[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 144 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43858-43859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18190]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-703]


Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices 
Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof; Determination To 
Review the Initial Remand Determination in Part and on Review To Affirm 
a 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 to affirm, on modified grounds, the remand 
initial determination (``remand ID'') issued by the presiding 
administrative law judge (``ALJ'') on May 21, 2012, finding no 
violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337), as 
amended, (``section 337'') in the above-captioned investigation. The 
investigation is thus terminated with a finding of no violation of 
section 337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda S. Pitcher, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. 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) 205-2737. 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: This investigation was instituted on 
February 23, 2010, based upon a complaint filed on behalf of Eastman 
Kodak Company of Rochester, New York (``Kodak'') on January 14, 2010, 
and supplemented on February 4, 2010. 75 FR 8112. The complaint alleged 
violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation 
into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within 
the United States after importation of certain mobile telephones and 
wireless communication devices featuring digital cameras, and 
components thereof, that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 
6,292,218 (``the '218 patent''). The notice of investigation named as 
respondents Apple, Inc. of Cupertino, California (``Apple''); Research 
in Motion, Ltd. of Ontario, Canada; and Research in Motion Corp. of 
Irving, Texas (collectively, ``RIM''). Claim 15 is the only asserted 
claim remaining in the investigation.
    On January 24, 2011, then-Chief Judge Luckern issued a final 
Initial Determination (``final ID'') finding no violation of section 
337. On March 25, 2011, the Commission determined to review the final 
ID in its entirety. 76 FR 17,965 (March 31, 2011). On June 30, 2011, 
the Commission issued a notice that determined to affirm in part, 
reverse in part, and remand in part, the final ID. The Commission 
remanded the investigation in order for the ALJ to consider (1) 
infringement under the Commission's construction of the ``still 
processor'' limitation; (2) infringement under the Commission's 
construction of the ``motion processor'' limitation; (3) whether Kodak 
waived the argument that the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 in their non-
flash-photography mode practice the ``initiating capture'' limitation 
under the doctrine of equivalents and if not, whether the iPhone 3GS 
and iPhone 4 practice this limitation under the doctrine of 
equivalents; and (4) validity in light of the Commission's claim 
constructions, including further analysis of the pertinence of the ex 
parte reexaminations of the '218 patent and an explanation of the 
secondary considerations of nonobviousness. After remand, Chief Judge 
Luckern retired, and the investigation was reassigned to Judge Pender.
    On May 21, 2012, Judge Pender issued the remand ID finding no 
violation of section 337. In particular, he found claim 15 to be 
obvious in view of Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open Disclosure No. 
H5-122574 (``Mori'') and U.S. Patent No. 5,493,335 to Parulski 
(``Parulski '335''). He found the claim to be infringed by the accused 
RIM products and by the Apple iPhone 3G, but not the iPhone 3GS and 
iPhone 4. Kodak and the Commission investigative attorney (``IA'') 
petitioned for review of, inter alia, the ALJ's finding that claim 15 
of the '218 patent is invalid. RIM has petitioned for review of the 
ALJ's finding of infringement by the accused RIM products, the ALJ's 
failure to consider certain newly introduced products that RIM contends 
do not infringe, and the ALJ's finding that claim 15 is not obvious in 
view of the combination of U.S. Patent No. 4,887,161 (Watanabe), U.S. 
Patent No. 3,971,065 (Bayer), and Sharp ViewCam. Apple petitioned for 
review of the ALJ's finding that the iPhone 3G infringes claim 15, and 
Apple joined in RIM's petition on the invalidity issues. The IA, Apple 
and RIM filed responses to Kodak's petition. The IA and Kodak filed 
responses to RIM's and Apple's petitions.
    Having reviewed the record of this investigation, including the 
parties' petitions for review and responses thereto, as well as the 
parties' submissions to the ALJ, both before and after remand, and the 
transcripts of the hearing conducted by the ALJ, the Commission has 
determined to review the ALJ's remand ID in part. The Commission has 
determined to review the ALJ's finding of infringement of the '218 
patent by the accused RIM products and the iPhone 3G, and his finding 
of invalidity based on the Mori and Parulski '335 combination. The 
Commission affirms the remaining findings of the ALJ. On review, the 
Commission has determined to (1) find that the accused RIM products and 
the Apple iPhone 3G infringe claim 15; and (2) affirm the ALJ's 
invalidity findings

[[Page 43859]]

regarding the Mori and Parulski '335 combination on modified grounds.
    The Commission's determination and reasons in support thereof will 
be further detailed in the Commission's forthcoming opinion.
    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).

    Issued: July 20, 2012.

    By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-18190 Filed 7-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P