[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 36 (Friday, February 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12354-12355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04070]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-781]


Certain Microprocessors, Components Thereof, and Products 
Containing Same; Termination of Investigation With a Finding of No 
Violation

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 final initial 
determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ'') on December 14, 2012, finding no violation of section 337 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation. On 
review, the Commission has determined to reverse or vacate certain 
findings, and to terminate the investigation with a finding of no 
violation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Esq., 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) 205-2000. General

[[Page 12355]]

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 this matter can be obtained by contacting the 
Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on July 7, 2011, based on a complaint filed by X2Y Attenuators, LLC of 
Erie, Pennsylvania (``X2Y''). 76 FR 39,895 (July 7, 2011). The 
respondents are Intel Corporation and Intel America, Inc., both of 
Santa Clara, California; Componentes Intel de Costa Rica S.A. of 
Heredia, Costa Rica; Intel Technology Sdn Bhd of Penang, Malaysia; and 
Intel Products (Chengdu) Ltd. of Chengdu, China (collectively, 
``Intel''), as well as two of Intel's customers who import computers 
containing accused Intel microprocessors, Apple Inc. of Cupertino, 
California (``Apple''); and Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto, 
California (``HP'').
    Originally, X2Y asserted numerous claims from five patents. X2Y 
later received leave to amend the notice of investigation to add a 
sixth patent, Order No. 13 (Oct. 14, 2011), not reviewed, Nov. 14, 
2011, but X2Y later moved to terminate the investigation as to three of 
the six patents and as to certain claims of the remaining three, Order 
No. 35 (June 13, 2012), not reviewed, June 29, 2012; Order No. 59 
(Sept. 7, 2012), not reviewed, Oct. 4, 2012. What remains are claims 23 
and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 7,609,500 (``the '500 patent''); claims 29, 
31, 33, and 36 of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,444 (``the '444 patent''); and 
claims 20, 28-31 of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,241 (``the '241 patent'').
    On December 14, 2012, the presiding ALJ issued the ID. The ALJ 
found no violation of section 337. Based substantially on adoption of 
certain of respondents' claim constructions, the ALJ found that none of 
the patent claims were infringed and that most were invalid as 
indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The ALJ rejected the respondents' 
other section 112 challenges, as well as their equitable defenses based 
upon equitable estoppel, unclean hands, and laches. The ALJ found in 
the alternative that if X2Y's claim constructions were adopted, all of 
the asserted claims would be invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 in view 
of the prior art.
    On December 31, 2012, X2Y filed a petition for review that 
challenged certain claim constructions, as well as the ALJ's findings 
of noninfringement and invalidity. That same day, the respondents filed 
a contingent petition for review arguing additional bases for no 
violation. On January 9, 2013, the private parties opposed each other's 
petitions. In addition, the Commission investigative attorney filed a 
narrow opposition, which recommended against Commission review of the 
domestic industry issues raised by the private parties.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID, the petition for review, and the responses thereto, the 
Commission has determined to review the final ID in part.
    With respect to the issues raised in X2Y's petition for review, the 
Commission has determined to review the ALJ's determination that the 
term ``portion'' in the '444 and '241 patents is indefinite under 35 
U.S.C. 112(b). The Commission finds that the term is not insolubly 
ambiguous and affords the term its ordinary meaning. The Commission has 
also determined to review and reverse the ALJ's determination that all 
of the asserted patent claims have a ``capacitance'' requirement not 
part of the adopted claim constructions. The Commission has determined 
not to review the ALJ's constructions of the terms ``electrode'' (all 
asserted patents) and ``perimeter edge'' (the '241 patent). The 
Commission has determined not to review the ALJ's finding of 
noninfringement based upon these constructions. Regarding the ALJ's 
alternative invalidity findings under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 based upon 
claim constructions rejected by the ALJ and the Commission, the 
Commission reviews and vacates those determinations.
    In view of the foregoing, the Commission, like the ALJ, therefore 
does not reach the written description and anticipation arguments 
raised by the respondents in their contingent petition, both of which 
rely on claim constructions inconsistent with the Commission's 
findings.
    X2Y petitioned for review of the ALJ's determination that X2Y did 
not demonstrate the existence of a domestic industry under 19 U.S.C. 
1337(a)(3)(C) through its licensing activities. The respondents 
petitioned for review of the ALJ's determination that X2Y did 
demonstrate the existence of a domestic industry under section 
337(a)(3)(C) through the engineering, research and development 
activities and investments of X2Y's licensee. The Commission has 
determined to vacate the ALJ's determinations under section 
337(a)(3)(C) without reaching the merits. The ALJ's findings under this 
subsection are nondispositive in view of the Commission's adopted claim 
constructions. Moreover, it appears that the issues would be 
nondispositive even under X2Y's proposed claim constructions, in view 
of the ALJ's findings under section 337(a)(3)(A) and (a)(3)(B).
    The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the 
ID. Accordingly, the Commission has terminated this investigation with 
a finding of no violation. The Commission's determinations will be set 
forth more fully 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: February 15, 2013.

    By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-04070 Filed 2-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P