In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN INFOTAINMENT SYSTEMS,
`COMPONENTS THEREOF, AND
`AUTOMOBILES CONTAINING THE SAME
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1119
`
`Publication 5253
`February 2022
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`

`

`U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`COMMISSIONERS
`
`David S. Johanson, Chairman
`Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, Commissioner
`Jason E. Kearns, Commissioner
`Randolph J. Stayin, Commissioner
`Amy A. Karpel, Commissioner
`
`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 INFOTAINMENT SYSTEMS,
`COMPONENTS THEREOF, AND
`AUTOMOBILES CONTAINING THE SAME
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1119
`
`Publication 5253
`
`February 2022
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`
`
`CERTAIN INFOTAINMENT SYSTEMS,
`COMPONENTS THEREOF, AND
`AUTOMOBILES CONTAINING THE SAME
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1119
`
`
`NOTICE OF A COMMISSION DETERMINATION FINDING NO VIOLATION OF
`SECTION 337; TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION
`
`
`AGENCY:
`
`ACTION:
`
`SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has
`determined to affirm, with modified reasoning, the final initial determination’s (“FID”) finding
`that no violation of section 337 has occurred. The investigation is terminated.
`
`FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynde Herzbach, Office of the General
`Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436,
`telephone (202) 205-3228. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this
`investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at
`https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General
`information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
`https://www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can
`be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal, telephone 202-205-1810.
`
`SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 12, 2018, the Commission instituted this
`investigation based on a complaint filed by Broadcom Corporation (“Broadcom”) of San Jose,
`California. 83 FR 27349 (June 12, 2018). The complaint alleged a violation of section 337 of
`the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“section 337”) in the importation into the
`United States, sale for importation, or sale in the United States after importation of certain
`infotainment systems, components thereof, and automobiles containing same that allegedly
`infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,937,187 (“the ʼ187 patent”); 8,902,104 (“the
`ʼ104 patent”); 7,512,752 (“the ʼ752 patent”); 7,530,027 (“the ʼ027 patent”); 8,284,844 (“the ʼ844
`patent”); and 7,437,583 (“the ʼ583 patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). The notice of
`investigation named 15 respondents, including Toyota Motor Corporation of Aichi, Japan;
`Toyota Motor North America, Inc. of Plano, TX; Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. of Plano, TX;
`Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. of Plano, TX; Toyota Motor
`Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc. of Princeton, IN; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. of
`Erlanger, KY; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Mississippi, Inc. of Tupelo, MS; and Toyota Motor
`
`
`
` U.S. International Trade Commission.
`
`Notice.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Manufacturing, Texas, Inc. of San Antonio, TX (collectively, “Toyota”); Panasonic Corporation
`of Osaka, Japan and Panasonic Corporation of North America of Newark, NJ (collectively,
`“Panasonic”); DENSO TEN Limited of Kobe City, Japan and DENSO TEN AMERICA Limited
`of Torrance, CA (collectively, “DENSO TEN”); Renesas Electronics Corporation of Tokyo,
`Japan and Renesas Electronics America, Inc. of Milpitas, CA (collectively, “Renesas”); and
`Japan Radio Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan. Id. at 27349-50. The Office of Unfair Import
`Investigations was not named as a party. Id. at 27351.
`
`The complaint and notice of investigation were later amended to add ten more
`respondents, including Pioneer Corporation of Tokyo, Japan and Pioneer Automotive
`Technologies, Inc. of Farmington Hills, MI (collectively, “Pioneer”); DENSO Corporation of
`Aichi, Japan; DENSO International America, Inc. of Southfield, MI; DENSO Manufacturing
`Tennessee, Inc. of Maryville, TN; and DENSO Wireless Systems America, Inc. of Vista, CA
`(collectively, “DENSO Corp.”); u-blox AG of Thalwil, Switzerland; u-blox America, Inc. of
`Reston, VA; u-blox San Diego, Inc. of San Diego, CA; and Socionext Inc. of Kanagawa, Japan.
`Order No. 14 (Oct. 3, 2018), not rev’d in relevant part, Comm’n Notice (Nov. 1, 2018).
`
`Certain patent claims were subsequently withdrawn and terminated from the investigation.
