[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18268]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-395]


Certain EPROM, EEPROM, Flash Memory, and Flash Microcontroller 
Semiconductor Devices, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Final 
Determination

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to find no violation of section 337 in the 
above-captioned investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John A. Wasleff, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone 202-
205-3094.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The Commission instituted this investigation on March 18, 1997, 
based on a complaint filed by Atmel Corporation. 62 Fed. Reg. 13706. 
The complaint named five respondents: Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Winbond 
Electronics Corporation and Winbond Electronics North America 
Corporation (collectively ``Winbond''), Macronix International Co., 
Ltd. and Macronix America, Inc. (collectively ``Macronix''). Silicon 
Storage Technology, Inc. (``SST'') was permitted to intervene.
    In its complaint, Atmel alleged that respondents violated section 
337 by importing into the United States, selling for importation, and/
or selling in the United States after importation electronic products 
and/or components that infringe one or more of claim 1 of U.S. Letters 
Patent 4,511,811, claim 1 of U.S. Letters Patent 4,673,829, claim 1 of 
U.S. Letters Patent 4,974,565 (``the '565 patent'') and claims 1-9 of 
U.S. Letters Patent 4,451,903. The '565 patent was subsequently removed 
from the case. The presiding ALJ held an evidentiary hearing from 
December 8 to December 19, 1997.
    On March 19, 1998, the ALJ issued his final ID finding that there 
was no violation of section 337. He found that neither claim 1 of U.S. 
Letters Patent 4,511,811 (``the '811 patent''), nor claim 1 of U.S. 
Letters Patent 4,673,829 (``the '829 patent''), nor claim 1 or claim 9 
of U. S. Letters Patent 4,451,903 (``the '903 patent'') was infringed 
by any product of the respondents or intervenor. He further found that 
the '903 patent was unenforceable because of waiver and implied license 
by legal estoppel, and that claims 2 through 8 of this patent are 
invalid for indefiniteness. He found that respondents and the 
intervenor had not demonstrated that any other claim at issue was 
invalid in view of any prior art before him, or that the '903 patent is 
void for failure to name a co-inventor. He found that complainant had 
not demonstrated that the '811 patent was entitled to an earlier date 
of invention than that appearing on the face of the patent. Finally, 
the ALJ found that there was a domestic industry with respect to all 
patents at issue.
    On March 31, 1998, complainant Atmel filed a petition for review of 
the ALJ's final ID. On April 1, 1998, respondent Winbond filed a 
petition for review of the ALJ's ID. The other respondents and 
intervenor SST filed contingent petitions for review, raising issues to 
be considered in the event that the Commission determined to review 
certain of the ALJ's findings. In accordance with the Commission's 
directions, the parties filed their initial briefs on May 26, 1998, and 
their reply briefs on June 5, 1998. Complainant Atmel and respondent 
Winbond requested oral argument, which request is hereby denied.
    Having examined the record in this investigation, including the ID, 
the review briefs, and the responses thereto, the Commission has 
determined that there is no violation of section 337. More 
specifically, the Commission finds that the '811 and '829 patents are 
invalid because of the preclusive effect of a decision of the United 
States District Court for the Northern District of California. The 
Commission also finds that the '903 patent is unenforceable for failure 
to name a co-inventor.
    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1337) and sections 210.42--.45 of 
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. 
Secs. 210.42--.45).
    Copies of the public version of the ID, the Commission's opinion, 
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 S.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing-impaired persons are 
advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting 
the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. General information 
concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its 
Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov).

    By order of the Commission.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Commissioner Miller did not participate in this 
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued: July 2, 1998.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98-18268 Filed 7-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P