`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN INTEGRATED CIRCUITS AND
`PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1272
`
`INITIAL DETERMINATION GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO
`TERMINATE INVESTIGATION NO. 337-TA-1272 BASED ON
`SETTLEMENT
`
`
`ORDER NO. 24:
`
`
`
`
`
`(July 25, 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.”). On July
`
`21, 2022, Complainants and Respondents filed a revised public version of the Agreement
`
`pursuant to Order No. 23. EDIS Doc. ID 776010.
`
`
`
`
`
`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).
`
`
`
`The pending motion for termination complies with the Commission Rules. In particular,
`
`the parties have provided confidential and public versions of the Agreement in compliance with
`
`Commission Rule 201.6. See EDIS Doc. IDs 775154, 776010. Additionally, the parties state,
`
`“[t]he Agreement fully resolves the disputed issues in this Investigation and is binding on the
`
`Parties” and “there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between them
`
`concerning the subject matter of this proceeding.” Mot. at 1-2. Moreover, there are no
`
`extraordinary circumstances that warrant denying the motion.
`
`
`
`With respect to the public interest, the Commission Rules provide that when considering
`
`a motion to terminate based upon a settlement agreement, the Administrative Law Judge “shall
`
`consider and make appropriate findings in the initial determination regarding the effect of the
`
`proposed settlement on the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S.
`
`economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and U.S.
`
`consumers.” 19 C.F.R. § 210.50(b)(2). The motion argues termination “will not adversely
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`
`
`affect the public interest because it will not affect the public health and welfare, competitive
`
`conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the
`
`United States, or U.S. consumers” and will “preserve resources for both the Commission and the
`
`private parties.” Mot. at 2. This argument having been considered, there is no evidence
`
`indicating that terminating this investigation based on the settlement agreement would be
`
`contrary to the public interest.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the motion to terminate (1272-016) is granted. The investigation is hereby
`
`terminated in its entirety. This Initial Determination, the underlying motion to terminate, and
`
`agreement appurtenant thereto are certified to the Commission.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.42(h), this Initial Determination shall be the determination
`
`of the Commission thirty (30) days after the date of service of the initial determination, unless a
`
`party files a petition for review of the Initial Determination within five (5) business days after
`
`service of the initial determination pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.43(a), or the Commission,
`
`pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.44, orders, on its own motion, a review of the Initial Determination
`
`or certain issues herein. Any issue or argument not raised in a petition for review, or response
`
`thereto, will be deemed to have been abandoned and may be disregarded by the Commission in
`
`reviewing the Initial Determination pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §§ 210.43(b) and (c).
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cameron Elliot
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`3
`
`
`