[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 1, 2009)]
[Pages 14820-14821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7231]



[Inv. No. 337-TA-605]

 In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip 
Package Size and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission 
Decision To Request Additional Briefing on Remedy and To Extend the 
Target Date

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.


SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to request additional briefing on remedy and 
to extend the target date to May 20, 2009, in the above captioned 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan M. Valentine, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2301. 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 May 21, 2007, based on a complaint filed by Tessera, Inc. of San 
Jose, California against Spansion, Inc. and Spansion, LLC, both of 
Sunnyvale, California; QUALCOMM, Inc. of San Diego, California; AT1 
Technologies of Thornhill, Ontario, Canada; Motorola, Inc. of 
Schaumburg, Illinois (``Motorola''); STMicroelectronics N.V. of Geneva, 
Switzerland; and Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. of Austin, Texas. 72 FR 
28522 (May 21, 2007). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 
in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, 
and the sale within the United States after importation of certain 
semiconductor chips with minimized chip package size or products 
containing same by reason of infringement of one or more claims of U.S. 
Patent Nos. 5,852,326, and 6,433,419.
    On December 1, 2008, the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ'') issued his final ID finding no violation of section 337 by 
Respondents. The ID included the ALJ's recommended determination on 
remedy and bonding. In his ID, the ALJ found that Respondents' accused 
products do not infringe the asserted claims the `326 patent or the 
asserted claims of the `419 patent. The ALJ additionally found that the 
asserted claims of the `326 and `419 patents are not invalid for 
failing to satisfy the enablement requirement or the written 
description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112 ] 1. The ALJ further found 
that the asserted claims of the `326 and `419 patents are not invalid 
as indefinite of 35 U.S.C. 112 ] 2. The ALJ also found that the 
asserted claims of the `326 and `419 patents are not invalid under 35 
U.S.C. 102 for anticipation or under 35 U.S.C. 103 for obviousness. 
Finally, the ALJ found that an industry in the United States exists 
with respect to the `326 and `419 patents as required by 19 U.S.C. 
1337(a)(2) and (3). In his recommended determination, the ALJ 
recommended that, should the Commission determine that a violation 
exists, a limited exclusion order (``LEO'') would be properly directed 
to Respondents' accused chip packages and to the downstream products of 
Motorola, a named respondent.
    On January 30, 2009, the Commission determined to review the final 
ID in part and requested briefing on the issues it determined to 
review, remedy, the public interest, and bonding. 74 FR 6175-6 (Feb. 5, 
2009). The Commission determined to review: (1) The ALJ's finding that 
Respondents' accused devices do not infringe the asserted claims the 
`326 and `419 patents; (2) the ALJ's finding that Tessera has waived 
any argument that the accused products indirectly infringe the `419 
patent; (3) the ALJ's finding that Motorola*s invention of the 1989 
68HC11 OMPAC chip (``OMPAC'') does not anticipate the asserted patents 
under 35 U.S.C. 102(b); and (4) the ALJ's finding that the Motorola's 
OMPAC invention does not anticipate the asserted patents under 35 
U.S.C. 102(g). Id. The Commission determined not to review the 
remaining issues decided in the ID.
    On February 23, 2009, the parties filed initial written submissions 
regarding the issues on review, remedy, the public interest, and 
bonding. On March 5, the parties filed response submissions. Several 
respondents in co-pending investigation Certain Semiconductor Chips 
with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 
337-TA-649, also filed reply briefs on remedy, the public interest, and 
bonding. In its initial submission on remedy, Tessera requested that 
the Commission issue a ``tailored'' general exclusion order (``GEO'') 
should the Commission determine that there is a violation of Section 
337. See Complainant Tessera, Inc.'s Brief on the Issues of Remedy, the 
Public Interest and Bonding (Public Version) (March 5, 2009) (``Tessera 
Remedy Br.'') (available on EDIS). Tessera also requested that, should 
the Commission determine that the current record is not adequate to 
support issuance of a GEO, the Commission should issue immediately the 
LEO recommended by the ALJ and then conduct further proceedings 
regarding the availability of a tailored GEO. See Tessera Remedy Br. at 
5-6. The Commission investigative attorney (``IA'') concurred. See 
Response of Office of Unfair Import Investigations to Complainant's and 
Respondents' Briefs on Issues Under Review and on

[[Page 14821]]

Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding (Public Version) (March 16, 
2009) (available on EDIS) at 33-34.
    The Commission requests additional briefing regarding the 
appropriateness of Tessera's proposed remedy. Specifically the 
Commission is particularly interested in responses to the following 
    1. Please address whether Tessera is entitled to a GEO under 19 
U.S.C. 1337(d)(2).
    2. Please address whether the Commission has the authority under 
the statute to issue a ``tailored GEO,'' which would ostensibly reach 
only specified downstream products and manufacturers while subjecting a 
complainant to the additional requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(2).
    3. Please address whether the Commission has the authority to issue 
two different exclusion orders at two different times, specifically 
whether the Commission can issue an LEO immediately and then issue a 
GEO at a later date.
    The Commission has also determined that the target date be extended 
to May 20, 2009.
    Written Submissions: Parties to the investigation, interested 
government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to 
file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, 
and bonding. Such submissions should address the questions posed by the 
Commission above, as well as the recommended determination by the ALJ 
on remedy and bonding.
    The written submissions must be filed no later than close of 
business on Friday, April 10, 2009. Reply submissions must be filed no 
later than the close of business on Monday, April 20, 2009. No further 
submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered 
by the Commission.
    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document 
and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with 
the Office of the Secretary. Any person desiring to submit a document 
to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment 
unless the information has already been granted such treatment during 
the proceedings. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary 
of the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why 
the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 210.6. Documents 
for which confidential treatment by the Commission is sought will be 
treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be 
available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
    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 section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure 
(19 CFR 210.42).

    Issued: March 26, 2009.

    By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-7231 Filed 3-31-09; 8:45 am]