UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-941
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN GRAPHICS PROCESSING
`CHIPS, SYSTEMS ON A CHIP, AND
`PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE SAME
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Notice.
`
`NOTICE OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION TO REVIEW IN PART A FINAL
`INITIAL DETERMINATION FINDING A VIOLATION OF SECTION 337; SCHEDULE
`FOR FILING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUES UNDER REVIEW AND ON
`REMEDY, THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND BONDING
`
`AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
`
`ACTION:
`
`SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has
`determined to review in part the final initial determination (ID) issued by the presiding
`administrative law judge (ALJ) on December 22, 2015, finding a violation of section 337 of the
`Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337), as to certain asserted patent claims in this
`investigation.
`
`FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Ron Traud, Office of the General Counsel,
`U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone
`(202) 205-3427. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation
`are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the
`Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, S.W., Washington,
`D.C. 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also
`be obtained at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the
`Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.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: The Commission instituted this investigation on
`December 30, 2014 based on a complaint filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Gyeonggi-do,
`Republic of Korea; and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC of Austin, Texas (collectively,
`Complainants). 79 Fed. Reg. 78477-78 (Dec. 30, 2014). The complaint alleges violations of
`section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337), in the importation into the
`
`
`Ex. 1014-0001
`
`

`
`United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of
`certain graphics processing chips (GPUs), systems on a chip (SoCs), and products containing the
`same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-4, 6, and 19-21 of U.S. Patent No.
`6,147,385 (the ‘385 patent); claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,173,349 (the ‘349 patent); claims 1, 2, 4,
`19, 20, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,056,776 (the ‘776 patent); and claims 1-3, 7-9, 12-15, 17, and
`19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,734 (the ‘734 patent), and whether an industry in the United States
`exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. Id. The notice of investigation named the
`following respondents: NVIDIA Corporation (NVIDIA) of Santa Clara, California; Biostar
`Microtech International Corp. of New Taipei, Taiwan; Biostar Microtech U.S.A. Corp. of City of
`Industry, California; Elitegroup Computer Systems Co. Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan; Elitegroup
`Computer Systems, Inc. of Newark, California; EVGA Corp. of Brea, California; Fuhu, Inc. of El
`Segundo, California; Jaton Corp. of Fremont, California; Mad Catz, Inc. of San Diego, California;
`OUYA, Inc. of Santa Monica, California; Sparkle Computer Co., Ltd. of New Taipei City,
`Taiwan; Toradex, Inc. of Seattle, Washington; Wikipad, Inc. of Westlake Village, California;
`ZOTAC International (MCO) Ltd of New Territories, Hong Kong; and ZOTAC USA, Inc. of
`Chino, California (collectively, Respondents). Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`(OUII) is also a party to this investigation. Id.
`
`On May 1, 2015, the Commission determined not to review an initial determination
`terminating the investigation as to respondent Wikipad, Inc. See Notice of Commission
`Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation as to
`Respondent Wikipad, Inc. Based on a Consent Order Stipulation, Consent Order, and Settlement
`Agreement; Issuance of Consent Order (May 1, 2015). On May 13, 2015, the Commission
`determined not to review an initial determination granting intervention by Taiwan Semiconductor
`Manufacturing Co., Ltd. for a limited purpose. See Notice of Commission Determination Not to
`Review an Initial Determination Granting Intervention by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
`Co., Ltd. for a Limited Purpose (May 13, 2015). On September 17, 2015, the Commission
`determined not to review an initial determination terminating the investigation as to respondent
`ZOTAC International (MCO) Ltd. See Notice of Commission Decision Not to Review Two Initial
`Determinations That Terminated the Investigation as to Certain Asserted Patent Claims and as to
`One Respondent (Sept. 17, 2015).
`
`On July 1, 2015, the Commission determined not to review an initial determination
`terminating the investigation as to the ‘776 patent. See Notice of Commission Determination Not
`to Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation with Respect to U.S. Patent No.
`7,056,776 (July 1, 2015). On August 13, 2015, the Commission determined not to review an initial
`determination finding that the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement has been
`satisfied. See Notice of a Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination That
`the Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry Requirement Has Been Satisfied (Aug. 13, 2015).
`On September 17, 2015, the Commission determined not to review an initial determination
`terminating claims 19-21 of the ‘385 patent and claims 7-9, 12-15, 17, and 19 of the ‘734 patent.
`See Notice of Commission Decision Not to Review Two Initial Determinations That Terminated
`the Investigation as to Certain Asserted Patent Claims and as to One Respondent (Sept. 17, 2015).
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1014-0002
`
`

