Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof; Commission's Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of the Investigation, 49764-49766 [2013-19789]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
49764
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2013 / Notices
New York. Medical Depot Inc. has
previously been terminated from the
investigation on the basis of a consent
order.
On July 2, 2013, Apex filed a motion
to terminate the investigation based on
a consent order, and on July 5, 2013,
filed an amended motion based on a
consent order stipulation and proposed
consent order. On July 16, 2013,
Complainants filed a response in
opposition, and the the Commission
investigative attorney filed a response in
support of the motion. On July 17, 2013,
the administrative law judge issued
Order No. 11, granting the motion to
terminate the investigation and staying
the procedural schedule. The
administrative law judge found
termination to be in the public interest.
That part of Order No. 11 which
terminates the investigation constitutes
an initial determination.
There were no petitions for review.
Having considered the ID and proposed
consent order and the relevant portions
of the record, the Commission has
determined not to review the subject ID.
The Commission has issued the consent
order, and the investigation is
terminated.
This action is taken under the
authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),
and of Part 210 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
Part 210).
Issued: August 9, 2013.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–19775 Filed 8–14–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–885]
Certain Portable Electronic
Communications Devices, Including
Mobile Phones and Components
Thereof; Commission Determination
Not To Review n Initial Determination
Granting Google, Inc.’s Unopposed
Motion To Intervene
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to
review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
(Order No. 5) of the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’)
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Aug 14, 2013
Jkt 229001
granting Google, Inc.’s unopposed
motion to intervene.
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42–.46).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Issued: August 12, 2013.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3115. 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
under section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on June 26, 2013,
based on a complaint filed by Nokia
Corporation of Espoo, Finland and
Nokia Inc., of Sunnyvale, California
(collectively, ‘‘Nokia’’). The complaint,
as supplemented, alleges a violation of
section 337 by reason of infringement of
certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
6,035,189 (‘‘the ‘189 patent’’); 6,373,345;
6,711,211 (‘‘the ‘211 patent’’); 7,187,945;
8,140,650 (‘‘the ‘650 patent’’); and
8,363,824. 78 FR 38362 (Jun. 26, 2013).
The respondents are HTC Corporation of
Taoyuan City, Taiwan, and HTC
America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington
(collectively, ‘‘HTC’’).
On July 11, 2013, third party Google
Inc. (‘‘Google’’) filed a motion to
intervene as a party in this investigation
with respect to three of the six patents,
namely the ‘189, ‘211 and ‘650 patents.
The motion states that neither
complainants Nokia nor respondents
HTC oppose the motion.
On July 16, 2013, the ALJ issued an
ID (Order No. 5) granting Google’s
motion. The ALJ found, inter alia, that
the motion was timely filed and that
Google has shown that it has a
substantial interest in the investigation.
No party petitioned for review. The
Commission has determined not to
review the ID.
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 of the Commission’s
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[FR Doc. 2013–19825 Filed 8–14–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–796]
Certain Electronic Digital Media
Devices and Components Thereof;
Commission’s Final Determination
Finding a Violation of Section 337;
Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order
and Cease and Desist Orders;
Termination of the Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has found a violation of
section 337 in this investigation and has
issued a limited exclusion order
prohibiting respondents Samsung
Electronics Co, Ltd. of the Republic of
Korea (‘‘SEC’’); Samsung Electronics
America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New
Jersey (‘‘SEA’’); and Samsung
Telecommunications America, LLC of
Richardson, Texas (‘‘STA’’)
(collectively, ‘‘Samsung’’), from
importing certain electronic digital
media devices that infringe one or more
of claims 1, 4–6, 10, and 17–20 of U.S.
Patent No. 7,479,949 (‘‘the ’949 patent’’)
and claims 1–4 and 8 of U.S. Patent No.
7,912,501 (‘‘the ’501 patent’’). The
Commission has also issued cease and
desist orders prohibiting SEA and STA
from further importing, selling, and
distributing articles that infringe one or
more of claims 1, 4–6, 10, and 17–20 of
the ’949 patent and claims 1–4 and 8 of
the ’501 patent in the United States. The
Commission has found no violation
based on U.S. Patent Nos. D618,678
(‘‘the D’678 patent’’); D558,757 (‘‘the
D’757 patent’’); RE 41,922 (‘‘the ’922
patent’’); and 7,789,697 (‘‘the ’697
patent’’). The Commission’s
determination is final, and the
investigation is terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cathy Chen, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–2392. Copies of non-confidential
documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15AUN1.SGM
15AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2013 / Notices
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.
