[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37067-37068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15005]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-741/749]
Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors,
Televisions, Modules, and Components Thereof; Final Determination of No
Violation of Section 337 With Respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,978,063;
5,648,674; 5,621,556; and 5,375,006 and Termination of the
Investigation as to Those Patents and Remand of the Investigation as to
U.S. Patent No. 6,121,941
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to reverse the determination of the presiding
administrative law judge (``ALJ'') that found a violation of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 with respect to U.S. Patent No. 5,648,674
(``the '674 patent''), and to affirm, with modifications, the
determination of the ALJ that found no violation with respect to U.S.
Patent Nos. 5,978,063 (``the '063 patent''); 5,648,674 (``the `674
patent''); 5,621,556 (``the '556 patent''); and 5,375,006 (``the '006
patent''). The Commission hereby terminates the investigation with a
finding of no violation as to the '006, '063, '556 and '674 patents.
With respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,121,941 (``the '941 patent''), the
Commission has determined to issue a remand to the ALJ to determine
whether the asserted claims are invalid in view of the ViewFrame II+2
prior art.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jia Chen, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4737. Copies of 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 at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed
on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.
Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter
can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202)
205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-
741 on October 18, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Thomson
Licensing SAS of France and Thomson Licensing LLC of Princeton, New
Jersey (collectively ``Thomson''). 75 FR 63856 (Oct. 18, 2010). The
complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of infringement of various claims
of the '941,'063,'674,'556; and '006 patents. The Commission instituted
Inv. No. 337-TA-749 on November 30, 2010, based on a complaint filed by
Thomson. 75 FR 74080 (Nov. 30, 2010). The complaint alleged violations
of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by reason of infringement of
various claims of the '063, '556, and '006 patents. On January 5, 2011,
the Commission consolidated the two investigations. The respondents are
Chimei InnoLux Corporation of Miaoli County, Taiwan and InnoLux
Corportation of Austin, Texas (collectively, ``CMI''); MStar
Semiconductor Inc. of ChuPei, Taiwan (``MStar''); Qisda Corporation of
Taoyuan, Taiwan and Qisda America Corporation of Irvine, California
(collectively, ``Qisda''); and BenQ Corporation of Taipei, Taiwan, BenQ
America Corporation of Irvine, California, and BenQ Latin America
Corporation of Miami, Florida (collectively ``BenQ''); Realtek
Semicondustor Corp. of Hsinchu, Taiwan (``Realtek''); and AU Optronics
Corp. of Hsinchu, Taiwan and AU Optronics Corp. America of Houston,
Texas (collectively ``AUO'').
On January 12, 2012, the ALJ issued the subject ID finding a
violation of Section 337 with respect to the '674 patent. The ALJ found
that the CMI accused products including the Type 2 Array Circuitry and
any Qisda or BenQ accused products incorporating these CMI accused
products infringe the asserted claims of the '674 patent. The ALJ found
that no other accused products infringe the '674 patent. The ALJ also
found that no accused products infringe the asserted claims of the '063
patent, the '006 patent, the '556 patent, or the '941 patent. The ALJ
also found that claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 18 of the '063
patent are invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, and that claims
4 and 14 of the '006 patent are invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
102. The ALJ further found that claim 17 of the '063 patent, claim 7 of
the '006 patent, and the asserted claims of the '556 patent, the '674
patent, and the '941 patent are not invalid. The ALJ concluded that a
domestic industry exists in the United States that exploits the
asserted patents as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2). On January 25,
2011, Thomson, CMI, MStar, Realtek, and AUO each filed a petition for
review of the ID. BenQ and Qisda filed a joint petition for review
incorporating the other respondents' arguments by reference.
On March 26, 2012 the Commission determined to review (1) Claim
construction of the limitation ``layer'' of the asserted claims of the
'006 patent; (2) infringement of the asserted claims of the '006
patent; (3) anticipation of claims 4 and 7 of the '006 patent by
Scheuble; (4) the claim construction of the limitations ``mechanically
rubbing''/``mechanically rubbed,'' ``a plurality of spacing elements,''
and ``an affixing layer'' of the asserted claims of the '063 patent;
(5) infringement of the asserted claims of the '063 patent; (6)
obviousness of the asserted claims of the '063 patent in view of Sugata
and Tsuboyama; (7) whether Lowe and Miyazaki are prior art to the
asserted claims of the '063 patent; (8) anticipation of the asserted
claims of the '063 patent by Lowe; (9) anticipation of the asserted
claims of the '063 patent by Miyazaki; (10) obviousness of the asserted
claim of the '556 patent in view of Takizawa and Possin; (11)
anticipation and obviousness of the asserted claims of the '674 patent
in view of Fujitsu; (12) claim construction of the ``second rate''
``determined by'' limitation of the asserted claims of the '941 patent
and the ``input video signal'' limitation of claim 4 of the '941
patent; (13) infringement of the asserted claims of the '941 patent;
(14) anticipation of the asserted claims of the '941 patent by Baba;
(15) exclusion of evidence of the ViewFrame II+2 LCD Panel; and (16)
economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.
On March 26, 2012, the Commission also determined to review and to
take no position on the claim construction of the terms ``drain
electrodes'' and ``source electrodes'' of the '556 patent. The
Commission requested briefing from the parties on the issues on review,
as well as on remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID and the submissions of the parties,
[[Page 37068]]
the Commission has determined to reverse the ALJ's finding of violation
of section 337 by the '674 patent and affirm, with modifications, the
findings of no violation of section 337 as to the '006, '063 and '566
patents. Specifically, the Commission finds that the asserted claims of
the `674 patent are infringed by respondents CMI, Qsida, and BenQ, and
that respondents have shown that claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 16, 17, and 18 of
the '674 patent are anticipated by Fujitsu and that claims 9, 11, and
13 are obvious in view of Fujitsu and the knowledge of one of ordinary
skill in the art. The Commission also finds that (a) Respondents do not
infringe the asserted claims of the '006 patent; (b) Scheuble does not
anticipate claims 4 and 7 of the '006 patent; (c) respondent AUO,
Qsida, and BenQ infringe claims 11, 12, 14, 17, and 18, but not the
remaining asserted claims of the '063 patent; (d) respondent CMI does
not infringe the asserted claims of the '063 patent; (e) the '063
patent are obvious in view of Sugata and Tsuboyama; (f) Lowe and
Miyazaki are prior art to claims 1-4 and 8 of the '063 patent, but not
the remaining asserted claims of the '063 patent; (g) respondents have
not shown that Lowe anticipates the asserted claims of the '063 patent;
(h) Miyazaki anticipates claims 11, 12, 14, 17, and 18 of the '063
patent, but not any of the remaining asserted claims of the '063
patent; (i) respondents have not shown that claim 3 of the '556 patent
is obvious in view of Takizawa and Possin; and (j) complainant
satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under
19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). Therefore, the investigation is terminated
with a finding of no violation as to the '006, '063, '556 and '674
patents. With respect to the '941 patent, the Commission affirms that
(a) respondents do not infringe the asserted claims of the `941 patent;
and (b) respondents have not shown that the asserted claims of the `941
patent are obvious in view of Baba. The Commission reverses the ALJ's
ruling to exclude from the record evidence of the ViewFrame II+2 prior
art, and remands to the ALJ to decide whether the ViewFrame II+2
anticipates the asserted claims of the '941 patent (the Commission
notes that this patent expires on August 26, 2012).
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and
in sections 210.42-46 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46 and 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: June 14, 2012.
Lisa Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-15005 Filed 6-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P