`
`On December 22, 2015, the ALJ issued his ID. Regarding the ‘385 patent, the ID
`concludes: (1) the accused products infringe claims 1-4 and 6, ID at 61-91; (2) there is a domestic
`industry, ID at 93-108; (3) claims 1-4 and 6 are not invalid for anticipation, obviousness, or lack of
`written description, ID at 114-64; and (4) NVIDIA’s Tegra X1 chip is outside the scope of the
`investigation. ID at 91-93. Regarding the ‘349 patent, the ID concludes: (1) certain accused
`products infringe claim 10, ID at 198-235; (2) there is a domestic industry, ID at 235-52; and (3)
`claim 10 is not invalid for anticipation, obviousness, or lack of written description, ID at 253-74.
`Regarding the ‘734 patent, the ID concludes: (1) certain accused products infringe claims 1 and 3,
`ID at 307-35; (2) there is a domestic industry, ID at 336-48; and (3) claims 1 and 3 are not invalid
`for anticipation or obviousness. ID at 348-77.
`
`On January 4, 2016, Respondents and OUII filed petitions for review of the ID. On January
`5, 2016, the ALJ issued his recommended determination on remedy and bonding. On January 12,
`2016, Complainants and OUII filed responses to the petitions.
`
`Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s ID, the petitions for
`review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part.
`Specifically, the Commission has determined to review (1) the ID’s construction of “mode” and
`“the receiver further configured” of claim 1 of the ‘734 patent; (2) the ID’s conclusion that the
`accused products infringe the ‘734 patent; (3) the ID’s conclusion that there is a domestic industry
`for the ‘734 patent; (4) the ID’s conclusion that claim 1 of the ‘734 patent is not invalid for
`anticipation by U.S. Patent No. 7,032,092 (Lai); (5) the ID’s conclusion that claim 3 of the ‘734
`patent is not invalid for obviousness over Lai in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,853,213 (Funaba); (6)
`whether the accused Tegra X1 products are within the scope of the investigation; and (7) whether
`Complainants proved that the AP20 products infringe the ‘349 patent.
`
`The parties are requested to brief their positions with reference to the applicable law and
`the evidentiary record. In connection with its review, the Commission is particularly interested in
`responses to the following:
`
`1. With regard to the construction of “mode” in claim 1 of the ‘734 patent, please discuss the
`significance of the repeated use of the permissive term “may” in the specification. E.g.,
`col. 4, lns. 28-29, 37-39, 48-51.
`2. With regard to the construction of “mode” in claim 1 of the ‘734 patent, please discuss the
`significance of the recent Federal Circuit decision in The Trustees of Columbia University
`in the City of New York v. Symantec Corporation, No. 2015-1146 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
`3. With regard to the interpretation of Figure 4 of the ‘734 patent, please discuss the
`significance of the use of the term “mode signal” in the specification. Col. 5, lns. 13-16,
`28-30.
`4. With regard to the construction of “the receiver further configured” in claim 1 of the ‘734
`patent, please discuss the significance of the cases cited in the ID at pages 302-04, and any
`other relevant case law.
`5. With respect to the ‘734 patent, if the Commission were (1) to construe the claim term
`“mode” in claim 1 to mean “a configuration required by the memory-device type”; and (2)
`3
`
`
`
`Ex. 1014-0003
`
`

`
`to interpret the phrase “the receiver further configured” in claim 1 to require the capability
`of the receiver to operate in one mode or the other, but not both, when connected to a
`particular memory device; please discuss any impact this construction may have on the
`ID’s findings and conclusions.
`6. What portion of the accused devices is allegedly covered by the asserted claims? Do the
`patents in question relate to relatively minor features of the accused devices?
`7. How would remedial orders barring the entry and further distribution of the products
`alleged to infringe the asserted claims of the ‘385, ‘349 and/or ‘734 patents affect the
`public interest as identified in 19 U.S.C. §§ 1337(d)(1) and (f)(1)? The Commission is
`particularly interested in the commercial availability of alternatives to the potentially
`excluded products as well as any differences, including qualitative differences, between
`those alternatives and the potentially excluded products.
`
`In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue
`an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States,
`and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the respondent being
`required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such
`articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address
`the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from
`entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so
`indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either
`are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see Certain Devices for Connecting
`Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994)
`(Commission Opinion).
`
`If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that
`remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that
`an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare,
`(2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or
`directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The
`Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the
`aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
`
`If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as
`delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission’s action. See
`Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005. 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the
`subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined
`by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore
`interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed if a
`remedy is ordered.
`
`WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: The parties to the investigation are requested to file written
`submissions on the issues identified in this notice. Parties to the investigation, interested
`government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions
`on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such submissions should address the
`4
`
`
`
`Ex. 1014-0004
`
`

`
`recommended determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. Complainants are requested to
`submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission’s consideration. Complainants are also
`requested to state the date that the patents expire and the HTSUS numbers under which the accused
`products are imported. Complainants are further requested to supply the names of known
`importers of the products at issue in this investigation. The written submissions and proposed
`remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business on March 7, 2016. Reply submissions
`must be filed no later than the close of business on March 14, 2016. Such submissions should
`address the ALJ’s recommended determinations on remedy and bonding. No further submissions
`on any of these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
`
`Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or
`before the deadlines stated above and submit eight true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary
`by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
`Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No.
`337–TA–941”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for
`Electronic Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/ secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/
`handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the
`Secretary (202-205-2000).
`
`Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request
`confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission
`and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
`See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly
`sought will be treated accordingly. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also
`be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing. All non-confidential written submissions will
`be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Lisa R. Barton
` Secretary to the Commission
`
`Issued: February 24, 2016
`
`
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1014-0005