[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 58 (Friday, March 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14628-14629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6757]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-648]


Notice of Commission Decision

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to reverse a remand initial determination 
(``remand ID'') of the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ''), 
and to affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and modify-in-part a final 
initial determination (``ID'') of the presiding administrative law 
judge (``ALJ''). The Commission has determined that there is no 
violation of section 337 in the above-captioned

[[Page 14629]]

investigation, and has terminated the investigation. The Commission 
will issue an opinion shortly.

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) 708-2310. 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, 2008, based on a complaint filed on April 18, 2008, by LSI 
Corporation of Milpitas, California and Agere Systems Inc. of 
Allentown, Pennsylvania. The complaint, as amended, alleged 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 
semiconductor integrated circuits using tungsten metallization and 
products containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more 
of claims 1, 3, and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 5,227,335. The amended 
complaint named numerous respondents. Several respondents have been 
terminated from the investigation due to settlement or failure to name 
the proper party. The following six respondents remain in the 
investigation: Tower Semiconductor, Ltd. (``Tower'') of Israel; Jazz 
Semiconductor (``Jazz'') of Newport Beach, California; Powerchip 
Semiconductor Corporation of Taiwan; Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing 
Corporation of China; Integrated Device Technology, Inc. of San Jose, 
California; and Nanya Technology Corporation of Taiwan. The complaint 
further alleged that an industry in the United States exists as 
required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
    On September 21, 2009, the ALJ issued his final ID finding no 
violation of section 337 by the remaining respondents. On November 23, 
2009, the Commission issued notice of its determination to review-in-
part the ID and issued an order remanding the investigation to the ALJ 
for further proceedings relating to whether claim 4 is rendered obvious 
by IBM Process A in light of the other prior art asserted by 
respondents and the Commission investigative attorney (``IA''). 
Specifically, the Commission determined to review: (1) Invalidity of 
claims 1, 3, and 4 of the `335 patent under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) & 103 with 
respect to IBM Process A, IBM Process B, and the AMD prior art; and (2) 
Jazz's stipulation regarding whether its process meets the complete, 
third recited step of claim 1, i.e., ``depositing a tungsten layer by 
chemical vapor deposition, said tungsten layer covering said glue layer 
on said dielectric and said exposed material.'' The Commission 
determined not to review the remainder of the ID. Also, the Commission 
requested written submissions on the ALJ's remand determination and 
responses to the written submissions, and briefing on remedy, the 
public interest, and bonding.
    On January 15, 2010, the ALJ issued his remand ID finding that 
claim 4 is not rendered obvious by IBM Process A and other prior art 
asserted by respondents and the IA. On February 2 and 12, 2010, 
respectively, complainants and respondents each filed a brief and reply 
brief on the issues for which the Commission requested written 
submissions. On February 2 and 16, 2010, respectively, the IA filed a 
brief and a reply brief on the issues for which the Commission 
requested written submissions. Also, on February 12, 2010, Tower and 
Jazz filed a joint, separate reply brief.
    Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the 
remand and final IDs and the parties' written submissions, the 
Commission has determined to reverse the remand ID, and affirm-in-part, 
reverse-in-part, and modify-in-part the final ID. The Commission has 
determined that there is no violation of section 337 by the remaining 
respondents. Particularly, the Commission has reversed the ALJ's 
finding that claim 4 is invalid due to anticipation in view of IBM 
Process A, but has found claim 4 to be invalid due to obviousness in 
view of IBM Process A in combination with the other prior art asserted 
by the IA and respondents. Also, the Commission has affirmed the ALJ's 
finding that claims 1 and 3 are invalid due to anticipation in view of 
IBM Process A. The Commission has also modified the ALJ's ruling that 
Jazz stipulated to the complete, third recited step of claim 1, and 
instead it has determined that Jazz's stipulation to the third step 
only includes the step of ``depositing a tungsten layer by chemical 
vapor deposition.'' The Commission has determined to take no position 
on the ALJ's rulings that claims 1 and 3 are not anticipated in view of 
IBM Process B, claim 1 is not anticipated in view of the AMD prior art, 
and claims 1, 3, and/or 4 are not obvious in view of IBM Process B or 
the AMD prior art.
    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 210.45 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure 
(19 CFR 210.45).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 22, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-6757 Filed 3-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P