Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 62/Thursday, April 1, 2010/Notices
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices 16507 (a) The quantity and value (landed, likely to occur within a reasonably Violation of Section 337 (‘‘ID’’) and duty-paid but not including foreseeable time. Supply conditions to Recommended Determination on antidumping or countervailing duties) consider include technology; Remedy and Bond finding that of U.S. imports and, if known, an production methods; development Respondents violated section 337 of the estimate of the percentage of total U.S. efforts; ability to increase production Tariff Act of 1930 by importation into imports of Subject Merchandise from (including the shift of production the United States, the sale for each Subject Country accounted for by facilities used for other products and the importation, or the sale within the your firm’s(s’) imports; use, cost, or availability of major inputs United States after importation, of (b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. into production); and factors related to certain semiconductor chips having port, including antidumping and/or the ability to shift supply among synchronous dynamic random access countervailing duties) of U.S. different national markets (including memory controllers and products commercial shipments of Subject barriers to importation in foreign containing same by reason of Merchandise imported from each markets or changes in market demand infringement of one or more claims of Subject Country; and abroad). Demand conditions to consider U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,405 (‘‘the ’405 (c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. include end uses and applications; the patent’’), 6,591,353 (‘‘the ’353 patent’’), port, including antidumping and/or existence and availability of substitute and 7,287,109 (‘‘the ’109 patent’’). countervailing duties) of U.S. internal products; and the level of competition FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul consumption/company transfers of among the Domestic Like Product M. Bartkowski, Office of the General Subject Merchandise imported from produced in the United States, Subject Counsel, U.S. International Trade each Subject Country. Merchandise produced in the Subject Commission, 500 E Street, SW., (11) If you are a producer, an exporter, Country(ies), and such merchandise Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) or a trade/business association of from other countries. 708–5432. Copies of non-confidential producers or exporters of the Subject (13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of documents filed in connection with this Merchandise in the Subject whether you agree with the above investigation are or will be available for Country(ies), provide the following definitions of the Domestic Like Product inspection during official business information on your firm’s(s’) and Domestic Industry; if you disagree hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the operations on that product during with either or both of these definitions, calendar year 2009 (report quantity data Office of the Secretary, U.S. please explain why and provide International Trade Commission, 500 E in short tons and value data in U.S. alternative definitions. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, U.S. port but not including antidumping Authority: These reviews are being telephone (202) 205–2000. General or countervailing duties). If you are a conducted under authority of title VII of the information concerning the Commission trade/business association, provide the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published may also be obtained by accessing its pursuant to section 207.61 of the Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. information, on an aggregate basis, for Commission’s rules. the firms which are members of your The public record for this investigation association. Issued: March 19, 2010. may be viewed on the Commission’s (a) Production (quantity) and, if By order of the Commission. electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// known, an estimate of the percentage of Marilyn R. Abbott, edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired total production of Subject Merchandise Secretary to the Commission. persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by in each Subject Country accounted for [FR Doc. 2010–6623 Filed 3–31–10; 8:45 am] contacting the Commission’s TDD by your firm’s(s’) production; and BILLING CODE 7020–02–P (b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to terminal on (202) 205–1810. produce the Subject Merchandise in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The each Subject Country (i.e., the level of INTERNATIONAL TRADE Commission instituted Inv. No. 337– production that your establishment(s) COMMISSION TA–661 on December 10, 2008, based could reasonably have expected to on a complaint filed by Rambus, Inc. of attain during the year, assuming normal [Investigation No. 337–TA–661] Los Altos, California (‘‘Rambus’’). 