20048 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices 

Corporation of Japan; Shuttle Inc. of 

Taiwan; and Systemax Inc. of NY. 

Proposed respondents, other 

interested parties, and members of the 

public are invited to file comments, not 

to exceed five (5) pages in length, 

inclusive of attachments, on any public 

interest issues raised by the complaint 

or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments 

should address whether issuance of the 

relief specifically requested by the 

complainant in this investigation would 

affect the public health and welfare in 

the United States, competitive 

conditions in the United States 

economy, the production of like or 

directly competitive articles in the 

United States, or United States 

consumers. 

In particular, the Commission is 

interested in comments that: 

(i) Explain how the articles 

potentially subject to the requested 

remedial orders are used in the United 

States; 

(ii) identify any public health, safety, 

or welfare concerns in the United States 

relating to the requested remedial 

orders; 

(iii) identify like or directly 

competitive articles that complainant, 

its licensees, or third parties make in the 

United States which could replace the 

subject articles if they were to be 

excluded; 

(iv) indicate whether complainant, 

complainant’s licensees, and/or third 

party suppliers have the capacity to 

replace the volume of articles 

potentially subject to the requested 

exclusion order and/or a cease and 

desist order within a commercially 

reasonable time; and 

(v) explain how the requested 

remedial orders would impact United 

States consumers. 

Written submissions must be filed no 

later than by close of business, eight 

calendar days after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. There will be further 

opportunities for comment on the 

public interest after the issuance of any 

final initial determination in this 

investigation. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document 

electronically on or before the deadlines 

stated above and submit 8 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 docket number (‘‘Docket No. 2889’’) 

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. All nonconfidential 

written submissions will be available for 

public inspection at the Office of the 

Secretary and on EDIS. 

This action is taken under the 

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), 

and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)). 

Issued: March 29, 2012. 

By order of the Commission. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7936 Filed 4–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–741/749] 

Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, 

Including Monitors, Televisions, 

Modules, and Components Thereof; 

Notice of Commission Determination 

To Review-In-Part a Final 

Determination; Schedule for Filing 

Written Submissions 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to review 

certain portions of the final initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the 

presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) on January 12, 2012 in the 

above-captioned investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jia 

Chen, Office of the General Counsel, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 

20436, telephone (202) 708–4737. 

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 SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server 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 on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted Inv. No. 337– 

TA–741 on October 18, 2010, based on 

a complaint filed by Thomson Licensing 

SAS of France and Thomson Licensing 

LLC of Princeton, New Jersey 

(collectively ‘‘Thomson’’). 75 FR 63856 

(Oct. 18, 2010). The complaint alleged 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended 19 U.S.C. 1337, 

by reason of infringement of various 

claims of United States Patent Nos. 

6,121,941 (‘‘the ’941 patent’’); 5,978,063 

(‘‘the ’063 patent’’); 5,648,674 (‘‘the ’674 

patent’’); 5,621,556 (‘‘the ’556 patent’’); 

and 5,375,006 (‘‘the ’006 patent’’). The 

Commission instituted Inv. No. 337– 

TA–749 on November 30, 2010, based 

on a complaint filed by Thomson. 75 FR 

74080 (Nov. 30, 2010). The complaint 

alleged violations of section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 by reason of 

infringement of various claims of the 

’063, ’556, and ’006 patents. On January 

5, 2011, the Commission consolidated 

the two investigations. The respondents 

are Chimei InnoLux Corporation of 

Miaoli County, Taiwan and InnoLux 

Corportation of Austin, Texas 

(collectively, ‘‘CMI’’); MStar 

Semiconductor Inc. of ChuPei, Taiwan 

(‘‘MStar’’); Qisda Corporation of 

Taoyuan, Taiwan and Qisda America 

Corporation of Irvine, California 

(collectively, ‘‘Qisda’’); BenQ 

Corporation of Taipei, Taiwan, BenQ 

America Corporation of Irvine, 

California, and BenQ Latin America 

Corporation of Miami, Florida 

(collectively ‘‘BenQ’’); Realtek 

Semicondustor Corp. of Hsinchu, 

Taiwan (‘‘Realtek’’); and AU Optronics 

Corp. of Hsinchu, Taiwan and AU 

Optronics Corp. America of Houston, 

Texas (collectively ‘‘AUO’’). 

