Public Version
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN GRAPHIC SYSTEMS,
`COMPONENTS THEREOF, AND
`CONSUMER PRODUCTS CONTAINING
`THE SAME
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1044
`
`INITIAL DETERMINATION ON VIOLATION OF SECTION 337 AND
`RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION ON REMEDY AND BOND
`
`Administrative Law Judge Mary Joan McNamara
`
`Appearances:
`
`(April 13, 2018)
`
`For the Complainants Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and AT! Technologies ULC:
`
`Michael T. Renaud, Esq., James M. Wodarski, Esq., Michael J. McNamara, Esq., William
`A. Meunier, Esq., Adam S. Rizk, Esq., Marguerite McConihe, Esq., and Cheung Xu, Esq.
`of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., Boston, MA.
`
`Aarti Shah, Esq. of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., Washington,
`D.C.
`
`For the Respondent VIZIO, Inc.:
`
`Cano A. Carrano, Esq., David C. Vondle, Esq., Ryan S. Strqnczer, Esq. of Akin Gump
`Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, D.C.
`
`Paul Lin, Esq., Kevin G. McBride, Esq., Brock F. Wilson, Esq., Yimeng Dou, Esq., and
`Clark Gordon, Esq. of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Irvine, CA.
`
`John Wittenzellner, Esq. of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Philadelphia, PA.
`
`For the Respondents MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek US.A. Inc.:
`
`Tyler T. VanHoutan, Esq. of McGuire Woods LLP, Houston, TX.
`
`Rachelle H. Thompson, Esq. of McGuire Woods LLP, Raleigh, NC.
`
`Lyle D. Kassis, Esq. and George B. Davis, Esq. of McGuire Woods LLP, Richmond, VA.
`
`ARM, Ex. 1008, Page 1
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`For the Respondent Sigma Designs, Inc.:
`
`Tyler T. VanHoutan, Esq. of McGuire Woods LLP, Houston, TX.
`
`Rachelle H. Thompson, Esq. of McGuire Woods LLP, Raleigh, NC.
`
`Rebecca B. Levinson, Esq. of McGuire Woods LLP, Washington, DC.
`
`Lyle D. Kassis, Esq. and Justin R. Lowery, Esq. of McGuire Woods LLP, Richmond, VA.
`
`Kevin P. Anderson, Esq., Floyd B. Chapman, Esq., and Asia Arminio, Esq. of Wiley Rein
`LLP, Washington, DC.
`
`For the Commission Investigative Staff:
`
`Margaret D. McDonald, Esq., Director; David 0. Lloyd, Esq., Supervisory Attorney; and
`Yoncha L. Kundupoglu, Esq., Investigative Attorney, of the Office of Unfair Import
`Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, D.C.
`
`ARM, Ex. 1008, Page 2
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`SELECTED SUMMARY FINDINGS
`
`Pursuant to the Notice of Investigation, 82 Fed. Reg. 14748, dated March 22, 2017, this is
`
`the Initial Determination ("ID") of the Investigation in the Matter of Certain Graphic Systems,
`
`Components Thereof, and Consumer Products Containing the Same, United States International
`
`Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1044. See 19 C.F.R. § 210.42(a).
`
`It is a finding of this ID that Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies ULC
`
`(collectively, "AMD" or "Complainants") have proven by a preponderance of evidence that
`
`Respondent VIZIO, Inc. ("Respondent VIZIO") has violated subsection (b) of Section 337 of the
`
`Tariff Act of 1930, in the impo1iation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale
`
`within the United States after impo1iation of consumer products containing certain graphic
`
`systems and components thereof.
`
`It is a finding of this ID that Respondent VIZIO has infringed asserted claims 1-5 and 8
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,633,506 ("the '506 patent"). It is also a finding of this ID that Respondent
`
`VIZIO has not infringed asserted claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No'. 7,796,133 ("the' 133
`
`patent").
`
`It is a finding of this ID that Complainants have proven by a preponderance of evidence
`
`that Respondents MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek U.S.A. Inc. (collectively, "Respondent
`
`MediaTek") have violated subsection (b) of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, in the
`
`importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States
`
`after importation of certain graphic systems and components thereof.
`
`It is a finding of this ID that Respondent MediaTek has infringed asserted claims 1-5 and
`
`8 of the '506 patent. It is also a finding of this ID that Respondent MediaTek has not infringed
`
`asserted claims 1 and 3 of the '13 3 patent.
