[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