On April 4, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of the Remand Initial Determination (“RID”) (dated March 26, 2013) in Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-796).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) alleging a violation of Section 337 by Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) for importation into the U.S. and sale of certain electronic digital media devices.  See our August 2, 2011 post for more details on the Notice of Investigation in this matter.

On October 24, 2012, ALJ Pender issued an Initial Determination (“ID”), which found that Samsung violated Section 337 by infringement of certain valid claims of U.S. Patent Nos. D618,678; 7,479,949; RE 41,922 (the ‘922 patent); and 7,912,501 (the ‘501 patent).  See our January 22, 2013 post for more details on the public version of the ID.  On January 23, 2013, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice determining to review the ID in its entirety.  Additionally, the Commission remanded the investigation to ALJ Pender to consider certain issues related to the ‘922 patent and the ‘501 patent.  See our January 24, 2013 post for more details.

In the RID, ALJ Pender first addressed the remand issue relating to the ‘501 patent.  Specifically, the Commission remanded the investigation back to ALJ Pender to “make findings regarding infringement of the claim 3 of the ‘501 patent by the accused products represented by the Transform SPH-M920.”  ALJ Pender explained that dependent claim 3 further requires the “microphone detection circuitry” of independent claim 1 to monitor the microphone connector for a switch activation event.  ALJ Pender determined that Apple’s expert failed to explain why the Transform SPH-M920’s microphone-type detection circuit and switch activation monitoring circuit are both a part of the same “microphone detection circuitry.”  Accordingly, ALJ Pender held that the Transform SPH-M920 does not infringe claim 3 of the ‘501 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

ALJ Pender next addressed the remand issue relating to the ‘922 patent.  Specifically, the Commission remanded the investigation back to ALJ Pender to “make findings regarding infringement of claim 34 and 35 of the ‘922 patent through use of the text-selection feature of the accused products.”  Regarding claim 34, ALJ Pender noted that the dependent claim adds the limitation that the “base image is active to receive user inputs.”  ALJ Pender further noted that he has already determined that the base image is “selectively active to receive user inputs.”  Therefore, ALJ Pender held that it was axiomatic that the base image of claim 34 is also “active to receive user input.”  Regarding claim 35, ALJ Pender held that the ‘922 Accused Products satisfy claim 35’s additional limitation that the electronic device be a “handheld device.”  Accordingly, ALJ Pender held that the ‘922 Accused Products infringe claims 34 and 35 of the ‘922 patent through the use of the text selection feature.