`
`Washington, DC.
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE ELECTRONIC
`
`Inv. No. 337—TA—1065
`
`DEVICES AND RADIO FREQUENCY
`AND PROCESSING COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`
`NOTICE REGARDING FINAL INITIAL DETERMINATION
`AND RECOMMENDED DETERMATION
`
`(September 28, 2018)
`
`On this date, I issued the Final Initial Determination (“ID”) on the question of violation of
`
`section 337 and the Recommended Determination (“RD”) concerning the remedy that may be
`
`appropriate in the event the Commission ultimately finds aviolation of section 337. A public
`
`version of this document shall be available within 30 days. See 19 CPR. § 210.5(1).
`
`As explained in the II), I have found a yiolation of section 337. The ID contains, among
`
`other things, the following conclusions:
`
`1. The Commission has subject matter, personal, and'fn rem jurisdiction in this
`
`investigation.
`
`2. The accused products have been imported into the United States.
`
`3. The accused products infringe claim 31 of US. Patent No. 9,535,490. The accused
`
`products do not infringe claim 7 ofU.S. Patent No. 8,698,558, or claims 19, 25, or
`
`2? of U.S.-Patent No. 8,633,936.
`
`4. The technical prong of the domestic industry requirement is satisfied with respect to
`
`US Patent No. 9,535,490. The technical prong of the domestic industry requirement
`
`is not satisfied with respect to US. Patent No. 8,698,558 or US. Patent No.
`
`8,633,936.
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:18)
`QC 2001, p.1
`
`
`
`5. The economic prong of the domestic industry requirement has been satisfied with
`
`respect to the asserted patents.
`
`6.
`
`It has not been shown by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted claim is
`
`invalid.
`
`I have also made findings of fact as to the statutory public interest factors pursuant to the
`
`Notice of Investigation and have made a recommendation to the Commission as to the appropriate
`
`remedy in the event a violation of section 337 is found. See 82 Fed. Reg. 37899 (Aug. 14, 2017). It
`
`is my recommendation that the statutory public interest factors weigh against issuing a limited
`
`exclusion order as to products found to infringe the patents asserted in this investigation.
`
`3.4%.?
`
`Thomas B. Pender
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:19)
`QC 2001, p.2
`
`
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICES AND RADIO
`
`FREQUENCY AND PROCESSING COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`INV. NO. 337~TA-1065
`
`PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`1, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached NOTICE has been served by hand upon the
`Commission Investigative Attorney, Lisa Murray, Esq. and the following parties as indicated,
`
`.
`
` Lisa R. Barton, ecretary
`
`
`
`OH
`
`SEP ‘E g
`
`U .S. International Trade Commission
`
`500 E Street SW, Room 112A
`Washington, DC. 20436
`
`
`
`FOR COMPLAINANT QUALCONIM INCORPORATED
`
`3. Alex Lasher, Esq.
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`1300 I Street NW, Suite 900
`
`Washington, DC. 20005
`
`(
`(
`(
`(
`
`)
`
`ia Hand Delivery
`Express Delively
`) Via First Class Mail
`) Other:
`
`FOR RESPONDENT APPLE INC.
`
`Lauren A. Degnan, Esq.
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 1000
`Washington, DC. 20024
`
`Via Hand Delivery
`(
`Express Delivery
`(
`) Via First Class Mail
`(
`) Other:
`(
`
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:20)
`QC 2001; p.3
`
`