[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10654-10656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04406]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-941]


Certain Graphics Processing Chips, Systems on a Chip, and 
Products Containing the Same Commission Determination To Review in Part 
a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; 
Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and 
on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding

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 (ID) issued by the presiding administrative law judge 
(ALJ) on December 22, 2015, finding a violation of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), as to certain asserted 
patent claims in this investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ron Traud, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3427. 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 December 30, 2014 based on a complaint filed by Samsung Electronics 
Co., Ltd. of Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea; and Samsung Austin 
Semiconductor, LLC of Austin, Texas (collectively, Complainants). 79 FR 
78477-78 (Dec. 30, 2014). The complaint alleges violations of section 
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), in the 
importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the 
sale within the United States after importation of certain graphics 
processing chips (GPUs), systems on a chip (SoCs), and products 
containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 
1-4, 6, and 19-21 of U.S. Patent No. 6,147,385 (the '385 patent); claim 
10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,173,349 (the '349 patent); claims 1, 2, 4, 19, 
20, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,056,776 (the '776 patent); and claims 
1-3, 7-9, 12-15, 17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,734 (the '734 
patent), and whether an industry in the United States exists as 
required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. Id. The notice of 
investigation named the following respondents: NVIDIA Corporation 
(NVIDIA) of Santa Clara, California; Biostar Microtech International 
Corp. of New Taipei, Taiwan; Biostar Microtech U.S.A. Corp. of City of 
Industry, California; Elitegroup Computer Systems Co. Ltd. of Taipei, 
Taiwan; Elitegroup Computer Systems, Inc. of Newark, California; EVGA 
Corp. of Brea, California; Fuhu, Inc. of El Segundo, California; Jaton 
Corp. of Fremont, California; Mad Catz, Inc. of San Diego, California; 
OUYA, Inc. of Santa Monica, California; Sparkle Computer Co., Ltd. of 
New Taipei City, Taiwan; Toradex, Inc. of Seattle, Washington; Wikipad, 
Inc. of Westlake Village, California; ZOTAC International (MCO) Ltd of 
New Territories, Hong Kong; and ZOTAC USA, Inc. of Chino, California 
(collectively, Respondents). Id. The Office of Unfair Import 
Investigations (OUII) is also a party to this investigation. Id.
    On May 1, 2015, the Commission determined not to review an initial 
determination terminating the investigation as to respondent Wikipad, 
Inc. See Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial 
Determination Terminating the Investigation as to Respondent Wikipad, 
Inc. Based on a Consent Order Stipulation, Consent Order, and 
Settlement Agreement; Issuance of Consent Order (May 1, 2015). On May

[[Page 10655]]

13, 2015, the Commission determined not to review an initial 
determination granting intervention by Taiwan Semiconductor 
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. for a limited purpose. See Notice of Commission 
Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination Granting 
Intervention by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. for a 
Limited Purpose (May 13, 2015). On September 17, 2015, the Commission 
determined not to review an initial determination terminating the 
investigation as to respondent ZOTAC International (MCO) Ltd. See 
Notice of Commission Decision Not to Review Two Initial Determinations 
That Terminated the Investigation as to Certain Asserted Patent Claims 
and as to One Respondent (Sept. 17, 2015).
    On July 1, 2015, the Commission determined not to review an initial 
determination terminating the investigation as to the '776 patent. See 
Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial 
Determination Terminating the Investigation with Respect to U.S. Patent 
No. 7,056,776 (July 1, 2015). On August 13, 2015, the Commission 
determined not to review an initial determination finding that the 
economic prong of the domestic industry requirement has been satisfied. 
See Notice of a Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial 
Determination That the Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry 
Requirement Has Been Satisfied (Aug. 13, 2015). On September 17, 2015, 
the Commission determined not to review an initial determination 
terminating claims 19-21 of the `385 patent and claims 7-9, 12-15, 17, 
and 19 of the '734 patent. See Notice of Commission Decision Not to 
Review Two Initial Determinations That Terminated the Investigation as 
to Certain Asserted Patent Claims and as to One Respondent (Sept. 17, 
2015).
    On December 22, 2015, the ALJ issued his ID. Regarding the `385 
patent, the ID concludes: (1) The accused products infringe claims 1-4 
and 6, ID at 61-91; (2) there is a domestic industry, ID at 93-108; (3) 
claims 1-4 and 6 are not invalid for anticipation, obviousness, or lack 
of written description, ID at 114-64; and (4) NVIDIA's Tegra X1 chip is 
outside the scope of the investigation. ID at 91-93. Regarding the '349 
patent, the ID concludes: (1) Certain accused products infringe claim 
10, ID at 198-235; (2) there is a domestic industry, ID at 235-52; and 
(3) claim 10 is not invalid for anticipation, obviousness, or lack of 
written description, ID at 253-74. Regarding the '734 patent, the ID 
concludes: (1) Certain accused products infringe claims 1 and 3, ID at 
307-35; (2) there is a domestic industry, ID at 336-48; and (3) claims 
1 and 3 are not invalid for anticipation or obviousness. ID at 348-77.
    On January 4, 2016, Respondents and OUII filed petitions for review 
of the ID. On January 5, 2016, the ALJ issued his recommended 
determination on remedy and bonding. On January 12, 2016, Complainants 
and OUII filed responses to the petitions.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the 
Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. Specifically, 
the Commission has determined to review (1) the ID's construction of 
``mode'' and ``the receiver further configured'' of claim 1 of the '734 
patent; (2) the ID's conclusion that the accused products infringe the 
'734 patent; (3) the ID's conclusion that there is a domestic industry 
for the '734 patent; (4) the ID's conclusion that claim 1 of the '734 
patent is not invalid for anticipation by U.S. Patent No. 7,032,092 
(Lai); (5) the ID's conclusion that claim 3 of the '734 patent is not 
invalid for obviousness over Lai in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,853,213 
(Funaba); (6) whether the accused Tegra X1 products are within the 
scope of the investigation; and (7) whether Complainants proved that 
the AP20 products infringe the '349 patent.
    The parties are requested to brief their positions with reference 
to the applicable law and the evidentiary record. In connection with 
its review, the Commission is particularly interested in responses to 
the following:
    1. With regard to the construction of ``mode'' in claim 1 of the 
'734 patent, please discuss the significance of the repeated use of the 
permissive term ``may'' in the specification. E.g., col. 4, lns. 28-29, 
37-39, 48-51.
    2. With regard to the construction of ``mode'' in claim 1 of the 
'734 patent, please discuss the significance of the recent Federal 
Circuit decision in The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of 
New York v. Symantec Corporation, No. 2015-1146 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 
2016).
    3. With regard to the interpretation of Figure 4 of the '734 
patent, please discuss the significance of the use of the term ``mode 
signal'' in the specification. Col. 5, lns. 13-16, 28-30.
    4. With regard to the construction of ``the receiver further 
configured'' in claim 1 of the '734 patent, please discuss the 
significance of the cases cited in the ID at pages 302-04, and any 
other relevant case law.
    5. With respect to the '734 patent, if the Commission were (1) to 
construe the claim term ``mode'' in claim 1 to mean ``a configuration 
required by the memory-device type''; and (2) to interpret the phrase 
``the receiver further configured'' in claim 1 to require the 
capability of the receiver to operate in one mode or the other, but not 
both, when connected to a particular memory device; please discuss any 
impact this construction may have on the ID's findings and conclusions.
    6. What portion of the accused devices is allegedly covered by the 
asserted claims? Do the patents in question relate to relatively minor 
features of the accused devices?
    7. How would remedial orders barring the entry and further 
distribution of the products alleged to infringe the asserted claims of 
the '385, '349 and/or '734 patents affect the public interest as 
identified in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1) and (f)(1)? The Commission is 
particularly interested in the commercial availability of alternatives 
to the potentially excluded products as well as any differences, 
including qualitative differences, between those alternatives and the 
potentially excluded products.
    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the 
Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of 
the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) 
issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the 
respondent being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair 
acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the 
Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address 
the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks 
exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes 
other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and 
provide information establishing that activities involving other types 
of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For 
background, see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone 
Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994) 
(Commission Opinion).
    If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must 
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The 
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an 
exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the 
public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. 
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly 
competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. 
consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written

[[Page 10656]]

submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in 
the context of this investigation.
    If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade 
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve 
or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of 
July 21, 2005. 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the 
subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under 
bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the 
Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in 
receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be 
imposed if a remedy is ordered.
    Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested 
to file written submissions on the issues identified in this notice. 
Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any 
other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on 
the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such 
submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on 
remedy and bonding. Complainants are requested to submit proposed 
remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainants are 
also requested to state the date that the patents expire and the HTSUS 
numbers under which the accused products are imported. Complainants are 
further requested to supply the names of known importers of the 
products at issue in this investigation. The written submissions and 
proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business 
on March 7, 2016. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the 
close of business on March 14, 2016. Such submissions should address 
the ALJ's recommended determinations on remedy and bonding. No further 
submissions on any of these issues will be permitted unless otherwise 
ordered by the Commission.
    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document 
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight 
true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day 
pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the 
investigation number (``Inv. No. 337-TA-941'') in a prominent place on 
the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic 
Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). Persons with questions 
regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).
    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in 
confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests 
should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include 
a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such 
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment 
by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A 
redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed 
simultaneously with any confidential filing. All non-confidential 
written submissions will be available for public inspection at the 
Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.
    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: February 24, 2016.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-04406 Filed 2-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P