[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66951-66952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26661]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-845]


Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and 
Parental Control Technology; Notice of the Commission's Final 
Determination Finding 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 found no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation. The investigation is 
terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Needham, 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

[[Page 66952]]

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 June 6, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Rovi Corporation; Rovi 
Guides, Inc.; Rovi Technologies Corporation; Starsight Telecast, Inc.; 
United Video Properties, Inc.; and Index Systems, Inc. (collectively, 
``Complainants''). 77 FR 33487-88. The notice of investigation named LG 
Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, ``LGE''); 
Mitsubishi Electric Corp.; Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc.; 
Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc.; Mitsubishi Electric 
Visual Solutions America, Inc.; Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, 
Inc. (collectively, ``Mitsubishi''); Netflix Inc. (``Netflix''); Roku, 
Inc. (``Roku''); and Vizio, Inc. (``Vizio'') as respondents. Id. The 
Office of Unfair Import Investigations did not participate in this 
investigation.
    Originally, Complainants asserted numerous claims from seven 
patents against various respondents. Complainants later moved to 
terminate the investigation as to three of the seven patents, as to 
certain claims of one of the remaining four patents, and as to 
respondents LGE, Mitsubishi, and Vizio. Order No. 9 (Sept. 4, 2012), 
not reviewed, Oct. 2, 2012; Order No 16 (Nov. 6, 2012), not reviewed, 
December 7, 2012; Order Nos. 17 (Dec. 19, 2012) and 19 (Dec. 20, 2012), 
not reviewed, January 18, 2013; Order No. 21 (Jan. 22, 2013), not 
reviewed Feb. 13, 2013; Order Nos. 34 (Feb. 27, 2013) and 36 (Mar. 1, 
2013), not reviewed (Mar. 22, 2013). Netflix and Roku (``Respondents'') 
remain in the investigation, as well as claims 1, 6, 13, and 17 of U.S. 
Patent No. 6,898,762 (``the '762 patent''), claims 13-20 of U.S. Patent 
No. 7,065,709 (``the '709 patent''); claims 1-3, 10, and 11 of U.S. 
Patent No. 7,103,906 (``the '906 patent''); and claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 14, 
15, 17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,112,776 (``the '776 patent'').
    On June 7, 2013, the presiding ALJ issued his final initial 
determination (``ID''), finding no violation of section 337. 
Specifically, the ALJ found that none of the accused products met the 
importation requirement of section 337. While the ALJ found that his 
importation finding was dispositive, he made additional findings in the 
event that the Commission determined that the importation requirement 
was met. The ALJ found that no party infringed any of the four asserted 
patents. He also found that the '776 patent is invalid as anticipated 
and obvious, but that Respondents had failed to show that the other 
three asserted patents were invalid. The ALJ found a domestic industry 
for articles protected by each of the patents-in-suit, but no domestic 
industry based on substantial investment in licensing the asserted 
patents. The ALJ also rejected Respondents' patent misuse, implied 
license, and patent exhaustion defenses.
    On June 24, 2013, Complainants filed a petition for review 
challenging the ALJ's findings that the importation requirement is not 
met, that Netflix does not induce infringement, and that the economic 
prong of the domestic industry is not met by Complainants' licensing 
activity. That same day, Respondents filed a joint contingent petition 
for review arguing additional bases for finding no violation. On July 
2, 2013, the parties filed oppositions to each other's petitions.
    On August 9, 2013, the Commission determined to review the ID in 
its entirety. 78 FR 49766-67 (Aug. 15, 2013). The Commission requested 
written submissions from the parties on seven issues. It also requested 
submissions on remedy, bonding, and the public interest from the 
parties and the public. The Commission only received submissions from 
the Complainants and Respondents.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID and the submissions from the parties, the Commission has 
determined that Complainants have not proven a violation of section 
337. The Commission affirms with modified reasoning the ALJ's finding 
that the importation requirement is not met for all of the asserted 
patents. The Commission affirms with modified reasoning the ALJ's 
finding that the '762, '709, and '906 patents are valid but not 
infringed, and that the '776 patent is invalid and not infringed. The 
Commission also determines to modify the ALJ's claim construction 
regarding the order of steps of the asserted claims of the '709 patent, 
and, under the modified construction, reverses the ALJ's finding that 
Complainants have shown that the technical prong of the domestic 
industry requirement has been met for the '709 patent. The Commission 
also affirms the ALJ's findings that Complainants have shown that a 
domestic industry exists for the '762, '906, and '776 patents with 
respect to articles protected by the patents based on their investments 
in plant and equipment, labor and capital, research and development, 
and exploitation of engineering, as set forth in the ID. Accordingly, 
the Commission need not reach the issue of whether Complainants have 
also shown that a domestic industry exists based on substantial 
investments in licensing, and the Commission takes no position on the 
issue. The Commission also corrects a typographical error on page 49 of 
the ID. The citation CX-4481C at .10 is corrected to be CX-4145C at .9. 
All other findings in the ID that are consistent with the Commission's 
determinations are affirmed. A Commission Opinion will issue shortly.
    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 210.45, .49, and .50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (19 CFR 210.45, .49. and .50).

     Issued: November 1, 2013.

    By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-26661 Filed 11-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P