73 FR 75131–2. The complaint, as amended operating conditions (using equipment In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor and supplemented, alleges violations of and machinery in place and ready to Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as operate), normal operating levels (hours Random Access Memory Controllers amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section per week/weeks per year), time for and Products Containing Same; Notice 337’’), in the importation into the United downtime, maintenance, repair, and of Commission Determination To States, the sale for importation, and the cleanup, and a typical or representative Review in Part an Initial Determination sale within the United States after product mix); and Finding Respondents in Violation of importation of certain electronic devices (c) the quantity and value of your Section 337; Denial of Respondents’ by reason of infringement of certain firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of Joint Motion To Extend Target Date; claims of the ’353 patent, the ’405 Subject Merchandise and, if known, an Schedule for Briefing on the Issues on patent, the ’109 patent, as well as estimate of the percentage of total Review and on Remedy, Public certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. exports to the United States of Subject Interest, and Bonding Merchandise from each Subject Country 7,117,998 (‘‘the ’998 patent); 7,210,016 accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. AGENCY: U.S. International Trade (‘‘the ’016 patent’’); 7,287,119 (‘‘the ’119 (12) Identify significant changes, if Commission. patent’’); 7,330,952 (‘‘the ’952 patent’’); any, in the supply and demand ACTION: Notice. 7,330,953 (‘‘the ’953 patent’’); and conditions or business cycle for the 7,360,050 (‘‘the ’050 patent’’). The Domestic Like Product that have SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Commission’s notice of investigation occurred in the United States or in the the U.S. International Trade named the following respondents: market for the Subject Merchandise in Commission has determined to review NVIDIA Corporation of Santa Clara, the Subject Country(ies) after 2004, and in part the presiding administrative law California; Asustek Computer, Inc. of significant changes, if any, that are judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) Initial Determination on Taipei, Taiwan; ASUS Computer VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:51 Mar 31, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM 01APN1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES 16508 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices International, Inc. of Fremont, patents have been obvious to one of directly competitive with those that are California; BFG Technologies, Inc. of ordinary skill in the art at the time of subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. Lake Forest, Illinois; Biostar Microtech invention? In your answer, please consumers. The Commission is (USA) Corp. of City of Industry, identify which claim element(s), if any, therefore interested in receiving written California; Biostar Microtech are not disclosed in the Coteus reference submissions that address the International Corp. of Hsin Ten, Taiwan; but would have been obvious to one of aforementioned public interest factors Diablotek Inc. of Alhambra, California; ordinary skill in the art. in the context of this investigation. EVGA Corp. of Brea, California; G.B.T. Regarding the issue of obviousness- If the Commission orders some form Inc. of City of Industry, California; Giga- type double patenting of the Barth I of remedy, the U.S. Trade byte Technology Co., Ltd. of Taipei, claims: Representative, as delegated by the Taiwan; Hewlett-Packard Co. of Palo Under the facts as found by the ALJ, President, has 60 days to approve or Alto, California; MSI Computer Corp. of do the differences in scope of the disapprove the Commission’s action. City of Industry, California; Micro-star asserted Barth I patent claims and the See Presidential Memorandum of July International Co., Ltd. of Taipei, claims of the Farmwald ‘037 patent 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). Taiwan; Palit Multimedia Inc. of San render the asserted Barth I claims During this period, the subject articles Jose, California; Palit Microsystems Ltd. patentably distinct? would be entitled to enter the United of Taipei, Taiwan; Pine Technology Regarding obviousness with respect to States under bond, in an amount Holdings, Ltd. of Hong Kong and the asserted Barth I claims: determined by the Commission and Sparkle Computer Co. of Taipei, Taiwan (1) What are the differences between prescribed by the Secretary of the (referred to collectively as the scope and content of the asserted Treasury. The Commission is therefore ‘‘Respondents’’). prior art and the asserted Barth I claims? interested in receiving submissions On July 13, 2009, the Commission (2) What is the appropriate skill level concerning the amount of the bond that issued a notice terminating the ’119, of one of ordinary skill in the art? should be imposed if a remedy is ’952, ’953, and ’050 patents and certain (3) In light of the underlying facts, ordered. claims of the ‘109 patent from the would the asserted claims of the Barth Written Submissions: The parties to investigation.