`
`ARM, Ex. 1008, Page 3
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`It is a finding of this ID that Complainants have proven by a preponderance of evidence
`
`that Respondent Sigma Designs, Inc. ("Respondent SDI," and with Respondent VIZIO and
`
`Respondent MediaTek, "Respondents") has violated subsection (b) of Section 33 7 of the Tariff
`
`Act of 1930, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within
`
`the United States after importation of certain graphic systems and components thereof.
`
`It is a finding of this ID that Respondent SDI has infringed asserted claims 1-5 and 8 of
`
`the '506 patent. It is also a finding of this ID that Respondent SDI has not infringed asserted
`
`claims 1 and 3 of the '133 patent.
`
`It is finding of this ID that Respondents have not proven by clear and convincing
`
`evidence that claims 1-5 and 8 of the '5 06 patent and claims 1 and 3 of the '13 3 patent are
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated and/or under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as obvious.
`
`It is a finding of this ID that one or more of Complainants' domestic industry products
`
`have satisfied the technical industry prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '506 and
`
`'133 patents. It is also a finding of this ID that Complainants have .satisfied the economic prong
`
`of the domestic industry requirement under Section 337(a)(3)(A), (B), and/or (C).
`
`ARM, Ex. 1008, Page 4
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INITIAL DETERMINATION ON VIOLATION OF SECTION 337, AND
`RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION ON REMEDY AND BOND ....................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Technology Comment ............................................................................................. 1
`
`Summary of Findings .............................................................................................. 1
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Institution and Selected Procedural History ........................................................... 2
`
`The Parties ............................................................................................................ 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Complainants Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies
`ULC ("Complainants" or "AMD") ........................................................... 10
`
`Respondent VIZIO, Inc. ("Respondent VIZIO") ...................................... 11
`
`Respondents MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek U.S.A. Inc. ("Respondent
`MediaTek") ............................................................................................... 11
`
`Respondent Sigma Designs, Inc. ("Respondent SDI") ............................. 11
`
`III.
`
`JlJRISDICTION, IMPORTATION, AND STANDING ............................................. 12
`
`A.
`
`The Commission Has Jurisdiction ........................................................................ 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Subject Matter Jurisdiction ....................................................................... 12
`
`Personal Jurisdiction ................................................................................. 12
`In Ren1 Jurisdiction ................................................................................... 13
`
`B.
`
`Complainants Have Standing in the Commission .... · ............................................ 14
`
`IV.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS ......................................................................................... 15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Overview of the Technology ................................................................................ 15
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,633,506 ("the '506 Patent") ........ : ............................................ 23
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`· Overview of the '506 Patent ..................................................................... 23
`
`Asserted Claims of the '506 Patent.. ......................................................... 24
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,796,133 ("the' 133 Patent") ..................................................... 25
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of the '13 3 Patent ..................................................................... 25
`
`Asserted Claims of the '133 Patent.. ......................................................... 26
`
`V.
`
`THE PRODUCTS AT ISSUE ........................................................................................ 26
`
`A.
`
`Respondents' Accused Products ........................................................................... 26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Respondent VIZIO's Accused Products ................................................... 27
`
`Respondent MediaTek's Accused Products .............................................. 29
`
`V
`
`ARM, Ex. 1008, Page 5
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`3.
`
`Respondent SDI's Accused Products ........................................................ 29
`
`VI.
`
`B.
`Complainants' DI Products ................................................................................... 30
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS ......................................................................................... 31
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................................... 31
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Relevant Law ............................................................................................ 31
`
`Definition of Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................... 32
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................................... 32
`
`Relevant Law ............................................................................................ 32
`1.
`VII. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,663,506 ......................................................................................... 35
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Legal Standard: Direct Infringement ................................................................... 35
`
`Infi'ingement Overview ......................................................................................... 36
`
`Relevant Claim Terms .......................................................................................... 40
`
`The'506 Accused Multipipe Products Infringe Claims 1-5 and 8
`ofthe '506 Patent .................................................................................................. 41
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 of the '506 Patent ........................................................................ 41
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`"A graphics chip comprising" ....................................................... 41
`
`"a front-end in the graphics chip configured to receive one or
`more graphics instructions and to output a geometry" ................. 44
`
`"a back-end in the graphics chip configured to receive said
`geometry and to process said geometry into one or more
`final pixels to be placed in a frame buffer" ................................... 48
`
`"wherein said back-end in the graphics chip comprises
`multiple parallel pipelines" ........................................................... 51
`
`"wherein said geometry is determined to locate in a portion
`of an output screen defined by a tile" ........................................... 51
`
`"wherein each of said parallel pipelines further comprises a
`unified shader that is programmable to perform both color
`shading and texture shading" ........................................................ 52
`
`2.
