[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 62 (Thursday, April 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16507-16509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7279]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-661]


In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous 
Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Products Containing Same; 
Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Part an Initial 
Determination Finding Respondents in Violation of Section 337; Denial 
of Respondents' Joint Motion To Extend Target Date; Schedule for 
Briefing on the Issues on Review and on Remedy, Public Interest, and 
Bonding

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to review in part the presiding 
administrative law judge's (``ALJ'') Initial Determination on Violation 
of Section 337 (``ID'') and Recommended Determination on Remedy and 
Bond finding that Respondents violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930 by importation into the United States, the sale for importation, 
or the sale within the United States after importation, of certain 
semiconductor chips having synchronous dynamic random access memory 
controllers and products containing same by reason of infringement of 
one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,405 (``the '405 patent''), 
6,591,353 (``the '353 patent''), and 7,287,109 (``the '109 patent'').

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul M. Bartkowski, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5432. 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 Inv. No. 337-TA-
661 on December 10, 2008, based on a complaint filed by Rambus, Inc. of 
Los Altos, California (``Rambus''). 73 FR 75131-2. The complaint, as 
amended and supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''), in 
the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and 
the sale within the United States after importation of certain 
electronic devices by reason of infringement of certain claims of the 
'353 patent, the '405 patent, the '109 patent, as well as certain 
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,117,998 (``the '998 patent); 7,210,016 
(``the '016 patent''); 7,287,119 (``the '119 patent''); 7,330,952 
(``the '952 patent''); 7,330,953 (``the '953 patent''); and 7,360,050 
(``the '050 patent''). The Commission's notice of investigation named 
the following respondents: NVIDIA Corporation of Santa Clara, 
California; Asustek Computer, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; ASUS Computer

[[Page 16508]]

International, Inc. of Fremont, California; BFG Technologies, Inc. of 
Lake Forest, Illinois; Biostar Microtech (USA) Corp. of City of 
Industry, California; Biostar Microtech International Corp. of Hsin 
Ten, Taiwan; Diablotek Inc. of Alhambra, California; EVGA Corp. of 
Brea, California; G.B.T. Inc. of City of Industry, California; Giga-
byte Technology Co., Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan; Hewlett-Packard Co. of 
Palo Alto, California; MSI Computer Corp. of City of Industry, 
California; Micro-star International Co., Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan; Palit 
Multimedia Inc. of San Jose, California; Palit Microsystems Ltd. of 
Taipei, Taiwan; Pine Technology Holdings, Ltd. of Hong Kong and Sparkle 
Computer Co. of Taipei, Taiwan (referred to collectively as 
``Respondents'').
    On July 13, 2009, the Commission issued a notice terminating the 
'119, '952, '953, and '050 patents and certain claims of the `109 
patent from the investigation.
    On January 22, 2010, the ALJ issued his ID on Violation of Section 
337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond. The ALJ found 
that Respondents violated section 337 by importing certain 
semiconductor chips having synchronous dynamic random access memory 
controllers and products containing same with respect to various claims 
of the '405, '353, and '109 patents. The ALJ determined that there was 
no violation of section 337 with respect to the asserted '016 and '998 
patent claims.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID and the submissions of the parties, the Commission has 
determined to review the final ID in part, to reject Rambus's petition 
to vacate Order No. 15, and to deny Respondents' motion to extend the 
target date. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review (1) 
the ID's anticipation and obviousness findings with respect to the Ware 
patents; (2) the ID's obviousness-type double patenting analysis 
regarding the asserted Barth I claims; and (3) the ID's analysis of the 
alleged obviousness of the asserted Barth I claims. The Commission 
requests briefing based on the evidentiary record on these issues. The 
Commission is particularly interested in concise responses to the 
following questions:
    Regarding the Ware patents:
    (1) What are the differences between the scope and content of the 
Coteus patent and the asserted Ware claims?
    (2) What is the appropriate skill level of one of ordinary skill in 
the art?
    (3) In light of the underlying facts, would the asserted claims of 
the Ware patents have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art 
at the time of invention? In your answer, please identify which claim 
element(s), if any, are not disclosed in the Coteus reference but would 
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
    Regarding the issue of obviousness-type double patenting of the 
Barth I claims:
    Under the facts as found by the ALJ, do the differences in scope of 
the asserted Barth I patent claims and the claims of the Farmwald `037 
patent render the asserted Barth I claims patentably distinct?
    Regarding obviousness with respect to the asserted Barth I claims:
    (1) What are the differences between the scope and content of the 
asserted prior art and the asserted Barth I claims?
    (2) What is the appropriate skill level of one of ordinary skill in 
the art?
    (3) In light of the underlying facts, would the asserted claims of 
the Barth I patents have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the 
art at the time of invention?
    Please address only those references and combinations of references 
that were properly preserved under the ALJ's Ground Rule 11.1.
    Furthermore, in connection with the final disposition of this 
investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result 
in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United 
States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease-and-desist orders that could 
result in the respondent being required to cease and desist from 
engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. 
Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written 
submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be 
ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the 
United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party 
should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities 
involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or 
likely to do so. For background, see In the Matter of Certain Devices 
for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, 
USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994) (Commission Opinion).
    If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must 
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The 
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an 
exclusion order and/or cease-and-desist orders would have on (1) the 
public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. 
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly 
competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. 
consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written 
submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in 
the context of this investigation.
    If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade 
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve 
or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of 
July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the 
subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under 
bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the 
Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in 
receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be 
imposed if a remedy is ordered.
    Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested 
to file written submissions on the issues under review. The submissions 
should be concise and thoroughly referenced to the record in this 
investigation, including references to exhibits and testimony. 
Additionally, 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 recommended determination 
by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. Further, regarding the potential 
issuance of a general exclusion order, the Commission requests briefing 
specific to whether the statutory criteria set forth in section 
337(d)(2) are met in this investigation. Complainants and the 
Commission investigative attorney are also requested to submit proposed 
remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainants are 
also requested to state the dates that the patents expire and the HTSUS 
numbers under which the accused products are imported. The written 
submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than 
close of business on April 6, 2010. Reply submissions must be filed no 
later than the close of business on April 15, 2010. 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

[[Page 16509]]

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 
201.6. 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 210.42-43 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-43).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 25, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-7279 Filed 3-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P