The
Commission instituted this investigation
on August 5, 2011, based on a complaint
filed by Apple Inc. (‘‘Apple’’) of
Cupertino, California. 76 FR 47610
(Aug. 5, 2011). The complaint alleges
violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C.
1337, in the importation into the United
States, the sale for importation, and the
sale within the United States after
importation of certain electronic digital
media devices and components thereof
by reason of infringement of certain
claims of the ’949, the ’922, the ’697, the
’501, the D’757, and the D’678 patents,
and U.S. Patent No. 7,863,533 (‘‘the ’533
patent’’). Samsung was named as a
respondent in the Commission’s notice
of investigation. A Commission
investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’)
participated in the investigation.
On May 3, 2012, the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued
an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) partially
terminating the investigation with
respect to all claims of the ’533 patent;
claims 1–3, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 21–27 of
the ’697 patent; and claim 3 of the ’949
patent (Order No. 17) (not reviewed by
the Commission, May 3, 2012).
On October 24, 2012, the ALJ issued
his final ID in this investigation finding
a violation of section 337 in connection
with the claim of the D’678 patent;
claims 1, 4–6 and 10–20 of the ’949
patent; claims 29, 30 and 33–35 of the
’922 patent; and claims 1–4 and 8 of the
’501 patent. The ALJ found no violation
of section 337 in connection with the
claim of the D’757 patent; claims 31 and
32 of the ’922 patent; and claims 13 and
14 of the ’697 patent. The ALJ also
found that the asserted claims were not
shown to be invalid. The ALJ further
found that a domestic industry in the
United States exists that practices the
’949, the ’922, the ’501, the D’757, and
the D’678 patents, but not the ’697
patent. On November 7, 2012, the ALJ
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Aug 14, 2013
Jkt 229001
issued his recommended determination
on remedy and bonding.
Apple and Samsung filed timely
petitions for review of various portions
of the final ID, as well as timely
responses to the petitions. The IA filed
only a response to the petitions for
review. On December 3, 2012, Apple
and Samsung filed public interest
comments pursuant to Commission rule
210.50(a)(4). That same day, non-party
Google filed a submission in response to
the Notice of Request for Statements on
the Public Interest. See 77 FR 68829–30
(Nov. 16, 2012).
On January 23, 2013, the Commission
determined to review the final ID in its
entirety, and remand the investigation
to the ALJ with respect to certain issues
related to the ’922 patent and the ’501
patent, as set forth in the Remand Order.
78 FR 6130 (Jan. 29, 2013).
On March 26, 2013, the ALJ issued his
remand initial determination (‘‘RID’’).
The RID found that claims 34 and 35 of
the ’922 patent are infringed by the textselection feature of the accused
products and that claim 3 of the ’501
patent is not infringed by the accused
products represented by the Transform
SPH–M920. On April 9, 2013, Apple
and Samsung petitioned for review of
the RID. The IA did not petition for
review of the RID. On April 17, 2013,
Apple, Samsung and the IA filed their
respective responses to the petitions for
review.
On May 28, 2013, the Commission
determined to review the RID in its
entirety. In connection with the
Commission’s review of the final ID and
the RID, the parties were invited to brief
certain issues, including issues related
to remedy and the public interest. The
Commission received responses from
Apple, Samsung, and the IA addressing
all of the Commission’s questions. In
response to the remedy and public
interest questions posed to the public,
the Commission received responses
from the following: Americans for Job
Security; Associated Carrier Group;
Capital Policy Analytics;
Congresswoman Eva M. Clayton;
Congressmen Hakeem S. Jeffries and
Henry C. Johnson, Jr.; Congressmen Bill
Pascrell, Jr., Hank Johnson, Albio Sires,
Dan Maffei, Terri Sewell, and Steve
Israel; Congressman Pete Sessions;
CTIA—The Wireless Association; Mr.
