17
Jan
By Eric Schweibenz
On January 12, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination on Violation (“ID”) in Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, and Modules, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-741/749).

By way of background, the Complainants in this matter are Thomson Licensing SAS and Thomson Licensing LLC and the Respondents are Chimei Innolux Corp., Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., Innolux Corp. (collectively, “CMI”); Qisda Corp., Qisda America Corp., Qisda (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Qisda”); BenQ Corp., BenQ America Corp., BenQ Latin America (collectively, “BenQ”); AU Optronics Corp., AU Optronics Corp. America; Realtek Semiconductor Corp.; and MStar Semiconductor, Inc.  

According to the notice, ALJ Rogers determined that there is a violation of Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent No. 5,648,674 (the ‘674 patent).  Specifically, ALJ Rogers found that (i) claims 1, 7-9, 11, 13-14, 16-18 of the ‘674 patent “are infringed by the CMI accused products including the Type 2 Array Circuitry and any Qisda or BenQ accused product incorporating these CMI accused products,” (ii) claims 1, 7-9, 11, 13-14, 16-18 of the ‘674 patent “are not infringed by the CMI accused products including the Type 1 Array Circuitry, Type 3 Array Circuitry, Type IZO Array Circuitry, or any Qisda or BenQ accused products incorporating these CMI accused products,” and (iii) the “finding of infringement does not apply to the Qisda-manufactured G2200W LCD monitor, because Qisda and BenQ have established that it is covered by a valid license.”

ALJ Rogers also determined that there is no violation of Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,978,063; 5,375,006; 5,621,556; and 6,121,941.    

The notice issued by ALJ Rogers released only the conclusions of law in the ID.  We will provide additional information after the public version of the ID issues in its entirety.
Share