[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 132 (Monday, July 12, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41846-41849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-15737]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-491 Inv. No. 337-TA-481 (consolidated)]


In the Matter of: Certain Display Controllers and Products 
Containing Same and Certain Display Controllers With Upscaling 
Functionality and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission 
Determinations to Review Portions of an Initial Determination Finding a 
Violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 With Respect to one 
Respondent and Portions of an Initial Determination on Remand Finding a 
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 to review-in-part the presiding 
administrative law judge's (``ALJ's'') initial determination (``ID'') 
issued on May 20, 2004, on remand in Inv. No. 337-TA-481, Certain 
Display Controllers With Upscaling Functionality and Products 
Containing Same (``Display Controllers I'' or ``481 investigation''), 
and the ALJ's final ID issued on April 14, 2004, in Inv. No. 337-TA-
491, Certain Display Controllers and Products Containing Same 
(``Display Controllers II'' or ``491 investigation''). The Commission 
has also determined to grant the motion for leave to file a reply, 
which motion was filed on May 13, 2004, by a respondent in the 491 
investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Liberman, Esq., or Clara 
Kuehn, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade 
Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 
205-3061. 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 SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information 
concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its 
Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this 
investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket 
(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov/. Hearing-impaired persons are advised 
that information on the matter can be obtained by contacting the 
Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted Display 
Controllers I on October 18, 2002, based on a complaint filed by 
Genesis Microchip (Delaware) Inc. of Alviso, Calif, naming Media 
Reality Technologies, Inc. of Sunnyvale, Calif. (``MRT''); Trumpion 
Microelectronics, Inc. (``Trumpion'') of Taipei City, Taiwan; and 
SmartASIC, Inc. of San Jose, Calif. as respondents. 67 FR 64411. On 
January 14, 2003, the then presiding ALJ issued an ID terminating 
respondent SmartASIC from the investigation on the basis of a 
settlement agreement. That ID was not reviewed by the Commission. The 
final ID in Display Controllers I (``the 481 Final ID'') issued on 
October 20, 2003. 68 FR 69719. The ALJ found no violation of section 
337 based on his findings that respondents' accused products do not 
infringe claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 33-36, 38, or 39 of the 
'867 patent, claims 1 and 9 of the '867 patent are invalid, and that 
complainant Genesis has not satisfied the domestic industry requirement 
of section 337.

[[Page 41847]]

