[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28660-28662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13191]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-1044]


Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer 
Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination To Review in 
Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Section 337 Violation; 
Target Date Extension and Schedule for Filing Written Submissions

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 a final initial 
determination (``FID'') of the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ'') finding a violation of section 337 the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended; and extend the target date by five business days from August 
15, 2018, to August 22, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Houda Morad, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4716. 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 https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed 
on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://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 Investigation No. 
337-TA-1044 on March 22, 2017, based on a complaint filed by 
Complainants Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California and 
ATI Technologies ULC of Canada (collectively, ``AMD'' or 
``Complainants''). See 82 FR 14748 (Mar. 22, 2017). The complaint, as 
amended, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), based upon the importation into the United 
States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States 
after importation of certain graphics systems, components thereof, and 
consumer products containing the same, by reason of infringement of 
certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,633,506 (``the '506 patent''); U.S. 
Patent No. 7,796,133 (``the '133 patent''); U.S. Patent No. 8,760,454 
(``the '454 patent''); and U.S. Patent No. 9,582,846 (``the '846 
patent''). Id. The notice of investigation identified LG Electronics, 
Inc. of Seoul, Republic of Korea, LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of 
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, and LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A. Inc. 
of San Diego, California (collectively, ``LG''), VIZIO, Inc. 
(``VIZIO'') of Irvine, California, MediaTek Inc. of Hsinchu City, 
Taiwan and Media Tek USA Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively, 
``MediaTek''), and Sigma Designs, Inc. (``SDI'') of Fremont, 
California, as respondents in this investigation. See id. The Office of 
Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) is also a party to the 
investigation.
    On October 20, 2017, the ALJ issued an initial determination 
terminating the investigation as to LG based on settlement. See Order 
No. 48 (Oct. 20, 2017), unreviewed, Comm'n Notice (Nov. 13, 2017). The 
remaining respondents in this investigation are

[[Page 28661]]

VIZIO, MediaTek, and SDI (hereinafter, ``the Remaining Respondents''). 
The ALJ also terminated the investigation with respect to all asserted 
claims of the '454 and '846 patents; claims 6, 7, and 9 of the '506 
patent; and claims 2, 4-13, and 40 of the '133 patent. See Order No. 33 
(Aug. 15, 2017), unreviewed, Comm'n Notice (Sept. 5, 2017); Order No. 
43 (Oct. 5, 2017), unreviewed, Comm'n Notice (Oct. 31, 2017); Order No. 
49 (Oct. 20, 2017), unreviewed, Comm'n Notice (Nov. 13, 2017); Order 
No. 53 (Oct. 31, 2017), unreviewed, Comm'n Notice (Nov. 28, 2017). 
Claims 1-5 and 8 of the '506 patent and claims 1 and 3 of the '133 
patent (hereinafter, ``the asserted claims'') remain pending in this 
investigation.
    On April 13, 2018, the ALJ issued her FID finding a violation of 
section 337 with respect to the '506 patent but not the '133 patent. 
Specifically, the FID finds that: (1) Certain accused products infringe 
the asserted claims of the '506 patent but not the '133 patent; (2) the 
asserted claims are not invalid; and (3) Complainants satisfy the 
economic and technical prongs of the domestic industry requirement with 
respect to both asserted patents. In addition, the ALJ recommended that 
the Commission issue: (1) a Limited Exclusion Order against the 
infringing accused products; and (2) Cease and Desist Orders against 
Respondents VIZIO and SDI. The ALJ further recommended against setting 
a bond during Presidential review.
    The Commission has determined to review the FID in part. In 
particular, the Commission has determined to review the claim 
constructions of the terms: ``unified shader'' (recited in the '506 and 
'133 patent claims), ``packet'' (recited in the '133 patent claims), 
and ``ALU/memory pair'' (recited in the '133 patent claims). In view of 
the Commission's claim construction review, the Commission will also 
review the relevant FID's findings with respect to infringement, 
validity, and technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. 
Furthermore, the Commission has determined to review whether the 
importation requirement is satisfied with respect to Respondents 
MediaTek and SDI. The Commission has determined not to review the 
remainder of the FID. The Commission has also determined to extend the 
target date by five business days from August 15, 2018, to August 22, 
2018.
    In connection with the review, the parties are requested to brief 
their positions with reference to the applicable law and the 
evidentiary record regarding the questions provided below:
    1. Consistent with the specification of the '506 patent (JX-1) and 
with the patentee's statements during the prosecution of the '506 
patent (JX-2) distinguishing Zhu U.S. Patent No. 6,697,063 at JX-2.387-
388, the Commission proposes to construe the term ``unified shader'' to 
mean ``a single shader circuit capable of performing color shading and 
texture coordinate shading, wherein the single shader circuit may not 
include separate dedicated hardware blocks that perform separate color 
and texture operations, and wherein texture coordinate shading may 
include texture address operations, indirect texturing, and bump 
mapping performed by the unified shader to modify texture 
coordinates.'' In view of the Commission's proposed construction, 
please explain: (1) Whether and why you agree or disagree with the 
Commission's proposed construction; and (2) whether and why the 
Commission's proposed construction affects the FID's infringement and 
invalidity analyses with respect to the '506 patent.
    2. Consistent with the specification of the '133 patent (JX-2) and 
with the patentee's statements during the prosecution of the '133 
patent (JX-4) distinguishing Donham U.S. Patent No. 6,980,209 at JX-
4.240-41 and JX-4.272, the Commission proposes to construe the term 
``unified shader'' to mean ``a single shader circuit capable of 
performing color shading and texture coordinate shading, wherein the 
single shader circuit may not include separate dedicated hardware 
blocks that perform separate color and texture operations, and wherein 
texture coordinate shading may include texture address operations, 
indirect texturing, and bump mapping performed by the unified shader to 
modify texture coordinates.'' In view of the Commission's proposed 
construction, please explain: (1) Whether and why you agree or disagree 
with the Commission's proposed construction; and (2) whether and why 
the Commission's proposed construction affects the FID's infringement 
and invalidity analyses with respect to the '133 patent.
    3. Consistent with the specification of the '133 patent (JX-3) and 
with the patentee's statements during the prosecution of the '133 
patent (JX-4) distinguishing Morgan U.S. Patent No. 6,384,824 at JX-
4.89, the Commission proposes to construe the term ``packet'' to mean 
``data bundle containing texture coordinate and color value information 
for one or more pixels, wherein said information is received 
simultaneously by the unified shader,'' i.e., in the same packet rather 
than serially as suggested by Complainants. In view of the Commission's 
proposed construction, please explain: (1) Whether and why you agree or 
disagree with the Commission's proposed construction; and (2) whether 
and why the Commission's proposed construction affects the FID's 
infringement and invalidity analyses with respect to the '133 patent.
    4. Consistent with the specification of the '133 patent (JX-3), the 
Commission proposes to modify the FID's interpretation with respect to 
the scope of the term ``ALU/memory pair'' to clarify that it does not 
exclude control logic or circuitry. In view of the Commission's 
proposed interpretation, please explain: (1) Whether and why you agree 
or disagree with the Commission's proposed interpretation; and (2) 
whether and why the Commission's proposed interpretation affects the 
FID's infringement and invalidity analyses with respect to the '133 
patent.
    In addition, 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(s) 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 
(Dec. 1994) (Comm'n Op.).
    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 
submissions that address the

[[Page 28662]]

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 questions 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 and OUII are also requested to submit 
proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. 
Complainants are also requested to state the date that the asserted 
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.
    Written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no 
later than close of business on June 28, 2018. Reply submissions must 
be filed no later than the close of business on July 6, 2018. Initial 
written submissions may not exceed 50 pages in length, exclusive of any 
exhibits, while reply submissions may not exceed 25 pages in length, 
exclusive of any exhibits. 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 
(8) 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-1044'') in a prominent place on 
the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic 
Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.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. All 
information, including confidential business information and documents 
for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the 
Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and 
used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract 
personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a 
related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, 
and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of 
the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. 
government employees and contract personnel,\[1]\ solely for 
cybersecurity purposes. All non-confidential written submissions will 
be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and 
on EDIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \[1]\ All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure 
agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: June 14, 2018.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-13191 Filed 6-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P