[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 54 (Thursday, March 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15610-15611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06121]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-850]


Certain Electronic Imaging Devices; Commission Determination To 
Reverse the Finding of 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 reverse the final initial determination 
(``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') on 
September 30, 2013, finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``Section 337'') in the above-
captioned investigation. The Commission finds no violation of Section 
337. The investigation is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jia Chen, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4737. 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 June 29, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Flashpoint Technology, 
Inc. (``Flashpoint'') of Peterborough, New Hampshire, alleging 
violation of Section 337 in the importation into the United States, the 
sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after 
importation of certain electronic imaging devices by reason of 
infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,504,575 (``the 
'575 patent''), 6,222,538 (``the '538 patent''), 6,400,471 (``the '471 
patent''), and 6,223,190 (``the '190 patent''). The notice of 
investigation named the following respondents: HTC Corporation of 
Taoyuan, Taiwan and HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington 
(collectively, ``HTC''); Pantech Co., Ltd. of Seoul, Republic of Korea 
and Pantech Wireless, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia (collectively, 
``Pantech''); Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China and 
FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) of Plano, 
Texas (collectively ``Huawei''); and ZTE Corporation of Shenzhen, China 
and ZTE (USA) Inc. of Richardson, Texas (collectively ``ZTE''). The 
'575 patent and respondent Pantech have been terminated from the 
investigation. The Commission Office of Unfair Import Investigations 
did not participate in this investigation.
    On September 30, 2013, the ALJ issued a final ID finding a 
violation of Section 337 by HTC. Specifically, the ALJ concluded that 
two of the accused HTC smartphones, i.e., the HTC Vivid and HTC Droid 
Incredible 4G LTE, infringe the asserted claims of the '538 patent. The 
ALJ found, however, that none of the other accused HTC smartphones 
infringes the asserted claims of the '538 patent and that none of the 
accused HTC, Huawei, or ZTE smartphones infringes the asserted claims 
of the '471 patent or the '190 patent. The ALJ found that the 
smartphones of Flashpoint's licensees Apple Inc. (``Apple'') and 
Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. (``Motorola'') meet the technical 
prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '538 
patent, but that none of the licensed Motorola or Apple smartphones 
meet the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with 
respect to either the '471 or '190 patents. The ALJ found that 
Flashpoint established the economic prong of the domestic industry 
requirement under Sections 337(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C) with respect to 
all of the asserted patents. The ALJ also found that HTC has not 
established that the asserted patents are invalid in view of the prior 
art or the on-sale bar. The ALJ further found that the '190 and '538 
patents are not

[[Page 15611]]

unenforceable for failure to name an inventor.
    On October 31, 2013, Flashpoint filed a petition for review 
challenging the ALJ's findings. On the same day, respondents filed a 
joint petition for review challenging the ALJ's findings. On the same 
day, HTC filed a separate petition for review challenging the ALJ's 
findings with respect to issues affecting only HTC. The parties 
submitted responses to the petitions on November 8, 2013.
    On December 16, 2013, the Commission determined to review the ALJ's 
findings regarding the following issues: (1) Infringement of the 
asserted claims of the '538 patent by the HTC Vivid and HTC Droid 
Incredible 4G LTE smartphones; (2) the technical prong of the domestic 
industry requirement for the '538 patent; (3) obviousness of the 
asserted claims of the '538 patent over U.S. Patent No. 5,835,772 to 
Thurlo, U.S. Patent No. 5,740,801 to Branson, the ``Admitted Prior 
Art,'' U.S. Patent No. 5,638,501 to Gough et al., and U.S. Patent No. 
5,898,434 to Small; (4) claim construction of the term ``operating 
system'' in the asserted claims of the '471 patent; (5) infringement of 
the '471 patent by the accused HTC, Huawei, and ZTE products; (6) the 
technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '471 
patent; (7) anticipation of the asserted claims of the '471 patent in 
view of U.S. Patent No. 5,687,376 to Celi, Jr. et al.; (8) infringement 
of the asserted claim of the '190 patent; (9) technical prong of the 
domestic industry requirement for the '190 patent; (10) anticipation 
and obviousness of the '190 patent in view of U.S. Provisional Patent 
Application 60/037,963 to Parulski (``Parulsi-963''); (11) anticipation 
and obviousness of the '190 patent in view of the Color Zaurus 
Reference (``Zaurus''); (12) anticipation and obviousness of the '190 
patent in view of the Japanese Laid-Open Patent Application No. H09-
298678 to Saito; (13) validity of the '538, '471, and '190 patents in 
view of the on-sale bar; (14) enforceability of claim 19 of the '538 
patent with respect to joint inventorship; and (15) the economic prong 
of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '538, '471, 
and '190 patents. The Commission requested briefing from the parties on 
fourteen (14) questions. The parties submitted their opening responses 
on January 3, 2014 and their reply responses on January 10, 2014.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID, the parties' petitions for review, and the submissions 
of the parties on review, the Commission has determined to reverse the 
ALJ's determination of violation of Section 337 and to find no 
violation of Section 337 with respect to the asserted patents. 
Specifically, the Commission finds that: (1) The HTC Vivid and HTC 
Droid Incredible 4G LTE smartphones do not infringe the asserted claims 
of the '538 patent; (2) complainant has met the technical prong of the 
domestic industry requirement for the '538 patent; (3) respondents have 
not shown that the asserted claims of the '538 patent are obvious; (4) 
the ALJ correctly construed the term ``operating system'' in the 
asserted claims of the '471 patent, (5) the accused HTC, Huawei, and 
ZTE products do not infringe the asserted claims of the '471 patent; 
(6) complainant has not proved the technical prong of the domestic 
industry requirement for the '471 patent; (7) respondents have not 
shown that the asserted claims of the '471 patent are anticipated; (8) 
the accused HTC, Huawei, and ZTE products do not infringe the asserted 
claim of the '190 patent; (9) complainant has not proved the technical 
prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '190 patent; (10) 
respondents have not shown that the asserted claim of the '190 patent 
is anticipated or rendered obvious; (13) respondents have not shown 
that the asserted claims of the '538, '471, and '190 patents are 
invalid in view of the on-sale bar; (14) respondents have not shown 
that claim 19 of the '538 patent is unenforceable due to failure to 
name an inventor; and (15) complainant has proved that the economic 
prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '538, 
'471, and '190 patents. The Commission has furthered determined to take 
no position on whether the asserted claim of the '190 patent is 
anticipated or rendered obvious by Parulski-963 or Zaurus. A Commission 
opinion will issue promptly.
    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).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 14, 2014.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-06121 Filed 3-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P