Dennis C. Vacco, Esq.; Digital Liberty
and Property Rights Alliance; Google,
Inc.; Health IT Now.org; Hispanic
Leadership Fund; Homecare Homebase,
LLC; Institute for Policy Innovation;
James Valley Telecommunications;
Texas State Senator Ken Paxton; Texas
State Senator Kirk Watson; The LIBRE
Initiative; National Black Chamber of
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49765
Commerce; National Grange of the
Order of Patrons of Husbandry
(‘‘National Grange’’); The Newborn
Coalition; Revol Wireless; Senator
Robert Menendez; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; Taxpayers Protection Alliance;
Ting Wireless; Congressman Trent
Franks; American Agri-Women et al.;
and United States Cellular Corporation.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, RID and submissions from the
parties, the Commission has determined
that Apple has proven a violation of
section 337 based on articles that
infringe claims 1, 4–6, 10, and 17–20 of
the ’949 patent and claims 1–4 and 8 of
the ’501 patent. Specifically, with
respect to the ’949 patent, the
Commission has determined to affirm
the ALJ’s constructions of disputed
claim terms and his conclusion that
Apple has proven a violation of section
337 based on articles that infringe
claims 1, 4–6, 10, and 17–20 of the ’949
patent. The Commission affirms, with
modified reasoning, the ALJ’s
conclusion that Apple failed to prove
that Samsung contributorily infringes
claims 11–16 of the ’949 patent. The
Commission, however, has determined
to reverse the ALJ’s conclusion that
Apple has proven that Samsung
induced infringement of claims 11–16 of
the ’949 patent. With some
modifications to the ALJ’s analysis, the
Commission has also determined that
the record supports the ALJ’s
conclusions that the Continuum SCH–
1400 infringes all of the asserted claims
of the ’501 patent; that the accused
Samsung devices represented by
Transform SPH–M920 infringe claims
1–2 and 8, but not claims 3 and 4 of the
’501 patent; and that the accused
Samsung devices represented by Galaxy
Tab 7.0 and Galaxy S II do not infringe
any of the asserted claims of the ’501
patent. The Commission has further
determined that the asserted claims of
the ’949 and the ’501 patents have not
been proven by Samsung to be invalid
and that Apple has proven that a
domestic industry exists in the United
States relating to articles protected by
the ’949 and the ’501 patents.
In addition, the Commission has
determined that Apple has not proven a
violation based on alleged infringement
of the D’678, the D’757, the ’922, and
the ’697 patents. Specifically, the
Commission has determined that the
asserted claim of the D’678 patent is
valid but not infringed, and that Apple’s
iPhone, iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S
practice the D’678 patent, but not the
iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS. The
Commission has also determined that
the asserted claim of the D’757 patent is
E:\FR\FM\15AUN1.SGM
15AUN1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
49766
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2013 / Notices
valid but not infringed, and Apple’s
iPhone 3G and 3GS do not practice the
D’757 patent. With some modifications
to the ALJ’s analysis for the ’922 patent,
the Commission has determined to
affirm the ALJ’s constructions of
disputed claim terms, and the ALJ’s
conclusion that Apple failed to prove
that Samsung contributorily infringes
the asserted claims of the ’922 patent.
The Commission, however, has
determined to reverse the ALJ’s
conclusion that Apple has proven that
Samsung induced infringement of the
asserted claims of the ’922 patent. With
respect to the ’697 patent, the
Commission has determined to modify
the ALJ’s construction and application
of certain disputed terms in the asserted
claims. Under the modified
constructions, the Commission has
determined that Apple has proven that
the accused Samsung devices infringe
the asserted claims of the ’697 patent
and that Apple’s domestic industry
products practice the ’697 patent. The
Commission, however, ultimately finds
that Apple has not proven a violation of
section 337 with respect to the ’697
patent because Samsung has proven
with clear and convincing evidence that
the asserted claims are invalid as
anticipated by the YP–T7J media player.
The Commission has further determined
that Apple has proven a domestic
industry exists in the United States
relating to articles protected by the
D’678, the ’922 and the ’697 patents, but
not the D’757 patent.
The Commission has determined that
the appropriate remedy is a limited
exclusion order prohibiting Samsung
from importing certain electronic digital
media devices that infringe one or more
of claims 1, 4–6, 10, and 17–20 of the
’949 patent and claims 1–4 and 8 of the
’501 patent. The Commission has also
determined to issue cease and desist
orders prohibiting SEA and STA from
further importing, selling, and
distributing articles that infringe one or
more of claims 1, 4–6, 10, and 17–20 of
the ’949 patent and claims 1–4 and 8 of
the ’501 patent in the United States. The
orders do not apply to the adjudicated
design around products found not to
infringe the asserted claims of the ’949
and the ’501 patents as identified in the
final ID. The Commission has carefully
considered the submissions of the
parties and the public and has
determined that the public interest
factors enumerated in section 337(d)(1)
and (f)(1) do not preclude issuance of
the limited exclusion order and cease
and desist orders.
