[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20552-20553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07165]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-1281]


Certain Video Security Equipment and Systems, Related Software, 
Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice of the 
Commission's Final Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; 
Termination of the Investigation

AGENCY: International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission (``Commission'') has found no violation of section 337 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, in the above-captioned 
investigation. The investigation is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynde Herzbach, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3228. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may 
be viewed on the

[[Page 20553]]

Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. For 
help accessing EDIS, please email [email protected]. General 
information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing 
its internet server at https://www.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: On September 14, 2021, the Commission 
instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''), based on a 
complaint filed by Motorola Solutions, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois 
(``Motorola Solutions''); Avigilon Corporation of British Columbia, 
Canada; Avigilon Fortress Corporation of British Columbia, Canada; 
Avigilon Patent Holding 1 Corporation of British Columbia, Canada 
(``Avigilon Patent Holding''); and Avigilon Technologies Corporation of 
British Columbia, Canada (collectively, ``Complainants''). See 86 FR 
51182-83 (Sept. 14, 2021). The complaint alleges a violation of section 
337 based upon the importation into the United States, sale for 
importation, or sale within the United States after importation of 
certain video security equipment and systems, related software, 
components thereof, and products containing same by reason of 
infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,868,912 (``the 
'912 patent''); 10,726,312 (``the '312 patent''); and 8,508,607 (``the 
'607 patent'') (collectively, ``the Asserted Patents''). Id. The 
complaint further alleges that a domestic industry exists. Id. The 
notice of investigation (``NOI'') names Verkada Inc. of San Mateo, 
California (``Verkada'') as the only respondent. Id.
    The complaint and NOI were previously amended to reflect the 
transfer of all right, title, and interest in: (1) the '312 patent from 
Avigilon Corporation to Motorola Solutions; (2) the '912 patent from 
Avigilon Fortress Corporation to Motorola Solutions; and (3) the '607 
patent from Avigilon Patent Holding to Motorola Solutions. Order No. 7 
(Dec. 28, 2021), unreviewed by 87 FR 4658-59 (Jan. 28, 2022). The 
complaint and NOI were further amended to add a new licensee, Avigilon 
USA Corporation of Dallas, Texas, as an additional complainant. Id.
    The Commission previously terminated the investigation as to claims 
4 and 10-12 of the '312 patent based on Complainants' partial 
withdrawal of the complaint. Order No. 58 (June 14, 2022), unreviewed 
by Comm'n Notice (June 30, 2022). The Commission also previously 
terminated the investigation as to claims 6, 15, 25, and 26 of the '607 
patent based on Complainants' partial withdrawal of the complaint. 
Order No. 59 (July 13, 2022), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Aug. 4, 
2022).
    On October 24, 2022, the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ'') issued a final initial determination (``FID'') finding that a 
violation of section 337 has occurred in the importation into the 
United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United 
States after importation, of certain video security equipment and 
systems, related software, components thereof, and products containing 
same that infringe claims 6-11 of the '912 patent. The FID further 
finds no violation of section 337 with respect to the remaining 
asserted claims of the '912 patent, or as to the '312 patent or the 
'607 patent. The FID includes the ALJ's recommended determination on 
remedy, the public interest, and bonding should the Commission find a 
violation of section 337.
    On November 23, 2022, Complainants and Verkada each filed a 
submission on the public interest pursuant to Commission Rule 
210.50(a)(4) (19 CFR 210.50(a)(4)). No submissions were received in 
response to the Commission notice seeking public interest submissions. 
87 FR 65827-28 (Nov. 1, 2022).
    On January 12, 2023, the Commission determined to review the FID in 
part. 88 FR 3435-37 (Jan. 19, 2023). Specifically, the Commission 
determined to review the FID's findings: (1) regarding ``subject matter 
jurisdiction''; (2) that certain accused products infringe claims 6-11 
of the '912 patent and finding a violation of section 337 as to those 
claims; and (3) that asserted claims 6-11 of the '912 patent are not 
invalid as anticipated or obvious. Id. The Commission asked the parties 
to address three questions related to the issues under review with 
respect to the '912 patent. Id.
    On January 27, 2023, Complainants and Verkada each filed an initial 
written response to the Commission's request for briefing. On February 
3, 2023, Complainants and Verkada each filed a reply submission.
    Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the FID 
and the parties' submissions, the Commission has determined to find no 
violation of section 337 with respect to the '912 patent. Specifically, 
the Commission has determined to: (1) vacate the FID's finding that the 
Commission has ``subject matter jurisdiction'' because ``subject matter 
jurisdiction'' does not apply to administrative agencies; (2) affirm 
and supplement the FID's finding that respondent Verkada failed to 
demonstrate the Video Surveillance and Monitoring (``VSAM'') testbed 
system as allegedly disclosed in multiple documents existed as prior 
art; (3) reverse the FID's finding that asserted claims 6-11 of the 
'912 patent are not anticipated by ``Event Detection and Analysis from 
Video Streams'' by Medioni et al., published in the IEEE Transactions 
on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 23, No. 8 in August 
2001 (``Medioni''); (4) affirm and supplement the FID's finding that 
asserted claims 6-11 of the '912 patent are not rendered obvious by 
Medioni in combination with the asserted VSAM testbed; and (5) take no 
position on the issue of infringement of claims 6-11 of the '912 
patent.
    The investigation is terminated with a finding of no violation of 
section 337. The Commission's reasoning in support of its 
determinations is set forth more fully in its opinion.
    The Commission vote for this determination took place on March 31, 
2023.
    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: March 31, 2023.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-07165 Filed 4-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P