20048 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices

Corporation of Japan; Shuttle Inc. of fed_reg_notices/rules/ Office of the Secretary, U.S. ; and Systemax Inc. of NY. handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). International Trade Commission, 500 E Proposed respondents, other Persons with questions regarding filing Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, interested parties, and members of the should contact the Secretary (202–205– telephone (202) 205–2000. General public are invited to file comments, not 2000). information concerning the Commission to exceed five (5) pages in length, Any person desiring to submit a may also be obtained by accessing its inclusive of attachments, on any public document to the Commission in Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. interest issues raised by the complaint confidence must request confidential The public record for this investigation or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments treatment. All such requests should be may be viewed on the Commission’s should address whether issuance of the directed to the Secretary to the electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// relief specifically requested by the Commission and must include a full edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired complainant in this investigation would statement of the reasons why the persons are advised that information on affect the public health and welfare in Commission should grant such this matter can be obtained by the United States, competitive treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents contacting the Commission’s TDD conditions in the United States for which confidential treatment by the terminal on (202) 205–1810. economy, the production of like or Commission is properly sought will be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The directly competitive articles in the treated accordingly. All nonconfidential Commission instituted Inv. No. 337– United States, or United States written submissions will be available for TA–741 on October 18, 2010, based on consumers. public inspection at the Office of the a complaint filed by Thomson Licensing In particular, the Commission is Secretary and on EDIS. SAS of France and Thomson Licensing interested in comments that: This action is taken under the LLC of Princeton, New Jersey (i) Explain how the articles authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act (collectively ‘‘Thomson’’). 75 FR 63856 potentially subject to the requested of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), (Oct. 18, 2010). The complaint alleged remedial orders are used in the United and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of violations of section 337 of the Tariff States; the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Act of 1930, as amended 19 U.S.C. 1337, (ii) identify any public health, safety, Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)). or welfare concerns in the United States by reason of infringement of various relating to the requested remedial Issued: March 29, 2012. claims of United States Patent Nos. By order of the Commission. orders; 6,121,941 (‘‘the ’941 patent’’); 5,978,063 (iii) identify like or directly James R. Holbein, (‘‘the ’063 patent’’); 5,648,674 (‘‘the ’674 competitive articles that complainant, Secretary to the Commission. patent’’); 5,621,556 (‘‘the ’556 patent’’); its licensees, or third parties make in the [FR Doc. 2012–7936 Filed 4–2–12; 8:45 am] and 5,375,006 (‘‘the ’006 patent’’). The United States which could replace the BILLING CODE 7020–02–P Commission instituted Inv. No. 337– subject articles if they were to be TA–749 on November 30, 2010, based excluded; on a complaint filed by Thomson. 75 FR (iv) indicate whether complainant, INTERNATIONAL TRADE 74080 (Nov. 30, 2010). The complaint complainant’s licensees, and/or third COMMISSION alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by reason of party suppliers have the capacity to [Investigation No. 337–TA–741/749] replace the volume of articles infringement of various claims of the potentially subject to the requested Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, ’063, ’556, and ’006 patents. On January exclusion order and/or a cease and Including Monitors, Televisions, 5, 2011, the Commission consolidated desist order within a commercially Modules, and Components Thereof; the two investigations. The respondents reasonable time; and Notice of Commission Determination are Chimei InnoLux Corporation of (v) explain how the requested To Review-In-Part a Final Miaoli County, Taiwan and InnoLux remedial orders would impact United Determination; Schedule for Filing Corportation of Austin, Texas States consumers. Written Submissions (collectively, ‘‘CMI’’); MStar Written submissions must be filed no Semiconductor Inc. of ChuPei, Taiwan later than by close of business, eight AGENCY: U.S. International Trade (‘‘MStar’’); Qisda Corporation of calendar days after the date of Commission. Taoyuan, Taiwan and Qisda America publication of this notice in the Federal ACTION: Notice. Corporation of Irvine, California Register. There will be further (collectively, ‘‘Qisda’’); opportunities for comment on the SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Corporation of Taipei, Taiwan, BenQ public interest after the issuance of any the U.S. International Trade America Corporation of Irvine, final initial determination in this Commission has determined to review California, and BenQ Latin America investigation. certain portions of the final initial Corporation of Miami, Florida Persons filing written submissions determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the (collectively ‘‘BenQ’’); must file the original document presiding administrative law judge Semicondustor Corp. of , electronically on or before the deadlines (‘‘ALJ’’) on January 12, 2012 in the Taiwan (‘‘Realtek’’); and AU Optronics stated above and submit 8 true paper above-captioned investigation. Corp. of Hsinchu, Taiwan and AU copies to the Office of the Secretary by FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jia Optronics Corp. America of Houston, noon the next day pursuant to section Chen, Office of the General Counsel, Texas (collectively ‘‘AUO’’). 