    On December 5, 2003, the Commission determined to review the 481 
Final ID in part. Id. The Commission determined to review portions of 
the ALJ's claim construction, all of the ALJ's non-infringement 
findings, the ALJ's finding that complainant Genesis does not practice 
any claims of the '867 patent, and the ALJ's findings that neither the 
Spartan reference nor the ACUITY Application Note anticipate the 
asserted claims of the '867 patent. On review of the 481 Final ID, the 
Commission determined to reverse portions of the ALJ's claim 
construction and to remand the investigation to the ALJ. On January 20, 
2004, the Commission ordered that the ALJ conduct further proceedings 
and make any findings necessary in order to determine whether, in light 
of the claim construction determinations made by the Commission: (a) 
the accused products in the 481 investigation infringe the asserted 
claims of the '867 patent; (b) complainant Genesis satisfies the 
technical prong of the domestic industry requirement; (c) the Spartan 
Zoom Engine constitutes prior art to the '867 patent and whether it 
anticipates the asserted claims of the '867 patent; and (d) the Acuity 
Application Note constitutes an enabling prior art reference that 
anticipates the asserted claims of the '867 patent. 69 FR 3602 (Jan. 
26, 2004). On review of the 481 Final ID, the Commission remanded 
Display Controllers I to the ALJ. 69 FR 3602 (Jan. 26, 2004). The 
remand order directed that the ALJ issue his findings by May 20, 2004, 
and set a schedule for the filing by the parties of comments on the 
ALJ's findings and response comments. The remand order also extended 
the target date for completion of the 481 investigation to August 20, 
2004.
    The Commission instituted Display Controllers II on April 14, 2003, 
based on a complaint filed on behalf of Genesis. 68 FR 17,964 (Apr. 14, 
2003). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United 
States, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after 
importation of certain display controllers and products containing same 
by reason of infringement of claims 13 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 
6,078,361 (``the '361 patent''); certain claims of the U.S. Patent No. 
5,953,074 (``the `074 patent''); and certain claims of the U.S. Patent 
No. 6,177,922 (``the '922 patent''). The notice of investigation named 
three respondents: Media Reality Technologies, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; 
MRT; and Trumpion. Id. Both Trumpion and MRT were also named 
respondents in Display Controllers I.
    On June 20, 2003, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 5) amending the 
complaint and notice of investigation in Display Controllers II to add 
MStar Semiconductor, Inc. (``MStar'') as a respondent, additional 
claims of the `074 patent, and claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 33-
36, 38, and 39 of the '867 patent, the same patent at issue in the 481 
investigation. That ID was not reviewed by the Commission. 68 FR 44,967 
(July 31, 2003).
    On November 10, 2003, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 38) granting 
complainant's motion to terminate the Display Controllers II 
investigation with respect to Trumpion, the `922 patent, and the `074 
patent. That ID was not reviewed by the Commission.
    On January 6, 2004, a tutorial session was held in Display 
Controllers II. An evidentiary hearing was held on January 6-15, 20, 
and February 2-3, 2004. On April 14, 2004, the ALJ issued his final ID 
(``the 491 Final ID'') and recommended determination on remedy and 
bonding in Display Controllers II. In the 491 Final ID, the ALJ found a 
violation of section 337 with respect to respondent MStar, but no 
violation with respect to respondent MRT.
    Complainant Genesis, respondents MRT and MStar, and the Commission 
investigative attorney each petitioned for review of portions of the 
491 Final ID, and filed responses to the petitions for review. On May 
13, 2004, respondent MStar filed a motion for leave to reply and with 
an attached reply.
    On May 20, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID in Display Controllers I 
(``the 481 Remand ID'') on remand. In the 481 Remand ID, the ALJ found 
a violation of section 337 with respect to both respondents in Display 
Controllers I, MRT and Trumpion.
    On May 21, 2004, the Commission issued an order consolidating the 
481 and 491 investigations and set the target date for completion of 
the consolidated investigation as August 20, 2004.
    On June 2, 2004, respondent Trumpion filed a petition for review of 
the 481 Remand ID. On the same day, the IA filed comments on issues 
decided in the 481 Remand ID. On June 7, 2004, respondent MRT filed a 
petition for review of the 481 Remand ID. The IA and complainant 
Genesis filed timely responses to the petitions.
    Having reviewed the record in this consolidated investigation, 
including the parties' written submissions, the Commission determined 
to grant respondent MStar's May 13, 2004, motion for leave to file a 
reply, to review-in-part the 481 Remand ID, and to review-in-part the 
491 Final ID.
    With respect to the 481 Remand ID, the Commission determined to 
review: (1) the ALJ's infringement analysis with regard to the wherein 
clause of claims 1 and 12 (Issues I.A and I.B in the 481 Remand ID); 
(2) the ALJ's infringement and domestic industry analysis and findings 
with regard to the ``receiving means'' limitation in claim 12 and 
claims 13, 16, 17, 38, and 39 which depend from claim 12 (Issues I.A, 
I.B, and II.A in the 481 Remand ID); and (3) the ALJ's infringement 
finding with respect to Trumpion's t-0944 and t-0947 products (Issue 
I.B in the 481 Remand ID).
    With respect to the 491 Final ID, the Commission determined to 
review the ALJ's construction of the following claim language in the 
'361 patent: ``according to'' (claims 13(b), 13(c), 13(e), 15(b), 
15(c), and 15(e))(Issues II.A.5, II.A.8, II.A.11, II.B.5, II.B.8, and 
II.B.10 in the 491 Final ID); ``address generation circuit coupled to 
the panel control logic'' (claims 13(c) and 15(c)) (Issues II.A.6 and 
II.B.6 in the 491 Final ID); and ``wherein the address generation logic 
circuit selectively repeats an address for expanding the image 
vertically'' (claim 15) (Issue II.B.11 in the 491 Final ID). The 
Commission also determined to review the ALJ's findings of fact and 
conclusions of law with respect to infringement, domestic industry, and 
invalidity to the extent that those findings and conclusions depend 
upon the ALJ's construction of the claim limitations of the '361 patent 
under review. The Commission further determined to review the ALJ's 
findings in the 491 Final ID (ID at 208-09, Issue VI.B.2.b) that claims 
1 and 9 of the '867 patent are not anticipated by the '071 patent, and 
the ALJ's ultimate finding that the priority date for the '867 patent 
is February 24, 1997 (i.e., the filing date for the application that 
matured into the '867 patent). The Commission determined to review the 
ALJ's findings in the 491 Final ID (ID at 208-09, Issue VI.B.2.b) that 
claims 2, 33, 34, 35, and 36 of the '867 patent are not anticipated by 
the '071 patent. The Commission determined to review the ALJ's findings 
of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the 491 Final ID at 211-13 
under the headings Issue VI.B.3.c and VI.B.3.d, and consequently, the 
ALJ's conclusions that claim 36 of the '867 patent is not invalid as 
obvious over the '071 patent in view of either U.S. Patent No. 
5,227,882 to Kato or U.S. Patent No. 5,838,381 to Kasahara. Finally, 
the Commission determined to review the

