80 FR 26091 - Certain Television Sets, Television Receivers, Television Tuners, and Components Thereof; Commission Determination to Review in Part a Final Initial Determination; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 87 (May 6, 2015)

Page Range		26091-26094
FR Document		2015-10520

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part the final initial determination (``final ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') on February 27, 2015, finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission has also determined to deny the motion filed on March 16, 2015, by certain respondents to reopen the record of the investigation. The Commission requests certain briefing from the parties on the issues under review, as indicated in this notice. The Commission also requests briefing from the parties and interested persons on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26091-26094]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10520]

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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-910]

Certain Television Sets, Television Receivers, Television Tuners,
and Components Thereof; Commission Determination to Review in Part a
Final Initial Determination; 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 the final initial
determination (``final ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law
judge (``ALJ'') on February 27, 2015, finding no violation of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, in the above-captioned investigation.
The Commission has also determined to deny the motion filed on March
16, 2015, by certain respondents to reopen the record of the
investigation. The Commission requests certain briefing from the
parties on the issues under review, as indicated in this notice. The
Commission also requests briefing from the parties and interested
persons on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-708-2532. 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 (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 March 5, 2014, based on a complaint filed by Cresta Technology
Corporation, of Santa Clara, California (``Cresta''). 79 FR 12526
(March 5, 2014). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of the
infringement of certain claims from three United States patents. The
notice of institution named ten respondents: Silicon Laboratories, Inc.
of Austin, Texas (``Silicon Labs''); MaxLinear, Inc. of Carlsbad,
California (``MaxLinear''); Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd. of Suwon,
Republic of Korea and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield
Park, New Jersey (collectively, ``Samsung''); VIZIO, Inc. of Irvine,
California (``Vizio''); LG Electronics, Inc. of Seoul, Republic of
Korea and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
(collectively, ``LG''); and Sharp Corporation of Osaka, Japan and Sharp
Electronics Corporation of Mahwah, New Jersey (collectively,
``Sharp''). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was also named
as a party.
On May 16, 2014, the ALJ issued an initial determination granting
Cresta's motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to
add six additional respondents: SIO International Inc. of Brea,
California and

[[Page 26092]]

Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. of New Taipei City, Taiwan
(collectively, ``SIO/Hon Hai''); Top Victory Investments, Ltd. of Hong
Kong and TPV International (USA), Inc. of Austin, Texas (collectively,
TPV''); and Wistron Corporation of New Taipei City, Taiwan and Wistron
Infocomm Technology (America) Corporation of Flower Mound, Texas
(collectively, ``Wistron''). Order No. 12 (May 16, 2014), not reviewed,
Notice (June 9, 2014).
On November 3, 2014, the ALJ granted-in-part Samsung and Vizio's
motion for summary determination of noninfringement as to certain
televisions containing tuners made by a third party, NXP Semiconductors
N.V. Order No. 46 at 27-30 (Nov. 3, 2014), not reviewed, Notice (Dec.
3, 2014). On November 21, 2014, the ALJ issued granted Samsung's and
Vizio's motion for summary determination that Cresta had not shown that
certain Samsung televisions with NXP tuners had been imported. Order
No. 58 at 4-5 (Nov. 21, 2014), not reviewed, Notice (Dec. 8, 2014).
On November 12. 2014, the ALJ granted Cresta's motion to partially
terminate the investigation as to one asserted patent and certain
asserted claims of the two other asserted patents. Order No. 50 (Nov.
12, 2014), not reviewed, Notice (Dec. 3, 2014). The two asserted
patents still at issue in the investigation are U.S. Patent No.
7,075,585 (``the '585 patent'') and U.S. Patent No. 7,265,792 (``the
'792 patent''). Claims 1-3, 10, and 12-13 of the '585 patent, and
claims 1-4, 7-8, and 25-27 of the '792 patent, remain at issue in the
investigation.
The presiding ALJ conducted a hearing from December 1-5, 2014. On
February 27, 2015, the ALJ issued the final ID. The final ID finds that
Cresta failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry
requirement, 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2), (a)(3), for both asserted patents.
To satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement,
Cresta relied upon claims 1-3, 5-6, 10, 13-14, 16-19, and 21 of the
'585 patent; and claims 1-4, 7, 10-12, 18-19, and 26-27 of the '792
patent. The ID finds that certain Cresta products--on their own, or
combined with certain televisions into which Cresta's tuners are
incorporated--practice all of the domestic-industry claims of the '585
patent, except for claim 14; as well as all of the domestic-industry
claims of the '792 patent except for claim 27.
The ID finds some Silicon Labs tuners (as well as certain
televisions containing them) to infringe claims 1-3 of the '585 patent,
and no other asserted patent claims. The ID further finds some
MaxLinear tuners (as well as certain televisions containing them) to
infringe claims 1-3, 10, 12, and 13 of the '585 patent and claims 1-3,
7-8, and 25-26 of the '792 patent.
The ID finds claims 1 and 2 of the '585 patent to be invalid
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102 (anticipation), and claim 3 of the '585
patent to be invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 103 (obviousness). The ID
finds all of the asserted claims of the '792 patent to be invalid
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
The ALJ recommended that if a violation of section 337 is found,
that a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders issue. The
ALJ recommended, however, that the implementation of such orders be
delayed by twelve months in view of public interest considerations. The
ALJ also recommended that there be zero bond during the period of
Presidential review.
On March 16, 2015, petitions for Commission review were filed by
the following parties: the Commission investigative attorney (``IA'');
Cresta; the Silicon Labs respondents; and the MaxLinear respondents. On
March 24, 2015, OUII and Cresta each filed a reply to the other
parties' petitions. That same day, the respondents filed a reply to
Cresta's petition.
The Commission's determinations to review are as follows:

1. Infringement

The Commission has determined not to review the ID's claim
constructions. ID at 16-49. The Commission has determined to review the
ID's infringement analysis concerning the ``signal processor'' for
``processing . . . in accordance with'' the ``format of'' the ``input
RF signal'' limitation of all asserted patent claims. '585 patent col.
6 line 65--col. 7 line 2 (claim 1); '792 patent col. 10 lines 60-65
(claim 1); ID at 57-60, 72-75, 84-85 & 94. The Commission has also
determined to review the ID's infringement analysis concerning the
``applies one of a plurality of finite impulse response filters . . .
corresponding to a format of'' the ``input RF signal'' limitation of
asserted claims 10, 12 and 13 of the '585 patent and all asserted
claims of the '792 patent. '585 patent col. 7 lines 36-40; '792 patent
col. 10 line 65--col. 11 line 2 (claim 1); ID at 67-68, 79-80, 85 & 93.
The Commission has also determined to review the ID's
determinations concerning contributory infringement of the asserted
patent claims.
Notwithstanding the foregoing review, the Commission has determined
not to review the ID's exclusion of certain testimony by Alan
Hendrickson. Cresta Pet. at 37. The Commission has also determined not
to review the ID's findings as to Cresta's lack of evidence regarding
allegedly representative products. See ID at 65-66, 78-79.

