[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 161 (Wednesday, August 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49338-49339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19715]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-868]


Certain Wireless Devices With 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and 
Components Thereof; Commission Determination Terminating the 
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 (``final ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law 
judge (``ALJ'') on June 13, 2014, finding no violation of section 337 
of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''), 
in this investigation. On review, the Commission has determined to 
reverse certain findings, to take no position on others, and to 
terminate the investigation with a finding of no violation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, 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 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 February 5, 2013, based on a complaint filed by InterDigital 
Communications, Inc. of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, as well as 
InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc., and 
InterDigital Holdings, Inc., each of Wilmington, Delaware 
(collectively, ``InterDigital''). 78 FR. 8191 (February 5, 2013). The 
complaint alleged violations of section 337 by reason of the 
infringement of certain claims from seven United States Patents. The 
notice of investigation named ten respondents including Nokia, Inc. of 
White Plains, New York; and Nokia Corp. of Espoo, Finland; as well as 
ZTE Corporation of Shenzhen, China; and ZTE (USA) Inc. of Richardson, 
Texas (collectively, ``ZTE''). On July 14, 2014, the Commission 
determined not to review an initial determination (Order No. 116) that 
added as a respondent Microsoft Mobility OY (collectively with the two 
Nokia respondents, ``Nokia''). The accused ZTE products are certain ZTE 
wireless devices with WCDMA or LTE functionality. The accused Nokia 
products are certain Nokia wireless devices with 4G functionality.
    Three asserted patents remain in the investigation: U.S. Patent 
Nos. 7,190,966 (``the '966 patent'') and 7,286,847 (``the '847 
patent'') (collectively, the ``Power Ramp-Up Patents''), and U.S. 
Patent No. 7,941,151 (``the '151 patent''). InterDigital asserted 
claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9 of the '966 patent and claims 3 and 5 of the 
'847 patent against ZTE. Independent claims 1 and 16 and dependent 
claims 2-6, 8-9, 17-21 and 23-24 of the '151 patent are asserted 
against Nokia and ZTE.
    On June 13, 2014, the ALJ issued the final ID, which finds no 
violation of section 337 as to the remaining asserted patent claims. On 
June 30, 2014, the parties filed petitions for review. In particular, 
InterDigital and the Commission investigative attorney (``IA'') each 
filed a petition for review of certain issues. The respondents filed 
two contingent petitions for review. One contingent petition was based 
upon alternative grounds for finding no violation of section 337. The 
second contingent petition concerned the respondents' affirmative 
defenses based upon InterDigital's alleged obligations regarding fair, 
reasonable, and non-discriminatory licensing (``FRAND''). On July 8, 
2014, the parties filed responses to each other's petitions. The 
Commission received public interest submissions from the parties and 
from United States Senators Robert P. Casey, Jr., Kirsten Gillibrand, 
and Patrick Toomey; Microsoft Corp.; the Innovation Alliance; and 
Ericsson Inc.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, 
the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part.
    The Commission's review and determinations on review are as 
follows:

1. The Power Ramp-Up Patents

    The Commission has determined not to review the final ID's 
construction of ``successively transmitted signals''/``successively 
transmits signals'' and not to review the final ID's findings that, 
based upon that construction, the accused products do not infringe, and 
the domestic industry products do not practice, the asserted patent 
claims of the Power Ramp-Up Patents. Final ID at 37-48, 62-65, 134-35; 
see InterDigital Pet. 9-22. Accordingly, the Commission finds no 
violation of section 337 as to the asserted claims of the Power Ramp-Up 
Patents.
    The Commission has also determined not to review the final ID's 
finding that claim 3 of the '847 patent is not invalid for lack of 
adequate written description. Final ID at 101-03; see IA Pet. 12-15; 
Resp'ts' Pet. 44-45.

2. The '151 Patent

    The Commission has determined not to review the final ID's findings 
that the accused products do not infringe, and the domestic industry 
products do not practice, the ``same physical downlink control 
channel'' limitation in independent claims 1 and 16. Final ID at 54-58, 
134; see InterDigital Pet. 33-

[[Page 49339]]

38. Accordingly, the Commission finds no violation of section 337 as to 
the asserted claims of the '151 patent, namely independent claims 1 and 
16, and asserted claims dependent upon them.
    The Commission has determined not to review the final ID's 
determination that claim 16 of the '151 patent is invalid for 
indefiniteness. Final ID at 29-31; see IA Pet. 6-12; InterDigital Pet. 
24-29; see also Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC, 641 F.3d 1331, 
1339-40 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, there can be no violation of 
section 337 as to claim 16 and its asserted dependent claims.
    The Commission has determined to review the final ID's construction 
of ``and to'' in claim 16 of the '151 patent, Final ID at 31-34; see 
InterDigital Pet. at 29-33, and on review finds that the term is to be 
afforded its plain and ordinary meaning. In view of the Commission's 
claim construction, the final ID's finding of noninfringement of 
asserted claims 16-21 and 23-24 based upon the final ID's construction, 
Final ID at 58-60, is reversed. The Commission has also determined to 
review the final ID's infringement analysis of ``and if so'' for claim 
1, Final ID at 58-60; see InterDigital Pet. at 38-43, and on review 
takes no position whether the accused products practice the determining 
steps in sequence as required for asserted claims 1-6 and 8-9.

3. Domestic Industry, FRAND, and Other Issues

    Except as recited above concerning the Commission's finding that 
the domestic industry products do not practice the asserted patent 
claims, the Commission reviews and takes no position on the remaining 
domestic industry issues raised in the parties' petitions. Similarly, 
the Commission reviews and takes no position on the FRAND issues raised 
by the respondents concerning their affirmative defenses. The 
Commission finds that it is in the interest of the efficient use of 
administrative, judicial, and private resources for the domestic 
industry and FRAND issues to be decided, if at all, subsequent to final 
disposition of the pending appeal in InterDigital Communications LLC v. 
ITC, No. 2014-1176 (Fed. Cir.), which involves many of the same parties 
and issues with regard to related patents.
    The Commission does not review any other issues raised in the 
parties' petitions except as otherwise recited above. The reasoning in 
support of the Commission's decision will be set forth in fuller detail 
in a 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 Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 
part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 14, 2014.
Lisa R. Barton,
 Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-19715 Filed 8-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P