Certain Television Sets, Television Receivers, Television Tuners, and Components Thereof Commission Determination Terminating the Investigation With a Finding of No Violation of Section 337, 60177-60179 [2015-25207]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 192 / Monday, October 5, 2015 / Notices and 7753 (75 FR 63856 (2010)), which withdrew 3,530.62 acres of public land from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the general land laws, including the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2), to protect the ZortmanLandusky Mining Area, is hereby further extended for an additional 5year period until October 4, 2020. 2. Public Land Order No 7464 will expire October 4, 2020, unless, as a result of a review conducted prior to the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be further extended. Dated: September 19, 2015. Janice M. Schneider, Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals Management. Tract No. C–214 A tract of land situated in the County of Tarrant, State of Texas. [FR Doc. 2015–25285 Filed 10–2–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–DN–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLNM93200000 L54200000.FR0000 LVDIG15ZGKM0] Notice of Application for a Recordable Disclaimer of Interest: Texas Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received an application for a Recordable Disclaimer of Interest (Disclaimer) from the heirs of Virginia C. Yeager and Opal Keating pursuant to Section 315 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, and the regulations in 43 CFR subpart 1864, for the mineral estate of land lying near Benbrook Lake in Tarrant County, Texas. This notice is intended to inform the public of the pending application, give notice of BLM’s intention to grant the requested Disclaimer of Interest, and provide a public comment period for the Disclaimer of Interest. DATES: Comments on this action should be received within ninety (90) days from the publication of this notice, by January 4, 2016. ADDRESSES: Written comments must be sent to the Deputy State Director, Lands and Resources, BLM, New Mexico State Office, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, NM 87502–0115. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debby Lucero, State Realty Specialist, 505–954–2196. Additional information mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:34 Oct 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 pertaining to this application can be reviewed in case file TXNM114501 located in the New Mexico State Office, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, NM 87508. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 315 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1745), the heirs of Virginia C. Yeager and Opal Keating filed an application for a Disclaimer of Interest in the mineral estate for the following tracts of land situated in Tarrant County, State of Texas: Tract No. C–215 A tract of land situated in the County of Tarrant, State of Texas. These tracts described are shown upon the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Office of the Fort Worth District Engineer, Southwestern Division Project Map, entitled ‘‘REAL ESTATE BENBROOK LAKE,’’ dated November 5, 1986. The area contains approximately 298 acres as identified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) documentations listed above. The New Mexico State Office’s review of the land status records and title records provided by the applicant indicate that the Corps purchased the tracts in October 1950. Prior to the Corps’ acquisition of the tracts, the mineral estate was transferred from J.W. Corn to his daughters in July 1922 by recorded deed (Book 745, pg. 578). After consultation with the Corps, BLM has determined that the Corps did not acquire the mineral estate when the United States purchased the land in 1950. It is the opinion of this office that the Federal government does not own the mineral interest in the two tracts. This proposed Disclaimer of Interest does not address any surface interest that may still be vested with the United States of America. The public is hereby notified that comments may be submitted to the Deputy State Director, Lands and Resources at the address shown above within the comment period identified in the notice. Any adverse comments will be evaluated by the State Director who may modify or vacate this action and issue a final determination. PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 60177 In the absence of any valid objection, this notice will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior and a Disclaimer of Interest may be issued 90 days from publication of this notice. All persons who wish to present comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed Disclaimer may do so by writing to the Deputy State Director at the above address. Comments, including names and street addresses of commenters, will be available for public review at the BLM New Mexico State Office (see address above), during regular business hours, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Authority: 43 CFR 1864.2(a). James K. Stovall, Acting Deputy State Director, Lands and Resources. [FR Doc. 2015–25287 Filed 10–2–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–FB–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–910] Certain Television Sets, Television Receivers, Television Tuners, and Components Thereof Commission Determination Terminating the Investigation With a Finding of 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 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. 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 SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM 05OCN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 60178 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 192 / Monday, October 5, 2015 / Notices 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 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 March 5, 2014, based on a complaint filed by Cresta Technology Corporation, of Santa Clara, California (‘‘Cresta’’). 79 FR 12526 (Mar. 5, 2014). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of the infringement of certain claims from three United States patents. The notice of investigation named ten respondents: Silicon Laboratories, Inc. of Austin, Texas (‘‘Silicon Labs’’); MaxLinear, Inc. of Carlsbad, California (‘‘MaxLinear’’); Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd. of Suwon, Republic of Korea and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey (collectively, ‘‘Samsung’’); VIZIO, Inc. of Irvine, California (‘‘Vizio’’); LG Electronics, Inc. of Seoul, Republic of Korea and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (collectively, ‘‘LG’’); and Sharp Corporation of Osaka, Japan and Sharp Electronics Corporation of Mahwah, New Jersey (collectively, ‘‘Sharp’’). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was also named as a party. On May 16, 2014, the ALJ issued an initial determination granting Cresta’s motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add six additional respondents: SIO International Inc. of Brea, California and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. of New Taipei City, Taiwan (collectively, ‘‘SIO/Hon Hai’’); Top Victory Investments, Ltd. of Hong Kong and TPV International (USA), Inc. of Austin, Texas (collectively, TPV’’); and Wistron Corporation of New Taipei City, Taiwan and Wistron Infocomm Technology (America) Corporation of Flower Mound, Texas (collectively, ‘‘Wistron’’). Order No. 12 (May 16, 2014), not reviewed, Notice (June 9, 2014). On November 3, 2014, the ALJ granted-in-part Samsung and Vizio’s VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:27 Oct 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 motion for summary determination of noninfringement as to certain televisions containing tuners made by a third party, NXP Semiconductors N.V. Order No. 46 at 27–30 (Nov. 3, 2014), not reviewed, Notice (Dec. 3, 2014). On November 21, 2014, the ALJ issued granted Samsung’s and Vizio’s motion for summary determination that Cresta had not shown that certain Samsung televisions with NXP tuners had been imported. Order No. 58 at 4–5 (Nov. 21, 2014), not reviewed, Notice (Dec. 8, 2014). On November 12, 2014, the ALJ granted Cresta’s motion to partially terminate the investigation as to one asserted patent and certain asserted claims of the two other asserted patents. Order No. 50 (Nov. 12, 2014), not reviewed, Notice (Dec. 3, 2014). The two asserted patents still at issue in the investigation are U.S. Patent No. 7,075,585 (‘‘the ’585 patent’’) and U.S. Patent No. 7,265,792 (‘‘the ’792 patent’’). Claims 1–3, 10, and 12–13 of the ’585 patent, and claims 1–4, 7–8, and 25–27 of the ’792 patent, remain at issue in the investigation. The presiding ALJ conducted a hearing from December 1–5, 2014. On February 27, 2015, the ALJ issued the final ID. The final ID finds that Cresta failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2), (a)(3), for both asserted patents. To satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, Cresta relied upon claims 1–3, 5–6, 10, 13–14, 16–19, and 21 of the ’585 patent; and claims 1– 4, 7, 10–12, 18–19, and 26–27 of the ’792 patent. The ID finds that certain Cresta products—on their own, or combined with certain televisions into which Cresta’s tuners are incorporated—practice claims 1–3, 5–6, 10, 13, 16–19, and 21 of the ’585 patent, as well as claims 1–4, 7, 10–12, 18–19, and 26 of the ’792 patent. The ID finds some Silicon Labs tuners (as well as certain televisions containing them) to infringe claims 1–3 of the ’585 patent, and no other asserted patent claims. The ID further finds some MaxLinear tuners (as well as certain televisions containing them) to infringe claims 1–3, 10, 12, and 13 of the ’585 patent and claims 1–3, 7–8, and 25–26 of the ’792 patent. The ID finds claims 1 and 2 of the ’585 patent to be invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102 (anticipation), and claim 3 of the ’585 patent to be invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 103 (obviousness). The ID finds all of the asserted claims of the ’792 patent to be invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 The ALJ recommended that if a violation of section 337 is found, that a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders issue. The ALJ recommended, however, that the implementation of such orders be delayed by twelve months in view of public interest considerations. The ALJ also recommended that there be zero bond during the period of Presidential review. On March 16, 2015, petitions for Commission review were filed by the following parties: The Commission investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’); Cresta; the Silicon Labs respondents; and the MaxLinear respondents. On March 24, 2015, OUII and Cresta each filed a reply to the other parties’ petitions. That same day, the respondents filed a reply to Cresta’s petition. On April 30, 2015, the Commission determined to review the ID in part. The scope of Commission review is set forth in the Commission notice that issued on that date. 80 FR 26091 (May 6, 2015). The Commission solicited briefing on the issues under review, and on remedy, bonding and the public interest. On May 14, 2015, the IA, Cresta, and the respondents filed briefs in response to the Commission notice of review, and on May 26, 2015, they filed replies to each other’s briefs. 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 affirm the ID’s findings of invalidity of claims 1–4, 7–8, and 26–27 of the ’792 patent because of an on-sale bar. Further, the Commission finds claim 3 of the ’585 patent obvious in view of Boie combined with Kerth. The Commission finds claim 10 of the ’585 patent and claims 1–4 of the ’792 patent obvious in view of Boie as well as in view of Boie combined with VDP. The Commission finds that the respondents did not demonstrate obviousness clearly and convincingly as to claims 12–13 of the ’585 patent and claims 25–26 of the ’792 patent. As to infringement, the Commission affirms the ID’s finding that the accused MaxLinear tuners infringe claims 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, and 13 of the ’585 patent and claims 1–3, 7–8, and 25–26 of the ’792 patent. The Commission has determined to affirm in part and reverse in part the ID’s findings concerning Silicon Labs’ infringement of the claims of the ’585 patent. In particular, the Commission finds that certain accused Silicon Labs E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM 05OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 192 / Monday, October 5, 2015 / Notices tuners infringe claims 1–3, and 7–8 of the ’585 patent and that Cresta failed to demonstrate infringement by Silicon Labs of claims 10, 12, and 13 of the ’585 patent. The Commission also finds that Cresta failed to demonstrate that Silicon Labs infringes any of the asserted claims of the ’792 patent. The Commission finds that, for the specific models of televisions for which Cresta demonstrated direct infringement that Cresta adequately demonstrated contributory infringement by MaxLinear or Silicon Labs. The Commission finds that Cresta satisfies the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the ’792 patent, but not for the ’585 patent. The Commission further finds that Cresta failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for the ’585 patent and the ’792 patent. The reasons for the Commissions determinations will be set forth more fully in the Commission’s forthcoming opinion. Commissioner Schmidtlein will write separately with her views as to the basis for the Commission’s determination that Cresta failed to meet the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. 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). By order of the Commission. Dated: September 29, 2015. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer. [FR Doc. 2015–25207 Filed 10–2–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P published as required by Section 10 of the FACA. The FBI CJIS APB is responsible for reviewing policy issues and appropriate technical and operational issues related to the programs administered by the FBI’s CJIS Division, and thereafter, making appropriate recommendations to the FBI Director. The programs administered by the CJIS Division are the Next Generation Identification, Interstate Identification Index, Law Enforcement Enterprise Portal, National Crime Information Center, National Instant Criminal Background Check System, National Incident-Based Reporting System, National Data Exchange, and Uniform Crime Reporting. This meeting is open to the public. All attendees will be required to checkin at the meeting registration desk. Registrations will be accepted on a space available basis. Interested persons whose registrations have been accepted may be permitted to participate in the discussions at the discretion of the meeting chairman and with approval of the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). Any member of the public may file a written statement with the Board. Written comments shall be focused on the APB’s current issues under discussion and may not be repetitive of previously submitted written statements. Written comments should be provided to Mr. R. Scott Trent, DFO, at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting so that the comments may be made available to the APB for their consideration prior to the meeting. Anyone requiring special accommodations should notify Mr. Trent at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting. The APB will meet in open session from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m., on December 2–3, 2015. DATES: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Investigation Meeting of the CJIS Advisory Policy Board Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Justice. ACTION: Notice. The meeting will take place at Sheraton Atlanta Hotel, 165 Courtland Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, telephone (404) 659–6500. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ADDRESSES: AGENCY: The purpose of this notice is to announce the meeting of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Advisory Policy Board (APB). The CJIS APB is a federal advisory committee established pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). This meeting announcement is being mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:34 Oct 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 Inquiries may be addressed to Ms. Jillana L. Plybon; Management Program Assistant; CJIS Training and Advisory Process Unit, Resources Management Section; FBI CJIS Division, Module C2, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306–0149; telephone (304) 625–5424, facsimile (304) 625– 5090. PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 60179 Dated: September 25, 2015. R. Scott Trent, CJIS Designated Federal Officer, Criminal Justice Information Services Division Federal Bureau of Investigation. [FR Doc. 2015–25318 Filed 10–2–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1122—NEW] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection, Semi-Annual Progress Report for Justice for Families Program Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice. ACTION: 60-day notice. AGENCY: The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until December 4, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202–514–5430 or Catherine.poston@usdoj.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM 05OCN1

Agencies

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 192 (Monday, October 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60177-60179]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25207]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-910]


Certain Television Sets, Television Receivers, Television Tuners, 
and Components Thereof 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.

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

[[Page 60178]]

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 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 March 5, 2014, based on a complaint filed by Cresta Technology 
Corporation, of Santa Clara, California (``Cresta''). 79 FR 12526 (Mar. 
5, 2014). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of the infringement 
of certain claims from three United States patents. The notice of 
investigation named ten respondents: Silicon Laboratories, Inc. of 
Austin, Texas (``Silicon Labs''); MaxLinear, Inc. of Carlsbad, 
California (``MaxLinear''); Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd. of Suwon, 
Republic of Korea and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield 
Park, New Jersey (collectively, ``Samsung''); VIZIO, Inc. of Irvine, 
California (``Vizio''); LG Electronics, Inc. of Seoul, Republic of 
Korea and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 
(collectively, ``LG''); and Sharp Corporation of Osaka, Japan and Sharp 
Electronics Corporation of Mahwah, New Jersey (collectively, 
``Sharp''). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was also named 
as a party.
    On May 16, 2014, the ALJ issued an initial determination granting 
Cresta's motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to 
add six additional respondents: SIO International Inc. of Brea, 
California and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. of New Taipei City, 
Taiwan (collectively, ``SIO/Hon Hai''); Top Victory Investments, Ltd. 
of Hong Kong and TPV International (USA), Inc. of Austin, Texas 
(collectively, TPV''); and Wistron Corporation of New Taipei City, 
Taiwan and Wistron Infocomm Technology (America) Corporation of Flower 
Mound, Texas (collectively, ``Wistron''). Order No. 12 (May 16, 2014), 
not reviewed, Notice (June 9, 2014).
    On November 3, 2014, the ALJ granted-in-part Samsung and Vizio's 
motion for summary determination of noninfringement as to certain 
televisions containing tuners made by a third party, NXP Semiconductors 
N.V. Order No. 46 at 27-30 (Nov. 3, 2014), not reviewed, Notice (Dec. 
3, 2014). On November 21, 2014, the ALJ issued granted Samsung's and 
Vizio's motion for summary determination that Cresta had not shown that 
certain Samsung televisions with NXP tuners had been imported. Order 
No. 58 at 4-5 (Nov. 21, 2014), not reviewed, Notice (Dec. 8, 2014).
    On November 12, 2014, the ALJ granted Cresta's motion to partially 
terminate the investigation as to one asserted patent and certain 
asserted claims of the two other asserted patents. Order No. 50 (Nov. 
12, 2014), not reviewed, Notice (Dec. 3, 2014). The two asserted 
patents still at issue in the investigation are U.S. Patent No. 
7,075,585 (``the '585 patent'') and U.S. Patent No. 7,265,792 (``the 
'792 patent''). Claims 1-3, 10, and 12-13 of the '585 patent, and 
claims 1-4, 7-8, and 25-27 of the '792 patent, remain at issue in the 
investigation.
    The presiding ALJ conducted a hearing from December 1-5, 2014. On 
February 27, 2015, the ALJ issued the final ID. The final ID finds that 
Cresta failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry 
requirement, 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2), (a)(3), for both asserted patents. 
To satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, 
Cresta relied upon claims 1-3, 5-6, 10, 13-14, 16-19, and 21 of the 
'585 patent; and claims 1-4, 7, 10-12, 18-19, and 26-27 of the '792 
patent. The ID finds that certain Cresta products--on their own, or 
combined with certain televisions into which Cresta's tuners are 
incorporated--practice claims 1-3, 5-6, 10, 13, 16-19, and 21 of the 
'585 patent, as well as claims 1-4, 7, 10-12, 18-19, and 26 of the '792 
patent.
    The ID finds some Silicon Labs tuners (as well as certain 
televisions containing them) to infringe claims 1-3 of the '585 patent, 
and no other asserted patent claims. The ID further finds some 
MaxLinear tuners (as well as certain televisions containing them) to 
infringe claims 1-3, 10, 12, and 13 of the '585 patent and claims 1-3, 
7-8, and 25-26 of the '792 patent.
    The ID finds claims 1 and 2 of the '585 patent to be invalid 
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102 (anticipation), and claim 3 of the '585 
patent to be invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 103 (obviousness). The ID 
finds all of the asserted claims of the '792 patent to be invalid 
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
    The ALJ recommended that if a violation of section 337 is found, 
that a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders issue. The 
ALJ recommended, however, that the implementation of such orders be 
delayed by twelve months in view of public interest considerations. The 
ALJ also recommended that there be zero bond during the period of 
Presidential review.
    On March 16, 2015, petitions for Commission review were filed by 
the following parties: The Commission investigative attorney (``IA''); 
Cresta; the Silicon Labs respondents; and the MaxLinear respondents. On 
March 24, 2015, OUII and Cresta each filed a reply to the other 
parties' petitions. That same day, the respondents filed a reply to 
Cresta's petition.
    On April 30, 2015, the Commission determined to review the ID in 
part. The scope of Commission review is set forth in the Commission 
notice that issued on that date. 80 FR 26091 (May 6, 2015). The 
Commission solicited briefing on the issues under review, and on 
remedy, bonding and the public interest.
    On May 14, 2015, the IA, Cresta, and the respondents filed briefs 
in response to the Commission notice of review, and on May 26, 2015, 
they filed replies to each other's briefs.
    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 affirm the ID's findings of 
invalidity of claims 1-4, 7-8, and 26-27 of the '792 patent because of 
an on-sale bar. Further, the Commission finds claim 3 of the '585 
patent obvious in view of Boie combined with Kerth. The Commission 
finds claim 10 of the '585 patent and claims 1-4 of the '792 patent 
obvious in view of Boie as well as in view of Boie combined with VDP. 
The Commission finds that the respondents did not demonstrate 
obviousness clearly and convincingly as to claims 12-13 of the '585 
patent and claims 25-26 of the '792 patent.
    As to infringement, the Commission affirms the ID's finding that 
the accused MaxLinear tuners infringe claims 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, and 13 of 
the '585 patent and claims 1-3, 7-8, and 25-26 of the '792 patent. The 
Commission has determined to affirm in part and reverse in part the 
ID's findings concerning Silicon Labs' infringement of the claims of 
the '585 patent. In particular, the Commission finds that certain 
accused Silicon Labs

[[Page 60179]]

tuners infringe claims 1-3, and 7-8 of the '585 patent and that Cresta 
failed to demonstrate infringement by Silicon Labs of claims 10, 12, 
and 13 of the '585 patent. The Commission also finds that Cresta failed 
to demonstrate that Silicon Labs infringes any of the asserted claims 
of the '792 patent.
    The Commission finds that, for the specific models of televisions 
for which Cresta demonstrated direct infringement that Cresta 
adequately demonstrated contributory infringement by MaxLinear or 
Silicon Labs.
    The Commission finds that Cresta satisfies the technical prong of 
the domestic industry requirement for the '792 patent, but not for the 
'585 patent. The Commission further finds that Cresta failed to satisfy 
the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '585 
patent and the '792 patent.
    The reasons for the Commissions determinations will be set forth 
more fully in the Commission's forthcoming opinion. Commissioner 
Schmidtlein will write separately with her views as to the basis for 
the Commission's determination that Cresta failed to meet the economic 
prong of the domestic industry requirement.
    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).

    By order of the Commission.

    Dated: September 29, 2015.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-25207 Filed 10-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.