Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices 25581 

when the Commission concludes the 

investigation. On April 10, 2009, 

Tessera, the IA, Respondents, and 

several interested non-parties filed 

initial written submissions in response 

to the Commission’s request for 

additional briefing on remedy. 

Respondent Spansion did not submit 

any briefing in response to the 

Commission’s request. On April 20, 

2009, Tessera, the IA, Respondents, and 

the SPIL Respondents filed reply 

submissions in response to the 

Commission’s request for additional 

briefing on remedy. On April 20, 2009, 

the Commission issued a Notice in 

response to a motion from Broadcom 

extending the due date for reply 

submissions from interested non-parties 

to April 29, 2009, since the public 

versions of the parties’ initial 

submissions were not due to be filed 

until April 22, 2009. Notice of 

Commission Determination to Extend 

the Deadline for Receiving Reply 

Submission from Interested Parties in 

Response to the Commission’s Request 

for Additional Briefing on Remedy 

(April 20, 2009). On April 29, 2009, the 

interested non-parties submitted their 

reply briefs. 

On April 24, 2009, respondent 

Qualcomm filed a motion for leave to 

file a petition for reconsideration 

pursuant to 19 CFR 210.47 of the 

Commission’s determination not to 

review the ID’s finding that the asserted 

claims of the patents-in-suit are not 

indefinite. Qualcomm argued that the 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office rejected as ‘‘indefinite’’ under 35 

U.S.C. 112, ¶ 2, new claims submitted 

by Tessera in connection with the 

reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 

6,133,627, one of the parent patents of 

the ‘419 patent. Tessera filed an 

opposition to Qualcomm’s motion on 

April 30, 2009. The IA filed an 

opposition on May 4, 2009. Qualcomm 

filed a reply to Tessera’s and the IA’s 

oppositions on May 5, 2009. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final 

ID, the Commission has determined to 

reverse the ID’s determination of no 

violation of the ‘326 patent and ‘419 

patent. Specifically, the Commission 

reverses the ID’s finding that 

Respondents’ accused devices do not 

infringe asserted claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 16– 

19, 21, 24–26, and 29 of the ‘326 patent 

and asserted claims 1–11, 14, 15, 19, 

and 22–24 of the ‘419 patent. The 

Commission further reverses the ID’s 

conclusion regarding waiver with 

respect to any claims that the accused 

chip packages indirectly infringe the 

asserted claims of the ‘419 patent. 

Moreover, the Commission finds that 

Respondents have contributorily 

infringed the asserted claims of the ‘419 

patent. The Commission also modifies 

the ID’s analysis concerning its finding 

that the ‘326 and ‘419 patents are not 

invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) to clarify 

that the statute requires comparing the 

on-sale date of alleged prior art against 

the priority date of the asserted patents, 

not against the conception date of the 

asserted patents. 

The Commission has determined that 

the appropriate form of relief is (1) a 

limited exclusion order under 19 U.S.C. 

1337(d)(1) prohibiting the unlicensed 

entry of semiconductor chips with 

minimized chip package size and 

products incorporating these chips that 

infringe one or more of claims 1, 2, 6, 

12, 16–19, 21, 24–26, and 29 of the ‘326 

patent and claims 1–11, 14, 15, 19, and 

22–24 of the ’419 patent, and are 

manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, 

or imported by or on behalf of, 

Spansion, Qualcomm, ATI, Motorola, 

ST–NV, and Freescale; and (2) cease and 

desist orders directed to Motorola, 

Qualcomm, Freescale, and Spansion. 

The Commission has further 

determined that the public interest 

factors enumerated in Section 337(d) 

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

preclude issuance of the limited 

exclusion order and the cease and desist 

orders. The Commission has determined 

that the bond for temporary importation 

during the period of Presidential review 

(19 U.S.C. 1337(j)) shall be in the 

amount of 3.5% of the value of the 

imported articles that are subject to the 

order. The Commission’s order was 

delivered to the President and the 

United States Trade Representative on 

the day of its issuance. 

