By John PresperOn December 6, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 9 (dated October 24, 2012) granting Complainants Elpida Memory, Inc. and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc.'s ("EMUSA") (collectively, "Elpida") unopposed motion for summary determination that the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement is satisfied in Certain Semiconductor Chips with DRAM Circuitry, and Modules and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-819).
According to the Order, Elpida alleged that EMUSA made significant investments in plant, equipment, labor and capital that is directly attributable to products protected by each of the six asserted patents in the investigation. Elpida also relied on activities of EMUSA's Quality Assurance Group, Application Engineering Group, and MNA Sales Group to support its domestic industry assertions. The motion was unopposed and no responses were filed. Acordingly, ALJ Gildea granted the motion, noting that he was not making a finding at this time with respect to the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.