By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Rambus Inc. and the Respondents are NVIDIA Corp., Asustek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer International, Inc., BFG Technologies, Inc., Biostar Microtech (U.S.A.) Corp., Biostar Microtech International Corp., Diablotek Inc., EVGA Corp., G.B.T. Inc., Giga-byte Technology Co., Ltd., Hewlett-Packard Co., MSI Computer Corp., Micro-star International Co., Ltd., Palit Multimedia Inc., Palit Microsystems Ltd., Pine Technology Holdings, Ltd., and Sparkle Computer Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Respondents”).  On January 22, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) finding a violation of Section 337 through the importation, sale for importation, or sale within the U.S. after importation of certain semiconductor chips having synchronous dynamic random access memory controllers and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,405, 6,591,353 and 7,287,109.  The ALJ further found no infringement of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,177,998 and 7,210,016.  See our May 4, 2010 post for more details.

On March 25, 2010, the Commission issued a notice determining to review the ID in part.  See our March 26, 2010 post for more details.

After requesting briefing with respect to remedy, the public interest, bonding, and licensing issues (see our June 22, 2010 post) the Commission determined to affirm ALJ Essex’s ID.

The Commission determined that the appropriate form of relief is an LEO and a CDO against Respondents NVIDIA Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co., ASUS Computer International, Inc., Palit Multimedia Inc., Palit Microsystems Ltd., MSI Computer Corp., Micro-Star International, EVGA Corp., DiabloTek, Inc., Biostar Microtech Corp., and BFG Technologies, Inc.  The Commission further determined that the public interest factors did not preclude issuance of these LEO or CDO orders, and that the bond during the Presidential review period should be set at 2.65 percent of the entered value of the imported products.

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Amkor Technology, Inc. (“Amkor”) and the Respondents are Carsem (M) Sdn Bhd, Carsem Semiconductor Sdn Bhd, and Carsem, Inc. (collectively, “Carsem”).  The Commission instituted the investigation on December 19, 2003.  On November 9, 2005, ALJ Bullock issued the Remand ID finding that (1) there was a violation of Section 337 in connection with U.S. Patent No. 6,433,277 (the ‘277 patent); and (2) there was no violation of Section 337 in connection with U.S. Patent Nos. 6,630,728 and 6,455,356.

After ALJ Bullock issued the Remand ID, the investigation was delayed in connection with obtaining certain alleged prior art documents from non-party ASAT, Inc. (“ASAT”).  On July 1, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Commission’s petition to enforce subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum to ASAT in connection with the alleged prior art.  In response, Carsem renewed its motion to remand the investigation and reopen the record to include any new evidence obtained as a result of the enforcement of the subpoenas.

The Commission issued a Remand Order on July 1, 2009, ordering that (1) the investigation be remanded to reopen the record to admit any new evidence obtained as a result of the enforcement of the subpoena duces tecum to ASAT, and (2) the ALJ revise or supplement the Remand ID as appropriate, in light of the supplemental evidence, making all necessary findings concerning Carsem’s invalidity defenses.  On October 30, 2009, ALJ Bullock issued a First Supplemental Initial Determination (“First Supplemental ID”) reaffirming his finding of a violation of Section 337 despite the new evidence obtained from ASAT.  See our November 27, 2009 post for more details.

On February 18, 2010, the Commission issued an order reversing ALJ Bullock’s First Supplemental ID and remanding the investigation to the ALJ to make necessary findings on anticipation and obviousness in view of the Commission’s determination that the ASAT disclosures included additional prior art to Amkor’s asserted patents.  See our February 22, 2010 post for more details.  On March 22, 2010, ALJ Bullock issued the Second Supplemental ID finding no violation of Section 337 due to the anticipation and obviousness of various claims of the asserted patents in view of the ASAT prior art.  See our March 23, 2010 and April 9, 2010 posts for more details.

According to the July 20 notice, Amkor and Carsem filed initial comments seeking review of various portions of the Second Supplemental ID, and all parties filed response comments.

After examining the record of the investigation, including the Remand ID, the Second Supplemental ID, the comments, and the response comments, the Commission determined not to review the findings made in the Remand ID and Second Supplemental ID.  Accordingly, the Commission determined that there has been no violation of Section 337, and terminated the investigation.  Lastly, the notice states that “an opinion supporting the Commission’s determination will be issued.”

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Amsted Industries Inc.  The Respondents are Tianrui Group Co. Ltd, Tianrui Group Foundry Co. Ltd., Standard Car Truck Company, Inc., and Barber Tianrui Railway Supply.  On October 16, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) finding that a violation of Section 337 had occurred in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain cast steel railway wheels or products containing the same by reason of trade secret misappropriation.  See our October 19, 2009 and December 4, 2009 posts for more details.  On December 17, 2009, the Commission issued a notice determining not to review the ID.  See our December 18, 2009 post for more details.

