[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1204-1205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00288]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-698 (Remand)]


Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same; 
Commission Determination To Adopt a Recommended Remand Determination; 
Issuance of Modified Civil Penalty Order and Termination of Remand 
Enforcement Proceeding

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to adopt a remand recommended determination 
(``RRD'') of the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') adding 
eleven (11) days to the total number of days enforcement respondent uPI 
Semiconductor Corporation (``uPI'') of Hsinchu, Taiwan, violated the 
August 13, 2010 consent order (``the Consent Order''). The Commission 
has adopted the RRD as a final determination of the Commission, issued 
a modified civil penalty order in the amount of $650,000 directed 
against uPI, and has terminated the remand enforcement proceeding.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. 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 ordered this remand 
enforcement proceeding on April 8, 2015, in view of the Federal 
Circuit's decision in uPI Semiconductor Corp. v. ITC and Richtek 
Technology Corp. v. ITC, 767 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See Comm'n 
Order (Apr. 8, 2015). The Commission instituted the original 
enforcement proceeding on September 6, 2011, based on an enforcement 
complaint filed by Richtek Technology Corp. of Hsinchu, Taiwan, and 
Richtek USA, Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively ``Richtek''). 
76 FR 55109-10. The complaint alleged violations of the August 13, 
2010, consent orders issued in the underlying investigation by the 
continued practice of prohibited activities such as importing, offering 
for sale, and selling for importation into the United States DC-DC 
controllers or products containing the same that infringe one or more 
of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,315,190 (``the '190 patent''); 6,414,470 (``the 
's '470 patent''); and 7,132,717 (``the '717 patent''); or that contain 
or use Richtek's asserted trade secrets. The Commission's notice of 
institution of enforcement proceedings named uPI and Sapphire 
Technology Limited (``Sapphire'') of Shatin, Hong Kong as respondents. 
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations participated in the 
enforcement proceeding. Sapphire was later terminated from the 
enforcement proceeding based on a settlement agreement.
    On June 8, 2012, the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') 
issued his enforcement initial determination (``EID'') finding a 
violation of the Consent Order by uPI. The ALJ found importation and 
sale of accused products that infringe all asserted claims of the 
patents at issue, and importation and sale of formerly accused products 
that contain or use Richtek's asserted trade secrets. He found that 
uPI's products developed after the consent order issued (``post-Consent 
Order products'') did not misappropriate Richtek's asserted trade 
secrets. Also, he recommended enforcement measures for uPI's violation 
that included the following: (1) Modifying the Consent Order to clarify 
that the Order applies (and has always applied) to all uPI affiliates, 
past, present, or future; and (2) imposing a civil penalty of $750,000 
against uPI.
    The Commission did not review the EID with respect to the trade 
secret allegations, but did review the EID as to certain patent 
infringement allegations and the number of violation days. On November 
14, 2012, after review, the Commission determined to affirm-in-part, 
reverse-in-part, modify-in-part, and vacate-in-part the EID's findings 
under review. The Commission affirmed the ALJ's finding that uPI 
violated the consent order, and imposed a civil penalty of $620,000 on 
respondent uPI for violation of the Consent Order on 62 days. The 
Commission also affirmed the ALJ's finding of direct infringement of 
claims 1-11 and 26-27 of the '190 patent with respect to uPI's formerly 
accused products. The Commission also vacated the ALJ's finding that 
uPI does not induce infringement of claims 1-11 and 26-27 of the 190 
patent. The Commission also determined to reverse the ALJ's finding 
that claims 29 and 34 of the 470 patent are directly infringed by 
respondent uPI's accused DC-DC controllers and products containing the 
same, and determined that Richtek waived any allegations of indirect 
infringement with respect to the '470 patent. This action resulted in a 
finding of no violation of the Consent Order with respect to the '470 
patent. Further, the Commission vacated as moot the portion of the EID 
relating to the '717 patent because the asserted claims 1-3 and 6-9 
were cancelled by issuance of Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate No. 
U.S. 7,132,717 C1 on October 3, 2012. The Commission also affirmed the 
ALJ's finding that uPI's formerly accused products contained or used 
Richtek's asserted trade secrets to violate the Consent Order, but that 
uPI's post-Consent Order products did not misappropriate Richtek's 
asserted trade secrets.
    Both uPI and Richtek timely appealed the Commission's final 
determination. The Federal Circuit issued its opinion in the two 
appeals on September 25, 2014. See 767 F.3d 1372. The Court affirmed 
the Commission's findings regarding uPI's appeal with a slight 
modification, but regarding Richtek's appeal, the Court reversed the 
Commission's determination that uPI did not violate the Consent Order 
based on trade secret misappropriation with respect to uPI's post-
Consent Order products. Id. Specifically, the Court found that, on the 
record provided, substantial evidence did not support the Commission's 
conclusion that uPI's post-Consent Order products were independently 
developed. Id. at 1383. Also specifically, regarding uPI's appeal and 
before deciding Richtek's appeal, the Court reduced the number of days 
of violation by eight (8) days to fifty-four (54) days. Id. at 1380. 
The Court remanded the case to the Commission for further proceedings 
with respect to violation of the Consent Order. Id. at 1383. On 
December 1, 2014, the Court denied uPI's petition for rehearing of the 
Court's finding of no independent development of uPI's post-Consent

[[Page 1205]]

Order products. The mandate of the Court issued on November 17, 2014, 
with respect to uPI's appeal (Appeal No. 13-1157) and on December 8, 
2014, with respect to Richtek's appeal (Appeal No. 13-1159).
    In its order of April 8, 2015, the Commission remanded the case to 
a presiding administrative law judge and ordered the presiding ALJ to:

make findings and issue a remand recommended determination (``RRD'') 
concerning the total number of days an importation or sale in the 
United States occurred in violation of the Consent Order in 
accordance with the Federal Circuit decision in uPI Semiconductor 
Corp. v. ITC and Richtek Technology Corp. v. ITC, 767 F.3d 1372 
(Fed. Cir. 2014), taking into account (1) any additional violation 
days with respect to the post-Consent Order products Richtek 
specifically accused (see EID at 9 n.6); and (2) the subtraction of 
eight (8) violation days with respect to the formerly accused 
products. The RRD will also recommend a total civil penalty amount 
based on the previous daily penalty of $10,000 per day of violation.

Comm'n Order. On April 20, 2015, Richtek filed a motion for 
reconsideration of the Commission's Remand Order with respect to the 
amount of the daily penalty and on May 7, 2015, the motion was denied. 
See Comm'n Order Denying Motion. On October 8, 2015, the presiding ALJ 
issued his RRD finding that after the eight-day subtraction, eleven 
(11) days, associated with post-Consent Order products, should be added 
to the number of days (54) uPI violated the Consent Order to make the 
total sixty-five (65) days in violation, and accordingly increased the 
total civil penalty amount to $650,000 based on the daily penalty of 
$10,000. On October 19, 2015, Richtek submitted comments regarding the 
RRD which reiterated the same arguments made in its denied motion for 
reconsideration. Id. On October 26, 2015, uPI and the Commission 
investigative attorney each filed a reply to Richtek's comments.
    The Commission has determined to adopt the RRD as a final 
determination of the Commission and has issued a modified civil penalty 
order in the amount of $650,000 directed against uPI. The Commission 
has rejected the arguments regarding the amount of the daily penalty 
made by Richtek in its submitted comments for the same reasons given in 
the Commission's Order denying Richtek's motion for reconsideration. 
The Commission has terminated the remand enforcement proceeding.
    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: January 6, 2016.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-00288 Filed 1-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P