02
Apr
By Eric Schweibenz
On April 1, 2010, Panasonic Corporation, Ltd. of Japan (“Panasonic”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that manufacturers/distributors Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. of Austin, Texas, Freescale Semiconductor Japan Ltd. of Japan, Freescale Semiconductor Xiqing Integrated Semiconductor Manufacturing Site of China, Freescale Semiconductor Innovation Center of China, Freescale Semiconductor Malaysia Sdn. of Malaysia, Freescale Semiconductor Pte. Ltd. of Singapore, and Freescale Semiconductor Taiwan Ltd. of Taiwan (collectively “Freescale”), and retailers/downstream parties Mouser Electronics, Inc. of Mansfield, Texas, Premier Farnell Corporation d/b/a Newark of Independence, Ohio, and Motorola Inc. of Schaumburg, Illinois (collectively, “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the United States, sell for importation, and sell within the United States after importation certain large scale integrated circuit semiconductor chips and products containing same that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,933,364 (the ‘364 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 6,834,336 (the ‘336 patent) (collectively “the Panasonic Patents”).

According to the complaint, the asserted technology “relates to semiconductor devices that are used as the ‘brains’ of mobile phones, audio equipment, home appliances and various other consumer electronics.”  Specifically, the products at issue pertaining to the ‘364 patent include LSI chips that include metal layers for stabilizing the potential of the memory section of a chip that includes a logic section.  The products at issue pertaining to the ‘336 patent include Very Long Instruction Word (“VLIW”) processors that include a unit for fetching VLIW instructions; and/or a unit for executing VLIW instructions in parallel.

In the complaint, Panasonic asserts that the infringing products include all Freescale products having a StarCore Digital Signal Processor Core; all Freescale MSC and MXC products; part no. MPC8548E, a Power Architecture family product, and part no. SC29343VKP; all Freescale LSI chips having a design rule of 130 nm or smaller that include memory; and also products containing the same or a variant thereof, including several of Motorola’s mobile phones.

Panasonic stated the Panasonic Patents have not been the subject of any related litigation.

With respect to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, Panasonic asserts that the Panasonic Semiconductor Development Center’s (“PSDC”) “sole activities involve researching and developing circuitry for LSI chips, including those that practice the Panasonic Patents.”  Panasonic also states that “Panasonic invested substantial amounts” with regard to the Panasonic Patents and “continues to invest in licensing the Panasonic Patents.”  Panasonic additionally notes that it licensee, Texas Instruments, Inc. (“TI”), has also made significant investments and employs a significant amount of labor in connection with devices that practice the Panasonic Patents.

With respect to the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, Panasonic asserts that circuitry for LSI chips designed by PSDC is used in Panasonic products that practice the Panasonic Patents.  Panasonic also asserts that products manufactured by TI practice claims of the Panasonic Patents.

As to potential remedy, Panasonic requests that the Commission issue permanent exclusion orders and permanent cease and desist orders directed to the Proposed Respondents.