[[Page 41848]]

ALJ's infringement findings concerning claims 1, 2, 9, 33, 34, 35, and 
36 of the '867 patent with respect to the timing equality limitation of 
the wherein clause of the '867 patent.
    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the 
Commission may issue (1) an order that could result in the exclusion of 
the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) 
cease and desist orders that could result in respondents 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 are likely to do so. For background 
information, see the Commission Opinion, In the Matter of Certain 
Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-
360.
    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 aforementioned public interest factors in 
the context of this investigation.
    If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the President has 60 
days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. During this 
period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United 
States under a bond, in an amount to be 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.
    Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested 
to file written submissions on the issues under review. The Commission 
is particularly interested in receiving written submissions that 
address the following issues:
    The 481 Remand ID.
    1. Do the MRT accused products literally infringe the ``receiving 
means'' limitation of claim 12 of the '867 patent (Issue I.A in the 481 
Remand ID)? Please explain your position applying the requirements for 
establishing literal infringement of a Sec.  112 ] 6 limitation in 
accordance with the teachings of the Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit and citing the relevant authority and record evidence that 
support your position. In particular, please address the following:
    (a) Whether any structure in the MRT accused products performs a 
function identical to the claimed function of the ``receiving means'' 
in claim 12;
    (b) Provided the MRT accused products contain a structure that 
performs a function identical to the claimed function of the 
``receiving means'' in claim 12, whether such a structure is identical 
to the corresponding structure in the '867 patent specification;
    (c) Provided the MRT accused products contain a structure that 
performs a function identical to the claimed function of the 
``receiving means'' in claim 12, whether such a structure is equivalent 
to the corresponding structure in the '867 patent specification, i.e., 
whether any structure in the MRT accused products performs a function 
identical to the claimed function of the ``receiving means'' in claim 
12 in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same 
result as compared to the structure specified in the '867 patent that 
performs the claimed function of the ``receiving means'' in claim 12.
    2. Do the Trumpion accused products literally infringe the 
``receiving means'' limitation of claim 12 of the '867 patent (Issue 
I.B in the 481 Remand ID)? Please explain your position applying the 
requirements for establishing literal infringement of a Sec.  112 ] 6 
limitation in accordance with the teachings of the Court of Appeals for 
the Federal Circuit and citing the relevant authority and record 
evidence that support your position. In particular, please address the 
following:
    (a) Whether any structure in the Trumpion accused products performs 
a function identical to the claimed function of the ``receiving means'' 
in claim 12;
    (b) Provided the Trumpion accused products contain a structure that 
performs a function identical to the claimed function of the 
``receiving means'' in claim 12, whether such a structure is identical 
to the corresponding structure in the '867 patent specification;
    (c) provided the Trumpion accused products contain a structure that 
performs a function identical to the claimed function of the 
``receiving means'' in claim 12, whether such a structure is equivalent 
to the corresponding structure in the '867 patent specification, i.e., 
whether any structure in the Trumpion accused products performs a 
function identical to the claimed function of the ``receiving means'' 
in claim 12 in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the 
same result as compared to the structure specified in the '867 patent 
that performs the claimed function of the ``receiving means'' in claim 
12.
    3. Do the Genesis products at issue practice the ``receiving 
means'' limitation of claim 12 of the '867 patent (Issue II.A in the 
481 Remand ID)? Please explain your position applying the requirements 
for establishing literal infringement of a Sec.  112 ] 6 limitation in 
accordance with the teachings of the Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit and citing the relevant authority and record evidence that 
support your position. In particular, please address the following:
    (a) Whether any structure in the Genesis products at issue performs 
a function identical to the claimed function of the ``receiving means'' 
in claim 12;
    (b) Provided the Genesis products at issue contain a structure that 
performs a function identical to the claimed function of the 
``receiving means'' in claim 12, whether such a structure is identical 
to the corresponding structure in the '867 patent specification;
    (c) Provided the Genesis products at issue contain a structure that 
performs a function identical to the claimed function of the 
``receiving means'' in claim 12, whether such a structure is equivalent 
to the corresponding structure in the '867 patent specification, i.e., 
whether any structure in the Genesis products at issue performs a 
function identical to the claimed function of the ``receiving means'' 
in claim 12 in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the 
same result as compared to the structure specified in the '867 patent 
that performs the claimed function of the ``receiving means'' in claim 
12.
    The 491 Final ID.
    1. Please address (a) whether the '071 patent is prior art to the 
'867 patent, and (b) whether either claim 1 or 9 of the '867 patent is 
anticipated by the '071 patent under the Commission's claim 
construction, in view of the consolidated record in the 481 and 491 
investigations.

