April 26, 2013
Previously published on April 24, 2013
On April 12, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 77 (dated March 20, 2013) denying five motions for summary determination filed by Respondents in Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-837). By way of background, the investigation is based on a March 2, 2012 complaint and March 28, 2012 amended complaint filed by LSI Corporation and its subsidiary Agere Systems Inc. alleging violation of Section 337 with regard to certain audiovisual components and products containing the same including, certain digital televisions, Blu-ray disc players, home theater systems, DVD players and/or recorders that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,870,087 (the ‘087 patent), 6,452,958 (the ‘958 patent), 6,707,867 (the ‘867 patent), and 6,982,663 (the ‘663 patent). According to the Order, Respondents Funai Electric Company, Ltd., Funai Corporation, Inc., P&F USA, Inc., and Funai Service Corporation (collectively, “Funai”) and Realtek Semiconductor Corporation (“Realtek”) filed five motions for summary determination, all of which were opposed by LSI Corporation and Agere Systems Inc. The first motion (filed by Funai) alleged that the ‘663 patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming only an abstract mathematical algorithm. ALJ Shaw denied the motion, holding that there are “genuine issues of material fact as to whether the asserted claims at issue claim abstract ideas.” The next three motions, the first filed by Funai and the others by both Funai and Realtek, were for summary determination of non-infringement of the ‘087, ‘958, and ‘867 patents based on Respondents’ proposed claim constructions of the terms “single memory,” “code,” “timestamp,” “accounts for delays,” and “accounts for a delay.” These motions were denied by the ALJ as issues of claim construction had not yet been resolved; therefore, it had not yet been shown that Respondents were entitled to summary determination. Realtek filed a fifth motion for summary determination of non-infringement of the ‘958 and ‘867 patents based on allegedly new designs of its wireless products. However, ALJ Shaw stated that genuine issues of fact remained as to the accused functionality of the new Realtek designs, and thus the motion was denied.
|