On January 12, 2012, the ALJ issued 

the subject ID finding a violation of 

Section 337 with respect to the ’674 

patent. The ALJ found that the CMI 

accused products including the Type 2 

Array Circuitry and any Qisda or BenQ 

accused products incorporating these 

CMI accused products infringe the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices 20049 

asserted claims of the ’674 patent. The 

ALJ found that no other accused 

products infringe the ’674 patent. The 

ALJ also found that no accused products 

infringe the asserted claims of the ’063 

patent, the ’006 patent, the ’556 patent, 

or the ’941 patent. The ALJ also found 

that claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 

18 of the ’063 patent are invalid for 

obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, and 

that claims 4 and 14 of the ’006 patent 

are invalid as anticipated under 35 

U.S.C. 102. The ALJ further found that 

claim 17 of the ’063 patent, claim 7 of 

the ’006 patent, and the asserted claims 

of the ’556 patent, the ’674 patent, and 

the ’941 patent are not invalid. The ALJ 

concluded that a domestic industry 

exists in the United States that exploits 

the asserted patents as required by 19 

U.S.C. 1337(a)(2). On January 25, 2011, 

Thomson, CMI, MStar, Realtek, and 

AUO each filed a petition for review of 

the ID. BenQ and Qisda filed a joint 

petition for review incorporating the 

other respondents’ arguments by 

reference. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final 

ID and the submissions of the parties, 

the Commission has determined to 

review (1) claim construction of the 

limitation ‘‘layer’’ of the asserted claims 

of the ’006 patent; (2) infringement of 

the asserted claims of the ’006 patent; 

(3) anticipation of claims 4 and 7 of the 

’006 patent by Scheuble; (4) the claim 

construction of the limitations 

‘‘mechanically rubbing’’/‘‘mechanically 

rubbed,’’ ‘‘a plurality of spacing 

elements,’’ and ‘‘an affixing layer’’ of the 

asserted claims of the ’063 patent; (5) 

infringement of the asserted claims of 

the ’063 patent; (6) obviousness of the 

asserted claims of the ’063 patent in 

view of Sugata and Tsuboyama; (7) 

whether Lowe and Miyazaki are prior 

art to the asserted claims of the ’063 

patent; (8) anticipation of the asserted 

claims of the ’063 patent by Lowe; (9) 

anticipation of the asserted claims of the 

’063 patent by Miyazaki; (10) 

obviousness of the asserted claim of the 

’556 patent in view of Takizawa and 

Possin; (11) anticipation and 

obviousness of the asserted claims of the 

’674 patent in view of Fujitsu; (12) claim 

construction of the ‘‘second rate’’ 

‘‘determined by’’ limitation of the 

asserted claims of the ’941 patent and 

the ‘‘input video signal’’ limitation of 

claim 4 of the ’941 patent; (13) 

infringement of the asserted claims of 

the ’941 patent; (14) anticipation of the 

asserted claims of the ’941 patent by 

Baba; (15) exclusion of evidence of the 

ViewFrame II+2 LCD Panel; and (16) 

economic prong of the domestic 

industry requirement. 

The Commission has also determined 

to review and to take no position on the 

claim construction of the terms ‘‘drain 

electrodes’’ and ‘‘source electrodes’’ of 

the ’556 patent. 

The parties should brief their 

positions on the issues on review 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 questions: 

Question 1: The ALJ construed the term ‘‘a 

plurality of spacing elements’’ of claims 1 

and 11 of the ’063 patent as ‘‘two or more 

structures, not physically connected to one 

another, which structures serve to 

substantially uniformly separate two 

substrates, said structures formed on one of 

said two substrates and contacting the second 

substrate.’’ ID at 43. Does the proper 

construction require that the ‘‘spacing 

elements’’ contact the ‘‘second substrate?’’ 

Does certain language from claim 1 (‘‘the two 

substrates remaining substantially uniformly 

separated from each other by said spacing 

elements’’) and from claim 11 (‘‘said second 

substrate being kept at a substantially 

uniform distance from said first substrate by 

said spacing elements’’) require that the 

spacing elements physically separate the two 

substrates? Please cite to evidence in the 

record showing the understanding of person 

of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the 

’063 patent invention. 

