In the Matter of Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Final Determination of No Violation of Section 337 as to Five Patents and Violation of Section 337 as to Three Patents; Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order; Termination of Investigation, 2958 [E6-429]

Agencies

• INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 2958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-429]



[[Page 2958]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-512]


In the Matter of Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products 
Containing Same; Notice of Commission Final Determination of No 
Violation of Section 337 as to Five Patents and Violation of Section 
337 as to Three Patents; Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order; 
Termination of Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined that there is no violation of 19 U.S.C. 1337 
by Dominant Semiconductors Sdn. Bhd. (``Dominant'') with respect to 
United States Patent Nos. 6,066,861, 6,277,301, 6,613,247, 6,245,259, 
and 6,592,780 (collectively, the ``Particle Size Patents''); that there 
is a violation by Dominant with respect to United States Patent Nos. 
6,376,902, 6,469,321, and 6,573,580 (collectively, the ``Lead Frame 
Patents''); and that the Commission has determined to issue a limited 
exclusion order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Walters, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. 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 
https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be 
viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
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 
based on a complaint filed by Osram GmbH and Osram Opto Semiconductors 
GmbH, both of Germany (collectively, ``Osram''). 69 FR 32609 (June 10, 
2004). In the complaint, as supplemented and amended, Osram alleged 
violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation 
into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within 
the United States after importation of certain light-emitting diodes 
and products containing the same by reason of infringement of various 
claims of the Particle Size Patents, United States Patent No. 6,576,930 
(the `` '930 patent''), the Lead Frame Patents, and United States 
Patent No. 6,716,673 (the `` '673 patent'').
    On May 10, 2005, the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') 
issued his final initial determination (``ID'') finding the sole 
remaining respondent, Dominant, in violation of section 337, but only 
with respect to the '673 patent. The ALJ concluded that the asserted 
claims of the Particle Size Patents were invalid for indefiniteness, 
that the '930 patent and the Lead Frame Patents were not infringed by 
Dominant's accused products, and that Osram did not meet the technical 
prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '930 
patent.
    On June 24, 2005, the Commission determined to review the ALJ's 
findings and conclusions regarding the Particle Size Patents, the '930 
patent, and the Lead Frame Patents. 70 FR 37431 (June 29, 2005). The 
Commission declined to review the ALJ's determination of violation of 
section 337 with respect to the '673 patent.
    On review, the Commission determined that the Particle Size Patents 
were not invalid for indefiniteness and construed the disputed phrase 
``mean grain diameter d50'' to mean average diameter by 
volume. Inv. No. 337-TA-512, Comm'n Op. at 4-14 (Aug. 12, 2005). The 
Commission remanded the investigation to the ALJ for a determination on 
infringement and domestic industry with regard to the Particle Size 
Patents consistent with the Commission's opinion. In addition, the 
Commission left open the question whether the asserted claims of the 
Particle Size Patents are invalid as indefinite for failing to specify 
the type of instrument that should be used to determine the ``mean 
grain diameter d50.'' With regard to the '930 patent, the 
Commission terminated the investigation with a finding of no violation. 
Finally, the Commission deferred addressing the issue of violation with 
respect to the Lead Frame Patents, as well as issues relating to 
remedy, public interest, and bonding. 70 FR 48194 (Aug. 16, 2005).
    The ALJ issued a remand initial determination (``Remand ID'') on 
October 31, 2005, finding no violation of section 337 with regard to 
the Particle Size Patents, because Osram failed to show that there was 
an industry in the United States that practices those patents. The ALJ 
also concluded that some of Dominant's accused products do not infringe 
the asserted claims of the Particle Size Patents. Finally, the ALJ 
declined to revisit the issue of indefiniteness, because Dominant 
failed to raise it on remand.
    In its remand notice, the Commission had invited comments from the 
parties addressing the ALJ's determination on remand, and on November 
10, 2005, Osram filed comments, challenging the Remand ID. 70 FR 48194 
(Aug. 16, 2005). On November 18, 2005, Dominant and the Commission 
investigative attorney each filed responses to Osram's comments, 
asserting that the ALJ's determinations on remand are not erroneous.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID and Remand ID and the submissions of the parties, the 
Commission has determined (1) That there is no violation of section 337 
by Dominant with regard to the Particle Size Patents; (2) that there is 
a violation of section 337 by Dominant with regard to the Lead Frame 
Patents; and (3) to issue a limited exclusion order with respect to the 
Lead Frame Patents and the '673 patent. The Commission's order was 
delivered to the President on the day of its issuance.
    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 section 210.45 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure 
(19 CFR 210.45).

    Issued: January 11, 2006.

    By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E6-429 Filed 1-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P