[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14544-14545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-4154]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-506]


In the Matter of Certain Optical Disk Controller Chips and 
Chipsets and Products Containing Same, Including DVD Players And PC 
Optical Storage Devices; Notice of Commission Determination To Rescind 
Remedial Orders

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to rescind the remedial orders issued 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. Copies of the 
Commission orders, the Commission opinion in support thereof, 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.
    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-ON-LINE) at http://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 14, 2004, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Zoran 
Corporation (``Zoran'') and Oak Technology, Inc. (``Oak'') both of 
Sunnyvale, California (collectively ``complainants''). 69 FR 19876. The 
complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into 
the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the 
United States after importation of certain optical disk controller 
chips and chipsets and products containing same, including DVD players 
and PC optical storage devices, by reason of infringement of claims 1-
12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,466,736 (``the `736 patent''), claims 1-3 of 
U.S. Patent No. 6,584,527 (``the `527 patent''), and claims 1-35 of 
U.S. Patent No. 6,546,440 (``the `440 patent''). Id.
    The notice of investigation identified 12 respondents. 69 FR 19876. 
On June 7, 2004, the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') 
issued an initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 5) terminating the 
investigation as to two respondents on the basis of a consent order and 
settlement agreement. On June 22, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 
7) granting complainants' motion to amend the complaint and notice of 
investigation to add nine additional respondents. Those IDs were not 
reviewed by the Commission.
    On December 22, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 33) granting 
complainants' motion to terminate the investigation in part with 
respect to claims 2-6 and 8-11 of the `736 patent and claims 2-4, 6, 9, 
11, 12, 15-18, 20, and 22-35 of the `440 patent. On January 28, 2005, 
the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 37) granting complainants' motion to 
terminate the investigation in part with respect to claim 12 of the 
`736 patent. Neither ID was reviewed by the Commission. Thus, at the 
time that Order No. 37 issued, the claims remaining for determination 
on the merits were claims 1 and 7 of the `736 patent; claims 1, 5, 7, 
8, 10, 13, 14, 19, and 21 of the `440 patent; and claims 1-3 of the 
`527 patent.
    An eight-day evidentiary hearing was held on February 7-12, and 14-
15, 2005.
    On May 16, 2005, the ALJ issued his final ID, findings of fact and 
conclusions of law, and recommended determination on remedy and 
bonding. The ALJ concluded that there was a violation of section 337 
based on his findings that: (a) The accused products infringe claim 3 
of the `527 patent, (b) the `527 patent is not unenforceable, (c) claim 
3 of the `527 patent is not invalid, and (d) complainants have 
satisfied the domestic industry requirement with respect to the `527 
patent. Although the ALJ found that the other asserted claims of the 
`527 patent (claims 1 and 2) are not invalid, he found that the accused 
products do not infringe those claims. The ALJ found no violation with 
respect to the other patents in issue. He found that the accused 
products do not infringe any asserted claim of the `440 or `736 patents 
and that complainants

[[Page 14545]]

have not satisfied the domestic industry requirement with respect to 
those patents. He also found that the asserted claims of the `440 and 
`736 patents are not invalid and that those patents are not 
unenforceable.
    On May 27, 2005, complainants and nineteen respondents each 
petitioned for review of portions of the final ID. On July 19, 2005, 
the Commission determined to review the ID in part. 70 FR 42589-91. 
Specifically, the Commission determined to review the ID's findings of 
fact and conclusions of law with respect to the `527 and `440 patents. 
Id. The Commission determined not to review the ID's findings of fact 
and conclusions of law with respect to the `736 patent, thereby 
adopting them. Id. Accordingly, the Commission found no violation of 
section 337 with respect to the `736 patent. Id. The Commission also 
determined to review and modify the ID to clarify that respondents 
accused of infringing only the asserted claims of the `736 patent 
(viz., respondents Audiovox Corporation; Initial Technology, Inc.; 
Mintek Digital, Inc.; Shinco International AV Co., Ltd.; Changzhou 
Shinco Digital Technology Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Shinco Electronic Group 
Co., Ltd.; Terapin Technology Pte., Ltd. [formerly known as Teraoptix 
d/b/a Terapin Technology] of Singapore; and Terapin Technology U.S. 
[formerly also known as Teraoptix]) are not in violation of section 
337. Id.
    On review, the Commission determined that there was a violation of 
section 337 as to claim 3 of the `527 patent, but no violation of the 
statute as to the remaining claims in issue of the `527 patent (viz., 
claims 1 and 2) and no violation as to the claims in issue of the `440 
patent (viz., claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 19, and 21). 70 FR 57620. 
On September 28, 2005, the Commission determined that the appropriate 
form of relief is a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed 
entry of chips or chipsets covered by claim 3 of the `527 patent 
manufactured abroad or imported by or on behalf of MediaTek, Inc. of 
Hsin-Chu City, Taiwan, and optical storage devices containing such 
covered chips or chipsets that are manufactured abroad or imported by 
or on behalf of Artronix Technology, Inc. of Brea, California; ASUSTek 
Computer, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; ASUS Computer International of 
Fremont, California; MSI Computer Corporation of City of Industry, 
California; TEAC America Inc. of Montebello, California; EPO Science 
and Technology, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; LITE-ON Information Technology 
Corp. of Taipei, Taiwan; Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. of Taipei 
Hsien, Taiwan; TEAC Corp. of Tokyo, Japan; or Ultima Electronics Corp. 
of Taipei Hsien, Taiwan (collectively, with MediaTek, Inc. 
``respondents''). Id. The Commission also determined to issue cease and 
desist orders directed to Artronix Technology, Inc.; ASUSTek Computer, 
Inc.; ASUS Computer International; MSI Computer Corporation; TEAC 
America Inc.; EPO Science and Technology, Inc.; and LITE-ON Information 
Technology Corp. Id.
    On February 10, 2006, complainants Zoran and Oak and respondent 
MediaTek filed, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(k) and Commission rule 
210.76(a) (19 CFR 210.76(a)), a joint petition for rescission of the 
limited exclusion order and the cease and desist orders issued in the 
investigation based on a settlement agreement that resolves the 
underlying dispute between all of the parties, including all of the 
other respondents. On February 22, 2006, the Commission investigative 
attorney filed a response supporting the joint petition.
    Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the Commission has 
determined that the settlement agreement satisfies the requirement of 
Commission rule 210.76(a)(1), 19 CFR 210.76(a)(1), for changed 
conditions of fact or law. The Commission therefore has issued an order 
rescinding the remedial orders previously issued in this investigation.
    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and Sec.  210.76(a)(1) of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.76(a)(1)).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 17, 2006.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E6-4154 Filed 3-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P