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 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 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 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 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. 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 (http://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 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 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 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 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