`
`Claim 2 of the '506 Patent ........................................................................ 63
`
`a)
`
`"The graphics chip of claim 1 wherein each of said parallel
`pipelines further comprises: a FIFO unit for load balancing
`said each of said pipelines." .......................................................... 63
`
`3.
`
`Claim 3 of the '506 Patent ........................................................................ 64
`
`a)
`
`"The graphics chip of claim 1 wherein each of said parallel
`pipelines fu1iher comprises: a z buffer logic unit; and a color
`
`vi
`
`ARM, Ex. 1008, Page 6
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`buffer logic unit." .......................................................................... 64
`
`4.
`
`Claim 4 of the '506 Patent ........................................................................ 65
`
`a)
`
`"The graphics chip of claim 3 wherein said z buffer logic
`unit interfaces with said scan converter through a
`hierarchical Z interface and an early Z interface." ....................... 65
`
`5.
`
`Claim 5 of the '506 Patent ........................................................................ 66
`
`6.
`
`a)
`
`"The graphics chip of claim 3 wherein said z buffer logic
`unit interfaces with said unified shader through a late Z
`interface.'' ...................................................................................... 66
`
`a)
`
`Claim 8 of the '506 Patent ........................................................................ 68
`"The graphics chip of claim 1 wherein the unified shader is
`operative to ... apply a programmed sequence of
`instructions to rasterized values and is operative to loop back
`to process operations for color shading and/or texture
`address shading." .......................................................................... 68
`
`E.
`
`Validity ................................................................................................................. 69
`
`1.
`
`Legal Standard .......................................................................................... 69
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Generally ....................................................................................... 69
`
`Obviousness .................................................................................. 70
`
`2.
`
`a)
`
`None of the Assetied Claims of the '506 Patent Are Invalid as Obvious. 72
`Claims 1, 2, and 8 of the '506 Patent Are Not Obvious Over
`Papakipos (RX-0376) in Combination with Gibson (RX-
`0368) ......................................................................................... "". 72
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Claims 3 and 4 Are Not Obvious Over Papakipos (RX-0376)
`in Combination with Gibson (RX-0368) and Zhu (RX-0359) ..... 84
`Claims 1, 2, and 8 Are Not Obvious Over Donham (RX-
`0142) in Combination with Gibson (RX-0368) ............................ 85
`
`d)
`
`Claims 3 and 4 Are Not Obvious Over Donham (RX-0142)
`in Combination with Gibson (RX-0368) and Zhu (RX-0359) ..... 91
`VIII. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,796,133 ......................................................................................... 92
`A.
`Overview of Infringement. .................................................................................... 92
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Relevant Claim Terms .......................................................................................... 94
`
`The '133 Accused Products Do Not Infringe Claims 1 and 3 of the
`'133 Patent ............................................................................................................ 94
`Claim 1 of the' 133 Patent ........................................................................ 94
`a)
`"A unified shader comprising" ..................................................... 94
`
`1.
`
`vii
`
`ARM, Ex. 1008, Page 7
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`"an input interface for receiving a packet from a rasterizer" ........ 95
`
`"a shading processing mechanism configured to produce a
`resultant value from said packet by performing one or more
`shading operations" ..................................................................... 100
`
`"wherein said shading operations comprise both texture
`operations and color operations and comprising at least one
`ALU/memory pair operative to perform both texture
`operations and color operations wherein texture operations
`comprise at least one of: issuing a texture request to a texture
`unit and writing received texture values to the memory" ........... 100
`
`"wherein the at least one ALU is operative to read from and
`write to the memory to perform both texture and color
`operations" .................................................................................. 111
`
`"an output interface configured to send said resultant value
`to a frame buffer" ........................................................................ 112
`
`2.
`
`Claim 3 of the '133 Patent.. .................................................................... 112
`
`a)
`
`"The shader of claim 1 wherein said output interface sends
`said value to said frame buffer using a valid-ready protocol." ... 112
`
`D.
