[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 192 (Monday, October 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60177-60179]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25207]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-910]


Certain Television Sets, Television Receivers, Television Tuners, 
and Components Thereof Commission Determination Terminating the 
Investigation With a Finding of No Violation of Section 337

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to terminate the above-captioned 
investigation with a finding of no violation of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337.

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

[[Page 60178]]

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 
(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 March 5, 2014, based on a complaint filed by Cresta Technology 
Corporation, of Santa Clara, California (``Cresta''). 79 FR 12526 (Mar. 
5, 2014). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of the infringement 
of certain claims from three United States patents. The notice of 
investigation named ten respondents: Silicon Laboratories, Inc. of 
Austin, Texas (``Silicon Labs''); MaxLinear, Inc. of Carlsbad, 
California (``MaxLinear''); Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd. of Suwon, 
Republic of Korea and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield 
Park, New Jersey (collectively, ``Samsung''); VIZIO, Inc. of Irvine, 
California (``Vizio''); LG Electronics, Inc. of Seoul, Republic of 
Korea and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 
(collectively, ``LG''); and Sharp Corporation of Osaka, Japan and Sharp 
Electronics Corporation of Mahwah, New Jersey (collectively, 
``Sharp''). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was also named 
as a party.
    On May 16, 2014, the ALJ issued an initial determination granting 
Cresta's motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to 
add six additional respondents: SIO International Inc. of Brea, 
California and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. of New Taipei City, 
Taiwan (collectively, ``SIO/Hon Hai''); Top Victory Investments, Ltd. 
of Hong Kong and TPV International (USA), Inc. of Austin, Texas 
(collectively, TPV''); and Wistron Corporation of New Taipei City, 
Taiwan and Wistron Infocomm Technology (America) Corporation of Flower 
Mound, Texas (collectively, ``Wistron''). Order No. 12 (May 16, 2014), 
not reviewed, Notice (June 9, 2014).
    On November 3, 2014, the ALJ granted-in-part Samsung and Vizio's 
motion for summary determination of noninfringement as to certain 
televisions containing tuners made by a third party, NXP Semiconductors 
N.V. Order No. 46 at 27-30 (Nov. 3, 2014), not reviewed, Notice (Dec. 
3, 2014). On November 21, 2014, the ALJ issued granted Samsung's and 
Vizio's motion for summary determination that Cresta had not shown that 
certain Samsung televisions with NXP tuners had been imported. Order 
No. 58 at 4-5 (Nov. 21, 2014), not reviewed, Notice (Dec. 8, 2014).
    On November 12, 2014, the ALJ granted Cresta's motion to partially 
terminate the investigation as to one asserted patent and certain 
asserted claims of the two other asserted patents. Order No. 50 (Nov. 
12, 2014), not reviewed, Notice (Dec. 3, 2014). The two asserted 
patents still at issue in the investigation are U.S. Patent No. 
7,075,585 (``the '585 patent'') and U.S. Patent No. 7,265,792 (``the 
'792 patent''). Claims 1-3, 10, and 12-13 of the '585 patent, and 
claims 1-4, 7-8, and 25-27 of the '792 patent, remain at issue in the 
investigation.
    The presiding ALJ conducted a hearing from December 1-5, 2014. On 
February 27, 2015, the ALJ issued the final ID. The final ID finds that 
Cresta failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry 
requirement, 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2), (a)(3), for both asserted patents. 
To satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, 
Cresta relied upon claims 1-3, 5-6, 10, 13-14, 16-19, and 21 of the 
'585 patent; and claims 1-4, 7, 10-12, 18-19, and 26-27 of the '792 
patent. The ID finds that certain Cresta products--on their own, or 
combined with certain televisions into which Cresta's tuners are 
incorporated--practice claims 1-3, 5-6, 10, 13, 16-19, and 21 of the 
'585 patent, as well as claims 1-4, 7, 10-12, 18-19, and 26 of the '792 
patent.
    The ID finds some Silicon Labs tuners (as well as certain 
televisions containing them) to infringe claims 1-3 of the '585 patent, 
and no other asserted patent claims. The ID further finds some 
MaxLinear tuners (as well as certain televisions containing them) to 
infringe claims 1-3, 10, 12, and 13 of the '585 patent and claims 1-3, 
7-8, and 25-26 of the '792 patent.
    The ID finds claims 1 and 2 of the '585 patent to be invalid 
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102 (anticipation), and claim 3 of the '585 
patent to be invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 103 (obviousness). The ID 
finds all of the asserted claims of the '792 patent to be invalid 
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
    The ALJ recommended that if a violation of section 337 is found, 
that a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders issue. The 
ALJ recommended, however, that the implementation of such orders be 
delayed by twelve months in view of public interest considerations. The 
ALJ also recommended that there be zero bond during the period of 
Presidential review.
    On March 16, 2015, petitions for Commission review were filed by 
the following parties: The Commission investigative attorney (``IA''); 
Cresta; the Silicon Labs respondents; and the MaxLinear respondents. On 
March 24, 2015, OUII and Cresta each filed a reply to the other 
parties' petitions. That same day, the respondents filed a reply to 
Cresta's petition.
    On April 30, 2015, the Commission determined to review the ID in 
part. The scope of Commission review is set forth in the Commission 
notice that issued on that date. 80 FR 26091 (May 6, 2015). The 
Commission solicited briefing on the issues under review, and on 
remedy, bonding and the public interest.
    On May 14, 2015, the IA, Cresta, and the respondents filed briefs 
in response to the Commission notice of review, and on May 26, 2015, 
they filed replies to each other's briefs.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, 
and the briefing in response to the notice of review, the Commission 
has determined to terminate the investigation with a finding of no 
violation of section 337.
    The Commission has determined to affirm the ID's findings of 
invalidity of claims 1-4, 7-8, and 26-27 of the '792 patent because of 
an on-sale bar. Further, the Commission finds claim 3 of the '585 
patent obvious in view of Boie combined with Kerth. The Commission 
finds claim 10 of the '585 patent and claims 1-4 of the '792 patent 
obvious in view of Boie as well as in view of Boie combined with VDP. 
The Commission finds that the respondents did not demonstrate 
obviousness clearly and convincingly as to claims 12-13 of the '585 
patent and claims 25-26 of the '792 patent.
    As to infringement, the Commission affirms the ID's finding that 
the accused MaxLinear tuners infringe claims 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, and 13 of 
the '585 patent and claims 1-3, 7-8, and 25-26 of the '792 patent. The 
Commission has determined to affirm in part and reverse in part the 
ID's findings concerning Silicon Labs' infringement of the claims of 
the '585 patent. In particular, the Commission finds that certain 
accused Silicon Labs

[[Page 60179]]

tuners infringe claims 1-3, and 7-8 of the '585 patent and that Cresta 
failed to demonstrate infringement by Silicon Labs of claims 10, 12, 
and 13 of the '585 patent. The Commission also finds that Cresta failed 
to demonstrate that Silicon Labs infringes any of the asserted claims 
of the '792 patent.
    The Commission finds that, for the specific models of televisions 
for which Cresta demonstrated direct infringement that Cresta 
adequately demonstrated contributory infringement by MaxLinear or 
Silicon Labs.
    The Commission finds that Cresta satisfies the technical prong of 
the domestic industry requirement for the '792 patent, but not for the 
'585 patent. The Commission further finds that Cresta failed to satisfy 
the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '585 
patent and the '792 patent.
    The reasons for the Commissions determinations will be set forth 
more fully in the Commission's forthcoming opinion. Commissioner 
Schmidtlein will write separately with her views as to the basis for 
the Commission's determination that Cresta failed to meet the economic 
prong of the domestic industry requirement.
    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.

    Dated: September 29, 2015.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-25207 Filed 10-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P