Finally, the Commission has
determined that excluded mobile
phones, media players, and tablet
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Aug 14, 2013
Jkt 229001
computers may be imported and sold in
the United States during the period of
Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j))
with the posting of a bond in the
amount of 1.25 percent of the entered
value. The Commission’s order and
opinion were delivered to the President
and to the United States Trade
Representative on the day of their
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 Part
210 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Part
210).
Issued: August 9, 2013.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–19789 Filed 8–14–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–845]
Certain Products Containing
Interactive Program Guide and
Parental Control Technology;
Commission Determination To Review
in Its Entirety a Final Initial
Determination Finding No Violation of
Section 337
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in its entirety a final initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the
presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’), finding no violation of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.
1337, in this investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Needham, 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 (https://www.usitc.gov).
The public record for this investigation
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
on June 6, 2012, based on a complaint
filed by Rovi Corporation; Rovi Guides,
Inc.; Rovi Technologies Corporation;
Starsight Telecast, Inc.; United Video
Properties, Inc.; and Index Systems, Inc.
(collectively, ‘‘Complainants’’). 77 FR
33487–88. The respondents are LG
Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics U.S.A.,
Inc. (collectively, ‘‘LGE’’); Mitsubishi
Electric Corp.; Mitsubishi Electric US
Holdings, Inc.; Mitsubishi Electric and
Electronics USA, Inc.; Mitsubishi
Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc.;
Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America,
Inc. (collectively, ‘‘Mitsubishi’’); Netflix
Inc. (‘‘Netflix’’); Roku, Inc. (‘‘Roku’’);
and Vizio, Inc (‘‘Vizio’’). The Office of
Unfair Import Investigations is not
participating in this investigation.
Originally, Complainants asserted
numerous claims from seven patents
against various respondents.
Complainants later moved to terminate
the investigation as to three of the seven
patents, as to certain claims of one of
the remaining four patents, and as to
respondents LGE, Mitsubishi, and Vizio.
Order No. 9 (Sept. 4, 2012), not
reviewed, Oct. 2, 2012; Order No 16
(Nov. 6, 2012), not reviewed, December
7, 2012; Order Nos. 17 (Dec. 19, 2012)
and 19 (Dec. 20, 2012), not reviewed,
January 18, 2013; Order No. 21 (Jan. 22,
2013), not reviewed Feb. 13, 2013; Order
Nos. 34 (Feb. 27, 2013) and 36 (Mar. 1,
2013), not reviewed (Mar. 22, 2013).
What remains in the investigation are
respondents Netflix and Roku, as well
as claims 1, 6, 13, and 17 of U.S. Patent
No. 6,898,762 (‘‘the ’762 patent’’),
claims 13–20 of U.S. Patent No.
7,065,709 (‘‘the ’709 patent’’); claims 1–
3, 10, and 11 of U.S. Patent No.
7,103,906 (‘‘the ’906 patent’’); and
claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 14, 15, 17, and 19 of
U.S. Patent No. 8,112,776 (‘‘the ’776
patent’’).
On June 7, 2013, the presiding ALJ
issued his final ID, finding no violation
of section 337. Specifically, the ALJ
found that none of the accused products
met the importation requirement of
section 337. While the ALJ found that
his importation finding was dispositive,
the ALJ made additional findings in the
event that the Commission determined
that the importation requirement was
met. The ALJ found that no party
infringed any of the four asserted
E:\FR\FM\15AUN1.SGM
15AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49764-49766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19789]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-796]
Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof;
Commission's Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337;
Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders;
Termination of the Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has found a violation of section 337 in this investigation
and has issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting respondents
Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd. of the Republic of Korea (``SEC'');
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey
(``SEA''); and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC of Richardson,
Texas (``STA'') (collectively, ``Samsung''), from importing certain
electronic digital media devices that infringe one or more of claims 1,
4-6, 10, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949 (``the '949 patent'')
and claims 1-4 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 7,912,501 (``the '501
patent''). The Commission has also issued cease and desist orders
prohibiting SEA and STA from further importing, selling, and
distributing articles that infringe one or more of claims 1, 4-6, 10,
and 17-20 of the '949 patent and claims 1-4 and 8 of the '501 patent in
the United States. The Commission has found no violation based on U.S.
