Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
P. 1
ITC Staff Recommendation

ITC Staff Recommendation

Ratings: (0)|Views: 22,371|Likes:
Published by Mikey Campbell

More info:

Published by: Mikey Campbell on Nov 29, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/04/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSIONWashington, D.C.In the Matter of CERTAIN ELECTRONIC DIGITALMEDIA DEVICES AND COMPONENTSTHEREOFInvestigation No. 337-TA-796RESPONSE OF THE OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS TO THEPRIVATE PARTIES’ PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF THE INITIALDETERMINATION ON VIOLATION
Lynn I. Levine, DirectorDavid O. Lloyd, Supervisory AttorneyReginald D. Lucas, Investigative Attorney
OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORTINVESTIGATIONS
U.S. International Trade Commission500 E Street SW, Suite 401Washington, DC 20436(202) 205-2036 (Phone)(202) 205-2158 (Facsimile)November 19, 2012
 
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
 
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
 
II.
 
STANDARD OF REVIEW .......................................................................................... 2
 
III.
 
OUII’S RESPONSE TO THE PRIVATE PARTIES’ PETITION FOR REVIEW ..... 2
 
A.
 
Complainant’s Petition for Review of the ID Should Be Denied ......................... 2
 
1.
 
Alleged Errors In the Initial Determination Relating To the D’678 And D’757Design Patents ................................................................................................... 2
 
a.
 
The D’757 Patent ............................................................................ 2
 
b.
 
The D’678 Patent ............................................................................ 9
 
2.
 
Alleged Errors In the Initial Determination Relating to the ‘949 and ‘922Patents ............................................................................................................. 10
 
a.
 
Contributory Infringement ............................................................ 10
 
b.
 
Infringement of Claims 31 and 32 of the ‘922 Patent ................... 12
 
3.
 
Alleged Errors In the Initial Determination Relating to the ‘501 and ‘697Patents ............................................................................................................. 13
 
a.
 
Alleged Error in Concluding the Galaxy Tab 7.0 and Galaxy S IIdo not Infringe Claims of the ‘501 Patent ..................................... 13
 
b.
 
Alleged Error in Concluding the Galaxy Tab/S Products’Combination of Software Executing on an Application ProcessorDoes Not Satisfy the claimed “Microphone Detection Circuitry” of the ‘501 Patent .............................................................................. 15
 
c.
 
Alleged Error in Concluding That the Products Represented By theTransform SPH-M920 do not Infringe Claim 4 of the ‘501 patentis Erroneous .................................................................................. 16
 
d.
 
Alleged Error in Concluding That the SPH-M920 and the AccusedProducts Representing the SPH-M920 Do Not Infringe Claims 3and 8 of the ‘501 patent ................................................................ 17
 
e.
 
Alleged Error in Finding No Violation With Respect to the ‘697Patent............................................................................................. 18
 
4.
 
Alleged Error In Adjudication Relating To the “Design Around” Products .. 20
 
B.
 
Respondents’ Petition for Review of the ID Should Be Denied ......................... 22
 
 
 
ii1.
 
Alleged Errors In the Initial Determination Relating To the D’678 And D’757Patents ............................................................................................................. 22
 
a.
 
Alleged Error In the Initial Determination Regarding the LegalStandard for Design Patent Infringement ..................................... 22
 
b.
 
Alleged Errors In Construing the D’678 Patent ............................ 24
 
c.
 
Alleged Errors In “Factor[ing] Out” Functional Elements of theD’678 Design ................................................................................ 25
 
d.
 
Alleged Errors In Concluding That the Relevant Accused ProductsDo Not Infringe the D’678 Patent ................................................. 26
 
e.
 
Alleged Errors In Concluding That the D’678 Domestic IndustryProducts Practice the D’678 Patent............................................... 26
 
f.
 
Alleged Errors In Concluding That the D’678 Patent is Not Invalidas Obvious In Light of the Prior Art ............................................. 27
 
g.
 
Alleged Errors In Finding That The D’757 Domestic IndustryProducts Practice the D’757 Patent............................................... 29
 
h.
 
Alleged Errors In Not Finding That the D’757 Patent Is Invalid asObvious In Light of the Prior Art ................................................. 29
 
2.
 
Alleged “Prejudicial Procedural Errors” ......................................................... 30
 
3.
 
Alleged Errors In the Initial Determination Relating to the ‘922 Patent ........ 31
 
a.
 
Alleged Errors In Finding That Samsung Induced Infringement of the ‘922 Patent By Relying Only on Circumstantial Evidence asProof of Direct Infringement ........................................................ 31
 
b.
 
Alleged Errors In the Standard for Intent to Induce Infringement 32
 
c.
 
Alleged Errors In Reliance on Expert Testimony That TextSelection Uses a Translucent Overlay .......................................... 33
 
d.
 
Alleged Errors In Finding that Some References Do Not Renderthe ‘922 Patent Claims Invalid ...................................................... 33
 
e.
 
Alleged Errors In the Legal Standard for Non-Obviousness ........ 34
 
4.
 
Alleged Errors In the Initial Determination Relating to the ‘949 Patent ........ 35
 
a.
 
Alleged Error in Finding Literal Infringement Based On theClaimed “[B]ased on an Angle” Limitation .................................. 35
 
b.
 
Alleged Error Regarding the Claimed “Initial Movement” .......... 36
 
c.
 
Alleged Error in Construing the Claim Term “Heuristics” .......... 37
 
d.
 
Alleged Error in the Standard for Induced Infringement of Claims11-16 of the ‘949 patent ................................................................ 38
 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->