Additionally, the Commission denies 

the motion by the SPIL Respondents to 

extend the date for reply submissions to 

the Commission’s Notice of Review of 

the final ID and to compel the 

production of Tessera’s initial 

confidential briefing in response to the 

Commission’s Notice of Review. The 

Commission further denies Spansion’s 

motion for a stay of the investigation in 

light of the commencement of 

bankruptcy proceedings involving it. 

The Commission also denies respondent 

Qualcomm’s motion for leave to file a 

petition for reconsideration of the 

Commission’s determination not to 

review the ID’s finding that the asserted 

claims of the patents-in-suit are not 

indefinite. Finally, the Commission 

denies Respondents’ motion to strike 

the Prowse Affidavit and the Cassidy 

Statement. 

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 210.42–50 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42–50). 

Issued: May 20, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–12371 Filed 5–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice: (09–044)] 

Notice of Centennial Challenges—2009 

Power Beaming Challenge 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Notice of Centennial 

Challenges—2009 Power Beaming 

Challenge. 

SUMMARY: This notice is issued in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 2459f–1(d). 

This is an update to a previous notice 

(09–12) on the 2009 Power Beaming and 

Tether Challenges. The 2009 Power 

Beaming Challenge is now scheduled 

and teams that wish to compete may 

register. A notice on the Tether 

Challenge will be issued at a later time. 

The NASA Centennial Challenges is a 

program of prize contests to stimulate 

innovation and competition in 

technologies of interest and value to 

NASA and the nation. The 2009 Power 

Beaming Challenge is a prize 

competition designed to promote the 

development of new power 

transmission technologies with 

applications in energy systems, 

transportation and emergency 

operations. Significant improvements in 

power beaming could contribute to 

revolutionary advances in space 

transportation as well as other areas. 

The Spaceward Foundation 

administers the Power Beaming 

Challenge for NASA. The prize purse is 

funded by NASA. 

DATES: The 2009 Power Beaming 

Challenge will be held on July 14–16, 

2009. 

Location: The 2009 Power Beaming 

Challenge will be held at the Dryden 

Flight Research Center, Edwards, 

California. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

register for and get additional 

information regarding the 2009 Power 

Beaming Challenge including rules, 

team agreements, eligibility and prize 

criteria, visit: http://www.spaceward.org 

or contact Mr. Ben Shelef at the 

25582 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices 

Spaceward Foundation, 725 N Shoreline 

Blvd., Mountain View, CA 94043, 

Phone: 650–965–2900. Questions and 

comments regarding the NASA 

Centennial Challenges Program should 

be addressed to Mr. Andrew Petro, 

NASA Headquarters, Suite 6J79, 300 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20546, 

Phone: 202–358–0310. The Centennial 

Challenges Web site is http:// 

www.ip.nasa.gov/cc. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

maximum prize purse available for the 

2009 Power Beaming Challenge is 

$2,000,000. Each climber, powered by 

beamed energy, must climb to a height 

of one kilometer traveling at a minimum 

speed. The teams with the highest score 

(the product of average velocity and 

payload mass normalized by the climber 

mass) will win the competition. 

In the case of individuals, prizes can 

only be awarded to U.S. citizens or 

permanent residents and in the case of 

corporations or other entities, prizes can 

only be awarded to those that are 

incorporated in and maintain a primary 

place of business in the United States. 

Dated: May 20, 2009. 

Douglas A. Comstock, 

Director, Innovative Partnerships Program. 

[FR Doc. E9–12315 Filed 5–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0217; Docket No. 030–35868] 

Notice of Availability of Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact for License 

Amendment to Byproduct Nuclear 

Materials License No. 06–30693–01, for 

Termination of the License and 

Unrestricted Release of the 

Protometrix—an Invitrogen Company 

Facility in Branford, CT 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Issuance of Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact for License 

Amendment and Termination. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas K. Thompson, Sr. Health 

Physicist, Commercial and R&D Branch, 

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, 

Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of 

Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406; telephone 

(610) 337–5303; fax number (610) 337– 

5269; or by e-mail: 

