[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 238 (Thursday, December 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 65285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32333]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-392]


In the Matter of Certain Digital Satellite System (DSS) Receivers 
and Components Thereof; Notice of Final Commission Determination of No 
Violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has made a final determination of no violation of section 
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, in the above-captioned 
investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl P. Bretscher, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone (202) 205-3107.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 section 210.45 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. 210.45).
    The Commission instituted this patent-based section 337 
investigation on December 11, 1996, based on a complaint filed by 
Personalized Media Communications (``PMC'') of New York, New 
York.1 PMC's complaint named seven respondents: DIRECTV, 
Inc., United States Satellite Broadcasting Company (``USSB''); Hughes 
Network Systems (``HNS''); Hitachi Home Electronics (America) Inc. 
(``Hitachi''); Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc. (``Thomson''); 
Toshiba America Consumer Productions, Inc. (``Toshiba''); and 
Matsushita Electric Corporation of America (``Matsushita''). DIRECTV, 
USSB, HNS, and Hitachi will be collectively referred to as the 
``broadcaster respondents'' or ``broadcasters,'' while Thomson, 
Toshiba, and Matsushita will be collectively referred to as the 
``manufacturing respondents.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Notice of Investigation, 61 F.R. 66,695-96 (Dec. 18, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At issue are PMC's allegations that the broadcaster and 
manufacturing respondents violated section 337 by importing into the 
United States, selling for importation, and/or selling within the 
United States after importation certain digital satellite system 
(``DSS'') receivers and components thereof that infringe claims 6, 7, 
and/or 44 of U.S. Letters Patent 5,335,277 (``the `277 patent''), owned 
by PMC. Other claims originally asserted by PMC were either withdrawn 
(claims 3, 12, and 15) or were found to be invalid as anticipated under 
35 U.S.C. 102, on respondents' motion for summary judgment (claim 35).
    The presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) held an evidentiary 
hearing from June 30, 1997, to July 12, 1997. On October 20, 1997, the 
ALJ issued his final initial determination (``ID''), in which he 
concluded that there was no violation of section 337, based on his 
findings that: (a) each of claims 6, 7, and 44 is invalid as indefinite 
under 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 2; (b) each of claims 6, 7, and 44 is 
invalid as non-enabled under 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 1; (c) claim 7 is 
invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102; and (d) PMC failed to show 
that the accused receivers and components infringed any of claims 6, 7, 
or 44, either directly or through contributory or induced infringement. 
The ALJ rejected other invalidity and unenforceability defenses raised 
by respondents and found that PMC satisfied the domestic industry 
requirement.
    On October 31, 1997, PMC filed a petition for review of the ID, 
arguing that the ALJ erred in finding that each of claims 6, 7, and 44 
is invalid as indefinite and non-enabled, and further erred in finding 
that the accused receivers and components do not infringe any of the 
claims at issue. The manufacturing and broadcaster respondents filed 
separate contingent petitions for review, asserting that the Commission 
should also review the ALJ's findings rejecting certain invalidity and 
inequitable conduct arguments, provided the Commission grants PMC's 
petition for review. The broadcaster respondents also requested that 
the Commission reverse the ALJ's refusal to allow the testimony of 
their expert witness David Stewart and his rejection of their offer of 
proof. The Commission investigative attorney did not file a petition 
for review and, in his response to the petitions for review, generally 
supported the major findings in the ID.
    Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the 
parties' written submissions, the Commission determined not to review, 
and thereby adopted, the ALJ's construction of each of the claims at 
issue, and his findings that: (1) Each of claims 6, 7, and 44 is 
invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 2; (2) the accused 
receivers and components do not infringe any of the three claims at 
issue, either directly or through contributory or induced infringement; 
and (3) there is consequently no violation of section 337. The 
Commission took no position on the remaining issues addressed in the 
ID. Finally, the Commission affirmed the decision of the ALJ to refuse 
to allow the Stewart testimony and to reject the broadcaster 
respondents' offer of proof.
    Copies of all nonconfidential 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, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired 
persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by 
contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at (202) 205-1810.

    Issued: December 4, 1997.

    By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32333 Filed 12-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P