Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 18218
`Case 2:17-cv-00514—JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 18218
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 18219
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 18219
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN PERSONAL DATA AND
`
`Inv. N0. 337-TA-710
`
`MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES
`
`
`AND RELATED SOFTWARE
`
`
`
`
`INITIAL DETERMINATION
`
`Administrative Law Judge Carl C. Charneski
`
`Pursuant to a notice of investigation, 75 Fed. Reg. 17434 (2010), this is the Initial
`
`Determination in Investigation No. 337—TA—710. It is held that complainants Apple Inc.
`
`and NeXT Software, Inc. have established that respondents HTC Corp, HTC America,
`
`Inc, and Exedea, Inc. infringed asserted claims 1, 2, 24, and 29 of US Patent No.
`
`6,343,263 (the “263 patent) and asserted claims 1, 8, 15, and 19 of US Patent No.
`
`5,946,647 (the ‘647 patent) in Violation of section 337(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
`
`amended. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(b). Complainants have not established that respondents
`
`infringed asserted claim 3 of the ‘647 patent or the asserted claims of US. Patent Nos.
`
`6,275,983 (the ‘983 patent) and 5,481,721 (the ‘721 patent). It is further held that the
`
`asserted patents are not invalid.
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 18220
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 18220
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`.......................................................................................................
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Institution of Investigation
`
`...................................................................
`
`Procedural History
`
`...............................................................................
`
`The Parties
`
`. ....................................................................................
`
`II.
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`.......................................................................................................
`
`III.
`
`Importation
`
`...........................i............................................................................
`
`IV.
`
`Products at Issue
`
`. .......................................................................................
`
`2
`
`2
`
`3
`
`5
`
`5
`
`6
`
`6
`
`VI.
`
`General Principles of Patent Law
`
`......................................................
`
`11
`
`VII. US. Patent No. 6,343,263
`
`.................................................................................
`
`23
`
`A.
`
`ClaimConstruction
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Infringement
`
`TechnicalProng
`
`Validity
`
`24
`
`45
`
`62
`
`68
`
`VIII. US. Patent No. 6,275,983
`
`.................................................................................
`
`83
`
`A.
`
`ClaimConstruction
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Infringement
`
`TechnicalProng
`
`Validity
`
`86
`
`101
`
`ll8
`
`124
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 18221
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 18221
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`IX.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647
`
`.................................................................................
`
`124
`
`A.
`
`ClaimConstruction
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Infringement
`
`Technical Prong
`
`Validity
`
`126
`
`133
`
`157
`
`165
`
`X.
`
`US. Patent No. 5,481,721
`
`.................................................................................
`
`191
`
`A.
`
`ClaimConstruction
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Infringement
`
`TechnicalProng
`
`Validity
`
`194
`
`223
`
`228
`
`229
`
`XI.
`
`Remedy and Bond
`
`....................................................................................
`
`230
`
`XII.
`
`Conclusions of Law ...........................................................................................
`
`236
`
`X111.
`
`Initial Determination and Order
`
`...................................................................
`
`237
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 18222
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 18222
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`A.
`
`Institution of Investigation
`
`The Commission instituted this investigation by publication of a notice in the
`
`Federal Register on April 6, 2010, pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff
`
`Act of 1930, as amended. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(b). This investigation was instituted:
`
`to determine whether there is a Violation of subsection
`
`(a)(1)(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 personal data or
`mobile communications devices or related software that
`
`infringe one or more of claims 1-3, 7, l2, and 32 of US.
`Patent No. 5,519,867; claims 1, 3, 7, 8, and 22 ofUS.
`
`Patent No. 6,275,983; claims 1, 3, 8—10, 12, 18, 19, 23, and
`24 ofU.S. Patent No. 5,566,337; claims 1-3 and 7-13 of
`
`US. Patent No. 5,929,852; claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13—16, 19,
`20, and 22 of US. Patent No. 5,946,647; claim 1 of US.
`
`Patent No. 5,969,705; claims 1-6, 24, 25, 29, and 30 of US.
`
`Patent No. 6,343,263; claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 15, and 17
`ofU.S. Patent No. 5,915,131; claims 1-3, 6, 8, 9, 12, and
`14-17 ofU.S. Patent No. RE39,486; and claims 1-6 and 19-
`22 of US. Patent No. 5,481,721, and whether an industry in
`the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of
`section 337.
`
`75 Fed. Reg. 17434 (2010).
`
`The notice of investigation names Apple Inc., f/k/a Apple Computer, Inc. of
`
`Cupertino, California; and NeXT Software, Inc., f/k/a NeXT Computer, Inc. of Cupertino,
`
`California as complainants. The named respondents are: High Tech Computer Corp.
`
`a/k/a/ HTC Corp. of Taoyuan, Taiwan; HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington; and
`
`Exedea, Inc. of Houston, Texas. The Commission Investigative Staff also is named as a
`
`party to this investigation. Id.
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 18223
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 18223
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`B.
`
`Procedural History
`
`On April 19, 2010, an 18—month target date of October 6, 2011, was set in this
`
`investigation. Order No. 6; Comm’n Notice Not To Review Initial Determination
`
`(May 7, 2010).
