Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 31311 

We provide this notice pursuant to 

section 10(c) of the Act and pursuant to 

implementing regulations for NEPA (40 

CFR 1506.6). 

Dated: June 23, 2009. 

Susan K. Moore, 

Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and 

Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California. 

[FR Doc. E9–15395 Filed 6–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–631] 

In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal 

Display Devices and Products 

Containing the Same; Notice of 

Commission Decision To Affirm-In-Part 

and Reverse-In-Part a Final Initial 

Determination Finding a Violation of 

Section 337; Issuance of a Limited 

Exclusion Order and a Cease and 

Desist Order; and Termination of the 

Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to affirmin-part and reverse-in-part a final initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) of the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) 

finding a violation of section 337 by the 

respondents’ products in the abovecaptioned investigation, and has issued 

a limited exclusion order directed 

against products of respondents Sharp 

Corporation of Japan; Sharp Electronics 

Corporation of Mahwah, New Jersey; 

and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing 

Company of America, Inc. of San Diego, 

California (collectively ‘‘Sharp’’); and 

cease and desist orders direct against 

products of Sharp Electronics Corp. and 

Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Co. 

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) 

708–5468. 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 January 25, 2008, based on a 

complaint filed by Samsung Electronics 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Samsung’’) of Korea. 73 FR 

4626–27. The complaint, as 

supplemented, 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 liquid crystal display (‘‘LCD’’) 

devices and products containing the 

same by reason of infringement of 

certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 

7,193,666; 6,771,344 (‘‘the ‘344 patent’’); 

7,295,196; and 6,937,311 (‘‘the ‘311 

patent’’). The complaint further alleges 

the existence of a domestic industry as 

to each asserted patent. The 

Commission’s notice of investigation 

named the following respondents: Sharp 

Corporation of Japan; Sharp Electronics 

Corporation of Mahwah, New Jersey; 

and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing, 

Company of America, Inc. of San Diego, 

California. 

On January 26, 2009, the ALJ issued 

his final ID finding a violation of section 

337 by respondents as to the ‘311 and 

‘344 patents only, and issued his 

recommended determinations on 

remedy and bonding. On February 9, 

2009, Sharp and the Commission 

investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed 

petitions for review of the final ID. The 

IA and Samsung filed responses to the 

petitions on February 17, 2009. 

On March 30, 2009, the Commission 

determined to review: (1) The ALJ’s 

construction of the claim term ‘‘domain 

dividers’’ found in the ‘311 patent;’’ (2) 

the ALJ’s determination that Sharp’s 

LCD devices infringe the ‘311 patent; (3) 

the ALJ’s determination that the ‘311 

patent is not unenforceable; and (4) the 

ALJ’s determination that the asserted 

claims of the ‘344 patent are not invalid 

as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 

5,309,264 (‘‘the ‘264 patent’’). 

The Commission requested the parties 

to respond to certain questions 

concerning the issues under review and 

requested written submissions on the 

issues of remedy, the public interest, 

and bonding from the parties and 

interested non-parties. 74 FR 15301–02 

(April 3, 2009). 

On April 10 and April 17, 2009, 

respectively, complainant Samsung, the 

Sharp respondents, and the IA filed 

briefs and reply briefs on the issues for 

which the Commission requested 

written submissions. Also, the 

Commission received four submissions 

from interested non-parties on the 

issues of remedy, the public interest, 

and bonding. 

Having reviewed the record in this 

investigation, including the final ID and 

the parties’ written submissions, the 

Commission has determined to affirmin-part and reverse-in-part the ID. 

Particularly, the Commission has 

construed the term ‘‘domain dividers’’ 

in claims 6 and 8 of the ‘311 patent to 

be ‘‘apertures formed in the conductive 

layer comprising the electrode.’’ 

Further, the Commission has reversed 

the ALJ’s ruling of infringement of the 

‘311 patent by Sharp’s LCD devices and 

determined that these devices do not 

infringe claims 6 and 8 under the 

Commission’s claim construction of 

‘‘domain dividers.’’ Also, the 

Commission has taken no position on 

the validity of the ‘311 patent pursuant 

to 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 1, under the ALJ’s 

construction of ‘‘domain dividers,’’ or 

the unenforceability of the ‘311 patent. 

In addition, the Commission has 

affirmed the ALJ’s finding that claims 7 

and 8 of the ‘344 patent are not invalid 

in view of the ‘264 patent, and affirm 

his determination of a violation of 

section 337 with respect to the ‘344 

patent. 

Further, the Commission has made its 

determination on the issues of remedy, 

the public interest, and bonding. The 

Commission has determined that the 

appropriate form of relief is both: (1) A 

limited exclusion order prohibiting the 

unlicensed entry of LCD devices, 

including display panels and modules, 

and LCD televisions or professional 

displays containing the same that 

infringe claims 7 or 8 of the ‘344 patent, 

that are manufactured abroad by or on 

behalf of, or are imported by or on 

behalf of, Sharp, or any of its affiliated 

companies, parents, subsidiaries, 

licensees, contractors, or other related 

business entities, or successors or 

assigns; and (2) cease and desist orders 

prohibiting Sharp Electronics Corp. and 

Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Co. 

from conducting any of the following 

activities in the United States: 

importing, selling, marketing, 

advertising, distributing, offering for 

sale, transferring (except for 

exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents 

or distributors for, LCD devices, 

including display panels and modules, 

and LCD televisions or professional 

displays containing the same that are 

covered by claims 7 or 8 of the ‘344 

patent. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
31312 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 

The Commission further determined 

that the public interest factors 

enumerated in section 337(d)(1) (19 

U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)) do not preclude 

issuance of the limited exclusion order 

or the cease and desist order. Finally, 

the Commission determined that no 

bond is required to permit temporary 

importation during the period of 

Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)). 

