Home > Legal Library > Article




Join Matindale-Hubbell Connected


ITC Decides To Review Initial Determination in Certain Integrated Circuit Chips (337-TA-859)




by:
Eric W. Schweibenz
Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office

 
May 26, 2014

Previously published on May 23, 2014

On May 22, 2014, the International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) issued a notice in Certain Integrated Circuit Chips and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-859). In the notice, the Commission determined to review in part ALJ Dee Lord’s Final Initial Determination (“ID”) finding no violation of Section 337.

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Realtek Semiconductor Corporation (“Realtek”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S., sale for importation, or sale within the U.S. after importation of certain integrated circuit chips and products containing the same that infringe one or more of claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 6,787,928 and claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 6,963,226 (the ‘226 patent). The respondents in the investigation are LSI Corporation and Seagate Technology (collectively, the “Respondents”). On January 30, 2013, former ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. partially terminated the investigation with respect to the ‘226 patent. On March 21, 2014, ALJ Lord issued the ID finding no violation of Section 337 had occurred with respect to the ‘928 patent. Specifically, the ALJ determined that Realtek had not satisfied the domestic industry requirement with respect to the ‘928 patent. The ALJ also found that certain claims of the ‘928 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, but that one claim is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112. ALJ Lord further found that certain of Respondents’ accused products literally infringe various claims of the ‘928 patent. The ALJ also found that the importation requirement has been satisfied for most (but not all) of the accused products.

According to the May 22, 2014 notice, the Commission determined to review in part the ID. Specifically, the Commission determined “to review the ID with the exception of the following: (1) construction of the term ‘second pad layer,’ (2) findings on jurisdiction, and (3) level of one of ordinary skill in the art.” The notice also requested the parties to brief seventeen enumerated issues relating to a variety of topics, including claim construction, invalidity, domestic industry, and potential remedy. The Commission also stated that it is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered, the effects of any such remedy on the public interest, and the amount of bond that should be imposed if remedy is ordered.

Written submissions are due by June 5, 2014, with reply submissions due by June 16, 2014.



 

The views expressed in this document are solely the views of the author and not Martindale-Hubbell. This document is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.
 

View More Library Documents By...

 
Author
 
Eric W. Schweibenz
Practice Area
 
Intellectual Property
 
Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. Overview