2. Invalidity

The Commission has determined not to review the ID's finding that
that claims 1-4 and 25-26 of the '792 patent are anticipated by the
'585 patent; and not to review the ID's finding that claims 1 and 2 of
the '585 patent are anticipated by Boie.
The Commission has determined to review the ID's determinations
that that the asserted claims are not obvious in view of the
combination of Boie and VDP. The Commission has also determined to
review whether claim 3 of the '585 patent is obvious in view of Boie
and Kerth; whether claim 25 of the '792 patent is obvious in view of
VDP alone; and whether claim 26 of the '792 patent is obvious in view
of Boie and Micronas.
The Commission has determined to review the ID's findings
concerning an on-sale bar that invalidates claims 1-4, 7-8, and 26-27
of the '792 patent. ID at 142-47.
The Commission has determined to review the ID's finding that claim
1 of the '585 patent is not indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112 in view of
the plural and singular use of the term ``signals.'' On review, the
Commission finds that claim 1 of the '585 patent is not indefinite. The
respondents have failed to demonstrate clear and convincing evidence of
invalidity. The use the plural and singular for ``signal'' does not
create ambiguity in the claim, and neither side's experts had
difficulty ascertaining the scope of the claim.
The Commission has also determined to review the issue of whether
the claims of the '792 patent are invalid under the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112. On review, the Commission finds that the
claims are not invalid under the written description requirement for
the same reasons provided in the ID as to the '585 patent.

3. Domestic Industry

The Commission has determined to review whether Cresta proved the
existence of articles protected by the patents that incorporate the
XC5000A series tuner. See ID at 195-96. The Commission has determined
not to review the ID's remaining findings concerning the technical
prong of the domestic industry requirement,

[[Page 26093]]

including the ID's findings as to tuners other than the XC5000A series.
The Commission has also determined to review the ID's findings on
the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.

4. Other Matters

The ID recommends certain action concerning a breach of the
administrative protective order in this investigation. ID at 3 n.1; see
19 CFR 210.34(c)(2). That recommendation is not part of the Commission
review of violation of section 337, see 19 CFR 210.42. Accordingly, any
action by the Commission will be conducted separately from review of
the ID, in accordance with Commission practice concerning possible
breaches of administrative protective orders. See generally Notice, 80
FR 1664 (Jan. 13, 2015).
On March 16, 2015, Silicon Labs moved the Commission to reopen the
record to admit as evidence a January 9, 2015, response by Cresta in an
inter partes review of the '585 patent being conducted by the U.S.
Patent & Trademark Office (``PTO''). The IA and MaxLinear responded in
support of the motion; Cresta responded in opposition. Silicon Labs, a
party to the PTO review proceeding, waited more than two months to
present the document to the Commission. Silicon Labs could have timely
moved the ALJ to reopen the record. Accordingly, the Commission has
determined to deny the motion.
All other issues upon which the parties petitioned for review that
are not expressly recited above are not reviewed.
The parties are asked to brief the following issues with reference
to the applicable law and the existing evidentiary record. For each
argument presented, the parties' submissions should set forth whether
and/or how that argument was presented in the proceedings before the
ALJ, with citations to the record. See Order No. 2 11.1 (Mar. 4, 2014)
(Ground Rules).
a. Cresta alleges that certain accused products practice the claim
limitations under review because they can operate to receive signals
according to U.S. standards (6 MHz) as well as foreign standards that
