By Eric Schweibenz
On November 21, 2011, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice determining that there has been no violation of Section 337 in Certain Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-724). 

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are S3 Graphics Co. Ltd. and S3 Graphics Inc. (collectively, “S3G”) and the Respondent is Apple Inc. (“Apple”).  On July 1, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) finding that Apple violated Section 337 through its infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,683,978 and 6,658,146.  ALJ Gildea found no violation of Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,043,087 and 6,775,417 because the asserted claims of those patents are invalid.  See our July 6, 2011 post for more details.

On September 2, 2011, the Commission issued a notice determining to review the ID in its entirety.  See our September 7, 2011 post for more details.

According to the November 21 notice, on September 15, 2011, non-parties Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD”) and its subsidiaries ATI Technologies ULC and ATI International SRL filed a motion to intervene and terminate the investigation based on a claim that AMD owns the patents at issue and declines to assert them in the investigation.  On September 19, 2011, Apple filed its own motion to terminate based on AMD’s patent ownership claims.  Subsequently, the Commission determined to extend the target date for completion of the investigation until November 21, 2011.

After examining the record of the investigation, including the ID and the submissions of the parties and non-parties, the Commission determined to reverse ALJ Gildea’s finding of a violation of Section 337 and find no violation.  Additionally, the Commission determined to deny AMD’s motion to file public interest comments out of time, to grant AMD’s motion to file a reply in connection with its motion to intervene and terminate, to deny AMD’s motion to intervene and terminate, and to deny Apple’s motion to terminate.  Lastly, the Commission determined to terminate the investigation.