`
`Validity ............................................................................................................... 113
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Legal Standard: Anticipation ................................................................. 113
`
`None of the Asserted Claims of the '133 Patent Are Invalid as
`Anticipated .............................................................................................. 113
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Claim 1 Is Not Anticipated by Rich (RX-0486) ......................... 113
`
`Claims 1 and 3 Are Not Anticipated by Poulton (RX-0146) ...... 122
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Claim 1 ............................................................................ 122
`
`Claim3 ................................. , .......................................... 130
`
`3.
`
`Claim 3 of the '133 Patent Is Not Obvious Over Rich (RX-0486) in
`Combination with Poulton (RX-0146) .................................................... 130
`DOMESTIC INDUSTRY REQillREMENT: TECHNICAL PRONG .................. 132
`
`IX.
`
`A.
`
`Complainants Have Satisfied the Technical Prong of the Domestic Industry
`Requirement ........................................................................................................ 132
`
`1.
`
`'506Patent .............................................................................................. 132
`
`2.
`'133Patent .............................................................................................. 133
`DOMESTIC INDUSTRY REQUIREMENT: ECONOMIC PRONG ................... 134
`
`X.
`
`A.
`
`Complainants Have Satisfied the Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry
`Requirement Under Section 337(a)(A), (B), and (C) ......................................... 134
`
`viii
`
`ARM, Ex. 1008, Page 8
`
`

`

`Public Ver!}'io11
`
`XI.
`
`RECOMMENDATION ON REMEDY AND BOND ................................................ 134
`A.
`Legal Standard .................................................................................................... 134
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`A Limited Exclusion Order with a Certification Provision Is Warranted .......... 135
`Respondent VIZIO's Accused Products Are Not Excluded from the LEO ........ 136
`No Bond During the Presidential Review Period Is Warranted Against
`Respondents ........................................................................................................ 142
`A Cease and Desist Order Is Warranted ............................................................. 145
`E.
`XII. WAIVER OR WITHDRAW AL OF RESPONDENTS' DEFENSES ...................... 145
`XIII. CONCLUSIONS OF FACT OR LAW: THIS INITIAL DETERMINATION
`FINDS A SECTION 337 VIOLATION BASED UPON INFRINGEMENT OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,633,506 ....................................................................................... 146
`XIV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER .................................................................................... 147
`
`APPENDICES
`Appendix A: Accused Products
`Appendix B: DI Products
`
`ix
`
`ARM, Ex. 1008, Page 9
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`ABBREVIATIONS
`
`The following shorthand references to the parties and related U.S. agencies are used in this Initial
`Determination:
`
`Complainants or
`AMD
`
`Complainants Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies
`ULC, collectively
`
`Respondent VIZIO
`
`Respondent VIZIO, Inc.
`
`Respondent
`MediaTek
`
`Respondents MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek U.S.A. Inc., collectively
`
`Respondent SDI
`
`Respondent Sigma Designs, Inc.
`
`Respondents
`
`Respondent VIZIO, Respondent MediaTek, and Respondent SDI,
`collectively
`
`Staff
`
`CBP
`
`PTO
`
`PTAB
`
`Commission Investigative Staff, Office of Unfair Imp01i
`Investigations
`
`U.S. Customs and Border Protection
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the PTO.
`
`The following abbreviations for pleadings, exhibits, briefs, transcripts, and Orders are used in
`this Initial Determination:
`
`Compl.
`
`Complaint
`
`Am. Compl.
`
`Verified Amended Complaint
`
`VIZIOResp.
`
`Response of Respondent VIZIO to the Notice oflnvestigation and
`Complaint Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
`Amended
`
`MediaTek Resp.
`
`Response of Respondent MediaTek to the Notice of Investigation
`and Complaint Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
`Amended
`
`X
`
`ARM, Ex. 1008, Page 10
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`SDI Resp.
`
`Response of Respondent SDI to the Notice of Investigation and
`Complaint Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
`Amended
`
`ex
`
`CDX
`
`CPX
`
`CPBr.
`
`CBr.
`
`CRBr.
`
`CPSt.
`
`JX
`
`RX
`
`RDX
`
`RPX
`
`RPBr.
`
`RBr.
`
`RRBr.
`
`RPSt.
`
`SPBr.
`
`SBr.
`
`SRBr.
`
`SPSt.
`
`Complainants' exhibit
`
`Complainants' demonstrative exhibit
`
`Complainants' physical exhibit
`
`Complainants' Pre-Hearing Brief
`
`Complainants' Initial Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Complainants' Post-Hearing Reply Brief
`
`Complainants' Pre-Hearing Statement
`
`Joint exhibit
`
`Respondents' exhibit
`
`Respondents' demonstrative exhibit
`
`Respondents' physical exhibit
`
`Respondents' Pre-Hearing Brief
`
`Respondents' Initial Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Respondents' Post-Hearing Reply Brief
`
`Respondents' Pre-Hearing Statement
`
`Commission Investigative Staffs Pre-Hearing Brief
`
`Commission Investigative Staffs Initial Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Commission Investigative Staffs Post-Hearing Reply Brief
`
`Commission Investigative Staffs Pre-Hearing Statement
`
`Pre-Hearing Tr.
`
`Transcript from November 20, 2017 Pre-Hearing Teleconference
`(Doc. ID No. 629904 (Nov. 28, 2017))
`
`xi
`
`ARM, Ex. 1008, Page 11
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`sx
`
`Tr.
`
`Staffs exhibit
`
`Evidentiary hearing transcript
`
`Dep. Tr.
`
`Deposition transcript
`
`Comp'ls Claim Br.
`
`Complainants' Claim Construction Brief
`
`Res'pts Claim Br.
`
`Respondents' Claim Construction Brief
`
`Staff Claim Br.
`
`Commission Investigative Staffs Claim Construction Brief
`
`Markman Hearing
`Tr.
`
`Transcript from August 8, 2017 Markman hearing (Doc. ID Nos.
`619465, 619466 (Aug. 9, 2017))
`
`Markman Tutorial
`Tr.
`
`Transcript from August 8, 2017 technology tutorial held prior to the
`Markman hearing (Doc. ID No. 619464 (Aug. 9, 2017))
`
`Markman Order Tr.
`
`Transcript from November 8, 2017 oral Markman Order (Doc. ID
`No. 629745 (Nov. 22, 2017))
`
`The following abbreviations for technical business-related terms are used in this Initial
`Determination:
`
`ALU
`
`FIFO
`
`GPU
`
`HDTV
`
`IC
`
`MP
`
`PLB
`
`RTL
`
`SoC
`
`Algorithmic logic unit
`
`First in, first out
`
`Graphics processing unit
`
`High-definition television
`
`Integrated circuit
`
`Multicore Processor
`
`Polygon list builder
`
`Register transfer language
`
`System on chip
`
`xii
`
`ARM, Ex. 1008, Page 12
`
`

`

`Puhlic Version
`
`TRM
`
`Technical reference manual
`
`The following shorthand references to certain products and patents at issue in this are used in this
`Initial Determination:
`
`'506 patent
`
`'133 patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,633,506
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,796,133
`
`Asserted Patents
`
`'506 and '133 patents, collectively
`
`Accused Products
`
`Accused VIZIO Products, Accused MediaTek Products, and
`Accused SDI Products, collectively
`
`Accused VIZIO
`Products
`
`Accused MediaTek
`Products
`
`Accused SDI
`Products
`
`Accused Singlepipe
`Products
`
`Accused Multipipe
`Products
`
`See Appendix A; Chart Nos. 7 and 8
`
`See Appendix A; Chart Nos. 9 and 10
`
`See Appendix A; Chart No. 11
`
`See Appendix A; Chart Nos. 7 and 9
`
`See Appendix A; Chart Nos. 8, 10, and 11
`
`DI Products
`
`DI Single Shader Products and DI Multi Shader Products,
`collectively
`
`DI Single Shader
`Products
`
`Bristol Ridge, Carrizo, Iceland, Stoney Ridge, and Raven Ridge (see
`also Appendix B; Chart No. 12)
`
`DI Multi Shader
`Products
`
`Polaris 10 (Ellesmere), Polaris 11 (Baffin), Polaris 12, Polaris 22,
`Fiji, Tonga, Vega 10, Vega 12, and Vega 20 (see also Appendix B;
`Chart No. 12)
`
`xiii
`
`ARM, Ex. 1008, Page 13
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`I.
`
`INITIAL DETERMINATION ON VIOLATION OF SECTION 337, AND
`RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION ON REMEDY AND BOND
`
`A.
