Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Briefing; Extension of Target Date, 34870-34871 [2018-15635]

Agencies

• INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34870-34871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15635]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-1047]


Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products 
Containing the Same; Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final 
Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Schedule for 
Briefing; Extension of Target Date

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 (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ''), finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended. The Commission has also set a schedule for briefing. 
Additionally, Commission has determined to extend the target date for 
the completion of the investigation to September 19, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Needham, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are 
or will be available for inspection during official business hours 
(8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, 
telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission 
may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation 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 April 12, 2017, based on a complaint filed by Broadcom Corporation 
(``Broadcom'') of Irvine, California. 82 FR 17688. The complaint 
alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''), in the importation into the 
United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United 
States after importation of certain semiconductor devices and consumer 
audiovisual products containing the same that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 
7,310,104; 7,342,967; 7,590,059; 8,068,171; and 8,284,844. Id. The 
Commission's notice of investigation named as respondents MediaTek Inc. 
of Hsinchu City, Taiwan, MediaTek USA Inc. of San Jose, California, and 
MStar Semiconductor Inc. of ChuPei Hsinchu Hsien, Taiwan (together, 
``MediaTek''); Sigma Designs, Inc. of Fremont, California (``Sigma''); 
LG Electronics Inc. of Seoul, Republic of Korea and LG Electronics 
U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (together, ``LG''); Funai 
Electric Company, Ltd., of Osaka, Japan, Funai Corporation, Inc. of 
Rutherford, New Jersey, and P&F USA, Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia 
(together, ``Funai''); and Vizio, Inc., of Irvine, California 
(``Vizio''). Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not 
participating in this investigation. Id.
    Several parties were terminated from the investigation based on 
settlement. Specifically, the Commission terminated the investigation 
with respect to Funai, Order No. 31 (Nov. 7, 2017), not reviewed Notice 
(Dec. 12, 2017); MediaTek, Order No. 35 (Nov. 29, 2017), not reviewed 
Notice (Dec. 19, 2017); and LG, Order No. 42 (Apr. 9, 2018), not 
reviewed Notice (May 4, 2018). Accordingly, only respondents Sigma and 
Vizio (together, ``Respondents'') remained in the investigation at the 
time of the final ID.
    The Commission also terminated two patents and several claims based 
on Broadcom's partial withdrawal of the complaint. Specifically, the 
Commission terminated the investigation with respect to the '967 
patent, the '171 patent, claims 21-30 of the '059 patent, and claim 14 
of the '844 patent. Order No. 24 (Oct. 10, 2017), not reviewed Notice 
(Oct. 24, 2017). Broadcom also elected to withdraw claims 5 and 11-13 
of the '844 patent in its post-hearing brief. ID at 7. Accordingly, at 
the time of the final ID, the only remaining claims were 1, 10, 11, 16, 
17, and 22 of the '104 patent; claims 1-4, 6-10, of the '844 patent; 
and claims 11-20 of the '059 patent.
    On May 11, 2018, the ALJ issued a final ID finding no violation of 
section 337. Specifically, he found that Respondents did not infringe 
any claim, that the asserted claims of the '844 patent are invalid, and 
that Broadcom did not satisfy the technical prong of the domestic 
industry requirement for the '104 patent.
    On May 29, 2018, Broadcom and Respondents each petitioned for 
review of the ID. On June 6, 2018, the parties opposed each other's 
petitions.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, 
the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. 
Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the following 
issues: (1) The construction of ``a processor adapted to control a 
decoding process'' in claim 1 of the '844 patent, as well as related 
issues of infringement, invalidity, and the technical prong of the 
domestic industry requirement with respect to the limitation; (2) the 
finding that Fandrianto satisfies the limitation ``adapted to perform a 
decoding function on a digital media stream'' of claim 1 of the '844 
patent; (3) the construction of ``the blended graphics image'' in claim 
1 of the '104 patent, as well as related issues of infringement, 
invalidity, and the technical prong of the domestic industry 
requirement with respect to the limitation; (4) the construction of 
``blend the blended graphics image with the video image using the alpha 
values and/or at least one value derived from the alpha values'' in 
claim 1 of the '104 patent, as well as related issues of infringement, 
invalidity, and the technical prong of the domestic industry 
requirement with respect to the limitation; and (5) the finding that 
claims 1 and 10 of the '104 patent would be rendered obvious by 
Gloudemans in view of Porter & Duff under Broadcom's proposed claim 
constructions.
    The parties are requested to brief their positions on the issues 
under view with reference to applicable law and the evidentiary record. 
In connection with its review, the Commission is interested in briefing 
on the following issues:

    1. Should the construction of the term ``a processor adapted to 
control a decoding process'' of the '844 patent include the concept 
of ``orchestrate,'' and what is the difference between ``control'' 
and ``orchestrate'' in the context of this patent?
    2. Should the construction of the term ``a processor adapted to 
control a decoding process'' of the '844 patent include the concept 
of a ``pipeline'' or ``stage''?
    3. In construing the term ``blend the blended graphics image 
with the video image

[[Page 34871]]

using the alpha values and/or at least one value derived from the 
alpha values'' in claim 1 of the '104 patent, under what legal 
theory (if any) may the Commission base its construction upon 
Broadcom's arguments in the district court case Broadcom Corp. v. 
SiRF Technology, Inc., Case No. 8:08-cv-00546-JVS-MLG (C.D. Cal. 
July 15, 2010)?
    4. If your responses to the questions above contend that one or 
more of the final ID's claim constructions should be changed, please 
explain how each change in claim construction would impact the 
issues of infringement, invalidity, and the technical prong of the 
domestic industry requirement.

The parties have been invited to brief only the discrete issues 
described above, with reference to the applicable law and evidentiary 
record. The parties are not to brief other issues on review, which are 
adequately presented in the parties' existing filings.
    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 a cease and desist order that could result in the respondent 
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 (December 1994) (Commission 
Opinion).
    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 a cease and desist order 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 aforementioned public interest factors in 
the context of this investigation. The Commission is particularly 
interested in briefing on the following issue:

    1. If the Commission were to issue remedial orders in this 
investigation, could the demand for the excluded articles be 
fulfilled by others?

    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 issues 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, which issued on May 23, 2018. Broadcom is also 
requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's 
consideration. Broadcom is additionally requested to state the date 
that the '059, '844 and '104 patents expire, the HTSUS numbers under 
which the subject articles are imported, and to supply a list of known 
importers of the subject articles. The written submissions, exclusive 
of any exhibits, must not exceed 60 pages, and must be filed no later 
than close of business on July 27, 2018. Reply submissions must not 
exceed 30 pages, and must be filed no later than the close of business 
on August 3, 2018. No further submissions on 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 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-1047'') in a prominent place on 
the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic 
Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.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 nonconfidential 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: July 17, 2018.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-15635 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P