By Alec Royka

On December 20, 2021, ALJ Cameron Elliot issued the public version (Part I, Part II) of his final initial determination (“ID”) of no violation of section 337 in Certain Digital Video-Capable Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. 337-TA-1224).

By way of background, this investigation was based on a September 18, 2020 complaint filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips North America LLC (collectively, “Philips” or “Complainants”) alleging violations of section 337 by Respondents Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. (collectively, “Dell”); Hisense Co. Ltd., Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd. Hisense Electronics Manufacturing Company of America Corp., Hisense USA Corp., Hisense Import & Export Co. Ltd., Hisense International Co., Ltd., Hisense International (HK) Co., Ltd., and Hisense International (Hong Kong) America Investment Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Hisense”); HP, Inc. (“HP”); Lenovo Group Ltd. and Lenovo (United States), Inc. (collectively, “Lenovo”); LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics USA, Inc. (collectively, “LG”); TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd., TCL King Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) Co. Ltd., TTE Technology, Inc., TCL Moka International Ltd., TCL Moka Manufacturing S.A. de C.V., TCL Smart Device (Vietnam) Company Ltd. (collectively, “TCL”); MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA Inc. (collectively, “MediaTek”); Realtek Semiconductor Corp. (“Realtek”); and Intel Corp. (“Intel”) (collectively, “Respondents”) through the design, development, manufacture, production, marketing, and importation/sale of digital video-capable devices and/or components thereof that infringe one or more of claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,436,809 (the “809 patent”), 9,590,977 (the “977 patent”), 10,091,186 (the “186 patent”), and 10,298,564 (the “564 patent”).

By the time of the evidentiary hearing on July 19-23, 2021, the only remaining respondents were Dell, Hisense, HP, Lenovo, TCL, Realtek, and Intel, and only the ’186 and ’564 patents remained in the investigation.

According to the ID, ALJ Elliot determined that there was no violation of section 337 with respect to the ’186 and ’564 patents based on the following conclusions of law:

  • Complainants have proven that at least one accused product within the scope of the investigation infringes all asserted claims of the ’186 patent;

  • Complainants have not proven that any accused product infringes any asserted claim of the ’564 patent;

  • Respondents have not proven the invalidity of any asserted claim of the ’186 or ’564 patents;

  • Complainants have not proven the existence of a domestic industry practicing any claims of the ’186 or ’564 patents; and

  • Complainants have not proven the existence of a domestic industry as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.

On December 20, 2021 the Commission determined to review the ID and requested written submissions on the issues under review, remedy, public interest, and bonding.  The target date for completion of the investigation was extended to March 23, 2022.