`
`Technology Comment
`
`We live in a world of astonishing color, size, texture, perspective and shape. For those
`
`who remember "black and white" television, the images of the world that the black and white
`
`medium presented were not true to what we actually see in the "real world" complexity ofthree(cid:173)
`
`dimension light, color, texture and shading. That world was monochromatic, and more two(cid:173)
`
`dimensional than three-dimensional. Nonetheless, those black and white images constituted a
`
`great leap in a number of technologies.
`
`The graphics processing that is incorporated into the two patents at issue in this
`
`Investigation, that is U.S. Patent Nos. 7,633,506 and 7,796,133, represent another phase in the
`
`refinement of graphics images we see in the real world and in a virtual world. As users of an
`
`array of"smaii" devices, we have come to expect, and perhaps take for granted, that the
`
`refinement of the color, texture, shape and of the objects we see in the real world will be
`
`mirrored automatically in, or transmitted into, our television sets, our smart phones and tablets.
`
`This decision, at least in pati, describes some of the technology of the graphics
`
`processing that enables us to see with exquisite clarity our three-dimensional world in our smart
`
`devices. It is hoped that Section IV.A, "Overview of the Technology," which employs the
`
`helpful descriptions and images that were provided by the various experts during the Markman
`
`Hearing and the pre-hearing tutorial render this very complex technology easier to relate to, and
`
`easier to understand.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of Findings
`
`A summary of this decision's finding is summarized below.
`
`Page 1 of 148
`
`ARM, Ex. 1008, Page 14
`
`

`

`Public Version
`
`Chart No. 1: Su mmary of Findings
`
`Product
`
`Patent
`
`Claims
`
`Determination
`
`Accused Multipipe
`Products
`
`'506 patent
`
`1-5 and 8
`
`Accused Singlepipe
`and Multipipe
`Products
`
`'133 patent
`
`1 and 3
`
`AMD's DI Products
`
`All Asserted Patents
`
`Violation (claims 1-5
`and 8): Claims 1-5
`and 8 of the '506
`patent are valid and
`infringed by the
`Accused Multipipe
`Products.
`
`No violation: Claims
`1 and 3 are valid but
`not infringed by the
`Accused Singlepipe
`and Multipipe
`Products.
`
`Satisfied.
`Complainants'
`domestic R&D
`activities with respect
`to their DI Products
`satisfy the domestic
`industry requirement
`set fo1th in 19 U.S.C.
`§ 337(a)(3)(A), (B),
`and/or (C).
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Institution and Selected Procedural H istory.
`
`On January 24, 2017, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies ULC fi led a
`
`complaint under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337,
`
`("Complaint") alleging infringement of certain claims of U.S . Patent No. 7,633,506 (JX-0001 ,
`
`hereafter "the '506 patent"); U.S. Patent No. 7,796,133 (JX-0003, hereafter "the' 133 patent");
`
`and U.S. Patent No. 8,760,454 (hereafter "the '454 patent). (See, e.g., Comp!. atiJ~ 1, 6; Doc. ID
`
`Page2 of 148
`
`ARM, Ex. 1008, Page 15
`
`

`

`Puhlic .J;asion: , .··
`: j~ ·~ ., .. ~··. ~/;·,:··/~··_~i~·)t~; .
`
`.
`
`• .
`
`·,.
`
`I
`
`No. 601571 (Jan. 24, 2017).).
`
`On March 2, 2017, Complainants filed an amended Complaint ("Amended Complaint")
`
`to include the assertion of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,582,846 (hereafter "the '846
`
`patent") against Respondents. 1 (Am. Compl. at ,r,r 1, 6; Doc. ID No. 604678 (Mar. 2, 2017).).
`
`The Commission instituted this Investigation pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 337 of
`
`the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to determine:
`
`whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(l)(B) of section 337 in the
`importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the
`United States after importation of certain graphics systems, components thereof,
`and consumer products containing the same by reason of infringement of one or
`more of claims 1-9 of the '506 patent; claims 1-13 and 40 of the '133 patent;
`claims 2-5, 6-10, and 11 of the '454 patent; and claims 1-8 of the '846 patent, and
`whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being
`established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337[.]
`
`82 Fed. Reg. 14748 (Mar. 23, 2017).