operate at a bandwidth other than 6 MHz. Please explain whether Cresta
demonstrated that the accused products are capable of processing
signals conforming to such foreign standards without modification to
the accused televisions or tuners (whether by software, firmware or
hardware). See, e.g., Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d
1197, 1204-05 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI
Technologies., Inc., 607 F.3d 784, 794 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
b. Please explain whether Cresta demonstrated that Silicon Labs'
non-U and non-V tuners (i.e., those models without a ``U'' or a ``V'')
process analog and digital signals differently so as to infringe claims
1-3 of the '585 patent.
c. In connection with the Commission's consideration of the
infringement analysis of the two claim limitations on review (``signal
processor'' and ``applies one of a plurality of finite impulse response
filters''), please provide a chart that presents the following: the
accused product, including its model number(s); and for each of the two
claim limitations on review whether and why the accused product does or
does not practice that claim limitation under the ID's claim
constructions, including citations to the evidence of record.
d. Cresta alleges the contributory infringement of certain asserted
patent claims by respondents MaxLinear and Silicon Labs. Please explain
whether the original and/or amended complaint filed by Cresta provided
the requisite knowledge of the patents asserted in this investigation.
Parties are to discuss Commission determinations (including those in
Commission Inv. Nos. 337-TA-723, -744, and -770) as well as federal
caselaw including, for example, Rembrandt Social Media, LP v. Facebook,
Inc., 950 F. Supp. 2d 876, 881-82 (E.D. Va. 2013) and cases discussed
therein. If one or both complaints provide legally adequate knowledge,
please explain whether a finding of contributory infringement requires
a showing of the respondents' continued sale of infringing products
after being served with the complaint, see, e.g., Cresta Post-Trial Br.
53, and whether Cresta made that showing. Please also discuss on what
basis, if any, other than the original or amended complaint, the
respondents were provided with knowledge of the asserted patents for
purposes of contributory infringement.
e. Please explain whether the accused tuners are capable of
substantial noninfringing uses, including whether such accused tuners
are embedded in systems on a chip, and whether that embedment prevents
substantial noninfringing uses as to those embedded tuners. Please also
explain whether and why, legally and factually, the following statement
is pertinent to the Commission's analysis of contributory infringement
in this investigation: ``Cresta is not accusing any cable or satellite
TV set-top boxes in this Investigation, and my infringement findings
are limited to the SoCs where Cresta has identified [an infringing]
`plurality of demodulators'. . . .'' ID at 82.
f. In connection with the Commission's analysis of invalidity of
claims 10, 12, and 13 of the '585 patent, and the asserted claims of
the '792 patent in view of Boie and VDP, please explain whether a
programmable filter meets the limitation of ``appl[ying] one of a
plurality of finite impulse response filters. . . .''
g. Should the Commission find a violation of section 337, please
explain, in view of the facts of this investigation as well as
Commission precedent concerning remedies, whether public-interest
considerations, 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), warrant tailoring of any
remedial orders, and if so, what that tailoring should be. The parties'
discussion of the public interest considerations implicated by this
investigation should account for the ID's unreviewed determination that
Cresta failed to provide adequate evidence as to allegedly
representative products. See ID at 65-66, 78-79.
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, Comm'n Op.
(December 1994).
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