`
`On April 26, 2010, Chief Judge Luckern consolidated a portion of Inv. No. 337-
`
`TA—704 entitled, Certain Mobile Communications And Computer Devices And
`
`Components Thereof with the current investigation. This resulted in the addition of two
`
`related respondents to the 710 investigation, tie. , Nokia Corporation of Finland and Nokia
`
`Inc. of White Plains, New York (collectively, “Nokia”), with respect to the ‘867, ‘131,
`
`‘705, ‘263, and ‘486 patents. See Inv. No. 337-TA—704, Order No. 5.
`
`On November 10, 2010, the investigation was terminated as to the ‘867, ‘ 131,
`
`“852, and ‘486 patents. Order No. 41; Comm’n Notice Not To Review Initial
`
`Determination (Nov. 29, 2010). Shortly thereafter, on November 16, 2010, the
`
`investigation was terminated as to (1) claims 6, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 20 of the ‘647 patent;
`
`(2) claims 3 and 8 of the ‘983 patent; (3) claims 8, 23, and 24 of the ‘337 patent; (4)
`
`claims 4, 5, 25, and 30 of the ‘263 patent; and (5) claims 2, 3, 4, and 22 of the ‘721
`
`patent. Order No. 46; Comm’n Notice Not To Review Initial Determination (Dec. 3,
`
`2010).
`
`On January 3, 2011, the target date was extended by two months to a 20-month
`
`target date of December 6, 2011. Order No. 73; Comm’n Notice Not To Review Initial
`
`Determination (Jan. 27, 2011).1
`
`
`
`1 As noted in Order No. 73, the hearing was postponed by approximately six weeks due
`to Apple’s late discovery production.
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 18224
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 18224
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Thereafter, on March 1, 2011, the investigation was terminated as to the “705
`
`patent. Order No. 92; Comm’n Notice Not To Review Initial Determination (Mar. 24,
`
`2011). Thereafter, on April 13, 2011, the investigation was terminated as to the
`
`following: claims 17, 20, and 22 of the ‘647 patent; claim 22 of the ‘983 patent; claims 3
`
`and 6 of the ‘263 patent; claims 19, 20, and 21 of the ‘721 patent; and claims 10 and 12
`
`of the ‘337 patent. Order No. 109; Comm’n Notice Not To Review Initial Determination
`
`(Apr. 27, 2011).
`
`On April 7, 2011, an initial determination issued finding that complainants have
`
`satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. Order No. 102. The
`
`Commission reviewed this initial determination and ultimately agreed that “Apple has
`
`satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement” with respect to each
`
`of the asserted patents. Comm’n Notice To Review Initial Determination at 3 (May 9,
`
`2011).2
`
`A tutorial was presented on November 23, 2010, and the evidentiary hearing was
`
`held April 18 — May 6, 2011. During the evidentiary hearing, complainants moved to
`
`terminate the investigation as to the “337 patent. On May 9, 2011, the investigation was
`
`terminated as to this patent. Order No. 117; Comm’n Notice Not To Review Initial
`
`Determination (May 27, 2011). Thus, four patents and fourteen claims remain in issue in
`
`this investigation: claims 1, 2, 24, and 29 of the “263 patent; claims 1 and 7 of the ‘983
`
`
`
`2 Inasmuch as the Commission has determined that Apple has satisfied the economic
`prong, Apple’s arguments relating to its licensing activities need not be addressed as the
`
`issue is moot.
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 18225
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 18225
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`patent; claims 1, 3, 8, 15, and 19 of the ‘647 patent; and claims 1, 5, and 6 of the ‘721
`
`patent.
`
`On July 5, 2011, the investigation was terminated as to Nokia respondents based
`
`on a settlement agreement. Order No. 118 (Initial Determination).
`
`C.
`
`The Parties
`
`The complainants are Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Apple”).3 The respondents are High Tech Computer Corp. a/k/a/ HTC Corp, HTC
`
`America, and Exedea, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”).4 The Commission Investigative Staff
`
`(“Staff’) is also a party in the investigation.
`
`II.
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`The Commission has subject matter, personal, and in rem jurisdiction in this
`
`
`
`3 Apple Inc. designs, develops, markets, and sells (i) the Mac line of desktop and
`notebook computers, such as MacBook products, including the MacBook Pro and the
`ultra—light MacBook Air; (ii) a portfolio of software, such as the Mac OS X operating
`system that comes pre-installed on every Macintosh computer; (iii) the iPod line of
`mobile digital devices; (iv) the iPhone (including the iPhone 3G and the iPhone 3G3) and
`related accessories and services, including a complete software development kit
`providing tools for programmers to create their own iPhone applications; and (v) a
`variety of related products, accessories, peripherals, and services, including warranty and
`customer support. Complaint, ii 9. NeXT Software, Inc., a wholly—owned subsidiary of
`Apple Inc., was an early developer of software for object—oriented programming.
`Software originally developed by NeXT forms the basis for portions of Mac OS X. 161.,
`it 10.