`
`The Notice oflnvestigation ("NOI") names Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. of Sunnyvale,
`
`CA and ATI Technologies ULC of Ontario, Canada as complainants ("Complainants"). See id
`
`The NOI names, inter alia, VIZIO, Inc. of Irvine, CA ("Respondent VIZIO"); MediaTek Inc. of
`
`Hsinchu City, Taiwan and MediaTek U.S.A. Inc. of San Jose, CA ("Respondent MediaTek");
`
`and Sigma Designs, Inc. of Fremont, CA ("Respondent SDI," and with Respondent VIZIO and
`
`Respondent MediaTek, "Respondents"). 2 Id
`
`1 In the cover letter of the Amended Complaint ("Amended Complaint Cover Letter"), Complainants
`explained that on February 28, 2017, after the original Complaint was filed, the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office ("PTO") issued the '846 patent. (Am. Compl. Cover Ltr. at 1.).
`
`2 The NOi also named LG Electronics, Inc. of Seoul, Republic of Korea, LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of
`Englewood Cliffs, NJ, and LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. of San Diego, CA ("Respondent
`LG") as Respondents in this Investigation. 82 Fed. Reg. 14748 (Mar. 23, 2017). On October 20, 2017,
`an ID issued granting Complainants' termination ofthis Investigation against Respondent LG. (Order
`No. 48 (Oct. 20, 2017).). The Commission determined not to review the ID. (Doc. ID No. 628691 (Nov.
`
`Page 3 of148
`
`ARM, Ex. 1008, Page 16
`
`

`

`Puhlic l'crsion
`
`The NOi also names the Commission Investigative Staff of the Office of Unfair Import
`
`Investigations ("Staff," and collectively, with Complainants and Respondents, "the Parties") as a
`
`party in this Investigation. Id.
`
`On April 17, 2017, Respondent VIZIO filed a response to the Complaint and NOi
`
`("VIZIO Response"). (Doc. ID No. 608891 (Apr. 17, 2017).). On April 19, 2017, Respondent
`
`MediaTek and Respondent SDI each filed a response to the Complaint and NOi ("MediaTek
`
`Response" and "SDI Response," respectively). (Doc. ID No. 609023 at Ex. 1 (Apr. 17, 2017);
`
`Doc. ID No. 609021 at Ex. 1 (Apr. 17, 2017).). In the VIZIO Response, Respondent VIZIO
`
`identified eleven (11) affirmative defenses ("Respondent VIZIO's Affirmative Defenses").
`
`(VIZIO Resp. at 23-29.). In the MediaTek Response, Respondent MediaTek identified twelve
`
`(12) affirmative defenses ("Respondent MediaTek Affirmative Defenses"). (MediaTek Resp. at
`
`31-36.). In the SDI Response, Respondent SDI also identified twelve (12) affirmative defenses.
`
`(SDI Resp. at 31-36.).
`
`On May 26, 2017, Complainants filed a motion seeking leave to file a second Amended
`
`Complaint ("Second Amended Complaint") based on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's
`
`("PTO") issuance of a Certificate of Correction under 37 C.F.R. § 1.323 for the '846 patent. 3
`
`(Motion Docket No. 1044-014 (May 26, 2017).). An ID granting Complainants' motion was
`
`13, 2017).).
`
`3 On June 14, 2017, Complainants filed a motion for leave to file a third Amended Complaint ("Third
`Amended Complaint") to add MStar Semiconductor, Inc. ("MStar"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
`MediaTek Inc., as a respondent. (Motion Docket No. 1044-018 (June 14, 2017).). On November 8,
`2017, Complainants filed a notice withdrawing their Third Amended Complaint. (Doc. ID No. 628359
`(Nov. 8, 2017).). On July 19, 2017, Complainants filed a motion for leave to file a fourth Amended
`Complaint ("Fourth Amended Complaint") to assert the '454 and '846 patents against Respondent
`VIZIO. (Motion Docket No. 1044-025 (July 19, 2017).). Complainants' motion for leave to file a Fourth
`Amended Complaint was denied. (Order No. 32 (Aug. 11, 2017).).
`
`Page 4 of148
`
`ARM, Ex. 1008, Page 17
`
`

`

`Puhlic Version
`
`issued. (Order No. 27 (July 25, 2017).). The Commission determined not to review the ID.
`
`(Doc. ID No. 619582 (Aug. 10, 2017).).
`
`On August 15, 2017, an ID issued granting Complainants' first partial termination of this
`
`Investigation against Respondents with respect to claims 4-6 of the '133 patent. (Order No. 33
`
`(Aug. 15, 2017).). The Commission determined not to review the ID. (Doc. ID No. 622045
`
`(Sept. 5, 2017).). On Octo