[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 136 (Friday, July 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34785-34786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16997]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-628]


 In the Matter of Certain Computer Products, Computer Components 
and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision Not To 
Review the ALJ's Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of 
Section 337; Termination of Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative 
law judge's (``ALJ'') final initial determination (``ID'') issued on 
March 16, 2009, finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337 in this investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panyin Hughes, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. 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 this investigation 
on January 14, 2008, based on a complaint filed by International 
Business Machines Corporation of Armonk, New York (``IBM''). 73 FR 2275 
(Jan. 14, 2008). The complaint alleged violations 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 computer 
products, computer components and products containing same by reason of 
infringement of certain claims of United States Patent Nos. 5,008,829 
(``the '829 patent''); 5,249,741 (``the '741 patent''); and 5,371,852 
(``the '852 patent''). The

[[Page 34786]]

complaint named as respondent ASUSTek Computer, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan 
and ASUS Computer International of Fremont, California. On January 21, 
2008, IBM amended the complaint and notice of investigation to add 
Respondents Pegatron Technology Corporation of Taipei, Taiwan and 
Unihan Technology Corporation, of Taipei, Taiwan, wholly owned 
subsidiaries of ASUSTek. The respondents are referred to collectively 
as ``ASUS.''
    On August 4, 2008, the ALJ issued an ID that extended the target 
date for completion of the investigation to July 14, 2009. The 
Commission determined not to review the ID.
    On March 16, 2009, the ALJ issued his final ID finding no violation 
of section 337 by ASUS. The ID included the ALJ's recommended 
determination on remedy and bonding. In the subject ID, the ALJ found 
that ASUS's products do not infringe asserted claims 1 and 2 of the 
'829 patent. The ALJ also found that none of the cited references 
anticipated claims 1 and 2 of the '829 patent or rendered them obvious. 
Likewise, the ALJ found that ASUS's products do not infringe asserted 
claim 1 of the '741 patent. The ALJ further found that none of the 
cited references anticipated claim 1 or rendered claim 1 of the '741 
patent obvious. The ALJ also found that the '741 patent satisfied the 
written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, first 
paragraph, for claim 1. Similarly, the ALJ found that ASUS's accused 
products do not infringe asserted claims 1, 8, 13, 14, 22 and 23 of the 
'852 patent. The ALJ also found that none of the cited references 
anticipates the asserted claims of the '852 patent. The ALJ further 
found that IBM met the domestic industry requirement because a 
sufficient nexus existed between IBM's licensing activities and each of 
the asserted patents.
    On March 30, 2009, IBM filed a petition, seeking review of the 
ALJ's ID with regard to infringement of all the patents-in-issue. That 
same day, ASUS filed a contingent petition, seeking review of the ALJ's 
findings that the '829 and '741 patents are not invalid. On April 7, 
2009, ASUS filed an opposition to IBM's petition for review, and IBM 
filed a response to ASUS's contingent petition for review. Also on 
April 7, 2009, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response 
to both IBM's petition and ASUS's contingent petition.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, 
the Commission has determined not to review the subject ID.
    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 section 210.42(h) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42(h)).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: July 13, 2009.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-16997 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P