`
`4 High Tech Computer Corp. changed its name to HTC Corporation. HTC Corp.’s
`business includes developing, manufacturing, and selling wireless communication
`devices. HTC Response, 1] 13. HTC (BVI) Corp, a non—party, is a wholly-owned
`subsidiary of HTC Corp. Id, 11 14. HTC America is a wholly-owned subsidiary of HTC
`(BVI) Corp. and provides after-sale support services for HTC’s wireless communication
`devices. Id, ll 15. Exedea, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of HTC (BVI) Corp. 161.,
`'ll 16.
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 18226
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 18226
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`investigation. 19 U.S.C. § 1337. All of the respondents have responded to the complaint
`
`and notice of investigation and have participated fully in the hearing conducted in this
`
`investigation.
`
`III.
`
`Importation
`
`Respondents have stipulated to the fact that they have imported into the United
`
`States, sold for importation into the United States, and/or sold within the United States
`
`after importation the accused personal data and mobile communications devices and
`
`related software. Stipulation Relating to Importation of Respondents HTC Corp, HTC
`
`America, Inc., and Exedea, Inc. (Nov. 12, 2010); Supplement to the Stipulation Relating
`
`to Importation of Respondents HTC Corp, HTC America, Inc, and Exedea (Apr. 15,
`
`2011).
`
`IV.
`
`Products at Issue
`
`A.
`
`Apple’s Domestic Industry Products
`
`Apple’s domestic industry products include the MacBook Pro running Mac OS X
`
`v10.6 Snow Leopard (CPX—IO) and the iPhone 3G8 (CPX—l 1).
`
`B.
`
`Accused HTC Products
`
`The Notice of Investigation identified HTC’s personal data and mobile
`
`communications devices and related software as within the scope of this Investigation.
`
`Apple and HTC stipulated that certain HTC handsets, including HTC Evo 4G (CPX«1),
`
`HTC Aria (CPX—2), HTC Incredible (running Android 2.1) (CPX-3), HTC Incredible
`
`(running Android 2.2) (CPX-4), HTC T-Mobile G2 (CPX—S), running various versions of
`
`the Android operative system (including Android 1.5 (“Cupcake”), Android 1.6
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 18227
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 18227
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`(“Donut”), Android 2.1 (“Eclair”), and Android 2.2 (“Froyo”)), the Browser application,
`
`the HTC Messages application, and the Android Messaging application are representative
`
`of all HTC handsets running various versions of the Android operating systems and the
`
`additional applications. Stipulation Relating to HTC Representative Handsets (Mar. 29,
`
`2011) (“HTC Rep. Prod. Stip.”).
`
`Apple and HTC stipulated that certain HTC handsets are representative of certain
`
`versions of the Android operating system and certain applications.
`
`Specifically, for the ‘263 patent, the source code for the HTC Evo 4G (running
`
`Android 2.2) (CPX—l) is representative of certain source code for all HTC products
`
`running Android 2.2, and the source code for the HTC Aria (running Android 2.1) (CPX-
`
`2) is representative of certain source code for all HTC products running Android 2.1, 1.6
`
`and 1.5. HTC Rep. Prod. Stip. at 2-3.
`
`For the ‘647 patent, HTC Incredible (running Android 2.1) (CPX—3) is
`
`representative of all HTC products with the HTC Messages application and running
`
`Android 2.1, 1.6, or 1.5; HTC Incredible (running Android 2.2) (CPX-4) is representative
`
`of all HTC products with the Browser application and HTC products running Android 2.2
`
`with the HTC Messages application; and HTC T—Mobile G2 (CPX-S) is representative of
`
`all HTC products with Android Messaging application. HTC Rep. Prod. Stip. at 6-11.
`
`For the ‘721 patent, HTC Incredible (running Android 2.1) (CPX—3) is
`
`representative of all HTC products running Android 2.2, 2.1, 1.6, or 1.5. HTC Rep. Prod.
`
`Stip. at 4—5.
`
`For the ‘983 patent, the source code entered into evidence for the HTC Aria
`
`(running Android 2.1) is representative of the source code for all HTC products running
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 18228
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 210-2 Filed 02/21/19 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 18228
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Apple and HTC also stipulated that HTC’s Windows products are not subject to
`
`the Investigation. Stipulation Regarding Products With Windows Mobile or Windows
`
`Phone Operating Systems between Complainants and HTC (Nov. 18, 2010) (“Windows
`
`Stip.”).
`
`V.
`
`Overview of the Asserted Patents
`
`A.
`
`The ‘263 Patent
`
`United States Patent No. 6,343,263 (“the ‘263 patent”) is entitled, “Real-Time
`
`Signal Processing System For Serially Transmitted Data.” JX-6. The ‘263 patent “is
`
`directed to the transmission of data to and from a computer, and more particularly to a
`
`system for performing real—time signal processing of data that is serially transmitted to
`
`and from a computer.” 151, col. l, 1115. 4-7 (Field of the Invention). The invention of the
`
`‘263 patent “enables any arbitrary type of data, such as voice, facsimile, multimedia and
`
`the like, which is transmitted over any type of communication network, to be handled
`
`