In its limited exclusion order, the Commission determined that “the appropriate form of relief is a limited exclusion order prohibiting the entry of unlicensed cast steel railway wheels or products containing same manufactured using the ABC Trade Secrets, by or on behalf of Respondents, or their affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other related business entities, or successors or assigns.”  Additionally, the Commission determined that “the appropriate form of relief includes cease and desist orders” against each of the Respondents, “preventing them from importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation), or soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for cast steel railway wheels and products containing the same, in violation of section 337.”  The exclusion of the above-identified products will be “for a period of ten (10) years from the effective date of this order, except under license of the owner of the ABC Trade Secrets asserted in this investigation, or as provided by law.”

The Commission further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in 19 U.S.C. §§ 1337(d) and (f) did not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order or cease and desist orders.

Lastly, regarding the need for the appropriate amount of bond during the 60-day Presidential review period, the Commission determined that “bond shall be in the amount of 5% of the entered value of cast steel railway wheels and products containing same that are subject to this Order.”

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation were Whirlpool Corp., Whirlpool Manufacturing Corp., Whirlpool Patents Co., and Maytag Corp. (collectively, “Whirlpool”) and the Respondents were LG Electronics Corp., Inc., LG Electronics, USA, Inc., and LG Electronics Monterrey, Mexico S.A. de C.V. (collectively, “LG”).  The investigation was instituted on February 26, 2008.  On February 26, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the initial determination, finding no violation of Section 337 with respect to United States Patent No. 6,082,130 (the ‘130 patent).  On April 27, 2009, the Commission decided to review the ID in its entirety and requested briefing by the parties on the issue of claim construction.  In its July 8, 2009 opinion, the Commission (i) modified the ID’s claim construction for the terms “freezer compartment,” “disposed within the freezer department,” and “ice storage bin having a bottom opening,” (ii) affirmed the ID’s construction of the term “ice maker,” and (iii) determined to remand the investigation to the ALJ to make findings regarding infringement, validity, and domestic industry consistent with the Commission’s claim constructions.  See our July 8, 2009  post for more details.  On July 22, 2009, LG filed a petition for reconsideration of the Commission’s decision to modify the ALJ’s claim constructions of the phrases “freezer compartment” and “disposed within the freezer compartment.”  On August 28, 2009, the Commission denied LG’s petition.  See our September 1, 2009 post for more details.  On October 9, 2009, ALJ Essex issued his initial determination on remand (“RID”), finding no violation of Section 337.  Specifically, in the RID, ALJ Essex determined (1) that the accused refrigerators and components thereof do not infringe the asserted claims of the ‘130 patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents; (2) that claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9 of the ‘130 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness, but that claim 8 of the ‘130 patent is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103; and (3) a domestic industry exists.  On December 14, 2009, the Commission issued a notice determining to review the RID.  See our December 16, 2009 post for more details.

In the February 12 notice, the Commission “determined to affirm the RID’s determination of no violation of the ‘130 patent” and terminated the investigation.  Specifically, the Commission determined to (1) “modify the ALJ’s implied construction of the claim limitations ‘the auger moves ice pieces from the ice storage bin through the bottom opening for dispensing from the ice storage bin’ and ‘ice crushing region,’” (2) “reverse a portion of the ALJ’s determination of non-infringement and find that the accused side-by-side models infringe claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9 of the ‘130 patent,” (3) “affirm[ ] the ALJ’s finding that the accused side-by-side model refrigerators do not infringe claim 8 of the ‘130 patent,” (4) “affirm[ ] the ALJ’s finding that the accused French Door model refrigerators do not infringe any of the asserted claims of the ‘130 patent,” (5) “affirm[ ] the ALJ’s finding that claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9 of the ‘130 patent are invalid for obviousness with several modifications to the analysis concerning claims 1 and 2,” (6) affirm[ ] the ALJ’s finding that claim 8 is not invalid for obviousness,” and (7) affirm[ ] the ALJ’s finding that there is a domestic industry.”

