[Federal Register: October 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 199)]
[Notices]
[Page 60753]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16oc06-73]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337-TA-559]
In the Matter of Certain Digital Processors and Digital
Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same;
Notice of Commission Decision To Review-In-Part the Presiding
Administrative Law Judge's Initial Determination Granting Respondents'
Motion for Summary Determination of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No.
5,021,945
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 initial determination
(``ID'') of the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') issued on
September 6, 2006, in the above-captioned investigation under section
337 of the Tariff Act as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337. Specifically, the
Commission has determined to review the issues of (1) claim
construction of the limitations ``logical processor number'' and
``added to each instruction,'' (2) whether there are genuine issues of
material fact precluding summary determination, and (3) the ALJ's
interpretation of the law concerning the doctrine of equivalents.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christal A. Sheppard, Esq., telephone
202-708-2301, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Copies of all 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 (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.
Hearing-impaired persons are advised that
information on the matter can be obtained by contacting the
Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This investigation was instituted on January
17, 2006, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Biax Corporation
(``Biax'') of Boulder, Colorado. 71 FR 2565 (January 17, 2006). The
complaint asserts a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, sale for
importation, or sale within the United States after importation of
certain digital processors and digital processing systems, components
thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of
one or more claims of three U.S. patents including U.S. Patent No.
5,021,945 (``the `945 patent''). 71 FR 2565 (January 17, 2006). The
notice of investigation named five respondents but was subsequently
amended first to remove and then to add respondents. Currently, the
named respondents are: Philips Semiconductor, Inc.; Philips Electronics
North America Corp.; Philips Consumer Electronics B.V.; Philips
Semiconductors B.V. (collectively, ``Philips''); and 2Wire, Inc. of San
Jose, California.
On August 7, 2006, Philips moved for summary determination of non-
infringement of the three patents at issue. On August 11, 2006,
respondent 2Wire filed a motion to join Philips' motion for summary
determination. The Commission investigative attorney (``IA'') and Biax
opposed the motion for summary determination. On September 6, 2006, the
ALJ issued the subject ID granting Philips' motion as to only one of
the three asserted patents, the `945 patent. Philips filed a petition
for review on September 13, 2006. On September 14, 2006, the IA filed a
request to file his petition for review one day past the due date.
Neither Biax nor Philips opposes this request. On September 20, 2006,
Philips filed combined oppositions to Biax's and the IA's petitions. On
September 21, 2006, Biax filed a supplement to its petition for review.
On September 28, 2006, respondents opposed the supplement. The
Commission's rules do not provide for additional filings unless
requested by the Commission. 19 CFR 210.43(d)(2). Therefore, we have
not considered the supplement or the response. Whether the additional
filings should be admitted into the record is an evidentiary matter
that we leave, in the first instance, to the ALJ.
The Commission, having examined the petitions for review, the
responses thereto, and the relevant portions of the record has
determined to review the following issues: (1) Claim construction of
the limitations ``logical processor number'' and ``added to each
instruction,'' (2) whether there are genuine issues of material fact
precluding summary determination, and (3) the ALJ's interpretation of
the law concerning the doctrine of equivalents. The Commission has also
granted the IA's request to file his petition out of time.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and sections 210.43
and 210.45(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 210.43 and 210.45(c)).
Issued: October 10, 2006.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E6-17131 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P