[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 141 (Friday, July 23, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40042-40043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-18843]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-412]


Certain Video Graphics Display Controllers and Products 
Containing SAME; Commission Determination Not To Review the Bulk of an 
Initial Determination Finding 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 determined not to review, as explained below, the 
presiding administrative law judge's final initial determination (ID) 
and has thereby 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: Clara Kuehn, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3012. Hearing-impaired 
persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by 
contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. General 
information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing 
its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission ordered the institution of 
this investigation on July 27, 1998, based on a complaint filed on 
behalf of Cirrus Logic, Inc., Fremont, California (``Cirrus'' or 
``complainant''). 63 FR 40932 (1998). The notice of investigation was 
published in the Federal Register on July 31, 1998. Id. The complaint 
alleged that ATI Technologies, Inc., Thornhill, Ontario, Canada 
(``ATI'' or ``respondent'') violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1337, by importing, selling for 
importation, and selling in the United States after importation certain 
video graphics display controllers that infringe claims 37 and 43 of 
Cirrus' U.S. Letters Patent 5,598,525 (``the ``525 patent''). Id. On 
October 29, 1998, the presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) issued 
an ID (ALJ Order No. 14) granting Cirrus' motion to amend the complaint 
and notice of investigation to add allegations of infringement of 
claims 1-10, 12-21, and 23-24 of the ``525 patent, and that ID was not 
reviewed by the Commission. 63 FR 66581 (1998).
    The ALJ held a tutorial on the technology for displaying video and 
graphics data on personal computers on January 7, 1999. On January 20, 
1999, Cirrus filed a notice of withdrawal of certain disputed claims, 
indicating that only claims 13, 15, 16, 17, 23, and 37 remained in 
dispute. An evidentiary hearing was held from January 21, 1999, to 
January 29, 1999.
    The ALJ issued her final ID on April 30, 1999, concluding that 
there was no violation of section 337, based on the following findings: 
(a) complainant failed to establish the requisite domestic industry; 
(b) the asserted claims of the ``525 patent, claims 13, 15, 16, 17, 23, 
and 37, are invalid; and (c) assuming, arguendo, the validity of the 
asserted claims, respondent's accused devices do not infringe the 
asserted claims. On May 11, 1999, the ALJ issued her recommended 
determination on remedy and bonding, in the event the Commission were 
to conclude there is a violation of section 337.
    On May 13, 1999, complainant filed a petition for review of the ID, 
arguing that the ALJ erred in construing specific terms in claims 13, 
15, 16, 17, and 23, erred in her invalidity and infringement analyses 
of those claims, and erred in concluding that complainant did not 
satisfy the domestic industry requirement. Complainant's petition 
included a request for contingent review of the ALJ's conclusions 
concerning

[[Page 40043]]

certain prior art and her construction of additional terms in these 
claims, should the Commission adopt complainant's claim construction 
over the ALJ's. Complainant did not petition for review of the ALJ's 
conclusions as to claim 37. Respondent filed a contingent petition for 
review identifying as issues for consideration should the Commission 
decide to review the ID certain aspects of the ALJ's construction of 
claims 13, 15, 16, 17, 23, and 37, application of the doctrine of 
equivalents, and conclusions as to invalidity and inequitable conduct. 
The Commission investigative attorney (IA) petitioned for review of the 
ALJ's alternative basis for finding no domestic industry as erroneous 
as a matter of law. On May 20, 1999, respondent, complainant, and the 
IA filed responses to the petitions for review.
    Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the 
parties' written submissions, the Commission determined not to review 
the ID, except that the Commission determined to take no position as to 
the ALJ's findings as to the following issues: (1) The invention date 
of the 525 patent; (2) the prior art status of the Oak/Brooktree 
combination under 35 U.S.C. 102(a); (3) the prior art status of the 
Bindlish 864 patent under 35 U.S.C. 102(e); (4) the invalidity of claim 
37 of the 525 patent as anticipated by the Bindlish 864 prior art 
patent under 35 U.S.C. 102(e); and (5) the non-enablement of claims 13, 
15, 16, 17, and 23. With respect to the ID's finding that complainant 
failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry 
requirement in part because claim 13 is invalid for indefiniteness, the 
Commission clarifies that it understands the ID to mean that 
complainant cannot meet the burden of demonstrating the practice of an 
indefinite claim. The Commission thereby adopted the ID, with the 
exceptions noted, as its final determination.
    The authority for the Commission's determinations is contained in 
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and 
in sections 210.42-210.43 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 C.F.R. 210.42-.43).
    Copies of the public version of the ALJ's ID and all other 
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, SW, Washington, DC 20436, 
telephone 202-205-2000.

    Issued: July 19, 1999.

    By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-18843 Filed 7-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P