[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60478-60480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24565]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-680]


In the Matter of Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision 
Systems, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision To 
Review-In-Part A Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of 
Section 337; Request for 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-in-part a final initial 
determination (``ID'') of the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ'') finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
(19 U.S.C. 1337) in the above-captioned investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. 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.

[[Page 60479]]

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 this investigation 
on July 16, 2009 based on a complaint filed on May 28, 2009, by Cognex 
Corporation of Natick, Massachusetts and Cognex Technology & Investment 
Corporation of Mountain View, California (collectively 
``complainants''). 74 FR 34589-90 (July 16, 2009). The complaint 
alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the 
sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after 
importation of certain machine vision software, machine vision systems, 
or products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims 
of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,016,539 (``the `539 patent); 7,065,262 (``the 
`262 patent''); and 6,959,112 (``the `112 patent''). The complaint 
further alleged that an industry in the United States exists as 
required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
    The complaint named numerous respondents including the following: 
Multitest Elektronische Systems GmbH of Germany and Multitest 
Electronic Systems, Inc. of Santa Clara, California (collectively, 
``Multitest respondents''); Yxlon International GmbH of Germany and 
Yxlon International, Inc. of Mogadore, Ohio (collectively, ``Yxlon 
respondents''); Amistar Automation, Inc. (``Amistar'') of San Marcos, 
California; Techno Soft Systemnics, Inc. (``Techno Soft'') of Japan; 
Fuji Machine Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of Japan and Fuji America 
Corporation of Vernon Hills, Illinois (collectively, ``Fuji 
respondents''); E. Zoller GmbH & Co. KG of Germany and Zoller, Inc. of 
Ann Arbor, Michigan (collectively, ``Zoller respondents''); IDS Imaging 
Development Systems GmbH of Germany and IDS Development Systems, Inc. 
of Woburn, Massachusetts (collectively, ``IDS respondents''); Delta 
Design, Inc. (``Delta'') of Poway, California; Subtechnique, Inc. 
(``Subtechnique'') of Alexandria, Virginia; Rasco GmbH (``Rasco'') of 
Germany; MVTec Software GmbH of Germany and MVTec LLC of Cambridge, 
Massachusetts (collectively, ``MVTech respondents''); Omron Corporation 
(``Omron'') of Japan, Resolution Technology, Inc. (``Resolution'') of 
Dublin, Ohio; Visics Corp. (``Visics'') of Wellesley, Massachusetts; 
Daiichi Jitsugyo Viswill Co., Ltd. of Japan; and Daiichi Jitsugyo 
(America), Inc. of Wood Dale, Illinois (collectively, ``Daiichi 
respondents'').
    On November 19, 2009, the Commission issued notice of its decisions 
not to review IDs terminating the investigation as to the Multitest 
respondents and the Yxlon respondents based on a consent order and 
settlement agreement. On February 16, 2010, the Commission issued 
notice of its decisions not to review IDs terminating the investigation 
as to Amistar based on a consent order and settlement agreement, and as 
to Techno Soft based on partial withdrawal of the complaint. On April 
20, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its decision not to review an 
ID terminating the investigation as to the Fuji respondents based on a 
settlement agreement. On May 5, 2010, the Commission issued notice of 
its decisions not to review IDs terminating the investigation as to the 
Multitest respondents based on a consent order and settlement 
agreement, and as to the Zoller respondents, the IDS respondents, and 
Delta based on partial withdrawal of the complaint. On June 11, 2010, 
the Commission issued notice of its decision not to review an ID 
terminating the investigation as to Subtechnique based on a consent 
order. On June 18, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its decision 
not to review an ID terminating the investigation as to Rasco based on 
a consent order and settlement agreement (notice of rescission and 
issuance of revised order on July 6, 2010).
    The respondents remaining in the investigation include: MVTec 
respondents, Omron, Resolution, Visics, and the Daiichi respondents.
    On April 9, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its decision not 
to review an ID terminating the investigation as to the `112 patent on 
the basis of partial withdrawal of the complaint. On April 20, 2010, 
the Commission issued notice of its decision not to review an ID 
granting complainants' motion for summary determination on the economic 
prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the 
remaining asserted patents, the `539 and `262 patents. On May 18, 2010, 
the Commission issued notice of its decision not to review an ID 
granting complainants' motion for summary determination that the 
importation element under Section 337(a)(1)(B) has been satisfied as to 
the MVTech respondents, Omron, and the Daiichi respondents.
    On July 16, 2010, the ALJ issued his final ID finding no violation 
of section 337 by the remaining respondents. He concluded that each 
accused product did not infringe any asserted claim of the `539 or `262 
patents. Also, he found that claims 1, 12, 13, 28, and 29 of the `262 
patent are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102. Further, he found that all 
asserted claims of both patents are invalid, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101, 
for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter. On August 2, 2010, 
complainants, respondents, and the Commission investigative attorney 
each filed a petition for review of the final ID. Each party filed 
responses to the other parties' petitions on August 10, 2010.
    Upon considering the parties' filings and the record, the 
Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. Specifically, 
the Commission has determined to review the following: (1) Relating to 
the `539 patent, the ALJ's construction of the claim terms ``test,'' 
``match score surface,'' and ``gradient direction,'' all of his 
infringement findings except for the claim steps containing the 
limitations ``locating local maxima'' and ``comparing the magnitude of 
each local maxima,'' and his invalidity and domestic industry findings; 
(2) the ALJ's finding that the `539 and `262 patents are invalid, 
pursuant to section 101, for failure to claim patent-eligible subject 
matter; and (3) the ALJ's findings concerning anticipation of claims 1, 
12, 13, 28, and 29 of the `262 patent. The Commission has determined 
not to review the remainder of the ID.
    On review, the parties are requested to submit briefing limited to 
the following issue:
    How would adopting complainants' proposed construction for the 
claim terms ``test,'' ``match score surface,'' and ``gradient 
direction'' relating to the `539 patent affect the ID's infringement, 
domestic industry, and invalidity findings.
    In addressing the issue, the parties are requested to make specific 
reference to the evidentiary record and to cite relevant authority. The 
written submissions must be filed no later than close of business on 
October 8, 2010. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the 
close of business on October 15. No further submissions on this issue 
will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in 
section

[[Page 60480]]

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in 
sections 210.42(h) and 210.43 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure, 19 CFR 210.42(h), 210.43.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 24, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-24565 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P