[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Page 53409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-25627]



[[Page 53409]]

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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-409]


Certain CD-ROM Controllers and Products Containing the Same--II; 
Notice of Final Determination

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has found no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930 in the above-captioned investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy P. Monaghan, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3152. General information 
concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its 
Internet server (http://www.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 May 13, 1998, based on a complaint filed by Oak Technology, Inc. 63 
FR 26625 (1998). The complaint named four respondents: MediaTek, Inc., 
United Microelectronics Corporation (``UMC''), Lite-On Technology 
Corp., and AOpen, Inc., Actima Technology Corporation, ASUSTek 
Computer, Incorporated, Behavior Tech Computer Corporation, Data 
Electronics, Inc., Momitsu Multi Media Technologies, Inc., Pan-
International Industrial Corporation, and Ultima Electronics 
Corporation were permitted to intervene in the investigation.
    In its complaint, Oak alleged that respondents violated section 337 
by importing into the United States, selling for importation, and/or 
selling in the United States after importation electronic products and/
or components that infringe claims of U.S. Letters Patent 5,581,715 
(the ``715 patent). The presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) held 
an evidentiary hearing from January 11, 1999, to January 28, 1999.
    On May 10, 1999, the ALJ issued an initial determination ID (Order 
No. 15) granting respondent UMC's motion for a summary determination 
terminating UMC from the investigation on the basis of a license 
agreement. On May 12, 1999, the ALJ issued his final ID in which he 
found that there was no violation of section 337. Although the ALJ 
found that there was a domestic industry with respect to the `715 
patent, he found that there was no infringement of any claim at issue, 
and that the claims in issue of the `715 patent were invalid for on-
sale bar under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 102(b), anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 
Sec. 102(a), obviousness under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 103, indefiniteness under 
35 U.S.C. Sec. 112(1), (2), and (6), and derivation under 35 U.S.C. 
Sec. 102(f).
    Complainant Oak filed a petition for review of Order No. 15 and 
respondent UMC and the Commission investigative attorneys (IAs) filed 
responses to Oak's petition for review of Order No. 15. Oak, 
respondents UMC, MediaTek, Lite-On Technology, and AOpen, and the IAs 
filed petitions for review of the final ID, and all parties 
subsequently responded to each other's petitions for review of the 
final ID.
    On June 28, 1999, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's 
findings with respect to the preamble of claim 1 and its digital signal 
processor (DSP) element, and determined to review the remainder of the 
final ID and Order No. 15.
    Having examined the record in this investigation, including the 
briefs and the responses thereto, the Commission determined that there 
is no violation of section 337. More specifically, the Commission 
affirmed the ALJ's finding that there is a domestic industry with 
respect to the `715 patent; affirmed the ALJ's finding of no literal 
infringement and no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; 
reversed the ALJ's findings of invalidity based on an on-sale bar under 
35 U.S.C. 102(b), anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(a), obviousness 
under 35 U.S.C. 103, indefiniteness and vagueness under 35 U.S.C. 
112(1), (2), and (6), for derivation under 35 U.S.C. 102(f); and 
reversed the ALJ's finding of unenforceablity due to inequitable 
conduct before the PTO. 1 The Commission determined to take 
no position with regard to Order No. 15 terminating respondent UMC from 
the investigation, and with regard to the issue of equitable estoppel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Chairman Bragg and Commissioner Crawford take no position on 
the validity and enforceability of the claims at issue of the ``715 
patent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and sections 210.45-210.51 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.45-210.51.
    Copies of the public versions of the subject IDs, 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: September 27, 1999.

    By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-25627 Filed 9-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P