`See Order No. 20 (Jan. 31, 2019), not rev’d, Comm’n Notice (Feb. 19, 2019); Order No. 48 (June
`5, 2019), not rev’d, Comm’n Notice (June 18, 2019); Order No. 49 (June 13, 2019), not rev’d,
`Comm’n Notice (June 28, 2019). At the time of the FID, the claims at issue were claims 1-3, 5,
`and 9 of the ʼ187 patent; claim 12 of the ʼ104 patent; claims 1-2 and 4-8 of the ʼ752 patent;
`claims 11 and 20 of the ʼ027 patent; claims 11 and 13 of the ʼ844 patent; and claims 17-18 and
`25-26 of the ʼ583 patent. See Comm’n Notice (June 28, 2019).
`
`On November 13, 2019, the ALJ issued an FID finding no violation of section 337. See
`FID. On November 15, 2019, the ALJ issued a Notice of Correction to Conclusions of Law in
`Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and a corrected FID issued on November 18,
`2019. The corrected FID fixes a typographical error in the conclusions of law and correctly
`identifies Respondents found to infringe the ’583 patent. See FID at p. 272.
`
`The FID also contains the ALJ’s recommended determination recommending, if a
`violation is found, that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order prohibiting the
`importation of infringing infotainment systems, components thereof, and automobiles containing
`same that infringe. as well as cease and desist orders directed to certain domestic respondents.
`
`On November 26, 2019, Broadcom filed a petition for review of the FID and the
`respondents filed a contingent petition for review. On December 4, 2019, Broadcom and the
`respondents filed responses to each other’s petitions.
`
`On December 16, 2019, Broadcom filed a submission on the public interest pursuant to
`Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4) (19 CFR 210.50(a)(4)). That same day, Toyota, Renesas, and
`Tier 1 Suppliers (DENSO Corp., DENSO TEN, Panasonic, and Pioneer) filed their submissions
`on the public interest pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4) (19 CFR 210.50(a)(4)). On
`December 18, 2019, two non-parties, Peter Morici and the Reshoring Initiative, filed submissions
`on the public interest in response to the Commission’s notice requesting such responses. 84 FR
`64104 (Nov. 20, 2019).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`On March 3, 2020, the Commission determined to review the FID in part and requested
`briefing on certain issues. 85 FR 12576-78 (March 3, 2020). Specifically, the Commission
`determined to review the FID’s findings on: (1) the claim construction of the limitation “at least
`one processor” recited in claims 25 and 26 of the ’583 patent; (2) infringement of the asserted
`claims of the ’583 patent; (3) technical prong of the domestic industry requirement as to
`the ’583 patent; (4) invalidity of the asserted claims of the ’752 patent; and (5) whether the
`accused Pioneer head units meet the limitations of claims 2 and 5 of the ’752 patent. Id. The
`Commission requested briefing on some of the issues under review, and remedy, bonding, and
`the public interest. Id. On March 11, 2020, the parties filed their written responses to the
`Commission’s request for briefing. On March 18, 2020, the parties filed their reply submissions.
`
`On March 11, 2020, additional submissions on remedy, bonding, and the public interest
`were received from the following non-parties: Representatives and Senators from Kentucky;
`Representatives and Senators from Texas; Harman International Industries, Incorporated; and the
`Alliance for Automotive Innovation.
`
`Having examined the record of this investigation, including the FID, the petitions for
`review, and the responses thereto, and filings in response to the Commission’s request for
`briefing, the Commission has determined to affirm, with modified reasoning, the FID’s finding
`of no violation of section 337. Specifically, the Commission affirms, with modified reasoning as
`explained in the Commission opinion, that: (1) claims 25 and 26 of the ’583 patent are not
`infringed by any Respondent; (2) the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement is not
`met for the ’583 patent; (3) the Pioneer head units do not meet the limitations of claims 2 and 5
`of the ’752 patent; and (4) claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the ’752 patent are invalid as anticipated
`and obvious. The Commission affirms the FID’s infringement finding as to claims 17 and 18 of
`the ’583 patent.
`
`The investigation is terminated.
`
`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 part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of
`Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
`
` By order of the Commission.
