[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 133 (Thursday, July 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38101-38102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13495]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-556]


 In the Matter of Certain High-Brightness Light Emitting Diodes 
and Products Containing Same Notice of Commission Decision To Reverse-
In-Part and Modify-In-Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a 
Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order; and 
Termination of the Investigation.

AGENCY: International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to reverse-in-part and modify-in-part a final 
initial determination (``ID'') of the presiding administrative law 
judge (``ALJ'') finding a violation of section 337 by the respondent's 
products in the above-captioned investigation, and has issued a limited 
exclusion order directed against products of respondent Epistar 
Corporation (``Epistar'') of Hsinchu, Taiwan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. Copies of non-
confidential 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 at: 
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 this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD 
terminal on (202) 205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on December 8, 2005, based on a complaint filed by Lumileds Lighting 
U.S., LLC (``Lumileds'') of San Jose, California. 70 Federal Register 
73026. The complaint, as amended and supplemented, alleges 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

[[Page 38102]]

the United States after importation of certain high-brightness light 
emitting diodes (``LEDs'') and products containing same by reason of 
infringement of claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 5,008,718 (``the `718 
patent''); claims 1-3, 8-9, 16, 18, and 23-28 of U.S. Patent No. 
5,376,580 (``the `580 patent''); and claims 12-16 of U.S. Patent No. 
5,502,316 (``the `316 patent''). The complaint further alleges the 
existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's notice of 
investigation named Epistar, and United Epitaxy Company (``UEC'') of 
Hsinchu, Taiwan as respondents.
    On April 28, 2006, Lumileds moved to amend the complaint to: (1) 
Remove UEC as a named respondent, (2) change the complainant's full 
name from Lumileds Lighting U.S., LLC to Philips Lumileds Lighting 
Company LLC (``Philips''), and (3) identify additional Epistar LEDs 
alleged to infringe one or more patents-in-suit. Neither respondent 
opposed the motion.
    On May 15, 2006, the Commission determined not to review an ID 
(Order No. 14) granting the complainant's motion for partial summary 
determination to dismiss Epistar's affirmative defense that the `718 
claims are invalid.
    On August 2, 2006, the still pending motion to amend the complaint 
was discussed with the parties during the prehearing conference, and 
the evidentiary hearing was held from August 2-11, 2006. On October 23, 
2006, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 29) granting Lumileds' motion to 
amend the complaint, and further ordering that the Notice of 
Investigation be amended to identify Philips as the complainant and to 
remove UEC as a named respondent. On November 13, 2006, the Commission 
published its notice that it had determined not to review Order No. 29. 
71 Federal Register 66195.
    On December 13, 2006, the Commission determined not to review an ID 
(Order No. 31) extending the target date for this investigation to May 
8, 2007, and the deadline for the ALJ's final initial determination to 
January 8, 2007.
    On January 8 and 11, 2007, the ALJ issued his final ID and 
recommended determinations on remedy and bonding, respectively. The ALJ 
found a violation of section 337 based on his findings that the 
respondent's accused products infringe one or more of the asserted 
claims of the patents at issue. On January 22, 2007, the complainant 
and the respondent each filed a petition for review of the final ID. On 
January 29, 2007, all parties, including the Commission investigative 
attorney, filed responses to the petitions for review.
    On February 22, 2007, the Commission determined to review-in-part 
the ID. Particularly, the Commission determined to review claim 
construction of the terms ``substrate'' and ``semiconductor substrate'' 
in claims 1 and 6 of the `718 patent, and claim construction of the 
term ``wafer bonding'' in claims 1-3, 8-9, 16, 18, 23-25, 27 and 28 of 
the `580 patent and claims 12-14 and 16 of the `316 patent. With 
respect to violation, the Commission requested written submissions from 
the parties relating to the following issue: the ALJ's addition of the 
limitation ``must also be a material that provides adequate mechanical 
support for the LED device'' to the construction of the term 
``substrate,'' and the implications of this addition for the 
infringement analysis. Further, the Commission requested written 
submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
    On March 5 and March 12, 2007, respectively, the complainant 
Philips, the respondent Epistar, and the IA filed briefs and reply 
briefs on the issues for which the Commission requested written 
submissions.
    Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the ID 
and the parties' written submissions, the Commission has determined to 
reverse-in-part and modify-in-part the ID. Particularly, the Commission 
has modified the ALJ's claim construction of the term ``substrate'' in 
claims 1 and 6 of the `718 patent to be ``the supporting material in an 
LED upon which the other layers of an LED are grown or to which those 
layers are attached'' and includes the case in which the supporting 
material functioning as the substrate is grown on top of, or attached 
to, the other layers. Also, the Commission has modified the ALJ's claim 
construction of the term ``semiconductor substrate'' to be the above-
mentioned ``substrate'' construction where additionally, ``at least one 
layer of the supporting material functioning as the substrate includes 
a non-metallic solid that conducts electricity by virtue of excitation 
of electrons across an energy gap, or by introduced materials, such as 
dopants, that provide conduction electrons.'' Further, the Commission 
has reversed the ALJ's ruling of non-infringement of the `718 patent by 
GB I, GB II, OMA I, and OMA II LEDs and determined that those products 
infringe claims 1 and 6 under the ALJ's original claim construction of 
``substrate'' and the modified construction of ``semiconductor 
substrate''.
    Also, the Commission has modified the ALJ's claim construction of 
``wafer bonding'' in claims 1-3, 8-9, 16, 18, 23-25, 27 and 28 of the 
`580 patent and claims 12-14 and 16 of the `316 patent. Particularly, 
the Commission has modified the claim construction of this term to be 
``the bringing of two wafer surfaces into physical contact such that a 
mechanically robust, largely optically transparent bond forms between 
them, but does not include Van der Waals bonding.'' This modification 
does not affect the ID's finding of non-infringement of the `316 and 
`580 patent claims.
    Further, the Commission has made its determination on the issues of 
remedy, the public interest, and bonding. The Commission has determined 
that the appropriate form of relief is a limited exclusion order 
prohibiting the unlicensed entry of LEDs that infringe claims 1 or 6 of 
the `718 patent that are manufactured by or on behalf of Epistar, its 
affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or 
other related business entities, or successors or assigns. The 
Commission has also determined to prohibit the unlicensed entry of 
packaged LEDs containing the infringing LEDs and boards primarily 
consisting of arrays of such packaged LEDs.
    The Commission further determined that the public interest factors 
enumerated in section 337(d)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)) do not preclude 
issuance of the limited exclusion order. Finally, the Commission 
determined that the amount of bond to permit temporary importation 
during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)) shall be 
in the amount of 100 percent of the value of the LEDs or board 
containing the same that are subject to the order. The Commission's 
order and opinion was delivered to the President and to the United 
States Trade Representative on the day of its issuance.
    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 sections 210.42, 210.45, and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42, 210.45, 210.50).

    Issued: May 9, 2007.

    By order of the Commission.
William R. Bishop,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
 [FR Doc. E7-13495 Filed 7-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P