[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 5, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15896-15898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04567]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-1331]


Certain Outdoor and Semi-Outdoor Electronic Displays, Products 
Containing Same, and Components Thereof; Notice of a Commission 
Determination Not To Review a Final Initial 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 has determined not to review the presiding administrative 
law judge's (``ALJ'') final initial determination (``FID'') finding no 
violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The 
investigation is terminated with a finding of no violation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Lall, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2043. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may 
be viewed on the 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: The Commission instituted this investigation

[[Page 15897]]

on September 23, 2022, based on a complaint filed on behalf of 
Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. (``MRI'') of Alpharetta, 
Georgia. 87 FR 58132-33 (Sept. 23, 2022). The complaint alleges 
violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 
U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''), based on the importation into the United 
States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States 
after importation of certain outdoor and semi-outdoor electronic 
displays, products containing same, and components thereof with respect 
to certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,854,595 (``the '595 patent''); 
9,173,322 (``the '322 patent''); 9,629,287 (``the '287 patent''); 
10,506,740 (``the '740 patent''); and 11,013,142 (``the '142 patent'') 
(collectively, the ``Asserted Patents''). The complaint further alleges 
that a domestic industry exists.
    The Commission's notice of investigation (``NOI'') names seven (7) 
respondents, including: (1) Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (``Samsung 
Electronics'') of Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea; (2) Samsung SDS Co. 
Ltd. of Seoul, Republic of Korea; (3) Samsung SDS America, Inc. 
(``Samsung SDS America'') and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. 
(``Samsung Electronics America''), both of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey; 
(4) Coates Visual LLC (``Coates Visual'') of Chicago, Illinois; (5) 
Coates Signco Pty Limited of Sydney, Australia; and (6) Industrial 
Enclosure Corporation d/b/a Palmer Digital Group (``Palmer Digital'') 
of Aurora, Illinois. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not 
participating in the investigation.
    On November 10, 2022, the Commission terminated this investigation 
as to respondent Coates Visual and amended the complaint and NOI to add 
Coates US Inc. of Chicago, Illinois (``Coates US'') as a respondent. 
Order No. 6 (Oct. 24, 2022), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Nov. 10, 
2022).
    The presiding ALJ held a Markman hearing on March 1, 2023. On May 
15, 2023, the ALJ issued a Markman order construing certain disputed 
claim terms. Order No. 13 (May 15, 2023).
    On June 5, 2023, the Commission terminated this investigation as to 
respondents Samsung SDS Co. Ltd. and Coates Signco Pty Limited. Order 
Nos. 10-11 (May 4, 2023), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (June 5, 2023). 
Order Nos. 10-11, issued on May 4, 2023, terminated only two 
respondents: Samsung SDS Co. Ltd. and Coates Signco Pty Limited. The 
Commission's related notice, issued June 5, 2023, inadvertently 
terminated two additional respondents: Samsung SDS America, Inc. and 
Coates US Inc. This notice corrects that error.
    Five respondents remain in the investigation (hereinafter, 
``Respondents''): Samsung Electronics; Samsung Electronics America; 
Samsung SDS America (collectively, ``Samsung''); Coates US; and Palmer 
Digital.
    On July 17, 2023, the Commission granted summary determination that 
the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement is satisfied as 
to the Asserted Patents. See Order No. 19 (June 15, 2023), unreviewed 
by Comm'n Notice (July 17, 2023).
    The presiding ALJ held an evidentiary hearing on June 26-30, 2023.
    On August 9, 2023, the Commission terminated the investigation as 
to the following claims: claims 13, 16, and 18 of the '595 patent; 
claims 1, 2, 7, and 16 of the '322 patent; claims 1-11, 13, 15, 17-19 
and 21-23 of the '287 patent; claims 2-3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15-18, and 20 
of the '740 patent; and claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-15 of the '142 patent. 
Order No. 36 (July 11, 2023), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (August 9, 
2023).
    On September 11, 2023, the Commission affirmed (as to non-
terminated claims remaining asserted) an initial determination 
granting-in-part a motion for summary determination of non-infringement 
of certain unaccused products. Order No. 21 (June 20, 2023), aff'd by 
Comm'n Notice (September 11, 2023).
    On November 13, 2023, the presiding ALJ issued the FID, finding 
that there has been no violation of section 337 in the importation into 
the United States, the sale for importation, and/or the sale in the 
United States after importation of certain outdoor and semi-outdoor 
electronic displays, products containing same, and components thereof. 
Specifically, the FID finds: (1) for the '287 patent, claim 12 is not 
infringed and is not invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, and 
Respondents' non-accused redesigned products are ripe for adjudication 
and do not satisfy claim 12; (2) for the '595 patent, claims 1, 4 and 7 
are infringed, claim 8 is not infringed, claim 1 is invalid for 
anticipation and/or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, and claims 4, 
7 and 8 are invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103; (3) for the 
'322 patent, claims 4 and 5 are infringed, claims 8, 9, 12 and 13 are 
not infringed, claims 3, 4, 5, and 8 are invalid for anticipation and/
or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, and claims 9, 12, and 13 are 
invalid for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. 112; (4) for 
the '740 patent, claims 1 and 5 are infringed and claims 1 and 5 are 
invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103; and (5) for the '142 
patent, claims 6 and 10 are infringed and claims 6 and 10 are invalid 
for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103.
    On November 27, 2023, the presiding ALJ issued a recommended 
determination (``RD'') on remedy and bonding. The RD recommends the 
issuance of a limited exclusion order (``LEO'') directed to ``outdoor 
and semi-outdoor electronic displays, products containing same 
(housings, enclosures, kiosks, and menu boards), and component[s] 
thereof (systems for cooling electronic displays),'' in the event that 
the Commission finds a violation of section 337. In particular, the RD 
recommends that the LEO should be directed to all Respondents if there 
is a finding of violation based, in whole or in part, on the Accused 
Samsung Mid-Sized Products, but should be directed only to Samsung 
Electronics, Samsung Electronics America and Samsung SDS America if 
there is a finding of violation based only on the Accused Samsung 
Large-Sized Products. Id. at 3-4. The RD also recommends that, if a 
violation is found, a cease and desist order (``CDO'') should issue 
against Samsung Electronics America, but no CDO should issue against 
Samsung Electronics or Samsung SDS America. Id. at 7-8. In addition, 
the RD recommends that, if the Commission finds a violation based on 
the Accused Mid-Sized Products, a CDO should issue against Coates US 
and Palmer Digital. Id. at 8-9. The RD further recommends that a bond 
of 2.25 percent be set for any importations of infringing products 
during the period of Presidential review. Id. at 11-12.
    On November 27, 2023, MRI filed a petition for review of several of 
the FID's findings. Specifically, MRI seeks review of the FID's 
findings that: (1) the Accused Samsung Mid-Sized and Large-Sized 
Products do not infringe the asserted claim of the '287 Patent; (2) 
Samsung's redesign products were ripe for adjudication; and (3) certain 
claims of the '595, '322, '740, and '142 patents are invalid as 
anticipated and/or obvious.
    Also on November 27, 2023, Respondents filed a contingent petition 
for review of certain of the FID's findings. Specifically, Respondents 
seek contingent review the FID's findings that: (1) the Asserted 
Patents are not invalid due to incorrect inventorship and/or 
unenforceable due to inequitable conduct; (2) claims 1, 4 and 7 of the 
'595 Patent and/or claims 4 and 5 of the '322 patent are infringed; and 
(3) claim 12 of the '287 patent is not invalid. Respondents also seek 
review of

[[Page 15898]]

additional non-infringement bases for claims 9, 12, or 13 of the '322 
patent.
    On December 5, 2023, the parties filed their respective responses 
to the petitions for review.
    On December 27, 2023, MRI filed a statement on the public interest 
pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4), 19 CFR. 210.50(a)(4). 
Respondents did not file a submission pursuant to Commission Rule 
210.50(a)(4). No responses were received in response to the 
Commission's post-RD notice seeking public interest submissions. 88 FR 
84360-61 (Dec. 5, 2023).
    The Commission has determined not to review the subject FID. The 
Commission notes, however, that the FID, in analyzing whether claim 4 
of the '322 patent is rendered obvious by the combination of certain 
prior art references, states several times that ``MRI has shown by 
clear and convincing evidence'' that each of the eight elements of 
claim 4 is disclosed by the prior art. See FID, at 213, 214, 215 and 
216. The FID clearly meant that for each element, ``Respondents have 
shown by clear and convincing evidence. . . .'' This aspect of the FID 
is accordingly clarified.
    The investigation is terminated with a finding of no violation of 
section 337.
    The Commission vote for this determination took place on February 
28, 2024.
    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 28, 2024.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-04567 Filed 3-4-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P