Certain Electric Robots and Component Parts Thereof
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
In the Matter of Certain Electric Robots and Component Parts Thereof Investigation No. 337-TA-530 Publication 3974 April 2008 Washington, DC 20436 U.S. International Trade Commission COMMISSIONERS Daniel R. Pearson, Chairman Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman* Deanna Tanner Okun Charlotte R. Lane Irving A. Williamson* Dean A. Pinkert* *Commissioner Marcia E. Miller, whose term ended on September 6, 2005, participated in the initial phases of this investigation. Commissioner Shara L. Aranoff, whose term commenced on September 6, 2006, participated in the Commission Final Determination. Commissioner Irving A. Williamson was sworn in on February 7, 2007, and Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert was sworn in on February 26, 2007; they did not participate in this investigation. Commissioner Stephen Koplan, whose term ended on February 6, 2007, and Commissioner Jennifer A. Hillman, whose term ended on February 23, 2007, did participate in this investigation. Address all communications to Secretary to the Commission United States International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 U.S. International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 www.usitc.gov In the Matter of Certain Electric Robots and Component Parts Thereof Investigation No. 337-TA-530 Publication 3974 April 2008 Behr Systems, Inc. of Auburn Hills, Michigan, Durr AG of Stuttgart, Germany (collectively “Durr ”), Motoman, Inc. of West Carrollton, Ohio, and Yaskawa Electric Corporation of Kitakyushu, Fukuoka, Japan (“Yaskawa”) as respondents. On April 26,2005, the ALJ issued an ID, Order No. 6, which terminated the investigation as to claims 3,5, and 16 of the ‘913 patent against respondents Durr and Behr and terminated the investigation as to claim 6 of the ‘913 patent against all respondents. On May 15,2005, the Commission determined not to review Order No. 6. On May 2,2005, the ALJ issued an ID, Order No. 7, which granted complainant’s motion to amend the complaint to add Durr Systems, hc., Durr Systems GmbH, and Durr Special Material Handling GmbH as respondents and clarified complainant’s claims of contributory and induced infringement. On May 20,2005, the Commission determined not to review Order No. 7. On May 31,2005, the ALJ issued an ID, Order No. 9, which terminated the investigation as to claims 1-5,7-9, and 15-17 of the ‘913 patent against respondents Motoman and Yaskawa, claims 1-2,4,7-9, 15, and 17 against respondents Behr and Durr, and claims 1-9 and 15-1 7 against newly added respondents Durr Systems, Inc., Durr Systems GmhH, and Durr Special Material Handling GmbH. On June 16,2005, the Commission determined not to review Order No. 9. On August 23,2005, the ALJ issued an ID, Order No. 15, which granted complainant’s motion for summary determination regarding the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement of section 337. On September 12, the Commission determined not to review Order No. 15. An evidentiary hearing was held from September 16-23,2005. The claims remaining at issue are claims 10-14 and 18-24 of the ‘913 patent, which claims are asserted against all respondents. On December 19,2005, the ALJ issued his final ID and recommended determinations on remedy and bonding. The ALJ found no violation of section 337 based on his findings that respondents’ accused products do not infringe any of the asserted claims of the ‘913 patent; that the asserted claims of the ‘913 patent are not invalid; that the ‘913 patent is enforceable; and that a domestic industry exists. On December 28,2005, the Commission investigative attorney (“I,”), filed a request for a two day extension of time to file his response to the petitions for review, and that request was granted by the Chairman. On December 30,2005, complainant FANUC filed a petition for review of the final ID, and a separate conditional petition for review of the ID. Additionally, on the same date, respondents Yaskawa, Durr, and the IA filed petitions for review of the ID. On January 9,2006, 2 Yaskawa and Durr filed responses to complainant FANUC’s petitions for review, and complainant FANUC filed a response to Yaskawa, Durr, and the IA’s petitions for review. On January 11,2006, the IA filed a response to complainant FANUC’s petition for review. On January 17,2006, Yaskawa filed a motion to strike untimely and previously stricken arguments in the response brief of complainant FANUC regarding motor purge tests conducted by Yaskawa. The 1A concurs with this motion. On January 27,2006, FANUC filed a response to Yaskawa’s motion to strike. Having considered the motion to strike and the response thereto, the Commission has determined to grant Yaskawa’s motion. Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the parties’ written submissions, the Commission has determined not to review the ALJ’s final ID, thereby allowing it to become the Commission’s final determination. The Commission has terminated the investigation with a finding of no violation. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 0 1337, and section 210.42 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. 0 210.42. By order of the Commission. Issued: February 3,2006 3 CERTAIN ELECTRIC ROBOTS AND 337-TA-530 COMPONENT PARTS THEREOF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Marilyn R. Abbott, hereby certify that the attached NOTICE OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION NOT TO REVIEW A FINAL INITIAL DETERMINATION FINDING NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 337; TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION was served upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Kevin Baer, Esq., and all parties via first class mail and air mail where necessary on February 6,2006. U.S. International Trade Commission 500 E Street, S.W., Room 112 Washington, D.C. 20436 ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT FANUC ROBOTICS AMERICA, INC.: Michael S. Connor, Esq. David P. Swenson, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI, 10 1 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000 LLP Charlotte, NC 28280 1801 K Street, N.W. Suite 1200 Thomas N. Young, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20006 YOUNG, BASILE, HANLON, MACFARLANE WOOD & HELMHODT PC Ronald J. Schutz, Esq. Suite 624 ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI, 3001 W. Big Beaver Road LLP Troy, MI 48084 800 LaSalle Avenue Suite 2800 ON BEHALF OF MOTOMAN, INC. AND Minneapolis, MN 55402 YASKAWA ELECTRIC CORPORATION: Charles A. Hunnicutt, Esq. Scott M. Daniels, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & 401 9" Street, NW ADRIAN Suite 1000 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004-2 134 Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 ON BEHALF OF BEHR SYSTEMS, INC. AND DURR AG, INC.: David M. Maiorana, Esq. JONES DAY Paul F. Brinkman, Esq. North Point. 90 1 Lakeside Avenue ALSTON & BIRD LLP Cleveland, Ohio 44 1 14 601 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004 William M. Barron, Esq. Alston & Bird LLP 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 APPEARANCES For Complainant FANUC Robotics America, Inc.: David P. Swenson, Esq. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. 1801 K Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Ronald J. Schutz, Esq. Robert J. Gilbertson, Esq. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Charles A. Hunnicutt, Esq. Troutman Sanders LLP 401 Ninth Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 For Respondents Behr Systems, Inc. and Diirr AG, Inc.: Paul. F. Brinkman, Esq. B.J. Shannon, Esq. Alston & Bird LLP 601 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004 William M. Barron, Esq. Amy Manning, Esq. Alston & Bird LLP 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Michael S. Conner, Esq. Alston & Bird LLP 101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000 Charlotte, NC 28280 i Thomas N. Young Thomas E. Bejin Young, Basile, Hanlon, MacFarlane, Wood & Helmholdt, PC Suite 624 3001 W. Big Beaver Rd. Troy,MI 48084 For Respondents Motoman, Inc. and Yaskawa Electric Corporation: Scott M. Daniels, Esq. Ken-Ichi Hattori, Esq. Westerman, Hattori, Daniels, & Adrian 1250 Connecticut Ave., NW,Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 Daivd M. Maiorana, Esq. Kenneth R. Adamo, Esq. Jones Day North Point, 901 Laskeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 441 14 Staff Kevin G. Baer, Esq. .. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE OPINION I . ProceduralHistory ....................................................... 1 II . Parties ................................................................ 6 III . Jurisdiction ............................................................. 6 IV . Experts ................................................................ 6 1 . Nof ............................................................. 7 2. Schempf ......................................................... 9 3 . Hamel .......................................................... 11 4 . Stallcup ........................................................ 12 V . Prosecution History Of The ‘913 Patent ..................................... 13 VI . Claims In Issue ......................................................... 15 VII . Claim Interpretation ..................................................... 20 1 . The claimed phrase “robot” ......................................... 25 2 . The claimed phrases “electric motor” and “non-explosion-proof electric motor” ................................................... 27 3 . The claimed phrases “hazardous environment” and “explosive environment” .................................................... 57 4. The claimed phrase “compartment” ................................... 58 5 . The claimed phrase “pressurized” ................................... -60 6 . The claimed phrase “conduit” ....................................... 60 ... 111 7 . The claimed phrase “purging” ......................................