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is General Electric Co. and the Respondents are Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (“MHI”), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc. (“MHIA”), and Mitsubishi Power System, Inc. (“MPSA”).  On August 7, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the Initial Determination (“ID”) finding that a violation of Section 337 had occurred by MHI and MPSA with respect to claim 121 of the asserted ‘039 patent, and claim 15 of the asserted ‘985 patent.  ALJ Charneski further determined in the ID that there was no violation with respect to these claims by MHIA.  Additionally, ALJ Charneski determined in the ID that there was no violation of Section 337 by any party with respect to claims 5, 7, and 8 of the asserted ‘221 patent.  See our October 29, 2009 post for more details.  On October 8, 2009, the Commission issued a notice determining to review the ID, except the issue of importation and the intent finding underlying the ALJ’s inequitable conduct determination.  See our October 8, 2009 post for more details.

According to the January 8 notice, the Commission “determined to terminate the investigation with a final determination of no violation.”  The Commission further stated in the notice that a “Commission opinion will issue shortly.”

By way of background, this investigation was instituted on January 14, 2008, based on the complaint of Tessera, Inc. of San Jose, California.  Eighteen respondents were named in the complaint, and several of the named respondents either settled out of the investigation or defaulted.  According to the December 29 notice, the following Respondents remained in the investigation:  Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation, Nanya Technology Corporation, Nanya Technology Corporation U.S.A., Powerchip Semiconductor Corporation, Elpida Memory, Inc., Elpida Memory (USA), Inc., ProMOS Technologies, Inc., Kingston Technology Co., Inc., Ramaxel Technology Ltd., Centon Electronics, Inc., and SMART Modular Technologies, Inc.  On August 28, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued his initial determination (“ID”), finding no violation of Section 337 had occurred based on the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, or the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain semiconductor chips with minimized chip package size and products containing same in connection with certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106 (the ‘106 patent), U.S. Patent No. 5,679,977 (the ‘977 patent), and U.S. Patent No. 6,133,627.  Further, ALJ Essex determined that a domestic industry exists that practices the patents-in-suit.  See our September 1 and October 1 posts for more details.  On October 30, 2009, the Commission issued a notice determining to review in part the ID.  See our November 2 post for more details.

According to the December 29 notice, the Commission determined to: “(1) modify the ALJ’s construction of the claim terms ‘top layer’ and ‘thereon’ recited in claim 1 of the ‘106 patent; (2) reverse the ALJ’s finding that the accused μBGA products do not meet all of the limitations of the asserted claims of the ‘106 patent but affirm his finding that there is no infringement due to patent exhaustion; (3) affirm the ALJ’s finding that the accused wBGA products do not infringe the asserted claims of the ‘106 patent; (4) affirm the ALJ’s validity and domestic industry analyses pertaining to the asserted claims of the ‘106 patent; (5) affirm the ALJ’s finding that the Direct Loading testing methodology employed by Tessera’s expert fails to prove infringement; and (6) affirm the ALJ’s finding that the 1989 Motorola OMPAC 68-pin chip package fails to anticipate claims 17 and 18 of the ‘977 patent under the on-sale bar provision of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), but modify a portion of the ID.”

Finally, the Commission determined that there has been no violation of Section 337 and terminated the investigation.

By way of background, and as explained in our July 23 and September 22 posts, this investigation was instituted on December 19, 2007, based on the complaint of FormFactor, Inc. (“FormFactor”) of Livermore, California.  On December 5, 2008, Respondents Phicom Corp. and Phiam Corp. (collectively, “Phicom”) jointly filed a motion for partial summary determination that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,624,648 are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112.  ALJ Charles E. Bullock granted this motion on February 11, 2009 in Order No. 46.  Subsequently, on June 29, 2009, ALJ Bullock issued his initial determination (“ID”) finding no violation of Section 337 by Respondents Micronics Japan Co., Ltd.; MJC Electronics Corp. (collectively, “Micronics”); and Phicom.  On September 14, 2009, the Commission issued a notice determining to review in part ALJ Bullock’s ID.

According to the November 12 notice, the Commission determined to: (1) “reverse the ALJ’s determination that Japanese Patent Application Publication H10-31034 to Amamiya et al. (RX-166) does not anticipate the asserted claims of the ‘751 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102;” (2) “reverse in part the ID’s conclusion that, inter alia, Phicom’s accused products do not infringe claims 1-3, 12, 24, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 6,509,751, see ID at 197, and, accordingly, to modify the ID’s conclusion of law at issue by substituting the following: ‘Respondents Micronics’ accused products do not infringe claims 1-3, 12, 24, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 6,509,751 in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).  Respondent Phicom’s (old) Type B and Type C accused products infringe claims 1-3, 12, 24, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 6,509,751 in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); Phicom’s new Type B and Type C accused products do not infringe.’;” (3) “strike the ID’s statement ‘Since three bases for no violation of claim 21 have been determined, no analysis of the invalidity arguments related to anticipation and obviousness of the dependent claims will be made,’ see ID at 191, and to take no position with respect to the validity of the dependent claims of the ‘152 patent;” and (4) “to affirm and adopt the ALJ’s other findings contained in the final ID under review except insofar as they are inconsistent with the Commission Opinion to be issued later.”

