[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 23837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10238]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-692]
Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same; Notice
of the Commission's Final Determination of No Violation of Section 337;
Termination of the Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined that there has been no violation of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation,
and has terminated the investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panyin A. Hughes, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. 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 November 4, 2009, based on a complaint filed by Murata Manufacturing
Co., Ltd. of Kyoto, Japan and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. of
Smyrna, Georgia (collectively, ``Murata''). 74 FR 57193-94 (Nov. 4,
2009). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (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 ceramic capacitors and products containing the
same by reason of infringement of various claims of United States
Patent Nos. 6,266,229 (``the '229 patent''); 6,014,309 (``the '309
patent''); 6,243,254 (``the '254 patent''); and 6,377,439 (subsequently
terminated from the investigation). The complaint named Samsung
Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. of Suwon City, Korea and Samsung Electro-
Mechanics America, Inc. of Irvine, California (collectively,
``Samsung'') as respondents.
On December 22, 2010, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding no
violation of section 337 by Respondents with respect to any of the
asserted claims of the asserted patents. Specifically, the ALJ found
that the accused products do not infringe the asserted claims of the
'254 patent. The ALJ also found that none of the cited references
anticipates the asserted claims and that none of the cited references
renders the asserted claims obvious. The ALJ further found that the
asserted claims are not rendered unenforceable due to inequitable
conduct. The ALJ, however, found that asserted claims 11-14, 19, and 20
of the '254 patent fail to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112
for lack of written description. Regarding the '309 patent, the ALJ
found that the accused products do not infringe asserted claim 3 and
that none of the cited references anticipates or renders obvious
asserted claim 3. The ALJ further found that the asserted claim is not
rendered unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. With respect to the
'229 patent, the ALJ found that the accused products meet all the
limitations of the asserted claims and that the asserted claims are not
rendered unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The ALJ further
found that the cited references do not anticipate the asserted claims
but found that the prior art renders the asserted claims obvious. The
ALJ concluded that an industry exists within the United States that
practices the '254 patent and the '229 patent but that a domestic
industry that practices the '309 patent does not exist as required by
19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2) and (3).
On January 4, 2011, Murata and the Commission investigative
attorney filed petitions for review of the ID. That same day, Samsung
filed a contingent petition for review of the ID. On January 12, 2011,
the parties filed responses to the various petitions and contingent
petition for review.
On February 23, 2011, the Commission determined to review the final
ID in part and requested briefing on several issues it determined to
review, and on remedy, the public interest and bonding. 76 FR 11275
(Mar. 1, 2011). The Commission determined to review the findings
related to the '229 patent and in particular the finding that the AAPA
(Applicant Admitted Prior Art) does not invalidate the asserted claims
of the '229 patent. The Commission determined not to review any issues
related to the '309 patent and the '254 patent and terminated those
patents from the investigation.
On March 8, 2011, the parties filed written submissions on the
issues under review, remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On March
15, 2011, the parties filed reply submissions on the issues on review,
remedy, the public interest and bonding.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the Commission has determined that there is no
violation of section 337. Specifically, the Commission has determined
to (1) reverse the ALJ's finding to the extent that it suggests that
the AAPA cannot constitute prior art and (2) find that the asserted
claims of the '229 patent are obvious in light of a combination of (i)
the AAPA and the knowledge in the art at the time of filing the
patent's priority document, (ii) the AAPA and Nagakari (Japanese
unexamined patent application H11-21429), or (iii) the AAPA and the
deNeuf product (product samples sold by Murata and provided by Mr.
deNeuf). The Commission vacates the ALJ's finding that the AAPA does
not anticipate the asserted claims of the '229 patent; however, given
the Commission's finding that the asserted claims of the '229 patent
are invalid for obviousness, the Commission does not reach the issue of
anticipation. The Commission adopts the ALJ's findings regarding the
'229 patent in all other respects.
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 sections 210.42-46 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: April 22, 2011,
James R. Holbein,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-10238 Filed 4-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P