[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 23837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10238]


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

 INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-692]


Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same; Notice 
of the Commission's Final Determination of No Violation of Section 337; 
Termination of the Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined that there has been no violation of section 
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation, 
and has terminated the investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panyin A. Hughes, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. 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 November 4, 2009, based on a complaint filed by Murata Manufacturing 
Co., Ltd. of Kyoto, Japan and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. of 
Smyrna, Georgia (collectively, ``Murata''). 74 FR 57193-94 (Nov. 4, 
2009). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 (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 ceramic capacitors and products containing the 
same by reason of infringement of various claims of United States 
Patent Nos. 6,266,229 (``the '229 patent''); 6,014,309 (``the '309 
patent''); 6,243,254 (``the '254 patent''); and 6,377,439 (subsequently 
terminated from the investigation). The complaint named Samsung 
Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. of Suwon City, Korea and Samsung Electro-
Mechanics America, Inc. of Irvine, California (collectively, 
``Samsung'') as respondents.
    On December 22, 2010, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding no 
violation of section 337 by Respondents with respect to any of the 
asserted claims of the asserted patents. Specifically, the ALJ found 
that the accused products do not infringe the asserted claims of the 
'254 patent. The ALJ also found that none of the cited references 
anticipates the asserted claims and that none of the cited references 
renders the asserted claims obvious. The ALJ further found that the 
asserted claims are not rendered unenforceable due to inequitable 
conduct. The ALJ, however, found that asserted claims 11-14, 19, and 20 
of the '254 patent fail to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 
for lack of written description. Regarding the '309 patent, the ALJ 
found that the accused products do not infringe asserted claim 3 and 
that none of the cited references anticipates or renders obvious 
asserted claim 3. The ALJ further found that the asserted claim is not 
rendered unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. With respect to the 
'229 patent, the ALJ found that the accused products meet all the 
limitations of the asserted claims and that the asserted claims are not 
rendered unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The ALJ further 
found that the cited references do not anticipate the asserted claims 
but found that the prior art renders the asserted claims obvious. The 
ALJ concluded that an industry exists within the United States that 
practices the '254 patent and the '229 patent but that a domestic 
industry that practices the '309 patent does not exist as required by 
19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2) and (3).
    On January 4, 2011, Murata and the Commission investigative 
attorney filed petitions for review of the ID. That same day, Samsung 
filed a contingent petition for review of the ID. On January 12, 2011, 
the parties filed responses to the various petitions and contingent 
petition for review.
    On February 23, 2011, the Commission determined to review the final 
ID in part and requested briefing on several issues it determined to 
review, and on remedy, the public interest and bonding. 76 FR 11275 
(Mar. 1, 2011). The Commission determined to review the findings 
related to the '229 patent and in particular the finding that the AAPA 
(Applicant Admitted Prior Art) does not invalidate the asserted claims 
of the '229 patent. The Commission determined not to review any issues 
related to the '309 patent and the '254 patent and terminated those 
patents from the investigation.
    On March 8, 2011, the parties filed written submissions on the 
issues under review, remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On March 
15, 2011, the parties filed reply submissions on the issues on review, 
remedy, the public interest and bonding.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID, the Commission has determined that there is no 
violation of section 337. Specifically, the Commission has determined 
to (1) reverse the ALJ's finding to the extent that it suggests that 
the AAPA cannot constitute prior art and (2) find that the asserted 
claims of the '229 patent are obvious in light of a combination of (i) 
the AAPA and the knowledge in the art at the time of filing the 
patent's priority document, (ii) the AAPA and Nagakari (Japanese 
unexamined patent application H11-21429), or (iii) the AAPA and the 
deNeuf product (product samples sold by Murata and provided by Mr. 
deNeuf). The Commission vacates the ALJ's finding that the AAPA does 
not anticipate the asserted claims of the '229 patent; however, given 
the Commission's finding that the asserted claims of the '229 patent 
are invalid for obviousness, the Commission does not reach the issue of 
anticipation. The Commission adopts the ALJ's findings regarding the 
'229 patent in all other respects.
    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 210.42-46 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: April 22, 2011,
James R. Holbein,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-10238 Filed 4-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P