Question 2: The ALJ construed ‘‘an affixing 

layer’’ of claim 1 of the ’063 patent as ‘‘a 

stratum of material that attaches the spacing 

elements to a substrate, and which is separate 

and distinct from said spacing elements.’’ ID 

at 34. Is this construction supported by the 

intrinsic evidence? In particular, does the 

preferred embodiment of the ’063 patent 

specification disclose forming spacers 

directly from the affixing layer? 

Question 3: The ALJ construed the term ‘‘a 

plurality of spacing elements separate from 

one another’’ as ‘‘two or more structures, not 

physically connected to one another, which 

structures serve to substantially uniformly 

separate two substrates, said structures 

formed on one of said two substrates and 

contacting the second substrate.’’ ID at 43. Do 

the main photospacers in the accused CMI 

modules meet the limitation under the ALJ’s 

construction? Please cite to the evidence in 

the record. 

Question 4: With respect to the ’063 patent, 

the ALJ stated in the ID that [[ ]] ID 

at 334. He also stated that [[ Id. Are 

these accurate statements? Please provide 

citations to the record as support. In 

addition, please identify [[ ]]. 

Question 5: At the time of the invention of 

the ’063 patent, would it have been obvious 

to combine the teachings of Sugata and 

Tsuboyama, such that the substrate on which 

the spacers are formed in Sugata would be 

rubbed after the spacers are formed? Is the 

combination of the teachings of Sugata and 

Tsuboyama a combination of known 

elements that yield predictable results? Are 

there any secondary considerations such as 

commercial success that would be probative 

of non-obviousness? Please cite evidence in 

the record as support. 

Question 6: Has Thomson produced 

sufficient independent corroborating 

evidence showing that the inventions of each 

of the asserted claims of the ’063 patent have 

been reduced to practice before the filing 

dates of Lowe and Miyazaki? In particular, 

please discuss whether the evidence shows 

that display cells embodying the inventions 

have been tested and shown to work for their 

intended purposes. 

Question 7: Does the intrinsic evidence 

support the construction of the term ‘‘plate’’ 

recited in claim 3 of the ’006 patent to 

require a solid and not liquid material? ID at 

220. Can the term ‘‘plate’’ include a liquid 

compensation layer sealed between two glass 

substrates? See CMI Petition at 31. Please cite 

to the evidence of the record as support. 

Under the proper construction of the term 

‘‘plate,’’ does Scheuble anticipate claims 4 

and 7 of the ’006 patent? 

Question 8: With respect to infringement of 

the asserted claims of the ’006 patent, what 

is an acceptable range of variance in the 

measurement of n2 and n3, given the 

probability of errors in any real-world 

measurement of the index of refraction? What 

are the values and measurement errors of n2 

and n3 for the entire layer in the accused 

devices? How close does the real-world 

measurement of n2 have to be compared to 

n3 for the layer to be considered ‘‘uniaxial’’ 

as construed by the ALJ? How close would 

n2 have to be to n3 for the layer to be 

equivalent to a ‘‘uniaxial’’ layer under the 

ALJ’s construction? Please limit your 

response to the evidence in the record. 

Question 9: Would a person of ordinary 

skill in the art be motivated to modify 

Takizawa to use only one mask to form the 

plurality of etch stoppers recited in claim 3 

of the ’556 patent? Does Takizawa teach away 

from using a single mask to form the plurality 

of etch stoppers? Please cite to the evidence 

in the record. Please discuss any Federal 

Circuit case law regarding obviousness of a 

patent claim that requires a single structure 

or process, in light of prior art that discloses 

one or more such structures or processes. 

Question 10: What is the proper 

construction of the limitation ‘‘a second rate’’ 

‘‘determined by’’ of the asserted claims of the 

’941 patent? Please provide all relevant 

intrinsic and extrinsic evidence of record, 

including expert testimony. 

Question 11: Do the respondents’ accused 

products infringe claims 1 and 4 of the ’941 

patent under Thomson’s construction of 

‘‘determined by.’’ Please cite any record 

evidence, including expert testimony, to 

support your response. 

Question 12: Discuss any Federal Circuit 

case law relevant to whether or not claim 4 

of the ’941 patent requires an input video 

signal for a finding of infringement. Please 

discuss any basis, other than the language of 

the claims, (e.g., prosecution history) that 

provides guidance on whether or not claim 

4 requires an input video signal. 