210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of U.S. International Trade Commission, On January 12, 2012, the ALJ issued Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC the subject ID finding a violation of 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to 20436, telephone (202) 708–4737. Section 337 with respect to the ’674 the docket number (‘‘Docket No. 2889’’) Copies of non-confidential documents patent. The ALJ found that the CMI in a prominent place on the cover page filed in connection with this accused products including the Type 2 and/or the first page. (See Handbook for investigation are or will be available for Array Circuitry and any Qisda or BenQ Electronic Filing Procedures, http:// inspection during official business accused products incorporating these www.usitc.gov/secretary/ hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the CMI accused products infringe the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:19 Apr 02, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM 03APN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices 20049

asserted claims of the ’674 patent. The economic prong of the domestic there any secondary considerations such as ALJ found that no other accused industry requirement. commercial success that would be probative products infringe the ’674 patent. The The Commission has also determined of non-obviousness? Please cite evidence in the record as support. ALJ also found that no accused products to review and to take no position on the claim construction of the terms ‘‘drain Question 6: Has Thomson produced infringe the asserted claims of the ’063 sufficient independent corroborating patent, the ’006 patent, the ’556 patent, electrodes’’ and ‘‘source electrodes’’ of evidence showing that the inventions of each or the ’941 patent. The ALJ also found the ’556 patent. of the asserted claims of the ’063 patent have that claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 14, and The parties should brief their been reduced to practice before the filing 18 of the ’063 patent are invalid for positions on the issues on review with dates of Lowe and Miyazaki? In particular, obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, and reference to the applicable law and the please discuss whether the evidence shows that display cells embodying the inventions that claims 4 and 14 of the ’006 patent evidentiary record. In connection with its review, the Commission is have been tested and shown to work for their are invalid as anticipated under 35 intended purposes. U.S.C. 102. The ALJ further found that particularly interested in responses to the following questions: Question 7: Does the intrinsic evidence claim 17 of the ’063 patent, claim 7 of support the construction of the term ‘‘plate’’ the ’006 patent, and the asserted claims Question 1: The ALJ construed the term ‘‘a recited in claim 3 of the ’006 patent to of the ’556 patent, the ’674 patent, and plurality of spacing elements’’ of claims 1 require a solid and not liquid material? ID at the ’941 patent are not invalid. The ALJ and 11 of the ’063 patent as ‘‘two or more 220. Can the term ‘‘plate’’ include a liquid structures, not physically connected to one compensation layer sealed between two glass concluded that a domestic industry another, which structures serve to substrates? See CMI Petition at 31. Please cite exists in the United States that exploits substantially uniformly separate two to the evidence of the record as support. the asserted patents as required by 19 substrates, said structures formed on one of Under the proper construction of the term U.S.C. 1337(a)(2). On January 25, 2011, said two substrates and contacting the second ‘‘plate,’’ does Scheuble anticipate claims 4 Thomson, CMI, MStar, Realtek, and substrate.’’ ID at 43. Does the proper and 7 of the ’006 patent? AUO each filed a petition for review of construction require that the ‘‘spacing Question 8: With respect to infringement of the ID. BenQ and Qisda filed a joint elements’’ contact the ‘‘second substrate?’’ the asserted claims of the ’006 patent, what petition for review incorporating the Does certain language from claim 1 (‘‘the two is an acceptable range of variance in the substrates remaining substantially uniformly measurement of n2 and n3, given the other respondents’ arguments by separated from each other by said spacing probability of errors in any real-world reference. elements’’) and from claim 11 (‘‘said second measurement of the index of refraction? What Having examined the record of this substrate being kept at a substantially are the values and measurement errors of n2 investigation, including the ALJ’s final uniform distance from said first substrate by and n3 for the entire layer in the accused ID and the submissions of the parties, said spacing elements’’) require that the devices? How close does the real-world spacing elements physically separate the two measurement of n2 have to be compared to the Commission has determined to substrates? Please cite to evidence in the n3 for the layer to be considered ‘‘uniaxial’’ review (1) claim construction of the record showing the understanding of person as construed by the ALJ? How close would limitation ‘‘layer’’ of the asserted claims of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the n2 have to be to n3 for the layer to be of the ’006 patent; (2) infringement of ’063 patent invention. equivalent to a ‘‘uniaxial’’ layer under the the asserted claims of the ’006 patent; Question 2: The ALJ construed ‘‘an affixing ALJ’s construction? Please limit your (3) anticipation of claims 4 and 7 of the layer’’ of claim 1 of the ’063 patent as ‘‘a response to the evidence in the record. ’006 patent by Scheuble; (4) the claim stratum of material that attaches the spacing Question 9: Would a person of ordinary construction of the limitations elements to a substrate, and which is separate skill in the art be motivated to modify and distinct from said spacing elements.’’ ID Takizawa to use only one mask to form the ‘‘mechanically rubbing’’/‘‘mechanically at 34. Is this construction supported by the plurality of etch stoppers recited in claim 3 rubbed,’’ ‘‘a plurality of spacing intrinsic evidence? In particular, does the of the ’556 patent? Does Takizawa teach away elements,’’ and ‘‘an affixing layer’’ of the preferred embodiment of the ’063 patent from using a single mask to form the plurality asserted claims of the ’063 patent; (5) specification disclose forming spacers of etch stoppers? Please cite to the evidence infringement of the asserted claims of directly from the affixing layer? in the record. Please discuss any Federal the ’063 patent; (6) obviousness of the Question 3: The ALJ construed the term ‘‘a Circuit case law regarding obviousness of a asserted claims of the ’063 patent in plurality of spacing elements separate from patent claim that requires a single structure view of Sugata and Tsuboyama; (7) one another’’ as ‘‘two or more structures, not or process, in light of prior art that discloses physically connected to one another, which one or more such structures or processes. whether Lowe and Miyazaki are prior structures serve to substantially uniformly Question 10: What is the proper art to the asserted claims of the ’063 separate two substrates, said structures construction of the limitation ‘‘a second rate’’ patent; (8) anticipation of the asserted formed on one of said two substrates and ‘‘determined by’’ of the asserted claims of the claims of the ’063 patent by Lowe; (9) contacting the second substrate.’’ ID at 43. Do ’941 patent? Please provide all relevant anticipation of the asserted claims of the the main photospacers in the accused CMI intrinsic and extrinsic evidence of record, ’063 patent by Miyazaki; (10) modules meet the limitation under the ALJ’s including expert testimony. obviousness of the asserted claim of the construction? Please cite to the evidence in Question 11: Do the respondents’ accused ’556 patent in view of Takizawa and the record. products infringe claims 1 and 4 of the ’941 patent under Thomson’s construction of Possin; (11) anticipation and Question 4: With respect to the ’063 patent, the ALJ stated in the ID that [[ ]] ID ‘‘determined by.’’ Please cite any record obviousness of the asserted claims of the at 334. He also stated that [[ Id. Are evidence, including expert testimony, to ’674 patent in view of Fujitsu; (12) claim these accurate statements? Please provide support your response. construction of the ‘‘second rate’’ citations to the record as support. In Question 12: Discuss any Federal Circuit ‘‘determined by’’ limitation of the addition, please identify [[ ]]. case law relevant to whether or not claim 4 asserted claims of the ’941 patent and Question 5: At the time of the invention of of the ’941 patent requires an input video the ‘‘input video signal’’ limitation of the ’063 patent, would it have been obvious signal for a finding of infringement. Please claim 4 of the ’941 patent; (13) to combine the teachings of Sugata and discuss any basis, other than the language of infringement of the asserted claims of Tsuboyama, such that the substrate on which the claims, (e.g., prosecution history) that the spacers are formed in Sugata would be provides guidance on whether or not claim the ’941 patent; (14) anticipation of the rubbed after the spacers are formed? Is the 4 requires an input video signal. asserted claims of the ’941 patent by combination of the teachings of Sugata and Question 13: For claims 1 and 4 of the ’941 Baba; (15) exclusion of evidence of the Tsuboyama a combination of known patent, what is the proper construction of the ViewFrame II+2 LCD Panel; and (16) elements that yield predictable results? Are term ‘‘za’’ in the ratio ft/za ‘‘required for a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:19 Apr 02, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM 03APN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 20050 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices

cathode ray tube.’’ For an interlaced signal In connection with the final the public interest, and bonding. Such associated with a CRT display, does za refer disposition of this investigation, the submissions should address the to the number of lines updated in a given Commission may (1) issue an order that recommended determination by the ALJ field period? Please cite to the intrinsic could result in the exclusion of the evidence of the ’941 patent as support. on remedy and bonding. Complainant is Question 14: Is Mr. Vogeley’s testimony subject articles from entry into the also requested to submit proposed regarding the prior art status of the United States, and/or (2) issue one or remedial orders for the Commission’s ViewFrame II+2 with respect to the ’941 more cease and desist orders that could consideration. Complainant is also patent sufficiently corroborated under a ‘‘rule result in a respondent being required to requested to state the date that the of reason’’ analysis? Assuming that the cease and desist from engaging in unfair patent expires and the HTSUS ViewFrame II+2 is prior art to the asserted acts in the importation and sale of such subheadings under which the accused claims of the ’941 patent, does the articles. Accordingly, the Commission is products are imported. The written ViewFrame II+2 anticipate each of the interested in receiving written asserted claims? Please cite to the evidence submissions and proposed remedial in the record. submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. orders must be filed no later than close Question 15: With respect to respondents’ of business on Monday, April 9, 2012. arguments that Thomson’s investments in If a party seeks exclusion of an article licensing its LCD patent portfolio cannot be from entry into the United States for Reply submissions must be filed no later completely allocated to the asserted