrative Law Judge, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, shall 

designate the presiding Administrative 

Law Judge. 

Responses to the amended complaint 

and the notice of investigation must be 

submitted by the named respondents 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)-(e) and 210.13(a), such 

responses will be considered by the 

Commission if received not later than 20 

days after the date of service by the 

Commission of the amended complaint 

and the notice of investigation. 

Extensions of time for submitting 

responses to the amended complaint 

and the notice of investigation will not 

be granted unless good cause therefor is 

shown. 

Failure of a respondent to file a timely 

response to each allegation in the 

amended complaint and in this notice 

may be deemed to constitute a waiver of 

the right to appear and contest the 

allegations of the amended 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 amended complaint and 

this notice and to enter an initial 

determination and a final determination 

containing such findings, and may 

result in the issuance of an exclusion 

order or a cease and desist order or both 

directed against the respondent. 

Issued: October 12, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26110 Filed 10–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–742] 

In the Matter of: Certain Digital 

Televisions and Components Thereof; 

Notice of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of investigation 

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a 

complaint was filed with the U.S. 

International Trade Commission on 

September 15, 2010, under section 337 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 

19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of LG 

Electronics, Inc. of Korea. The 

complaint alleges violations of section 

337 based upon the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

and the sale within the United States 

after importation of certain digital 

televisions and components thereof by 

reason of infringement of certain claims 

of U.S. Patent No. RE 37,070 (‘‘the ’070 

patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 6,785,906 (‘‘the 

’906 patent’’); and U.S. Patent No. 

6,598,233 (‘‘the ’233 patent’’). The 

complaint further alleges that an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337. 

The complainant requests that the 

Commission institute an investigation 

and, after the investigation, issue an 

exclusion order and cease and desist 

orders. 

ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for 

any confidential information contained 

therein, is 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: 

Kecia R. Reynolds, Esq., Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations, U.S. International 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

63858 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Notices 

Trade Commission, telephone (202) 

205–2580. 

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 

(2010). 

Scope of Investigation: Having 

considered the complaint, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission, on 

October 8, 2010, ordered that— 

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, an investigation be instituted 

to determine 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 digital televisions 

and components thereof that infringe 

one or more of claims 1, 4–9, 12–14, and 

17–30 of them ’070 patent; claims 1–20 

and 22–26 of the ’906 patent; and claims 

1–25 of the ’233 patent, and whether an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337; 

(2) 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: LG 

Electronics, Inc., LG Twin Towers, 20, 

Yeouido-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, 

Seoul, 150–721, Korea. 

(b) The respondents are the following 

entities alleged to be in violation of 

section 337, and are the parties upon 

which the complaint is to be served: 

Vizio, Inc., 39 Tesla, Irvine, CA 92618. 

AmTRAN Technology Co., Ltd., 17f, 

268, Lien Cheng Rd., Chungho City, 

Taipei, 23553, Taiwan. 

AmTRAN Logistic, Inc., 9531 Irvine 

Center Dr., Irvine, CA 92618–4654. 

(c) The Commission investigative 

attorney, party to this investigation, is 

Kecia R. Reynolds, Esq., Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and 

(3) For the investigation so instituted, 

the Honorable Paul J. Luckern, Chief 

Administrative Law Judge, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, shall 

designate the presiding Administrative 

Law Judge. 

Responses to the complaint and the 

notice of investigation must be 

submitted by the named respondents 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)–(e) and 210.13(a), 

such responses will be considered by 

the Commission if received not later 

than 20 days after the date of service by 

the Commission of the complaint and 

the notice of investigation. Extensions of 

time for submitting responses to the 

complaint and the notice of 

investigation will not be granted unless 

good cause therefor is shown. 

Failure of a 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 an initial determination 

and a final determination containing 

such findings, and may result in the 

issuance of an exclusion order or a cease 

and desist order or both directed against 

the respondent. 

Issued: October 12, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26111 Filed 10–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 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 October 

8, 2010 a proposed consent decree 

(‘‘proposed Decree’’) in United States v. 

Albert Investment Co., Inc., et al., Civil 

Action No. 08–637C, was lodged with 

the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma. 

In this action under Section 107(a) of 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a) (‘‘CERCLA’’), the 

United States and State of Oklahoma’s 

complaint seeks reimbursement of 

response costs incurred or to be 

incurred for response actions taken and 

damages for injury to, destruction of, or 

loss of natural resources, including the 

reasonable costs of assessing such injury 

destruction or loss, at or in connection 

with the release or threatened release of 

hazardous substances at the Double 

Eagle Superfund Site, in Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma. 

The proposed Decree is an amended 

version of an earlier Decree which was 

lodged in the case, and which has now 

been withdrawn. The proposed Decree 

requires the defendants to pay 

approximately $6,268,643 to the United 

States and the State in reimbursement of 

past response costs and $329,929 in 

state and federal natural resource 

damages. The proposed Decree provides 

the defendants with a covenant not to 

sue under Sections 106 and 107(a) of 

CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607(a) 

that are subject various reopeners and 

reservations. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the proposed Decree. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and either e-mailed to 

pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or 

mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to United 

States v. Albert Investment Co., Inc., et 

al., D.J. Ref. 90–11–2–857/5. 

The proposed Decree may be 

examined at the Office of the United 

States Attorney for the Western District 

of Oklahoma, 210 Park Avenue, Suite 

400, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102, 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, 

Texas 75202. During the public 

comment period, the proposed Decree 

may also be examined on the following 

Department of Justice Web site: http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

proposed 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 

$20.25 (25 cents per page reproduction 

cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if 

by e-mail or fax, forward a check in that 

amount to the Consent Decree Library at 

the stated address. 

Maureen Katz, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26136 Filed 10–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES