Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Section 337 Violation; Target Date Extension and Schedule for Filing Written Submissions, 28660-28662 [2018-13191]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
28660
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Notices
defaulting respondents’ accused
products have been imported into the
United States and that a domestic
industry exists in the United States with
respect to the ’031 patent. No petitions
for review of the ID were filed. The ALJ
also issued a Recommended
Determination on Remedy and Bonding,
recommending that, if the Commission
finds a section 337 violation, the
Commission issue a general exclusion
order and impose a bond of 100 percent
during the period of Presidential review.
On March 19, 2018, the Commission
determined to review in part the ID. 83
FR 12812 (Mar. 23, 2018). Specifically,
the Commission determined to review
(1) the ID’s findings on the technical
prong of the domestic industry
requirement to correct a typographical
error and (2) the ID’s findings on the
economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement. The Commission
determined not to review the remaining
issues decided in the ID. The
Commission requested additional
briefing from the parties on the issues
under review and also invited the
parties, interested government agencies,
and any other interested parties to file
written submissions on the issues of
remedy, the public interest, and
bonding.
On April 2, 2018, PopSockets and
OUII filed initial written submissions in
response to the Commission’s notice.
On April 4, 2018, non-party Quest USA
Corporation (‘‘Quest’’) filed a written
submission. On April 11, 2018,
PopSockets filed a reply to Quest’s
submission. Also on that day, OUII filed
a reply to the submissions of
PopSockets and Quest.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ID and the
various submissions, the Commission
has determined to affirm, on modified
grounds, the ID’s finding of a section
337 violation. The Commission affirms
the ID’s finding that the complainant
satisfied the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement with the
modification of a citation to ‘‘Mem. Ex.
2 (Kemnitzer Decl.) at ¶ 77
(Infringement Analysis and Chart)’’ at
page 107 of the ID to ‘‘Mem. Ex. 2
(Kemnitzer Decl.) at ¶ 61 (Analysis and
Chart).’’ The Commission affirms, with
modified reasoning set forth in the
opinion issued concurrently herewith,
the ID’s finding with respect to the
economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement under section
337(a)(3)(B), but takes no position with
respect to subsections (A) and (C) (19
U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A), (B), (C)). The
Commission finds that the statutory
requirements for relief under section
337(g)(2) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(2)) are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jun 19, 2018
Jkt 244001
satisfied with respect to the defaulting
respondents. In addition, the
Commission finds that the public
interest factors enumerated in section
337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) do not
preclude issuance of the statutory relief.
The Commission has determined the
appropriate remedy is a general
exclusion order prohibiting the
unlicensed importation of certain
collapsible sockets that infringe one or
more of claims 9–12 of the ’031 patent.
The Commission has also determined to
set a bond in the amount of 100 percent
of the entered value of the infringing
products imported during the period of
Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)).
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).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: June 14, 2018.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018–13192 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1044]
Certain Graphics Systems,
Components Thereof, and Consumer
Products Containing the Same;
Commission Determination To Review
in Part a Final Initial Determination
Finding a Section 337 Violation; Target
Date Extension and Schedule for Filing
Written Submissions
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in part a final initial determination
(‘‘FID’’) of the presiding administrative
law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) finding a violation of
section 337 the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended; and extend the target date by
five business days from August 15,
2018, to August 22, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Houda Morad, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
708–4716. 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 Investigation No.
337–TA–1044 on March 22, 2017, based
on a complaint filed by Complainants
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. of
Sunnyvale, California and ATI
Technologies ULC of Canada
(collectively, ‘‘AMD’’ or
‘‘Complainants’’). See 82 FR 14748
(Mar. 22, 2017). The complaint, as
amended, alleges violations of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), based upon
the importation into the United States,
the sale for importation, and the sale
within the United States after
importation of certain graphics systems,
components thereof, and consumer
products containing the same, by reason
of infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent No. 7,633,506 (‘‘the ’506 patent’’);
U.S. Patent No. 7,796,133 (‘‘the ’133
patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 8,760,454 (‘‘the
’454 patent’’); and U.S. Patent No.
9,582,846 (‘‘the ’846 patent’’). Id. The
notice of investigation identified LG
Electronics, Inc. of Seoul, Republic of
Korea, LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, and LG
Electronics MobileComm U.S.A. Inc. of
San Diego, California (collectively,
‘‘LG’’), VIZIO, Inc. (‘‘VIZIO’’) of Irvine,
California, MediaTek Inc. of Hsinchu
City, Taiwan and Media Tek USA Inc.
of San Jose, California (collectively,
‘‘MediaTek’’), and Sigma Designs, Inc.
(‘‘SDI’’) of Fremont, California, as
respondents in this investigation. See
id. The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations (OUII) is also a party to
the investigation.
On October 20, 2017, the ALJ issued
an initial determination terminating the
investigation as to LG based on
settlement. See Order No. 48 (Oct. 20,
2017), unreviewed, Comm’n Notice
(Nov. 13, 2017). The remaining
respondents in this investigation are
E:\FR\FM\20JNN1.SGM
20JNN1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Notices
VIZIO, MediaTek, and SDI (hereinafter,
‘‘the Remaining Respondents’’). The ALJ
also terminated the investigation with
respect to all asserted claims of the ’454
and ’846 patents; claims 6, 7, and 9 of
the ’506 patent; and claims 2, 4–13, and
40 of the ’133 patent. See Order No. 33
(Aug. 15, 2017), unreviewed, Comm’n
Notice (Sept. 5, 2017); Order No. 43
(Oct. 5, 2017), unreviewed, Comm’n
Notice (Oct. 31, 2017); Order No. 49
(Oct. 20, 2017), unreviewed, Comm’n
Notice (Nov. 13, 2017); Order No. 53
(Oct. 31, 2017), unreviewed, Comm’n
Notice (Nov. 28, 2017). Claims 1–5 and
8 of the ’506 patent and claims 1 and 3
of the ’133 patent (hereinafter, ‘‘the
asserted claims’’) remain pending in this
investigation.
On April 13, 2018, the ALJ issued her
FID finding a violation of section 337
with respect to the ’506 patent but not
the ’133 patent. Specifically, the FID
finds that: (1) Certain accused products
infringe the asserted claims of the ’506
patent but not the ’133 patent; (2) the
asserted claims are not invalid; and (3)
Complainants satisfy the economic and
technical prongs of the domestic
industry requirement with respect to
both asserted patents. In addition, the
ALJ recommended that the Commission
issue: (1) a Limited Exclusion Order
against the infringing accused products;
and (2) Cease and Desist Orders against
Respondents VIZIO and SDI. The ALJ
further recommended against setting a
bond during Presidential review.
The Commission has determined to
review the FID in part. In particular, the
Commission has determined to review
the claim constructions of the terms:
‘‘unified shader’’ (recited in the ’506
and ’133 patent claims), ‘‘packet’’
(recited in the ’133 patent claims), and
‘‘ALU/memory pair’’ (recited in the ’133
patent claims). In view of the
Commission’s claim construction
review, the Commission will also
review the relevant FID’s findings with
respect to infringement, validity, and
technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement. Furthermore, the
Commission has determined to review
whether the importation requirement is
satisfied with respect to Respondents
MediaTek and SDI. The Commission
has determined not to review the
remainder of the FID. The Commission
has also determined to extend the target
date by five business days from August
15, 2018, to August 22, 2018.
In connection with the review, the
parties are requested to brief their
positions with reference to the
applicable law and the evidentiary
record regarding the questions provided
below:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jun 19, 2018
Jkt 244001
1. Consistent with the specification of
the ’506 patent (JX–1) and with the
patentee’s statements during the
prosecution of the ’506 patent (JX–2)
distinguishing Zhu U.S. Patent No.
6,697,063 at JX–2.387–388, the
Commission proposes to construe the
term ‘‘unified shader’’ to mean ‘‘a single
shader circuit capable of performing
color shading and texture coordinate
shading, wherein the single shader
circuit may not include separate
dedicated hardware blocks that perform
separate color and texture operations,
and wherein texture coordinate shading
may include texture address operations,
indirect texturing, and bump mapping
performed by the unified shader to
modify texture coordinates.’’ In view of
the Commission’s proposed
construction, please explain: (1)
Whether and why you agree or disagree
with the Commission’s proposed
construction; and (2) whether and why
the Commission’s proposed
construction affects the FID’s
infringement and invalidity analyses
with respect to the ’506 patent.
2. Consistent with the specification of
the ’133 patent (JX–2) and with the
patentee’s statements during the
prosecution of the ’133 patent (JX–4)
distinguishing Donham U.S. Patent No.
6,980,209 at JX–4.240–41 and JX–4.272,
the Commission proposes to construe
the term ‘‘unified shader’’ to mean ‘‘a
single shader circuit capable of
performing color shading and texture
coordinate shading, wherein the single
shader circuit may not include separate
dedicated hardware blocks that perform
separate color and texture operations,
and wherein texture coordinate shading
may include texture address operations,
indirect texturing, and bump mapping
performed by the unified shader to
modify texture coordinates.’’ In view of
the Commission’s proposed
construction, please explain: (1)
Whether and why you agree or disagree
with the Commission’s proposed
construction; and (2) whether and why
the Commission’s proposed
construction affects the FID’s
infringement and invalidity analyses
with respect to the ’133 patent.
3. Consistent with the specification of
the ’133 patent (JX–3) and with the
patentee’s statements during the
prosecution of the ’133 patent (JX–4)
distinguishing Morgan U.S. Patent No.
6,384,824 at JX–4.89, the Commission
proposes to construe the term ‘‘packet’’
to mean ‘‘data bundle containing texture
coordinate and color value information
for one or more pixels, wherein said
information is received simultaneously
by the unified shader,’’ i.e., in the same
packet rather than serially as suggested
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28661
by Complainants. In view of the
Commission’s proposed construction,
please explain: (1) Whether and why
you agree or disagree with the
Commission’s proposed construction;
and (2) whether and why the
Commission’s proposed construction
affects the FID’s infringement and
invalidity analyses with respect to the
’133 patent.
4. Consistent with the specification of
the ’133 patent (JX–3), the Commission
proposes to modify the FID’s
interpretation with respect to the scope
of the term ‘‘ALU/memory pair’’ to
clarify that it does not exclude control
logic or circuitry. In view of the
Commission’s proposed interpretation,
please explain: (1) Whether and why
you agree or disagree with the
Commission’s proposed interpretation;
and (2) whether and why the
Commission’s proposed interpretation
affects the FID’s infringement and
invalidity analyses with respect to the
’133 patent.
In addition, in connection with the
final disposition of this investigation,
the Commission may (1) issue an order
that could result in the exclusion of the
subject articles from entry into the
United States, and/or (2) issue one or
more cease and desist orders that could
result in the respondent(s) being
required to cease and desist from
engaging in unfair acts in the
importation and sale of such articles.
Accordingly, the Commission is
interested in receiving written
submissions that address the form of
remedy, if any, that should be ordered.
If a party seeks exclusion of an article
from entry into the United States for
purposes other than entry for
consumption, the party should so
indicate and provide information
establishing that activities involving
other types of entry either are adversely
affecting it or likely to do so. For
background, see Certain Devices for
Connecting Computers via Telephone
Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC
Pub. No. 2843 (Dec. 1994) (Comm’n
Op.).
If the Commission contemplates some
form of remedy, it must consider the
effects of that remedy upon the public
interest. The factors the Commission
will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease and desist
orders would have on (1) the public
health and welfare, (2) competitive
conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S.
production of articles that are like or
directly competitive with those that are
subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving written
submissions that address the
E:\FR\FM\20JNN1.SGM
20JNN1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
28662
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Notices
aforementioned public interest factors
in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form
of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the
President, has 60 days to approve or
disapprove the Commission’s action.
See Presidential Memorandum of July
21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005).
During this period, the subject articles
would be entitled to enter the United
States under bond, in an amount
determined by the Commission and
prescribed by the Secretary of the
Treasury. The Commission is therefore
interested in receiving submissions
concerning the amount of the bond that
should be imposed if a remedy is
ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to
the investigation are requested to file
written submissions on the questions
identified in this notice. Parties to the
investigation, interested government
agencies, and any other interested
parties are encouraged to file written
submissions on the issues of remedy,
the public interest, and bonding. Such
submissions should address the
recommended determination by the ALJ
on remedy and bonding. Complainants
and OUII are also requested to submit
proposed remedial orders for the
Commission’s consideration.
Complainants are also requested to state
the date that the asserted patents expire
and the HTSUS numbers under which
the accused products are imported.
Complainants are further requested to
supply the names of known importers of
the products at issue in this
investigation.
Written submissions and proposed
remedial orders must be filed no later
than close of business on June 28, 2018.
Reply submissions must be filed no later
than the close of business on July 6,
2018. Initial written submissions may
not exceed 50 pages in length, exclusive
of any exhibits, while reply submissions
may not exceed 25 pages in length,
exclusive of any exhibits. No further
submissions on any of these issues will
be permitted unless otherwise ordered
by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines
stated above and submit eight (8) true
paper copies to the Office of the
Secretary by noon the next day pursuant
to section 210.4(f) of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to
the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No.
337–TA–1044’’) in a prominent place on
the cover page and/or the first page. (See
Handbook for Electronic Filing
Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jun 19, 2018
Jkt 244001
secretary/documents/handbook_on_
filing_procedures.pdf). Persons with
questions regarding filing should
contact the Secretary (202–205–2000).
Any person desiring to submit a
document to the Commission in
confidence must request confidential
treatment. All such requests should be
directed to the Secretary to the
Commission and must include a full
statement of the reasons why the
Commission should grant such
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents
for which confidential treatment by the
Commission is properly sought will be
treated accordingly. All information,
including confidential business
information and documents for which
confidential treatment is properly
sought, submitted to the Commission for
purposes of this Investigation may be
disclosed to and used: (i) By the
Commission, its employees and Offices,
and contract personnel (a) for
developing or maintaining the records
of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in
internal investigations, audits, reviews,
and evaluations relating to the
programs, personnel, and operations of
the Commission including under 5
U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S.
government employees and contract
personnel,[1] solely for cybersecurity
purposes. All non-confidential written
submissions will be available for public
inspection at the Office of the Secretary
and on EDIS.
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.
Issued: June 14, 2018.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018–13191 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 332–567]
Generalized System of Preferences:
Possible Modifications, 2017 Review
United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice of amendment of scope
of investigation.
AGENCY:
Following receipt on June 6,
2018 of a correction to the United States
SUMMARY:
[1] All contract personnel will sign appropriate
nondisclosure agreements.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Trade Representative’s (USTR) request
letter of May 18, 2018, the U.S.
International Trade Commission
(Commission) has amended the scope of
its investigation No. 332–567,
Generalized System of Preferences:
Possible Modifications, 2017 Review,
and will treat ferroniobium, nesoi, from
Brazil, provided for in subheading
7202.93.80 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule, as having been listed in Table
E of the Annex to the USTR’s request
letter instead of Table D. As a result, the
Commission will also provide advice for
this article with respect to whether a
like or directly competitive article was
being produced in the United States in
any of the preceding three calendar
years.
DATES:
June 4, 2018: Deadline for filing
requests to appear at the public hearing.
June 7, 2018: Deadline for filing prehearing briefs and statements.
June 14, 2018: Public hearing.
June 21, 2018: Deadline for filing
post-hearing briefs and statements.
June 21, 2018: Deadline for filing all
other written submissions.
September 7, 2018: Transmittal of
Commission report to the USTR.
ADDRESSES: All Commission offices,
including the Commission’s hearing
rooms, are located in the United States
International Trade Commission
Building, 500 E Street SW, Washington,
DC. All written submissions should be
addressed to the Secretary, United
States International Trade Commission,
500 E Street SW, Washington, DC
20436. The public record for this
investigation may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Information specific to this investigation
may be obtained from Sabina Neumann,
Project Leader, Office of Industries
(202–205–3000 or sabina.neumann@
usitc.gov), Mark Brininstool, Deputy
Project Leader, Office of Industries
(202–708–1395 or mark.brininstool@
usitc.gov), or Marin Weaver, Technical
Advisor, Office of Industries (202–205–
3461 or marin.weaver@usitc.gov. For
information on the legal aspects of this
investigation, contact William Gearhart
of the Commission’s Office of the
General Counsel (202–205–3091 or
william.gearhart@usitc.gov). The media
should contact Margaret O’Laughlin,
Office of External Relations (202–205–
1819 or margaret.olaughlin@usitc.gov).
Hearing-impaired individuals may
obtain information on this matter by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal at 202–205–1810. General
information concerning the Commission
E:\FR\FM\20JNN1.SGM
20JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28660-28662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13191]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1044]
Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer
Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination To Review in
Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Section 337 Violation;
Target Date Extension and Schedule for Filing Written Submissions
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review in part a final initial
determination (``FID'') of the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') finding a violation of section 337 the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended; and extend the target date by five business days from August
15, 2018, to August 22, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Houda Morad, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4716. 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 Investigation No.
337-TA-1044 on March 22, 2017, based on a complaint filed by
Complainants Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California and
ATI Technologies ULC of Canada (collectively, ``AMD'' or
``Complainants''). See 82 FR 14748 (Mar. 22, 2017). The complaint, as
amended, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), based upon the importation into the United
States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States
after importation of certain graphics systems, components thereof, and
consumer products containing the same, by reason of infringement of
certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,633,506 (``the '506 patent''); U.S.
Patent No. 7,796,133 (``the '133 patent''); U.S. Patent No. 8,760,454
(``the '454 patent''); and U.S. Patent No. 9,582,846 (``the '846
patent''). Id. The notice of investigation identified LG Electronics,
Inc. of Seoul, Republic of Korea, LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, and LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A. Inc.
of San Diego, California (collectively, ``LG''), VIZIO, Inc.
(``VIZIO'') of Irvine, California, MediaTek Inc. of Hsinchu City,
Taiwan and Media Tek USA Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively,
``MediaTek''), and Sigma Designs, Inc. (``SDI'') of Fremont,
California, as respondents in this investigation. See id. The Office of
Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) is also a party to the
investigation.
On October 20, 2017, the ALJ issued an initial determination
terminating the investigation as to LG based on settlement. See Order
No. 48 (Oct. 20, 2017), unreviewed, Comm'n Notice (Nov. 13, 2017). The
remaining respondents in this investigation are
[[Page 28661]]
VIZIO, MediaTek, and SDI (hereinafter, ``the Remaining Respondents'').
The ALJ also terminated the investigation with respect to all asserted
claims of the '454 and '846 patents; claims 6, 7, and 9 of the '506
patent; and claims 2, 4-13, and 40 of the '133 patent. See Order No. 33
(Aug. 15, 2017), unreviewed, Comm'n Notice (Sept. 5, 2017); Order No.
43 (Oct. 5, 2017), unreviewed, Comm'n Notice (Oct. 31, 2017); Order No.
49 (Oct. 20, 2017), unreviewed, Comm'n Notice (Nov. 13, 2017); Order
No. 53 (Oct. 31, 2017), unreviewed, Comm'n Notice (Nov. 28, 2017).
Claims 1-5 and 8 of the '506 patent and claims 1 and 3 of the '133
patent (hereinafter, ``the asserted claims'') remain pending in this
investigation.
On April 13, 2018, the ALJ issued her FID finding a violation of
section 337 with respect to the '506 patent but not the '133 patent.
Specifically, the FID finds that: (1) Certain accused products infringe
the asserted claims of the '506 patent but not the '133 patent; (2) the
asserted claims are not invalid; and (3) Complainants satisfy the
economic and technical prongs of the domestic industry requirement with
respect to both asserted patents. In addition, the ALJ recommended that
the Commission issue: (1) a Limited Exclusion Order against the
infringing accused products; and (2) Cease and Desist Orders against
Respondents VIZIO and SDI. The ALJ further recommended against setting
a bond during Presidential review.
The Commission has determined to review the FID in part. In
particular, the Commission has determined to review the claim
constructions of the terms: ``unified shader'' (recited in the '506 and
'133 patent claims), ``packet'' (recited in the '133 patent claims),
and ``ALU/memory pair'' (recited in the '133 patent claims). In view of
the Commission's claim construction review, the Commission will also
review the relevant FID's findings with respect to infringement,
validity, and technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.
Furthermore, the Commission has determined to review whether the
importation requirement is satisfied with respect to Respondents
MediaTek and SDI. The Commission has determined not to review the
remainder of the FID. The Commission has also determined to extend the
target date by five business days from August 15, 2018, to August 22,
2018.
In connection with the review, the parties are requested to brief
their positions with reference to the applicable law and the
evidentiary record regarding the questions provided below:
1. Consistent with the specification of the '506 patent (JX-1) and
with the patentee's statements during the prosecution of the '506
patent (JX-2) distinguishing Zhu U.S. Patent No. 6,697,063 at JX-2.387-
388, the Commission proposes to construe the term ``unified shader'' to
mean ``a single shader circuit capable of performing color shading and
texture coordinate shading, wherein the single shader circuit may not
include separate dedicated hardware blocks that perform separate color
and texture operations, and wherein texture coordinate shading may
include texture address operations, indirect texturing, and bump
mapping performed by the unified shader to modify texture
coordinates.'' In view of the Commission's proposed construction,
please explain: (1) Whether and why you agree or disagree with the
Commission's proposed construction; and (2) whether and why the
Commission's proposed construction affects the FID's infringement and
invalidity analyses with respect to the '506 patent.
2. Consistent with the specification of the '133 patent (JX-2) and
with the patentee's statements during the prosecution of the '133
patent (JX-4) distinguishing Donham U.S. Patent No. 6,980,209 at JX-
4.240-41 and JX-4.272, the Commission proposes to construe the term
``unified shader'' to mean ``a single shader circuit capable of
performing color shading and texture coordinate shading, wherein the
single shader circuit may not include separate dedicated hardware
blocks that perform separate color and texture operations, and wherein
texture coordinate shading may include texture address operations,
indirect texturing, and bump mapping performed by the unified shader to
modify texture coordinates.'' In view of the Commission's proposed
construction, please explain: (1) Whether and why you agree or disagree
with the Commission's proposed construction; and (2) whether and why
the Commission's proposed construction affects the FID's infringement
and invalidity analyses with respect to the '133 patent.
3. Consistent with the specification of the '133 patent (JX-3) and
with the patentee's statements during the prosecution of the '133
patent (JX-4) distinguishing Morgan U.S. Patent No. 6,384,824 at JX-
4.89, the Commission proposes to construe the term ``packet'' to mean
``data bundle containing texture coordinate and color value information
for one or more pixels, wherein said information is received
simultaneously by the unified shader,'' i.e., in the same packet rather
than serially as suggested by Complainants. In view of the Commission's
proposed construction, please explain: (1) Whether and why you agree or
disagree with the Commission's proposed construction; and (2) whether
and why the Commission's proposed construction affects the FID's
infringement and invalidity analyses with respect to the '133 patent.
4. Consistent with the specification of the '133 patent (JX-3), the
Commission proposes to modify the FID's interpretation with respect to
the scope of the term ``ALU/memory pair'' to clarify that it does not
exclude control logic or circuitry. In view of the Commission's
proposed interpretation, please explain: (1) Whether and why you agree
or disagree with the Commission's proposed interpretation; and (2)
whether and why the Commission's proposed interpretation affects the
FID's infringement and invalidity analyses with respect to the '133
patent.
In addition, in connection with the final disposition of this
investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result
in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United
States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could
result in the respondent(s) being required to cease and desist from
engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles.
Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written
submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be
ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the
United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party
should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities
involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or
likely to do so. For background, see Certain Devices for Connecting
Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843
(Dec. 1994) (Comm'n Op.).
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the
public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S.
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly
competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written
submissions that address the
[[Page 28662]]
aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this
investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve
or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of
July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the
subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under
bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the
Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in
receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be
imposed if a remedy is ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the questions identified in this notice.
Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any
other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on
the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such
submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on
remedy and bonding. Complainants and OUII are also requested to submit
proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration.
Complainants are also requested to state the date that the asserted
patents expire and the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products
are imported. Complainants are further requested to supply the names of
known importers of the products at issue in this investigation.
Written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no
later than close of business on June 28, 2018. Reply submissions must
be filed no later than the close of business on July 6, 2018. Initial
written submissions may not exceed 50 pages in length, exclusive of any
exhibits, while reply submissions may not exceed 25 pages in length,
exclusive of any exhibits. No further submissions on any of these
issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight
(8) true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next
day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the
investigation number (``Inv. No. 337-TA-1044'') in a prominent place on
the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic
Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf). Persons with questions regarding
filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in
confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests
should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include
a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment
by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All
information, including confidential business information and documents
for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the
Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and
used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract
personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a
related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews,
and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of
the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S.
government employees and contract personnel,\[1]\ solely for
cybersecurity purposes. All non-confidential written submissions will
be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and
on EDIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[1]\ All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure
agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Issued: June 14, 2018.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-13191 Filed 6-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