Thomas.Thompson@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering the 

issuance of an amendment terminating 

Byproduct Materials License No. 06– 

30693–01. This license is held by 

Protometrix—an Invitrogen Company 

(the Licensee), for its facility located at 

688 East Main Street, Branford, 

Connecticut (the Facility). Issuance of 

the amendment would authorize release 

of the Facility for unrestricted use and 

terminate the NRC license. The Licensee 

requested this action in a letter dated 

March 12, 2009. The NRC has prepared 

an Environmental Assessment (EA) in 

support of this proposed action in 

accordance with the requirements of 

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), part 51 (10 CFR part 51). Based 

on the EA, the NRC has concluded that 

a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) is appropriate with respect to 

the proposed action. The amendment 

will be issued to the Licensee, and the 

license will be terminated, following the 

publication of this FONSI and EA in the 

Federal Register. 

II. Environmental Assessment 

Identification of Proposed Action 

The proposed action would approve 

the Licensee’s March 12, 2009, license 

amendment and termination request, 

resulting in release of the Facility for 

unrestricted use and the termination of 

its NRC materials license. License No. 

06–30693–01 was issued on November 

19, 2001, pursuant to 10 CFR part 30, 

and has been amended periodically 

since that time. This license authorizes 

the Licensee to use hydrogen-3, carbon14, phosphorus-32, phosphorus-33, 

sulfur-35, and iodine 125 for conducting 

research and development. 

The Facility is a one story building of 

approximately 13,787 square feet, 

consisting of warehouse spaces, office 

spaces, and laboratories. Within the 

Facility, use of licensed materials was 

largely confined to two small 

laboratories with a total area of 

approximately 330 square feet. The 

Facility is located in an industrial area. 

Within the Facility, the radionuclides of 

concern were hydrogen-3 and carbon-14 

because the half-life of these isotopes is 

greater than 120 days. 

In January 2009, the Licensee last 

handled byproduct materials, ceased 

licensed activities, and initiated a 

survey of the affected areas of the 

Facility. Based on the Licensee’s 

historical knowledge of the site and the 

conditions of the Facility, the Licensee 

determined that only routine 

decontamination activities, in 

accordance with the NRC-approved 

operating radiation safety procedures, 

would be required. The Licensee was 

not required to submit a 

decommissioning plan to the NRC 

because worker cleanup activities and 

procedures are consistent with those 

approved for routine operations. The 

Licensee conducted surveys of the 

Facility and provided information to the 

NRC to demonstrate that it meets the 

criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 

for unrestricted release and for license 

termination. 

Need for the Proposed Action 

The Licensee has ceased conducting 

licensed activities at the Facility, and 

seeks the unrestricted use of its Facility 

and the termination of its NRC materials 

license. Termination of its license 

would end the Licensee’s obligation to 

pay annual license fees to the NRC. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The historical review of licensed 

activities conducted at the Facility 

shows that such activities involved use 

of the following radionuclides with a 

half-life greater than 120 days: 

hydrogen-3 and carbon-14. 

The Licensee conducted a final status 

survey in January 2009. This survey 

covered the areas of use in the Facility. 

The final status survey report was 

received March 12, 2009. The Licensee 

demonstrated compliance with the 

radiological criteria for unrestricted 

release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 

by using the screening approach 

described in NUREG–1757, 

‘‘Consolidated Decommissioning 

Guidance,’’ Volume 2. The 

radionuclide-specific derived 

concentration guideline levels (DCGLs), 

developed by the NRC, which comply 

with the dose criterion in 10 CFR 

20.1402. These DCGLs define the 

maximum amount of residual 

radioactivity on building surfaces, 

equipment, and materials, and in soils, 

that will satisfy the NRC requirements 

in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for 

unrestricted release. The Licensee’s 

final status survey results were below 

these DCGLs and are in compliance 

with the As Low As Reasonably 

Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 

CFR 20.1402. The NRC thus finds that 

the Licensee’s final status survey results 

are acceptable. 

Based on its review, the staff has 

determined that the affected 

environment and any environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action are bounded by the impacts 

evaluated by the ‘‘Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement in 

Support of Rulemaking on Radiological