[[Page 26094]]

therefore interested in receiving written 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. 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 under review. 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.
The complainants and the IA are also requested to submit proposed
remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. The complainants
are also requested to state the date that the asserted patents expire
and the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported.
The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no
later than close of business on May 14, 2015, and should not exceed 60
pages. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of
business on May 23, 2015, and such replies should not exceed 40 pages.
The respondents may allocate the page limits amongst themselves as they
see fit. No further submissions on 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 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-910'') 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 the 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: April 30, 2015.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-10520 Filed 5-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 2015 / Notices 26091

Washington, DC 20240, or by email to Description of Respondents: State and Commission requests certain briefing
jtrelease@osmre.gov. Tribal reclamation and regulatory from the parties on the issues under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To authorities. review, as indicated in this notice. The
receive a copy of the information Total Annual Responses: 140. Commission also requests briefing from
collection request, contact John Trelease Total Annual Burden Hours: 918 the parties and interested persons on the
at (202) 208–2783, or electronically at hours. issues of remedy, the public interest,
jtrelease@osmre.gov. You may also Total Annual Non-Wage Cost: $0. and bonding.
review this collection on the Internet by Send comments on the need for the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
going to http://www.reginfo.gov collection of information for the Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the
(Information Collection Review, performance of the functions of the General Counsel, U.S. International
Currently Under Review, Agency is agency; the accuracy of the agency’s Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Department of the Interior, DOI– burden estimates; ways to enhance the Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–
OSMRE). quality, utility and clarity of the 708–2532. Copies of non-confidential
information collection; and ways to documents filed in connection with this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OMB minimize the information collection
regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which investigation are or will be available for
burden on respondents, such as use of inspection during official business
implement provisions of the Paperwork automated means of collection of the
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the
information, to the addresses listed in Office of the Secretary, U.S.
require that interested members of the ADDRESSES. Please refer to OMB control
public and affected agencies have an International Trade Commission, 500 E
number 1029–0059 in your Street SW., Washington, DC 20436,
opportunity to comment on information correspondence.
collection and recordkeeping activities telephone 202–205–2000. General
Before including your address, phone information concerning the Commission
[see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. OSMRE has number, email address, or other
submitted a request to OMB to renew its may also be obtained by accessing its
personal identifying information in your Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov).
approval of the collections of comment, you should be aware that
information contained in 30 CFR part The public record for this investigation
your entire comment—including your may be viewed on the Commission’s
735—Grants for Program Development personal identifying information—may
and Administration and Enforcement, electronic docket (EDIS) at http://
be made publicly available at any time. edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired
30 CFR part 886—State and Tribal While you can ask us in your comment
Reclamation Grants, and 30 CFR part persons are advised that information on
to withhold your personal identifying this matter can be obtained by
885—Grants for Certified States and information from public review, we
Indian Tribes. OSMRE is requesting a 3- contacting the Commission’s TDD
cannot guarantee that we will be able to terminal on 202–205–1810.
year term of approval for each do so.
information collection activity. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
An agency may not conduct or Dated: May 1, 2015. Commission instituted this investigation
sponsor, and a person is not required to Dennis G. Rice, on March 5, 2014, based on a complaint
respond to, a collection of information Acting Chief, Division of Regulatory Support. filed by Cresta Technology Corporation,
unless it displays a currently valid OMB [FR Doc. 2015–10582 Filed 5–5–15; 8:45 am] of Santa Clara, California (‘‘Cresta’’). 79
control number. Responses are required BILLING CODE 4310–05–P FR 12526 (March 5, 2014). The
to receive a benefit of grant funding. The complaint alleged violations of section
OMB control number for 30 CFR parts 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
735, 885, 886 and the corresponding INTERNATIONAL TRADE amended 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of
forms OSM–47, OSM–49, and OSM 51 COMMISSION the infringement of certain claims from
that require grant submittals are three United States patents. The notice
[Investigation No. 337–TA–910] of institution named ten respondents:
currently approved under OMB control
number 1029–0059. Silicon Laboratories, Inc. of Austin,
Certain Television Sets, Television
As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a Texas (‘‘Silicon Labs’’); MaxLinear, Inc.
Receivers, Television Tuners, and
Federal Register notice soliciting of Carlsbad, California (‘‘MaxLinear’’);
Components Thereof; Commission
comments on this collection of Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd. of Suwon,
Determination to Review in Part a Final
information was published on February Republic of Korea and Samsung
Initial Determination; Schedule for
19, 2015 (80 FR 8899). No comments Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield
Filing Written Submissions
were received. This notice provides the Park, New Jersey (collectively,
public with an additional 30 days in AGENCY: U.S. International Trade ‘‘Samsung’’); VIZIO, Inc. of Irvine,
which to comment on the following Commission. California (‘‘Vizio’’); LG Electronics, Inc.
information collection activity: ACTION: Notice. of Seoul, Republic of Korea and LG
Title: 30 CFR parts 735, 885 and 886— Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood
Grants to States and Tribes. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Cliffs, New Jersey (collectively, ‘‘LG’’);
OMB Control Number: 1029–0059. the U.S. International Trade and Sharp Corporation of Osaka, Japan
Summary: State and Tribal Commission has determined to review and Sharp Electronics Corporation of
reclamation and regulatory authorities in part the final initial determination Mahwah, New Jersey (collectively,
are requested to provide specific budget (‘‘final ID’’) issued by the presiding ‘‘Sharp’’). The Office of Unfair Import
and program information as part of the administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on Investigations was also named as a
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

grant application and reporting February 27, 2015, finding no violation party.
processes authorized by the Surface of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, On May 16, 2014, the ALJ issued an
Mining Control and Reclamation Act. in the above-captioned investigation. initial determination granting Cresta’s
Bureau Form Numbers: OSM–47, The Commission has also determined to motion to amend the complaint and
OSM–49 and OSM–51. deny the motion filed on March 16, notice of investigation to add six
Frequency of Collection: Once and 2015, by certain respondents to reopen additional respondents: SIO
annually. the record of the investigation. The International Inc. of Brea, California and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:43 May 05, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM 06MYN1