Question 13: For claims 1 and 4 of the ’941 

patent, what is the proper construction of the 

term ‘‘za’’ in the ratio ft/za ‘‘required for a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

20050 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices 

cathode ray tube.’’ For an interlaced signal 

associated with a CRT display, does za refer 

to the number of lines updated in a given 

field period? Please cite to the intrinsic 

evidence of the ’941 patent as support. 

Question 14: Is Mr. Vogeley’s testimony 

regarding the prior art status of the 

ViewFrame II+2 with respect to the ’941 

patent sufficiently corroborated under a ‘‘rule 

of reason’’ analysis? Assuming that the 

ViewFrame II+2 is prior art to the asserted 

claims of the ’941 patent, does the 

ViewFrame II+2 anticipate each of the 

asserted claims? Please cite to the evidence 

in the record. 

Question 15: With respect to respondents’ 

arguments that Thomson’s investments in 

licensing its LCD patent portfolio cannot be 

completely allocated to the asserted patents, 

what portion of the investments should be 

allocated to the asserted patents? Please 

provide the legal and factual basis for such 

allocations. 

Question 16: Based on the factors outlined 

below, please discuss the legal and factual 

bases for your position as to whether 

Thomson’s investment in licensing for the 

asserted patents is substantial. Please 

consider at least the following factors: (1) The 

industry and size and scope of complainant’s 

operations; (2) the existence of other types of 

‘‘exploitation’’ of the asserted patents such as 

research, development, or engineering; (3) 

the existence of license-related ancillary 

activities such as ensuring compliance with 

the license agreement and providing training 

or technical support to its licensees; (4) 

whether complainant’s licensing activities 

are continuing; (5) whether complainant’s 

licensing activities are those referenced 

favorably in the legislative history of section 

337(1)(3)(C); (6) complainant’s return on 

investment; and (7) the extent to which 

complainant’s LCD portfolio licenses are 

worldwide licenses. 

Question 17: What should the Commission 

compare complainants’ investments to in 

analyzing whether the complainants’ 

investments are substantial? Please cite any 

relevant legal basis and evidence of record to 

support your position. 

Question 18: Should Thomson’s expenses 

related to the acquisition of the Xerox patent 

portfolio be [[ ]]? Is the purchase of 

a patent considered an exploitation of that 

patent under section 337(a)(3)(C)? Can 

investments in [[ ]] for purposes of 

establishing domestic industry under section 

337(a)(3)(C)? With respect to any argument 

that the Commission should [[ ]]? 

Further, how should the [[ ]]? 

Please provide legal and factual support for 

your position. 

Question 19: Should the Commission 

consider litigation expenses for the particular 

Section 337 investigation at issue? Should 

the Commission consider litigation expenses 

for parallel district court actions? Should it 

matter if the district court actions are stayed 

or ongoing? 

Question 20: Should the Commission 

consider reexamination expenses when 

determining if a domestic industry exists and 

if so should they be treated in the same 

manner as litigation expenses in determining 

whether or not the expenses are investments 

in licensing? 

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 a 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, Comm’n Op. at 9 

(December 1994). 

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 United States 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 

recommended determination by the ALJ 

on remedy and bonding. Complainant is 

also requested to submit proposed 

remedial orders for the Commission’s 

consideration. Complainant is also 

requested to state the date that the 

patent expires and the HTSUS 

subheadings under which the accused 

products are imported. The written 

submissions and proposed remedial 

orders must be filed no later than close 

of business on Monday, April 9, 2012. 

Reply submissions must be filed no later 

than the close of business on Monday, 

April 16, 2012. The written submissions 

must be no longer than 75 pages and the 

reply submissions must be no longer 

than 35 pages. No further submissions 

on these issues will be permitted unless 

otherwise ordered by the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must do so in accordance with 

Commission rule 210.4(f), 19 CFR 

210.4(f), which requires electronic 

filing. The original document and 8 true 

copies thereof must also be filed on or 

before the deadlines stated above with 

the Office of the Secretary. Any person 

desiring to submit a document to the 

Commission in confidence must request 

confidential treatment unless the 

information has already been granted 

such treatment during the proceedings. 

All such requests should be directed to 

the Secretary of the Commission and 

must include a full statement of the 

reasons why the Commission should 

grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 210.6. 

Documents for which confidential 

treatment by the Commission is sought 

will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential 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 

sections 210.42–46 and 210.50 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 and 

210.50). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 26, 2012. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7628 Filed 4–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES