[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