26092 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 2015 / Notices

Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. of claims. The ID further finds some review the ID’s exclusion of certain
New Taipei City, Taiwan (collectively, MaxLinear tuners (as well as certain testimony by Alan Hendrickson. Cresta
‘‘SIO/Hon Hai’’); Top Victory televisions containing them) to infringe Pet. at 37. The Commission has also
Investments, Ltd. of Hong Kong and claims 1–3, 10, 12, and 13 of the ’585 determined not to review the ID’s
TPV International (USA), Inc. of Austin, patent and claims 1–3, 7–8, and 25–26 findings as to Cresta’s lack of evidence
Texas (collectively, TPV’’); and Wistron of the ’792 patent. regarding allegedly representative
Corporation of New Taipei City, Taiwan The ID finds claims 1 and 2 of the products. See ID at 65–66, 78–79.
and Wistron Infocomm Technology ’585 patent to be invalid pursuant to 35
(America) Corporation of Flower U.S.C. 102 (anticipation), and claim 3 of 2. Invalidity
Mound, Texas (collectively, ‘‘Wistron’’). the ’585 patent to be invalid pursuant to The Commission has determined not
Order No. 12 (May 16, 2014), not 35 U.S.C. 103 (obviousness). The ID to review the ID’s finding that that
reviewed, Notice (June 9, 2014). finds all of the asserted claims of the claims 1–4 and 25–26 of the ’792 patent
On November 3, 2014, the ALJ ’792 patent to be invalid pursuant to 35 are anticipated by the ’585 patent; and
granted-in-part Samsung and Vizio’s U.S.C. 102 or 103. not to review the ID’s finding that
motion for summary determination of The ALJ recommended that if a claims 1 and 2 of the ’585 patent are
noninfringement as to certain violation of section 337 is found, that a anticipated by Boie.
televisions containing tuners made by a limited exclusion order and cease and The Commission has determined to
third party, NXP Semiconductors N.V. desist orders issue. The ALJ review the ID’s determinations that that
Order No. 46 at 27–30 (Nov. 3, 2014), recommended, however, that the the asserted claims are not obvious in
not reviewed, Notice (Dec. 3, 2014). On implementation of such orders be view of the combination of Boie and
November 21, 2014, the ALJ issued delayed by twelve months in view of VDP. The Commission has also
granted Samsung’s and Vizio’s motion public interest considerations. The ALJ determined to review whether claim 3
for summary determination that Cresta also recommended that there be zero of the ’585 patent is obvious in view of
had not shown that certain Samsung bond during the period of Presidential Boie and Kerth; whether claim 25 of the
televisions with NXP tuners had been review. ’792 patent is obvious in view of VDP
imported. Order No. 58 at 4–5 (Nov. 21, On March 16, 2015, petitions for alone; and whether claim 26 of the ’792
2014), not reviewed, Notice (Dec. 8, Commission review were filed by the patent is obvious in view of Boie and
2014). following parties: the Commission Micronas.
On November 12. 2014, the ALJ investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’); Cresta; the
The Commission has determined to
granted Cresta’s motion to partially Silicon Labs respondents; and the
review the ID’s findings concerning an
terminate the investigation as to one MaxLinear respondents. On March 24,
on-sale bar that invalidates claims 1–4,
asserted patent and certain asserted 2015, OUII and Cresta each filed a reply
claims of the two other asserted patents. 7–8, and 26–27 of the ’792 patent. ID at
to the other parties’ petitions. That same
Order No. 50 (Nov. 12, 2014), not 142–47.
day, the respondents filed a reply to
reviewed, Notice (Dec. 3, 2014). The two The Commission has determined to
Cresta’s petition.
asserted patents still at issue in the The Commission’s determinations to review the ID’s finding that claim 1 of
investigation are U.S. Patent No. review are as follows: the ’585 patent is not indefinite under