Patent Nos. D618,678 (``the D'678 patent''); D558,757 (``the D'757
patent''); RE 41,922 (``the '922 patent''); and 7,789,697 (``the '697
patent''). The Commission's determination is final, and the
investigation is terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Chen, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2392. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are
or will be available for
[[Page 49765]]
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
on August 5, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Apple Inc. (``Apple'')
of Cupertino, California. 76 FR 47610 (Aug. 5, 2011). The complaint
alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after
importation of certain electronic digital media devices and components
thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of the '949, the
'922, the '697, the '501, the D'757, and the D'678 patents, and U.S.
Patent No. 7,863,533 (``the '533 patent''). Samsung was named as a
respondent in the Commission's notice of investigation. A Commission
investigative attorney (``IA'') participated in the investigation.
On May 3, 2012, the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'')
issued an initial determination (``ID'') partially terminating the
investigation with respect to all claims of the '533 patent; claims 1-
3, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 21-27 of the '697 patent; and claim 3 of the '949
patent (Order No. 17) (not reviewed by the Commission, May 3, 2012).
On October 24, 2012, the ALJ issued his final ID in this
investigation finding a violation of section 337 in connection with the
claim of the D'678 patent; claims 1, 4-6 and 10-20 of the '949 patent;
claims 29, 30 and 33-35 of the '922 patent; and claims 1-4 and 8 of the
'501 patent. The ALJ found no violation of section 337 in connection
with the claim of the D'757 patent; claims 31 and 32 of the '922
patent; and claims 13 and 14 of the '697 patent. The ALJ also found
that the asserted claims were not shown to be invalid. The ALJ further
found that a domestic industry in the United States exists that
practices the '949, the '922, the '501, the D'757, and the D'678
patents, but not the '697 patent. On November 7, 2012, the ALJ issued
his recommended determination on remedy and bonding.
Apple and Samsung filed timely petitions for review of various
portions of the final ID, as well as timely responses to the petitions.
The IA filed only a response to the petitions for review. On December
3, 2012, Apple and Samsung filed public interest comments pursuant to
Commission rule 210.50(a)(4). That same day, non-party Google filed a
submission in response to the Notice of Request for Statements on the
Public Interest. See 77 FR 68829-30 (Nov. 16, 2012).
On January 23, 2013, the Commission determined to review the final
ID in its entirety, and remand the investigation to the ALJ with
respect to certain issues related to the '922 patent and the '501
patent, as set forth in the Remand Order. 78 FR 6130 (Jan. 29, 2013).
On March 26, 2013, the ALJ issued his remand initial determination
(``RID''). The RID found that claims 34 and 35 of the '922 patent are
infringed by the text-selection feature of the accused products and
that claim 3 of the '501 patent is not infringed by the accused
products represented by the Transform SPH-M920. On April 9, 2013, Apple
and Samsung petitioned for review of the RID. The IA did not petition
for review of the RID. On April 17, 2013, Apple, Samsung and the IA
filed their respective responses to the petitions for review.
On May 28, 2013, the Commission determined to review the RID in its
entirety. In connection with the Commission's review of the final ID
and the RID, the parties were invited to brief certain issues,
including issues related to remedy and the public interest. The
Commission received responses from Apple, Samsung, and the IA
addressing all of the Commission's questions. In response to the remedy
and public interest questions posed to the public, the Commission
received responses from the following: Americans for Job Security;
Associated Carrier Group; Capital Policy Analytics; Congresswoman Eva
M. Clayton; Congressmen Hakeem S. Jeffries and Henry C. Johnson, Jr.;
Congressmen Bill Pascrell, Jr., Hank Johnson, Albio Sires, Dan Maffei,
Terri Sewell, and Steve Israel; Congressman Pete Sessions; CTIA--The
Wireless Association; Mr. Dennis C. Vacco, Esq.; Digital Liberty and
Property Rights Alliance; Google, Inc.; Health IT Now.org; Hispanic
Leadership Fund; Homecare Homebase, LLC; Institute for Policy
Innovation; James Valley Telecommunications; Texas State Senator Ken
Paxton; Texas State Senator Kirk Watson; The LIBRE Initiative; National
Black Chamber of Commerce; National Grange of the Order of Patrons of
Husbandry (``National Grange''); The Newborn Coalition; Revol Wireless;
Senator Robert Menendez; Sprint Spectrum, L.P.; Taxpayers Protection
Alliance; Ting Wireless; Congressman Trent Franks; American Agri-Women
et al.; and United States Cellular Corporation.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, RID and submissions from the parties, the Commission
has determined that Apple has proven a violation of section 337 based