patents, purposes other than entry for than the close of business on Monday, what portion of the investments should be consumption, the party should so April 16, 2012. The written submissions allocated to the asserted patents? Please indicate and provide information must be no longer than 75 pages and the provide the legal and factual basis for such establishing that activities involving reply submissions must be no longer allocations. Question 16: Based on the factors outlined other types of entry either are adversely than 35 pages. No further submissions below, please discuss the legal and factual affecting it or likely to do so. For on these issues will be permitted unless bases for your position as to whether background, see Certain Devices for otherwise ordered by the Commission. Thomson’s investment in licensing for the Connecting Computers via Telephone Persons filing written submissions asserted patents is substantial. Please Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC must do so in accordance with consider at least the following factors: (1) The Pub. No. 2843, Comm’n Op. at 9 Commission rule 210.4(f), 19 CFR industry and size and scope of complainant’s (December 1994). operations; (2) the existence of other types of If the Commission contemplates some 210.4(f), which requires electronic ‘‘exploitation’’ of the asserted patents such as form of remedy, it must consider the filing. The original document and 8 true research, development, or engineering; (3) copies thereof must also be filed on or the existence of license-related ancillary effects of that remedy upon the public activities such as ensuring compliance with interest. The factors the Commission before the deadlines stated above with the license agreement and providing training will consider include the effect that an the Office of the Secretary. Any person or technical support to its licensees; (4) exclusion order and/or cease and desist desiring to submit a document to the whether complainant’s licensing activities orders would have on (1) the public Commission in confidence must request are continuing; (5) whether complainant’s health and welfare, (2) competitive confidential treatment unless the licensing activities are those referenced conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. information has already been granted favorably in the legislative history of section production of articles that are like or 337(1)(3)(C); (6) complainant’s return on such treatment during the proceedings. investment; and (7) the extent to which directly competitive with those that are All such requests should be directed to complainant’s LCD portfolio licenses are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. the Secretary of the Commission and worldwide licenses. consumers. The Commission is must include a full statement of the Question 17: What should the Commission therefore interested in receiving written reasons why the Commission should compare complainants’ investments to in submissions that address the grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 210.6. analyzing whether the complainants’ aforementioned public interest factors investments are substantial? Please cite any Documents for which confidential in the context of this investigation. treatment by the Commission is sought relevant legal basis and evidence of record to If the Commission orders some form support your position. of remedy, the United States Trade will be treated accordingly. All non- Question 18: Should Thomson’s expenses Representative, as delegated by the confidential written submissions will be related to the acquisition of the Xerox patent President, has 60 days to approve or available for public inspection at the portfolio be [[ ]]? Is the purchase of Office of the Secretary and on EDIS. a patent considered an exploitation of that disapprove the Commission’s action. patent under section 337(a)(3)(C)? Can See Presidential Memorandum of July The authority for the Commission’s investments in [[ ]] for purposes of 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). determination is contained in section establishing domestic industry under section During this period, the subject articles 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 337(a)(3)(C)? With respect to any argument would be entitled to enter the United amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in that the Commission should [[ ]]? States under bond, in an amount sections 210.42–46 and 210.50 of the Further, how should the [[ ]]? determined by the Commission and Please provide legal and factual support for Commission’s Rules of Practice and your position. prescribed by the Secretary of the Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 and Question 19: Should the Commission Treasury. The Commission is therefore 210.50). consider litigation expenses for the particular interested in receiving submissions Section 337 investigation at issue? Should concerning the amount of the bond that By order of the Commission. the Commission consider litigation expenses should be imposed if a remedy is Issued: March 26, 2012. for parallel district court actions? Should it ordered. James R. Holbein, matter if the district court actions are stayed Written Submissions: The parties to Secretary to the Commission. or ongoing? the investigation are requested to file Question 20: Should the Commission written submissions on the issues [FR Doc. 2012–7628 Filed 4–2–12; 8:45 am] consider reexamination expenses when identified in this notice. Parties to the BILLING CODE P determining if a domestic industry exists and if so should they be treated in the same investigation, interested government manner as litigation expenses in determining agencies, and any other interested whether or not the expenses are investments parties are encouraged to file written in licensing? submissions on the issues of remedy,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:19 Apr 02, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM 03APN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES