[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 248 (Thursday, December 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78382-78383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30753]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-841]
Certain Computers and Computer Peripheral Devices, and Components
Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Commission Determination
Terminating the Investigation With a Finding of No Violation of Section
337
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to terminate the above-captioned
investigation with a finding of no violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337.
[[Page 78383]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. 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 this investigation
on May 2, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Technology Properties
Limited, LLC (``TPL'') of Cupertino, California. 77 FR 26041 (May 2,
2012). 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
certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,976,623 (``the '623 patent''),
7,162,549 (``the '549 patent''), 7,295,443 (``the '443 patent''),
7,522,424 (``the '424 patent''), 6,438,638 (``the '638 patent''), and
7,719,847 (``the '847 patent''). The complaint further alleged the
existence of a domestic industry. The notice of investigation named
twenty-one respondents, some of whom have since settled from the
investigation. As a result of these settlements, the '638 patent is no
longer at issue, as it has not been asserted against the remaining
respondents. The remaining respondents are Acer Inc. of New Taipei
City, Taiwan; Canon Inc. of Toyko, Japan; Hewlett-Packard Company of
Palo Alto, California; HiTi Digital, Inc. of New Taipei City, Taiwan;
Kingston Technology Company, Inc. of Fountain Valley, California;
Newegg, Inc. and Rosewill Inc., both of City of Industry, California;
and Seiko Epson Corporation of Nagano, Japan.
On October 4, 2012, the ALJ issued a Markman order construing
disputed claim terms of the asserted patents. Order No. 23. On January
7-11, 2013, the ALJ conducted an evidentiary hearing, and on August 2,
2013, the ALJ issued the final ID. The ALJ found that TPL demonstrated
the existence of a domestic industry, as required by 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(2), through TPL's licensing investment under 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(3)(C). ID at 152-55. The ALJ rejected TPL's domestic-industry
showing based upon OnSpec Electronic, Inc.'s research and development,
and engineering investments under section 337(a)(3)(C), as well as
subsections (a)(3)(A) and (a)(3)(B). Id. at 155-57.
The ALJ found that the respondents had not shown that any of the
asserted patent claims are invalid. However, the ALJ found that TPL
demonstrated infringement of the '623 patent, and not the other
patents. With respect to the '623 patent, the ALJ found that TPL
demonstrated direct infringement of the asserted apparatus claims
(claims 1-4 and 9-12). Accordingly, the ALJ found a violation of
section 337 by the four respondents accused of infringing these
apparatus claims.
On August 19, 2013, the parties filed petitions for review, and on
August 27, 2013, the parties filed responses to each other's petitions.
On October 24, 2013, the Commission issued a notice that determined
to review the ID in its entirety. The Commission notice invited
briefing from the parties on five enumerated topics, and briefing from
the parties and written submissions on remedy, the public interest, and
bonding. On November 7, 2013, the parties filed opening briefs and
written submissions, and non-party Intel Corp. filed a submission on
remedy and the public interest. On November 15, 2013, the parties filed
responses to each other's filings.
On December 11, 2013, TPL and Acer filed a joint motion to
terminate the investigation as to Acer on the basis of a settlement
agreement. Having examined the record of this investigation, including
the December 11, 2013 motion and exhibits thereto, the Commission has
determined to grant the motion to terminate the investigation as to
Acer. See 19 CFR 210.21. The Commission finds that settlements are
generally within the public interest and that terminating Acer will not
cause an adverse effect 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, or U.S. consumers. See 19
CFR 210.50(b)(2).
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto,
and the briefing in response to the notice of review, the Commission
has determined to terminate the investigation with a finding of no
violation of section 337.
The Commission has determined to find no violation of section 337
for the following reasons. For the '623 patent, the Commission adopts
the respondents' proposed construction of ``accessible in parallel.''
The Commission therefore reverses the ID's finding of infringement as
to that patent. Based upon that claim construction, the Commission also
finds that TPL has not demonstrated the existence of an article
protected by the '623 patent. The Commission finds that the Federal
Circuit's decisions in InterDigital Communications, LLC v. ITC, 690
F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012), 707 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013) and
Microsoft Corp. v. ITC, 731 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013), require a
complainant to make such a demonstration regardless of whether the
domestic industry is alleged to exist under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A),
(B), or (C).
For the '443, `424, and '847 patents, the Commission affirms the
ID's determination that TPL failed to demonstrate that the accused
products infringe the asserted claims. The Commission also finds for
these three patents that TPL failed to demonstrate the existence of a
domestic industry because it failed to demonstrate the existence of
articles practicing these patents.
TPL did not raise the '549 patent in its petition for review. 19
CFR 210.43(b)(2). The Commission affirms the ID's noninfringement
finding, and its finding that TPL failed to show that its domestic
industry products meet certain claim limitations.
The reasons for the Commission's determinations will be set forth
more fully in the Commission's opinion.
Commissioner Aranoff dissents from the Commission's finding that
TPL was required to demonstrate the existence of articles practicing
the asserted patents in order to show a domestic industry based on
licensing under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C).
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, 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: December 19, 2013.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-30753 Filed 12-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P