[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 55 (Friday, March 21, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13951-13952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-6854]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-468]


Certain Microlithographic Machines and Components Thereof; Notice 
of Commission Determination Not To Review a Final Initial Determination 
Finding No Violation of Section 337 Termination of the Investigation

AGENCY: International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined not to review the final initial determination 
(``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') on 
January 29, 2003, finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the above-captioned investigation. 
Accordingly, the Commission has terminated the investigation with a 
finding of no violation of section 337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy P. Monaghan, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3152. Copies of the public 
version of the ID 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, SW., Washington, DC 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). The public record 
for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic 
docket (EDIS-ON-LINE) at http://dockets.usitc.gov/eol/public.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this patent-based 
section 337 investigation on January 24, 2002, based on a complaint 
filed by the Nikon Corporation of Tokyo, Japan, and Nikon Precision 
Inc. and Nikon Research Corporation of America of Belmont, California 
(collectively, ``Nikon''). The respondents named in the investigation 
were ASM Lithography Holding N.V. and ASM Lithography B.V. of the 
Netherlands and ASM Lithography, Inc. of Tempe, Arizona (collectively, 
``ASML''). The complaint alleged that ASML has violated section 337 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing into the United States, selling for 
importation, and/or selling within the United States after importation 
certain microlithographic machines and components thereof by reason of 
infringement of certain claims of seven U.S. patents: U.S. Patents Nos. 
6,008,500 (the '500 patent), 6,271,640 (the '640 patent), 6,255,796 
(``the '796 patent''), 6,323,935 (``the '935 patent''), 5,473,410 
(``the '410 patent''), 5,638,211 (``the '211 patent''), and 
6,233,041(``the '041 patent).
    On January 29, 2003, the ALJ issued his final ID finding no 
violation of section 337 based on his finding that claims 1 and 7 of 
the '500 patent and claim 1 of the '640 patent are anticipated by the 
Micrascan machine; claim 30 of the '640 is anticipated by the Doran 
'242 patent and is not enabled; ASML's Twinscan machine does not 
infringe claims 1 and 16 of the '796 patent or claims 1, 78, and 84 of 
the '935 patent, nor do Nikon's domestic machines practice claims 1 of 
the '796 patent or claim 1 of the '935 patent; claim 1 of the '935 
patent is invalid for failure to satisfy the written description 
requirement and is not enabled under 35 U.S.C. 112, ] 1, and is invalid 
for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112, ] 2; claim 19 of the '410 
patent is invalid as obvious and is unenforceable by reason of 
inequitable conduct; and ASML's Twinscan machine does not infringe any 
claim at issue of the '211 and '041 patents, nor do Nikon's domestic 
machines practice any claim of the '211 or '041 patents.
    On February 10, 2003, Nikon, ASML, and the Commission investigative 
attorneys filed petitions for review of the final ID. On February 19, 
2003, the parties filed responses to each other's petitions for review.
    Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the 
parties' written submissions, the Commission determined not to review 
(i.e., to adopt) the ID in its entirety, except that it determined to 
take no position on the ALJ's finding that claim 30 of the '640 patent 
is anticipated by the Doran '242 patent and his findings on criteria 
(A) and (B) of the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement 
under section 337(a)(3) when a domestic product is made partly or 
wholly abroad.
    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and section 210.42 of the 
Commission's rules of practice and procedure, 19 CFR 210.42.


[[Page 13952]]


    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 17, 2003.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 03-6854 Filed 3-20-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P