Additionally, the Commission determined to “affirm ALJ Order No. 46 with certain modifications as will be detailed in the Commission’s Opinion.”

Finally, the Commission determined that there has been no violation of Section 337, and terminated the investigation.

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Sharp Corporation (“Sharp”) and the Respondents are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEAI”), and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (“SSI”) (collectively, “Samsung”).  The Commission instituted this investigation based on a March 4, 2008 complaint filed by Sharp alleging violations of Section 337 based on the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain liquid crystal display devices, products containing same, and methods for using the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,879,364 (the ‘364 patent); 6,952,192 (the ‘192 patent); 7,304,703 (the ‘703 patent); and 7,304,626 (the ‘626 patent).  On June 12, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) finding violation of Section 337.  See our June 16 and August 7 posts for more details.  On September 9, 2009, the Commission issued a notice of its determination not to review the ID and requested written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding.  See our September 11 post for more details.

In the November 9 notice, the Commission determined “that the appropriate form of relief is both 1) a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of LCD devices, including display panels and modules, and products containing the same that infringe one or more of (i) claims 5-7 of the ‘364 patent; (ii) claims 1 and 4 of the ‘192 patent; (iii) claims 1-2, 6-8, 13-14, and 16-17 of the ‘703 patent; and (iv) claims 10, 17, and 20 of the ‘626 patent, where the infringing LCD devices are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf of, related business entities, or successors or assigns; and (2) cease and desist orders prohibiting [SEAI] and [SSI] from conducting any of the following activities in the United States:  importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for, LCD devices, including display panels and modules, and products containing the same that infringe one or more of (i) claims 5-7 of the ‘364 patent; (ii) claims 1 and 4 of the ‘192 patent; (iii) claims 1-2, 6-8, 13-14, and 16-17 of the ‘703 patent; and (iv) claims 10, 17, and 20 of the ‘626 patent.”

The Commission also determined in the November 9 notice that the public interest factors do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order or the cease and desist order.  Finally, the Commission determined that 100 percent bond of the entered value of the covered products is required to permit temporary importation during the Presidential review period.

By way of background, and as explained in our April 14 and August 25 posts, this investigation was instituted on December 12, 2007, based on the complaint of SanDisk Corp. (“SanDisk”) of Milpitas, California.  According to the notice, over 50 respondents were named in the complaint, and approximately half of the named respondents either settled out of the investigation or defaulted.  On August 24, 2009, the International Trade Commission issued a notice determining to review in part the April 10 final Initial Determination issued by ALJ Charles E. Bullock.

According to the October 23 notice, the Commission determined to “(1) reverse the ALJ’s finding that claim 17 of the ‘424 patent does not cover single-page updates; (2) reverse the ALJ’s finding that the claim term ‘reading and assembling data from the first and second plurality of pages’ as recited in claim 20 of the ‘424 patent excludes the so-called table method as disclosed in Figure 12; (3) affirm the ALJ’s finding that the accused products do not infringe the asserted claims of the ‘424 patent; and (4) affirm the ALJ’s finding that none of the asserted claims of the ‘424 patent were proven to be invalid as anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art considered by the ALJ.”  The Commission further determined that “[g]iven the Commission’s affirmance of the ALJ’s determination that SanDisk failed to establish that the accused controllers infringe claim 17 of the ‘424 patent, the Commission declines to reach the issue of whether the ALJ should have considered the Sinclair PCT publication as evidence of prior art to claim 17 of the ‘424 patent.”

With respect to infringement, the Commission affirmed with certain modifications ALJ Rogers’s finding that MemsTech’s silicon mircrophone packages infringe the asserted claims of the ‘231 and ‘089 patents.  With respect to the modifications, the Commission found that in making his infringement determination, ALJ Rogers had improperly relied on exhibits that were not admitted into evidence.  The Commission struck these improper references, but affirmed ALJ Rogers’ infringement determination because, according to the Opinion, there was alternative support for infringement in the record.

The Commission also affirmed with certain modifications ALJ Rogers’ findings on claim construction and validity.  The Commission chose not to rely on all of ALJ Rogers’ reasoning, but affirmed his conclusion that the asserted claims of the ‘231 and ‘089 patents are not invalid.

Finally, with respect to remedy, the Commission (1) issued a limited exclusion order against MemsTech; (2) found that the public interest factors do not preclude issuance of such an order; and (3) found that there should be no bond during the Presidential review period.