7,075,585 (‘‘the ’585 patent’’) and U.S. 35 U.S.C. 112 in view of the plural and
Patent No. 7,265,792 (‘‘the ’792 patent’’). 1. Infringement singular use of the term ‘‘signals.’’ On
Claims 1–3, 10, and 12–13 of the ’585 The Commission has determined not review, the Commission finds that claim
patent, and claims 1–4, 7–8, and 25–27 to review the ID’s claim constructions. 1 of the ’585 patent is not indefinite.
of the ’792 patent, remain at issue in the ID at 16–49. The Commission has The respondents have failed to
investigation. determined to review the ID’s demonstrate clear and convincing
The presiding ALJ conducted a infringement analysis concerning the evidence of invalidity. The use the
hearing from December 1–5, 2014. On ‘‘signal processor’’ for ‘‘processing . . . plural and singular for ‘‘signal’’ does not
February 27, 2015, the ALJ issued the in accordance with’’ the ‘‘format of’’ the create ambiguity in the claim, and
final ID. The final ID finds that Cresta ‘‘input RF signal’’ limitation of all neither side’s experts had difficulty
failed to satisfy the economic prong of asserted patent claims. ’585 patent col. ascertaining the scope of the claim.
the domestic industry requirement, 19 6 line 65—col. 7 line 2 (claim 1); ’792 The Commission has also determined
U.S.C. 1337(a)(2), (a)(3), for both patent col. 10 lines 60–65 (claim 1); ID to review the issue of whether the
asserted patents. To satisfy the at 57–60, 72–75, 84–85 & 94. The claims of the ’792 patent are invalid
economic prong of the domestic Commission has also determined to under the written description
industry requirement, Cresta relied review the ID’s infringement analysis requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112. On
upon claims 1–3, 5–6, 10, 13–14, 16–19, concerning the ‘‘applies one of a review, the Commission finds that the
and 21 of the ’585 patent; and claims 1– plurality of finite impulse response claims are not invalid under the written
4, 7, 10–12, 18–19, and 26–27 of the filters . . . corresponding to a format description requirement for the same
’792 patent. The ID finds that certain of’’ the ‘‘input RF signal’’ limitation of reasons provided in the ID as to the ’585
Cresta products—on their own, or asserted claims 10, 12 and 13 of the ’585 patent.
combined with certain televisions into patent and all asserted claims of the 3. Domestic Industry
which Cresta’s tuners are ’792 patent. ’585 patent col. 7 lines 36–
incorporated—practice all of the 40; ’792 patent col. 10 line 65—col. 11 The Commission has determined to
domestic-industry claims of the ’585 line 2 (claim 1); ID at 67–68, 79–80, 85 review whether Cresta proved the
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

patent, except for claim 14; as well as & 93. existence of articles protected by the
all of the domestic-industry claims of The Commission has also determined patents that incorporate the XC5000A
the ’792 patent except for claim 27. to review the ID’s determinations series tuner. See ID at 195–96. The
The ID finds some Silicon Labs tuners concerning contributory infringement of Commission has determined not to
(as well as certain televisions containing the asserted patent claims. review the ID’s remaining findings
them) to infringe claims 1–3 of the ’585 Notwithstanding the foregoing review, concerning the technical prong of the
patent, and no other asserted patent the Commission has determined not to domestic industry requirement,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:43 May 05, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM 06MYN1

Document Created: 2015-12-16 07:40:58
Document Modified: 2015-12-16 07:40:58

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Notice.
Contact		Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-708-2532. 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 (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.
FR Citation		80 FR 26091