[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60478-60480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24565]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-680]
In the Matter of Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision
Systems, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision To
Review-In-Part A Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of
Section 337; Request for Written Submissions
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review-in-part a final initial
determination (``ID'') of the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930
(19 U.S.C. 1337) in the above-captioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are
or will be available for inspection during official business hours
(8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
[[Page 60479]]
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC
20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be
viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information
on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD
terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
on July 16, 2009 based on a complaint filed on May 28, 2009, by Cognex
Corporation of Natick, Massachusetts and Cognex Technology & Investment
Corporation of Mountain View, California (collectively
``complainants''). 74 FR 34589-90 (July 16, 2009). The complaint
alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after
importation of certain machine vision software, machine vision systems,
or products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims
of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,016,539 (``the `539 patent); 7,065,262 (``the
`262 patent''); and 6,959,112 (``the `112 patent''). The complaint
further alleged that an industry in the United States exists as
required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complaint named numerous respondents including the following:
Multitest Elektronische Systems GmbH of Germany and Multitest
Electronic Systems, Inc. of Santa Clara, California (collectively,
``Multitest respondents''); Yxlon International GmbH of Germany and
Yxlon International, Inc. of Mogadore, Ohio (collectively, ``Yxlon
respondents''); Amistar Automation, Inc. (``Amistar'') of San Marcos,
California; Techno Soft Systemnics, Inc. (``Techno Soft'') of Japan;
Fuji Machine Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of Japan and Fuji America
Corporation of Vernon Hills, Illinois (collectively, ``Fuji
respondents''); E. Zoller GmbH & Co. KG of Germany and Zoller, Inc. of
Ann Arbor, Michigan (collectively, ``Zoller respondents''); IDS Imaging
Development Systems GmbH of Germany and IDS Development Systems, Inc.
of Woburn, Massachusetts (collectively, ``IDS respondents''); Delta
Design, Inc. (``Delta'') of Poway, California; Subtechnique, Inc.
(``Subtechnique'') of Alexandria, Virginia; Rasco GmbH (``Rasco'') of
Germany; MVTec Software GmbH of Germany and MVTec LLC of Cambridge,
Massachusetts (collectively, ``MVTech respondents''); Omron Corporation
(``Omron'') of Japan, Resolution Technology, Inc. (``Resolution'') of
Dublin, Ohio; Visics Corp. (``Visics'') of Wellesley, Massachusetts;
Daiichi Jitsugyo Viswill Co., Ltd. of Japan; and Daiichi Jitsugyo
(America), Inc. of Wood Dale, Illinois (collectively, ``Daiichi
respondents'').
On November 19, 2009, the Commission issued notice of its decisions
not to review IDs terminating the investigation as to the Multitest
respondents and the Yxlon respondents based on a consent order and
settlement agreement. On February 16, 2010, the Commission issued
notice of its decisions not to review IDs terminating the investigation
as to Amistar based on a consent order and settlement agreement, and as
to Techno Soft based on partial withdrawal of the complaint. On April
20, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its decision not to review an
ID terminating the investigation as to the Fuji respondents based on a
settlement agreement. On May 5, 2010, the Commission issued notice of
its decisions not to review IDs terminating the investigation as to the
Multitest respondents based on a consent order and settlement
agreement, and as to the Zoller respondents, the IDS respondents, and
Delta based on partial withdrawal of the complaint. On June 11, 2010,
the Commission issued notice of its decision not to review an ID
terminating the investigation as to Subtechnique based on a consent
order. On June 18, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its decision
not to review an ID terminating the investigation as to Rasco based on
a consent order and settlement agreement (notice of rescission and
issuance of revised order on July 6, 2010).
The respondents remaining in the investigation include: MVTec
respondents, Omron, Resolution, Visics, and the Daiichi respondents.
On April 9, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its decision not
to review an ID terminating the investigation as to the `112 patent on
the basis of partial withdrawal of the complaint. On April 20, 2010,
the Commission issued notice of its decision not to review an ID
granting complainants' motion for summary determination on the economic
prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the
remaining asserted patents, the `539 and `262 patents. On May 18, 2010,
the Commission issued notice of its decision not to review an ID
granting complainants' motion for summary determination that the
importation element under Section 337(a)(1)(B) has been satisfied as to
the MVTech respondents, Omron, and the Daiichi respondents.
On July 16, 2010, the ALJ issued his final ID finding no violation
of section 337 by the remaining respondents. He concluded that each
accused product did not infringe any asserted claim of the `539 or `262
patents. Also, he found that claims 1, 12, 13, 28, and 29 of the `262
patent are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102. Further, he found that all
asserted claims of both patents are invalid, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101,
for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter. On August 2, 2010,
complainants, respondents, and the Commission investigative attorney
each filed a petition for review of the final ID. Each party filed
responses to the other parties' petitions on August 10, 2010.
Upon considering the parties' filings and the record, the
Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. Specifically,
the Commission has determined to review the following: (1) Relating to
the `539 patent, the ALJ's construction of the claim terms ``test,''
``match score surface,'' and ``gradient direction,'' all of his
infringement findings except for the claim steps containing the
limitations ``locating local maxima'' and ``comparing the magnitude of
each local maxima,'' and his invalidity and domestic industry findings;
(2) the ALJ's finding that the `539 and `262 patents are invalid,
pursuant to section 101, for failure to claim patent-eligible subject
matter; and (3) the ALJ's findings concerning anticipation of claims 1,
12, 13, 28, and 29 of the `262 patent. The Commission has determined
not to review the remainder of the ID.
On review, the parties are requested to submit briefing limited to
the following issue:
How would adopting complainants' proposed construction for the
claim terms ``test,'' ``match score surface,'' and ``gradient
direction'' relating to the `539 patent affect the ID's infringement,
domestic industry, and invalidity findings.
In addressing the issue, the parties are requested to make specific
reference to the evidentiary record and to cite relevant authority. The
written submissions must be filed no later than close of business on
October 8, 2010. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the
close of business on October 15. No further submissions on this issue
will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in
section
[[Page 60480]]
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in
sections 210.42(h) and 210.43 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR 210.42(h), 210.43.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: September 24, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-24565 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P