`
`Issued: April 30, 2020
`
`Lisa R. Barton
`Secretary to the Commission
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`CERTAIN INFOTAINMENT SYSTEMS, COMPONENTS
`THEREOF, AND AUTOMOBILES CONTAINING THE
`SAME
`
`
`PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached NOTICE has been served by hand
`
`upon the following parties as indicated, on April 30, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1119
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW, Room 112
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On Behalf of Complainant Broadcom Corporation:
`
`John M. Caracappa, Esq.
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`Email: Jcaracappa@steptoe.com
`
`On Behalf of Respondents Renesas Electronics Corporation
`and Renesas Electronics America, Inc. :
`
`Daniel P. Muino, Esq.
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Suite 60000
`Washington, DC 20006
`Email: Dmuino@mofo.com
`
`On Behalf of Respondents Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota
`Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.,
`Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America,
`Inc., Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc., Toyota
`Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc., Toyota Motor
`Manufacturing, Mississippi, Inc., Toyota Motor
`Manufacturing, Texas, Inc., Panasonic Corporation,
`Panasonic Corporation of North America, Denso Ten Limited,
`Denso Ten America Limited, Japan Radio Corporation,
`Denso Corporation, Denso International America, Inc., Denso
`Manufacturing Tennessee, Inc, and Denso Wireless Systems
`America, Inc.:
`
`Paul Steadman, Esq.
`DLA PIPER LLP
`444 West Lake Street
`
`
`
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via Express Delivery
`☐ Via First Class Mail
`☒ Other: Email Notification
`of Availability to Download
`
`
`
`
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via Express Delivery
`☐ Via First Class Mail
`☒ Other: Email Notification
`of Availability to Download
`
`
`
`
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via Express Delivery
`☐ Via First Class Mail
`
`

`

`CERTAIN INFOTAINMENT SYSTEMS, COMPONENTS
`THEREOF, AND AUTOMOBILES CONTAINING THE
`SAME
`Certificate of Service – Page 2
`Suite 900
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Email: paul.steadman@dlapiper.com
`
`On Behalf of Respondents Pioneer Corporation and Pioneer
`Automotive Technologies, Inc.
`
`Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq.
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`1500 K Street, NW, Suite 1100
`Washington, DC 20005
`Email: lora.brzezynski@faegredrinker.com
`
`On Behalf of Respondents Socionext, Inc.
`
`G. Brian Busey, Esq.
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Suite 6000
`Washington, DC 20006
`Email: Gbusey@mofo.com
`
`On Behalf of Respondents u-blox AG, u-blox America, Inc.,
`and u-blox San Diego, Inc.
`
`Smith Brittingham IV, Esq.
`FINNEGAN, HENDRESON, FARABOW, GARRETT &
`DUNNER LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Email: smith.brittingham@finnegan.com
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1119
`
`☒ Other: Email Notification
`of Availability to Download
`
`
`
`
`
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via Express Delivery
`☐ Via First Class Mail
`☒ Other: Email Notification
`of Availability to Download
`
`
`
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via Express Delivery
`☐ Via First Class Mail
`☒ Other: Email Notification
`of Availability to Download
`
`
`
`
`
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via Express Delivery
`☐ Via First Class Mail
`☒ Other: Email Notification
`of Availability to Download
`
`
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`
`
`CERTAIN INFOTAINMENT SYSTEMS,
`COMPONENTS THEREOF, AND
`AUTOMOBILES CONTAINING THE
`SAME
`
`
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1119
`
`
`
`
`COMMISSION OPINION
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I.
`Background ....................................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Procedural History................................................................................................ 1
`B.
`The Asserted Patents ............................................................................................ 6
` The ’583 Patent ................................................................................................ 6
` The ’752 Patent ................................................................................................ 9
`The Accused Products ........................................................................................ 11
`C.
`The Domestic Industry Products ....................................................................... 12
`D.
`Standard on review ......................................................................................................... 12
`II.
`III. Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 12
`A.
`’583 Patent Issues Under Review....................................................................... 12
` Construction of “at least one processor” in Claims 25 and 26 .................. 13
`a. The FID............................................................................................14
`b. Analysis ...........................................................................................14
` Domestic Industry – Technical Prong for the ’583 Patent ........................ 15
`a. The FID............................................................................................15
`b. Analysis ...........................................................................................16
` Non-Infringement of Claims 25 and 26 of the ’583 Patent ........................ 23
`a. FID ...................................................................................................23
`b. Analysis ...........................................................................................25
`’752 Patent Issues Under Review....................................................................... 27
` Invalidity Findings for Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the ’752 Patent ... 28
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`a. Anticipation of Claim 8 of the ’752 Patent by Foster ..................29
`b. Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the ’752 Patent
`Over Foster Alone...........................................................................33
`c. Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the ’752 Patent
`Over Sih in Combination with Other Prior Art ..........................44
` Non-Infringement of Claims 2 and 5 By Accused Pioneer Head Units
`Containing SoCs .......................................................................... 44
`
`a. The FID............................................................................................45
`b. Analysis ...........................................................................................45
`IV. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 48
`
`ii
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`The Commission has determined that there has been no violation of section 337 of the
`
`Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“section 337”), with respect to U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 6,937,187 (“the ’187 patent”); 8,902,104 (“the ’104 patent”); 7,512,752 (“the ’752 patent”);
`
`7,530,027 (“the ’027 patent”); 8,284,844 (“the ’844 patent”); and 7,437,583 (“the ’583 patent”)
`
`(“the Asserted Patents”) on review of the presiding administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) final
`
`initial determination (“FID”). This opinion sets forth the Commission’s reasoning in support of
`
`that determination. In addition, the Commission adopts the findings in the FID that are not
`
`inconsistent with this opinion.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Procedural History
`
`On June 12, 2018, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed
`
`by Broadcom Corporation (“Broadcom”). 83 Fed. Reg. 27349 (June 12, 2018). The complaint
`
`alleges a violation of section 337 based on the importation into the United States, the sale for
`
`importation, and the sale in the United States after importation of automobile information and
`
`entertainment systems and components thereof that allegedly infringe one or more claims of the
`
`Asserted Patents. FID at 1-2. Broadcom also alleges the existence of a domestic industry.
`
`The notice of investigation names 15 respondents, including: Toyota Motor Corporation
`
`of Aichi, Japan; Toyota Motor North America, Inc. of Plano, TX; Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
`
`Inc. of Plano, TX; Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. of Plano,
`
`TX; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc. of Princeton, IN; Toyota Motor Manufacturing,
`
`Kentucky, Inc. of Erlanger, KY; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Mississippi, Inc. of Tupelo, MS;
`
`and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Texas, Inc. of San Antonio, TX (collectively, “Toyota”);
`
`Panasonic Corporation of Osaka, Japan and Panasonic Corporation of North America of Newark,
`
`NJ (collectively, “Panasonic”); DENSO TEN Limited of Kobe City, Japan and DENSO TEN
`
`1
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`AMERICA Limited of Torrance, CA (collectively, “DENSO TEN”); Renesas Electronics
`
`Corporation of Tokyo, Japan and Renesas Electronics America, Inc. of Milpitas, CA
`
`(collectively, “Renesas”); and Japan Radio Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan (“JRC”). Id. The
`
`complaint and notice of investigation were later amended to add ten more respondents, namely:
`
`Pioneer Corporation of Tokyo, Japan and Pioneer Automotive Technologies, Inc. of Farmington
`
`Hills, MI (collectively, “Pioneer”); DENSO Corporation of Aichi, Japan; DENSO International
`
`America, Inc. of Southfield, MI; DENSO Manufacturing Tennessee, Inc. of Maryville, TN; and
`
`DENSO Wireless Systems America, Inc. of Vista, CA (collectively, “DENSO Corp.”); u-blox
`
`AG of Thalwil, Switzerland; u-blox America, Inc. of Reston, VA; u-blox San Diego, Inc. of San
`
`Diego, CA; and Socionext Inc. of Kanagawa, Japan (“Socionext”). Order No. 14 (Oct. 3, 2018),
`
`not rev’d in relevant part, Comm’n Notice (Nov. 1, 2018); see also FID at 2.1 The Office of
`
`Unfair Import Investigations was not named as a party. Id.
`
`The ALJ held a tutorial and Markman hearing on February 6, 2019. FID at 2. The
`
`disputed claim terms are construed in the FID. The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing on June 3-7,
`
`2019. Id. at 2.
`
`On November 13, 2019, the presiding ALJ issued the FID finding no violation of section
`
`337 with respect to each of the Asserted Patents. The relevant findings are summarized as
`
`follows:
`
`Respondent Socionext (no violation – no importation)
`
`• The importation requirement as to Socionext was not met. FID at 14-16, 271.
`
`
`1 Hereinafter, all named respondents are referred to collectively as “Respondents.” In
`general, Respondents are Toyota and Toyota’s suppliers.
`
`2
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`ʼ583 patent (no violation – technical prong of domestic industry not met):
`
`• Claims 17 and 18 of the ’583 patent are infringed by Renesas, DENSO Corp., and
`Toyota. FID at 30-36, 40-41, 271.
`
`• Claims 25 and 26 of the ’583 patent are not infringed by any respondent. Id. at
`36-39.
`
`• Technical prong of the domestic industry (“DI”) requirement was not met for any
`claim of the ’583 patent. Id. at 42-48, 271.
`
`• No asserted claims of the ’583 patent were shown to be invalid. Id. at 48-54.
`
`ʼ752 patent (no violation – asserted claims are invalid):
`
`• Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 of the ’752 patent are infringed by Renesas, Panasonic,
`Pioneer, DENSO TEN, and Toyota. Id. at 63-78, 272.
`
`• The DI requirement was satisfied for the ’752 patent as to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and
`7. Id. at 78-81, 272.
`
`• Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the ’752 patent are invalid as anticipated by U.S.
`Patent No. 6,240,492 to Foster, et al. (“Foster”) or are obvious in view of Foster
`or U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0106053 (“Sih”) in combination with additional
`prior art. Id. at 81-113, 272.
`
`ʼ844 patent (no violation – no infringement or domestic industry):
`
`• No claims of the ’844 patent are infringed. Id. at 272.
`
`• The DI requirement was not satisfied for any claim of the ’844 patent. Id. at 272.
`
`• No asserted claims of the ’844 patent were shown to be invalid. Id. at 272.
`
`’187 patent (no violation – no infringement or domestic industry, invalid claims):
`
`• No claims of the ’187 patent are infringed. Id. at 272.
`
`• The DI requirement was not satisfied for any claim of the ’187 patent. Id. at 272.
`
`• Claims 1, 3, 5, and 9 of the ’187 patent are invalid. Id. at 272.
`
`ʼ027 patent (no violation – no infringement or domestic industry, invalid claims):
`
`• No claims of the ’027 patent are infringed. Id. at 272.
`
`• The DI requirement was not satisfied for any claim of the ’027 patent. Id. at 272.
`
`3
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`• Claims 11 and 20 of the ʼ027 patent are invalid. Id. at 272.
`
`’104 patent (no violation – no infringement, claim 12 invalid):
`
`• Claim 12 of the ’104 patent is not infringed. Id. at 272.
`
`• The DI requirement was satisfied as to claim 12 of the ’104 patent. Id. at 272.
`
`• Claim 12 of the ’104 patent is invalid. Id. at 272.
`
`In addition, Broadcom alleged indirect infringement of the Asserted Patents, but the FID finds
`
`Broadcom failed to carry its burden as to indirect infringement. Id. at 41-42, 78.
`
`The FID also includes the ALJ’s recommended determination (“RD”) on remedy and
`
`bonding. FID at 259-71. Specifically, the RD recommends, in the event a violation is found, the
`
`issuance of a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders as to each of the domestic
`
`Respondents, and that no bond be imposed for products imported during the period of
`
`Presidential review. Id.
`
`On November 26, 2019, Broadcom petitioned the Commission to review certain of the
`
`FID’s findings related to only the ’583 patent and the ’752 patent.2 On the same day,
`
`Respondents filed a contingent petition for review of issues related to all of the Asserted Patents
`
`except the ’027 patent and the ’104 patent. Id. On December 4, 2019, the parties filed responses
`
`to each other’s petitions.3
`
`On December 16, 2019, Broadcom and respondents Toyota, Renesas, and the Tier 1
`
`Suppliers4 filed submissions on the public interest pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4)
`
`
`2 Complainant Broadcom Corporation’s Petition for Commission Review (Nov. 26, 2019)
`(“Broadcom Pet.”).
`3 Complainant Broadcom Corporation’s Response to Respondents’ Contingent Petition
`for Commission Review (Dec. 4, 2019) (“Broadcom Reply”); Respondents’ Reply to
`Complainant’s Petition for Commission Review (Dec. 4, 2019) (“Resp. Reply”).
`4 DENSO Corp.; DENSO TEN; Panasonic; and Pioneer.
`
`4
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`(19 C.F.R. § 210.50(a)(4)). On December 18, 2019, two non-parties, Peter Morici and the
`
`Reshoring Initiative, filed submissions on the public interest in response to the Commission’s
`
`notice requesting such responses (84 Fed. Reg. 64104 (Nov. 20, 2019)).
`
`On February 26, 2020, the Commission determined to review the FID in part. See Notice
`
`(Feb. 26, 2020); 85 Fed. Reg. at 12576-78. Specifically, the Commission determined to review:
`
`(1) the FID’s construction of the term “at least one processor” in claims 25 and 26 of the
`
`’583 patent; (2) the FID’s infringement and technical prong findings regarding the ’583 patent;
`
`(3) the FID’s infringement findings regarding the ’752 patent, in particular, whether the accused
`
`Pioneer head units meet the limitations of claims 2 and 5; and (4) the FID’s findings regarding
`
`invalidity of the ’752 patent. Id. The Commission determined not to review the FID’s findings
`
`of no violation as to the ’187 patent, the ’104 patent, the ’027 patent, and the ’844 patent. Id.
`
`The Commission also requested briefing on certain questions related to the issues under review,
`
`as well as remedy, bonding, and the public interest.
`
`On March 11, 2020, Broadcom filed its initial written response to the Commission’s
`
`request for briefing.5 Respondents filed their initial written response that same day.6 On
`
`March 18, 2020, the parties filed their reply submissions.7
`
`
`5 Complainant Broadcom Corporation’s Written Submission on the Issues Identified in
`the Notice of Commission Determination to Review in Part a Final Initial Determination (March
`11, 2020) (“Broadcom Sub.”).
`6 Respondents’ Additional Briefing on the Questions Posed by the Commission in the
`Notice of a Commission Determination to Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding
`No Violation of Section 337 (March 11, 2020) (“Resp. Sub.”).
`7 Complainant Broadcom Corporation’s Reply to Respondents’ Additional Briefing on
`the Questions Posed by the Commission in Notice of Commission Determination to Review in
`Part a Final Initial Determination (March 18, 2020) (“Broadcom Sub. Reply”); Respondents’
`Reply Brief on the Questions Posed by the Commission in Notice of a Commission
`Determination to Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section
`337 and on Public Interest, Remedy and Bonding (March 18, 2020) (“Resp. Sub. Reply”).
`
`5
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`On March 11, 2020, the Commission received submissions on remedy, bonding, and the
`
`public interest from the parties8 and the following non-parties: Representatives and Senators
`
`from Kentucky9; Representatives and Senators from Texas10; Harman International Industries,
`
`Incorporated (a Tier 1 supplier for Toyota); and the Alliance for Automotive Innovation.
`
`B.
`
`The Asserted Patents
`
`Broadcom asserted six patents in this investigation, which fall broadly into three
`
`categories: (1) the ’583 patent relates to electronics architecture; (2) the ’752, ’027, and
`
`’844 patents relate to electronics for video processing and have overlapping inventors; and
`
`(3) the ’187 and ’104 patents relate to navigation satellite systems. FID at 6. Because the
`
`Commission determined not to review the FID’s findings of no violation as to the ’187, ’104,
`
`’027, and ’844 patents, those patents have been terminated from the investigation, and this
`
`opinion does not address them.
`
` The ’583 Patent
`
`The ’583 patent is entitled “Method and System for Flexible Clock Gating Control” and
`
`issued on October 14, 2008. ’583 patent (JX-0004), cover; FID at 7. The ’583 patent relates to
`
`electronics architecture and discloses a system for controlling clock signals by using software to
`
`control gates. Id. at Abstract. The ’583 patent describes a processor that can more flexibly
`
`
`8 Broadcom Sub. at 39-50; Respondents’ Initial Joint Submission on the Public Interest,
`Remedy, and Bonding (March 11, 2020).
