[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49764-49766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19789]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-796]


Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof; 
Commission's Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; 
Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; 
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 found a violation of section 337 in this investigation 
and has issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting respondents 
Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd. of the Republic of Korea (``SEC''); 
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 
(``SEA''); and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC of Richardson, 
Texas (``STA'') (collectively, ``Samsung''), from importing certain 
electronic digital media devices that infringe one or more of claims 1, 
4-6, 10, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949 (``the '949 patent'') 
and claims 1-4 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 7,912,501 (``the '501 
patent''). The Commission has also issued cease and desist orders 
prohibiting SEA and STA from further importing, selling, and 
distributing articles that infringe one or more of claims 1, 4-6, 10, 
and 17-20 of the '949 patent and claims 1-4 and 8 of the '501 patent in 
the United States. The Commission has found no violation based on U.S. 
Patent Nos. D618,678 (``the D'678 patent''); D558,757 (``the D'757 
patent''); RE 41,922 (``the '922 patent''); and 7,789,697 (``the '697 
patent''). The Commission's determination is final, and the 
investigation is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Chen, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2392. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are 
or will be available for

[[Page 49765]]

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 August 5, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Apple Inc. (``Apple'') 
of Cupertino, California. 76 FR 47610 (Aug. 5, 2011). The complaint 
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 the United States after 
importation of certain electronic digital media devices and components 
thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of the '949, the 
'922, the '697, the '501, the D'757, and the D'678 patents, and U.S. 
Patent No. 7,863,533 (``the '533 patent''). Samsung was named as a 
respondent in the Commission's notice of investigation. A Commission 
investigative attorney (``IA'') participated in the investigation.
    On May 3, 2012, the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') 
issued an initial determination (``ID'') partially terminating the 
investigation with respect to all claims of the '533 patent; claims 1-
3, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 21-27 of the '697 patent; and claim 3 of the '949 
patent (Order No. 17) (not reviewed by the Commission, May 3, 2012).
    On October 24, 2012, the ALJ issued his final ID in this 
investigation finding a violation of section 337 in connection with the 
claim of the D'678 patent; claims 1, 4-6 and 10-20 of the '949 patent; 
claims 29, 30 and 33-35 of the '922 patent; and claims 1-4 and 8 of the 
'501 patent. The ALJ found no violation of section 337 in connection 
with the claim of the D'757 patent; claims 31 and 32 of the '922 
patent; and claims 13 and 14 of the '697 patent. The ALJ also found 
that the asserted claims were not shown to be invalid. The ALJ further 
found that a domestic industry in the United States exists that 
practices the '949, the '922, the '501, the D'757, and the D'678 
patents, but not the '697 patent. On November 7, 2012, the ALJ issued 
his recommended determination on remedy and bonding.
    Apple and Samsung filed timely petitions for review of various 
portions of the final ID, as well as timely responses to the petitions. 
The IA filed only a response to the petitions for review. On December 
3, 2012, Apple and Samsung filed public interest comments pursuant to 
Commission rule 210.50(a)(4). That same day, non-party Google filed a 
submission in response to the Notice of Request for Statements on the 
Public Interest. See 77 FR 68829-30 (Nov. 16, 2012).
    On January 23, 2013, the Commission determined to review the final 
ID in its entirety, and remand the investigation to the ALJ with 
respect to certain issues related to the '922 patent and the '501 
patent, as set forth in the Remand Order. 78 FR 6130 (Jan. 29, 2013).
    On March 26, 2013, the ALJ issued his remand initial determination 
(``RID''). The RID found that claims 34 and 35 of the '922 patent are 
infringed by the text-selection feature of the accused products and 
that claim 3 of the '501 patent is not infringed by the accused 
products represented by the Transform SPH-M920. On April 9, 2013, Apple 
and Samsung petitioned for review of the RID. The IA did not petition 
for review of the RID. On April 17, 2013, Apple, Samsung and the IA 
filed their respective responses to the petitions for review.
    On May 28, 2013, the Commission determined to review the RID in its 
entirety. In connection with the Commission's review of the final ID 
and the RID, the parties were invited to brief certain issues, 
including issues related to remedy and the public interest. The 
Commission received responses from Apple, Samsung, and the IA 
addressing all of the Commission's questions. In response to the remedy 
and public interest questions posed to the public, the Commission 
received responses from the following: Americans for Job Security; 
Associated Carrier Group; Capital Policy Analytics; Congresswoman Eva 
M. Clayton; Congressmen Hakeem S. Jeffries and Henry C. Johnson, Jr.; 
Congressmen Bill Pascrell, Jr., Hank Johnson, Albio Sires, Dan Maffei, 
Terri Sewell, and Steve Israel; Congressman Pete Sessions; CTIA--The 
Wireless Association; Mr. Dennis C. Vacco, Esq.; Digital Liberty and 
Property Rights Alliance; Google, Inc.; Health IT Now.org; Hispanic 
Leadership Fund; Homecare Homebase, LLC; Institute for Policy 
Innovation; James Valley Telecommunications; Texas State Senator Ken 
Paxton; Texas State Senator Kirk Watson; The LIBRE Initiative; National 
Black Chamber of Commerce; National Grange of the Order of Patrons of 
Husbandry (``National Grange''); The Newborn Coalition; Revol Wireless; 
Senator Robert Menendez; Sprint Spectrum, L.P.; Taxpayers Protection 
Alliance; Ting Wireless; Congressman Trent Franks; American Agri-Women 
et al.; and United States Cellular Corporation.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID, RID and submissions from the parties, the Commission 
has determined that Apple has proven a violation of section 337 based 
on articles that infringe claims 1, 4-6, 10, and 17-20 of the '949 
patent and claims 1-4 and 8 of the '501 patent. Specifically, with 
respect to the '949 patent, the Commission has determined to affirm the 
ALJ's constructions of disputed claim terms and his conclusion that 
Apple has proven a violation of section 337 based on articles that 
infringe claims 1, 4-6, 10, and 17-20 of the '949 patent. The 
Commission affirms, with modified reasoning, the ALJ's conclusion that 
Apple failed to prove that Samsung contributorily infringes claims 11-
16 of the '949 patent. The Commission, however, has determined to 
reverse the ALJ's conclusion that Apple has proven that Samsung induced 
infringement of claims 11-16 of the '949 patent. With some 
modifications to the ALJ's analysis, the Commission has also determined 
that the record supports the ALJ's conclusions that the Continuum SCH-
1400 infringes all of the asserted claims of the '501 patent; that the 
accused Samsung devices represented by Transform SPH-M920 infringe 
claims 1-2 and 8, but not claims 3 and 4 of the '501 patent; and that 
the accused Samsung devices represented by Galaxy Tab 7.0 and Galaxy S 
II do not infringe any of the asserted claims of the '501 patent. The 
Commission has further determined that the asserted claims of the '949 
and the '501 patents have not been proven by Samsung to be invalid and 
that Apple has proven that a domestic industry exists in the United 
States relating to articles protected by the '949 and the '501 patents.
    In addition, the Commission has determined that Apple has not 
proven a violation based on alleged infringement of the D'678, the 
D'757, the '922, and the '697 patents. Specifically, the Commission has 
determined that the asserted claim of the D'678 patent is valid but not 
infringed, and that Apple's iPhone, iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S practice the 
D'678 patent, but not the iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS. The Commission has 
also determined that the asserted claim of the D'757 patent is

[[Page 49766]]

valid but not infringed, and Apple's iPhone 3G and 3GS do not practice 
the D'757 patent. With some modifications to the ALJ's analysis for the 
'922 patent, the Commission has determined to affirm the ALJ's 
constructions of disputed claim terms, and the ALJ's conclusion that 
Apple failed to prove that Samsung contributorily infringes the 
asserted claims of the '922 patent. The Commission, however, has 
determined to reverse the ALJ's conclusion that Apple has proven that 
Samsung induced infringement of the asserted claims of the '922 patent. 
With respect to the '697 patent, the Commission has determined to 
modify the ALJ's construction and application of certain disputed terms 
in the asserted claims. Under the modified constructions, the 
Commission has determined that Apple has proven that the accused 
Samsung devices infringe the asserted claims of the '697 patent and 
that Apple's domestic industry products practice the '697 patent. The 
Commission, however, ultimately finds that Apple has not proven a 
violation of section 337 with respect to the '697 patent because 
Samsung has proven with clear and convincing evidence that the asserted 
claims are invalid as anticipated by the YP-T7J media player. The 
Commission has further determined that Apple has proven a domestic 
industry exists in the United States relating to articles protected by 
the D'678, the '922 and the '697 patents, but not the D'757 patent.
    The Commission has determined that the appropriate remedy is a 
limited exclusion order prohibiting Samsung from importing certain 
electronic digital media devices that infringe one or more of claims 1, 
4-6, 10, and 17-20 of the '949 patent and claims 1-4 and 8 of the '501 
patent. The Commission has also determined to issue cease and desist 
orders prohibiting SEA and STA from further importing, selling, and 
distributing articles that infringe one or more of claims 1, 4-6, 10, 
and 17-20 of the '949 patent and claims 1-4 and 8 of the '501 patent in 
the United States. The orders do not apply to the adjudicated design 
around products found not to infringe the asserted claims of the '949 
and the '501 patents as identified in the final ID. The Commission has 
carefully considered the submissions of the parties and the public and 
has determined that the public interest factors enumerated in section 
337(d)(1) and (f)(1) do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion 
order and cease and desist orders.
    Finally, the Commission has determined that excluded mobile phones, 
media players, and tablet computers may be imported and sold in the 
United States during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 
1337(j)) with the posting of a bond in the amount of 1.25 percent of 
the entered value. The Commission's order and opinion were delivered to 
the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day 
of their 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 Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 
Part 210).

    Issued: August 9, 2013.

    By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-19789 Filed 8-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P