[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71146-71147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29302]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Modify a Final Initial Determination and To Terminate the Investigation
With a Finding of No Violation of Section 337
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to modify a final initial determination
(``ID'') of the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ''). The
Commission has determined that there is 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.
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
[[Page 71147]]
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.
On September 24, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its
determination to review only 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 requested the parties to respond to a certain
question concerning issue (1) under review. 75 FR 60478-80 (September
30, 2010). On October 8 and 15, 2010, respectively, complainants,
respondents, and the Commission investigative attorney filed briefs and
reply briefs on the issue for which the Commission requested written
submissions.
Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the
final ID and the parties' briefing, the Commission has determined to:
(1) Modify-in-part the final ID and issue an Opinion supplementing the
ID's analysis concerning its finding that the '539 and '262 patents
fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter pursuant to section 101;
(2) set aside the ID's finding that claims 1, 12, 13, 28, and 29 of the
'262 patent are invalid as anticipated; and (3) affirm all other
findings of the ID under review. The Commission terminates the
investigation with a finding of no violation of section 337.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and
in section 210.45 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
19 CFR 210.45.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: November 16, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-29302 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P