`9 Letter from Congressman Aaron Barr, Congressman Hal Rogers, Congressman John
`Yarmuth, Congressman James Comer, Congressman Brett Guthrie, Senator Mitch McConnell,
`and Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky (March 11, 2020).
`10 Letter from Congressman Van Taylor, Congressman Will Hurd, Congressman
`Michael C. Burgess, M.D., and Congressman Vincente Gonzalez from Texas (March 11, 2020);
`Letter from Senator John Cornyn from Texas (March 11, 2020).
`
`6
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`control gates, as compared to the prior art, by reading and writing to registers mapped to the
`
`gates. Id. at 5:3-33.
`
`An exemplary clock signal control system is depicted in Figure 3 of the specification. Id.
`
`at Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`In operation, the hardware control logic 334 turns the gates (G1-G9) on and off to supply
`
`clock signals to the devices (D1-D7), but the processor 338 can also control the gates and
`
`devices through the clock tree driver 340 and registers 342. Id. at 4:63-5:13. This feature allows
`
`the gates to be “more flexibly controlled in order to cover scenarios that were not anticipated
`
`when hardware control logic 334 was designed.” Id.
`
`7
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Broadcom asserts claims 17-18 and 25-26 of the ’583 patent for infringement and claims
`
`25 and 26 of the ’583 patent for purposes of satisfying the technical prong of the DI requirement.
`
`FID at 5, 27-28, 42.
`
`Claim 17 is an independent claim and recites the following:
`
`17. A system for distributing clock signals within an electronic device, the system
`comprising:
`
`at least one processor that determines a status of at least one gate that controls flow of
`a clock signal to at least one device coupled to said at least one gate; and
`
`said at least one processor controls said at least one gate based on said determined
`status.
`
`’583 patent at 7:83-8:2.
`
`Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and recites the following:
`
`18. The system according to claim 17, wherein said at least one processor determines
`whether said at least one device coupled to said at least one gate is active or inactive.
`
`Id. at 8:3-5.
`
`
`
`Claim 25 is also an independent claim and recites the following:
`
`25. A system for distributing clock signals within an electronic device, the system
`comprising:
`
`a clock tree having a plurality of gates;
`
`a hardware control logic block coupled to said clock tree that controls at least a
`portion of said plurality of gates;
`
`at least one register that is controlled by a clock tree driver; and
`
`at least one processor that overwrites a status of at least a portion of said plurality of
`gates which is controlled by said hardware control logic block.
`
`Id. at 8:28-37 (emphasis added for disputed limitations).
`
`Claim 26 depends from claim 25 and recites the following:
`
`26. The system according to claim 25, wherein said processor via said clock tree
`driver asserts or de-asserts a current value of said at least one register.
`
`8
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Id. at 8:38-40.
`
` The ’752 Patent
`
`The ʼ752 patent is entitled “Systems, Methods, and Apparatus for Pixel Fetch Request
`
`Interface,” and generally relates to a memory access unit (“MAU”), which is an interface
`
`between clients that are requesting access to data in memory and a memory controller that
`
`controls the access to the memory. ʼ752 patent (JX-0005), cover, 2:51-3:67; FID at 7. The
`
`invention of the ’752 patent is embodied in an MAU and addresses problems in the prior art of
`
`accessing a variety of different, and potentially non-consecutive, addresses within a shared
`
`memory. FID at 8 (citing ʼ752 patent at 1:25-2:9).
`
`The MAU can comprise a queue for access requests and logic for generating lists of
`
`addresses from the requests and reordering the lists of addresses to optimize access to the
`
`memory. Id. at 56 (citing ʼ752 patent at 3:20-34). This can “relieve the internal video decoding
`
`modules . . . from the burden of knowing the detail of the memory pixel data arrangement and
`
`access control.” Id. (citing ʼ752 patent at 6:16-20).
`
`Broadcom asserts claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 of the ’752 patent for infringement purposes
`
`and claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 for DI purposes. Id. at 57 (citing CIB11 at 79, 95). The asserted
`
`claims follow:
`
`1. A memory access unit for accessing data for a module, said memory access unit
`comprising:
`
`an output port for providing access requests for lists of addresses in a memory over a
`link to