`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN INTEGRATED CIRCUITS AND
`PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1272
`
`
`ORDER NO. 23:
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER CONCERNING JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE
`INVESTIGATION NO. 337-TA-1272 BASED ON SETTLEMENT
`
`(July 18, 2022)
`
`On July 12, 2022, complainants MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek USA Inc. (collectively,
`
`“MediaTek” or “Complainants”) and Respondents NXP Semiconductors N.V. and NXP USA,
`
`Inc. (collectively, “NXP”), Avnet, Inc. (“Avnet”), Arrow Electronics, Inc. (“Arrow”), Mouser
`
`Electronics, Inc. (“Mouser”), Continental AG, Continental Automotive GmbH and Continental
`
`Automotive Systems, Inc. (collectively “Continental”), and Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert
`
`Bosch LLC (collectively “Bosch”) (all collectively, “Respondents”) moved (1272-016) pursuant
`
`to 19 C.F.R. § 210.21(b) to terminate the investigation a settlement agreement (“the
`
`Agreement”). The motion attaches the Agreement (Mot., Ex. A) and was filed in confidential
`
`and public statuses (EDIS Doc. IDs 775154, 775156). On July 14, 2022, the Commission
`
`Investigative Staff (“Staff”) filed a statement in support of the termination but noted certain
`
`concerns about the redactions to the public version of the Agreement (“Staff Resp.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`Commission Rule 210.21(b) provides, in relevant part:
`
`An investigation before the Commission may be terminated as to
`one or more respondents pursuant to section 337(c) of the Tariff
`Act of 1930 on the basis of a licensing or other settlement
`agreement. The motion for termination by settlement shall contain
`copies of the licensing or other settlement agreements, any
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`supplemental agreements, any documents referenced in the motion
`or attached agreements, and a statement that there are no other
`agreements, written or oral, express or implied between the parties
`concerning the subject matter of the investigation. If the licensing
`or other settlement agreement contains confidential business
`information within the meaning of § 201.6(a) of this chapter, a
`copy of the agreement with such information deleted shall
`accompany the motion. On motion for good cause shown,
`the administrative
`law
`judge may
`limit
`the service of
`the
`agreements to the settling parties and the Commission investigative
`attorney.
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.21(b)(1); see 19 C.F.R. § 210.21(a)(1).
`
`
`
`The pending motion does not currently comply with the above Commission Rule as the
`
`proposed public version of the Agreement is over-redacted. As just one example, and as the
`
`Staff observes, “the title of Articles III, IV, and V have been redacted as has ‘Article III’ itself. .
`
`. [and] while the entire section describing the scope of the rights transferred has been concealed,
`
`much of this language appears to be ‘boilerplate license terminology’ that does not qualify as
`
`confidential business information within the meaning of Commission Rule 201.6.” Staff Resp.
`
`at 5-6. These redactions are inconsistent with Commission Rule 201.6 which only permits
`
`confidential treatment for information whose disclosure would impair the Commission’s mission
`
`or cause substantial harm to the information’s source. See 19 C.F.R. § 201.6(a)(1).
`
`Accordingly, the parties are hereby ordered to revise and refile the non-confidential
`
`version of the Agreement required by Commission Rules 210.21(a)(2) and 210.21(b)(1), and in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`accordance with Commission Rule 201.6, by July 25, 2022. The pending motion for termination
`
`
`
`(1272-016) will be ruled upon shortly thereafter.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cameron Elliot
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`3
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