[[Page 41849]]

    2. (a) As to the ALJ's infringement findings with respect to claims 
1, 2, 9, 33, 34, 35, and 36 of the '867 patent that are under review, 
please address whether any of MStar's accused products satisfy the 
timing equality limitation (``maintain an equality of equal source and 
destination image frame periods'' (ID at 148)) of the wherein clause of 
claim 1 under the Commission's claim construction. Cite supporting 
exhibits and testimony of record relevant to this issue, and identify 
where this specific argument and supporting evidence regarding 
infringement was presented to the ALJ with citations to previous 
briefing. (b) Are the ALJ's findings of fact FF 129, 130, and 132 
sufficient to support a finding that any of MStar's accused products 
satisfy the timing equality limitation of the wherein clause of claim 1 
under the Commission's claim construction, and infringe claims 1, 2, 9, 
33, 34, 35, or 36 of the '867 patent? Cite supporting exhibits and 
testimony of record, and identify where this evidence and argument was 
presented to the ALJ with citations to previous briefing.
    3. How should the language of claims 13 and 15 of the '361 patent 
that is under review be construed?
    (a) In light of the expert testimony of Ferraro (Trans. at 1423, 
1445-51; RDX-102 at 12-15), is it legally permissible to construe 
``according to'' to mean ``based upon'' in claims 13 and 15 and to mean 
``consistent with'' in claim 5? Please cite to any relevant case law. 
May the same phrase appearing in two claims of the same patent be 
construed differently in the two claims by using different definitions 
for the phrase in question?
    (b) Assuming that the '361 patent teaches only ``front-end,'' and 
not ``back-end,'' vertical expansion (ID at 102-04), is it legally 
permissible to narrow the meaning of the broad term ``an address'' to 
mean ``addresses other than the memory read addresses,'' based on the 
lack of disclosure of such an embodiment in the specification? Please 
cite to any relevant case law.
    (c) Identify any finding of fact or conclusion of law with respect 
to infringement, domestic industry, or invalidity in the 491 Final ID 
rendered clearly erroneous or legally erroneous under the proposed 
interpretation of the claim limitations under review. Provide 
supporting citations to the record.
    The written submissions should be concise and thoroughly referenced 
to the consolidated record in this investigation, including references 
to exhibits and testimony. Additionally, the parties to the 
investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested 
persons are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of 
remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such submissions should 
address the ALJ's April 14, 2004, recommended determination on remedy 
and bonding issued in Display Controllers II, and the ALJ's October 20, 
2003, recommended determination on remedy and bonding issued in Display 
Controllers I. Complainant and the Commission investigative attorney 
are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the 
Commission's consideration. The written submissions and proposed 
remedial orders must be filed no later than the close of business on 
July 16, 2004. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close 
of business on July 23, 2004. No further submissions will be permitted 
unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
    Persons filing written submissions must file with the Office of the 
Secretary the original and 14 true copies thereof on or before the 
deadlines stated above. Any person desiring to submit a document (or 
portion thereof) to the Commission in confidence must request 
confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted 
such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be 
directed to the Secretary of 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 
is granted by the Commission will be treated accordingly. All 
nonconfindential written submissions will be available for public 
inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in sections 
210.42-.45 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 
210.42-.45).

    Issued: July 7, 2004.

    By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-15737 Filed 7-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P