on articles that infringe claims 1, 4-6, 10, and 17-20 of the '949
patent and claims 1-4 and 8 of the '501 patent. Specifically, with
respect to the '949 patent, the Commission has determined to affirm the
ALJ's constructions of disputed claim terms and his conclusion that
Apple has proven a violation of section 337 based on articles that
infringe claims 1, 4-6, 10, and 17-20 of the '949 patent. The
Commission affirms, with modified reasoning, the ALJ's conclusion that
Apple failed to prove that Samsung contributorily infringes claims 11-
16 of the '949 patent. The Commission, however, has determined to
reverse the ALJ's conclusion that Apple has proven that Samsung induced
infringement of claims 11-16 of the '949 patent. With some
modifications to the ALJ's analysis, the Commission has also determined
that the record supports the ALJ's conclusions that the Continuum SCH-
1400 infringes all of the asserted claims of the '501 patent; that the
accused Samsung devices represented by Transform SPH-M920 infringe
claims 1-2 and 8, but not claims 3 and 4 of the '501 patent; and that
the accused Samsung devices represented by Galaxy Tab 7.0 and Galaxy S
II do not infringe any of the asserted claims of the '501 patent. The
Commission has further determined that the asserted claims of the '949
and the '501 patents have not been proven by Samsung to be invalid and
that Apple has proven that a domestic industry exists in the United
States relating to articles protected by the '949 and the '501 patents.
In addition, the Commission has determined that Apple has not
proven a violation based on alleged infringement of the D'678, the
D'757, the '922, and the '697 patents. Specifically, the Commission has
determined that the asserted claim of the D'678 patent is valid but not
infringed, and that Apple's iPhone, iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S practice the
D'678 patent, but not the iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS. The Commission has
also determined that the asserted claim of the D'757 patent is
[[Page 49766]]
valid but not infringed, and Apple's iPhone 3G and 3GS do not practice
the D'757 patent. With some modifications to the ALJ's analysis for the
'922 patent, the Commission has determined to affirm the ALJ's
constructions of disputed claim terms, and the ALJ's conclusion that
Apple failed to prove that Samsung contributorily infringes the
asserted claims of the '922 patent. The Commission, however, has
determined to reverse the ALJ's conclusion that Apple has proven that
Samsung induced infringement of the asserted claims of the '922 patent.
With respect to the '697 patent, the Commission has determined to
modify the ALJ's construction and application of certain disputed terms
in the asserted claims. Under the modified constructions, the
Commission has determined that Apple has proven that the accused
Samsung devices infringe the asserted claims of the '697 patent and
that Apple's domestic industry products practice the '697 patent. The
Commission, however, ultimately finds that Apple has not proven a
violation of section 337 with respect to the '697 patent because
Samsung has proven with clear and convincing evidence that the asserted
claims are invalid as anticipated by the YP-T7J media player. The
Commission has further determined that Apple has proven a domestic
industry exists in the United States relating to articles protected by
the D'678, the '922 and the '697 patents, but not the D'757 patent.
The Commission has determined that the appropriate remedy is a
limited exclusion order prohibiting Samsung from importing certain
electronic digital media devices that infringe one or more of claims 1,
4-6, 10, and 17-20 of the '949 patent and claims 1-4 and 8 of the '501
patent. The Commission has also determined to issue cease and desist
orders prohibiting SEA and STA from further importing, selling, and
distributing articles that infringe one or more of claims 1, 4-6, 10,
and 17-20 of the '949 patent and claims 1-4 and 8 of the '501 patent in
the United States. The orders do not apply to the adjudicated design
around products found not to infringe the asserted claims of the '949
and the '501 patents as identified in the final ID. The Commission has
carefully considered the submissions of the parties and the public and
has determined that the public interest factors enumerated in section
337(d)(1) and (f)(1) do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion
order and cease and desist orders.
Finally, the Commission has determined that excluded mobile phones,
media players, and tablet computers may be imported and sold in the
United States during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C.
1337(j)) with the posting of a bond in the amount of 1.25 percent of
the entered value. The Commission's order and opinion were delivered to
the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day
of their 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 Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
Part 210).
Issued: August 9, 2013.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-19789 Filed 8-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