The Commission’s orders and opinion 

were delivered to the President and to 

the United States Trade Representative 

on the day of its issuance. 

The Commission has terminated this 

investigation. 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, 210.45, 

and 210.50 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42, 

210.45, 210.50). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued June 24, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–15387 Filed 6–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent 

Decree 

In accordance with Departmental 

Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby 

given that a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States v. JLG Enterprises, et al., 

D. Minn., Civil No. 09–00708, was 

lodged with the United States District 

Court for the District of Minnesota on 

June 23, 2009. 

This proposed Consent Decree 

concerns a complaint filed by the 

United States against Jeffrey Gilbert, 

individually and d/b/a/JLG Enterprises; 

Gary Gilbert, individually and d/b/a JLG 

Enterprises; JLG Enterprises, a 

Minnesota general partnership; and JLG 

Enterprises of Hermantown, LLP, a 

Minnesota limited liability partnership, 

pursuant to sections 301(a), 309 and 404 

of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 

1311(a), 1319 and 1344, to obtain 

injunctive relief from and impose civil 

penalties against the Defendants for 

violating the Clean Water Act by 

discharging pollutants without a permit 

into waters of the United States. The 

proposed Consent Decree resolves these 

allegations by requiring the Defendants 

to restore the impacted areas and/or 

perform mitigation and to pay a civil 

penalty. 

The Department of Justice will accept 

written comments relating to this 

proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) 

days from the date of publication of this 

Notice. Please address comments to 

Joshua M. Levin, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Environment & Natural 

Resources Division, Environmental 

Defense Section, P.O. Box 23986, 

Washington, DC 20026–3986, and refer 

to United States v. JLG Enterprises, DJ 

# 90–5–1–1–18212. 

The proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined at the Clerk’s Office, United 

States District Court for the District of 

Minnesota, 300 South 4th Street, Suite 

202, Minneapolis, MN 55415. In 

addition, the proposed Consent Decree 

may be viewed at http://www.usdoj.gov/ 

enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. 

Maureen M. Katz, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environment & 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–15389 Filed 6–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed 

Consent Decree Under the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act 

Notice is hereby given that on June 

12, 2009, a proposed Consent Decree 

was filed with the United States District 

Court for the District of Nebraska in 

United States et al. v. City of West Point, 

et al., No. 08–00293 (D. Neb.). The 

proposed Consent Decree entered into 

by the United States, the State of 

Nebraska, and West Point Dairy 

Products, LLC resolves the United 

States’ claims against West Point Dairy 

Products, LLC under Sections 307 and 

309 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act (Clean Water Act) at its 

West Point, Nebraska facility. Under the 

terms of the Consent Decree, West Point 

Dairy Products, LLC shall pay a civil 

penalty of $75,000 each to the United 

States and State of Nebraska and 

dismiss with prejudice its cross-claims 

against the City of West Point, Nebraska. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

comments relating to the proposed 

Consent Decree for a period of thirty 

(30) days from the date of this 

publication. 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 et al. v. City of West Point, et al., 

DJ Ref. No. 90–5–1–1–09326. 

The proposed Agreement may be 

examined at the Office of the United 

States Attorney for the District of 

Nebraska, 487 Federal Building, 100 

Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, NE 

68508, and at the Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th 

St., Kansas City, KS 66101. During the 

public comment period, the proposed 

Agreement 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 Agreement 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 

$5.00 (25 cents per page reproduction 

cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury. 

Maureen Katz, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–15412 Filed 6–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Importer of Controlled Substances; 

Notice of Registration 

By Notice dated April 1, 2009, and 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 9, 2009, (74 FR 16234), Lipomed, 

Inc., One Broadway, Cambridge, 

Massachusetts 02142, made application 

by renewal to the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA) to be registered as 

an importer of the basic classes of 

controlled substances listed in 

schedules I and II: 

Drug Schedule 

Cathinone (1235) .......................... I 

Methcathinone (1237) ................... I 

N-Ethylamphetamine (1475) ......... I 

Fenethylline (1503) ....................... I 

Methaqualone (2565) .................... I 

Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid 

(2010).

I 

Lysergic acid diethylamide (7315) I 

2,5-Dimethoxy-4-(n)- 

propylthiophenethylamine.

(7348) ............................................ I 

Marihuana (7360) ......................... I 

Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370) ...... I 

Mescaline (7381) .......................... I 

3,4,5-Trimethoxyamphetamine 

(7390).

I 

4-Bromo-2,5- 

dimethoxyamphetamine (7391).

I 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6