P. 1
11-07-25 S3 Graphics v Apple ITC Conclusions of Law

11-07-25 S3 Graphics v Apple ITC Conclusions of Law

|Views: 262|Likes:
Published by Florian Mueller
Conclusions of law from ITC's final initial determination on S3 Graphics' complaint against Apple. For further detail, visit the FOSS Patents blog at http://fosspatents.blogspot.com
Conclusions of law from ITC's final initial determination on S3 Graphics' complaint against Apple. For further detail, visit the FOSS Patents blog at http://fosspatents.blogspot.com

More info:

Published by: Florian Mueller on Jul 27, 2011
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

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

07/27/2011

pdf

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL Washington

,

TRADE COMMISSION D.C.

In the Matter of CERTAIN ELECTRONIC DEVICES WITH IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS, COMPONENTS THEREOF, AND ASSOCIATED SOFTWARE Inv. No. 337-TA-724

ORDER NO. 48

GRANTING REQUEST TO RELEASE CONCLUSIONS FROM FINAL INITIAL DETERMINATION (July 25,2011)

OF LAW

On July 11, 2011, Respondent filed an unopposed request seeking an additional day to submit proposed redactions of the final initial determination in this Investigation. (Motion

Docket No. 724-049.) The Administrative Law Judge granted said request. (Order No. 47.) The parties submitted proposed redactions for a public version of the final initial determination, which were rejected on July 14,2011 for various reasons. The parties submitted revised proposed redactions for a public version of the final initial determination. Complainants'

proposed redactions were again rejected on July 21, 2011. Complainants were specifically advised that only confidential business information, as defined in the Protective Order, may be redacted, even if this means redacting portions of sentences. On July 22, the Administrative Law Judge received a letter from counsel for Respondent requesting that the conclusions of law in the final initial determination be made public. Having considered said request, the Administrative Law Judge scheduled a teleconference with the parties to allow them an opportunity to present argument on whether unredacted conclusions of law should be released to the public. After scheduling the teleconference, the Administrative 1

Law Judge further received correspondence from one of the nonparty entities whose confidential information is in issue. Said nonparty requested release of certain of its information, which it says may be made public. In addition, Respondent submitted correspondence detailing its objections to those redactions proposed by Complainants and already rejected by the Administrative Law Judge on July 21. On July 25,2011, the scheduled teleconference took place on the record. The Administrative Law Judge heard and considered the arguments set forth by counsel for Complainants, Respondent, and the Commission Investigative Staff. Complainants noted that they were withdrawing their proposed redactions with respect to conclusion of law number 22. Complainants further requested at the conference that if the Administrative Law Judge determined that the conclusions of law should be released, Complainants should be permitted to appeal to the Commission. The Administrative Law Judge has the discretion, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.5(e), to decide whether information designated by a supplier is entitled to confidential treatment in an initial determination. Having heard the parties' positions on the matter of whether an unredacted

version of the conclusions of law in the final initial determination may be made public, the Administrative Law Judge finds that Respondent's request should be GRANTED. The

information in the conclusions of law of the final initial determination is not entitled to confidential treatment as it has already been disclosed in pertinent part in the public version of Order No. 15 (see Order No. 15 at 3, 14), and early release of the conclusions oflaw is appropriate considering Complainants' delays in providing reasonable redactions for the public version. Complainants submitted proposed redactions of Order No. 15, all of which were approved, and therefore Complainants cannot at this time conceal information that they failed to

2

protect earlier in the Investigation.

Complainants' request for leave to appeal to the Commission

on this matter pursuant to Commission Rule 210.S(e) is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

a inistrative Law Judge

3

ATTACHMENT A CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1

X. CONCLUSIONS

OF LAW

1. The Commission has personal jurisdiction over the parties, subject-matter jurisdiction, and in rem jurisdiction over the Accused Products. 2. The importation or sale requirement of Section 337 is satisfied. 3. All of the accused Mac OS X Devices identified in Section I.E. above that implement DXT literally infringe asserted claims 1 and 6 of the '087 patent. The accused iDevices and iOS SDK donot infringe asserted claims 1 and 6 of the '087 patent. 4. All of the accused Mac OS X Devices identified in Section I.E. above that implement DXT literally infringe asserted claims 7, 12, 15, and 23 of the '417 patent. The accused iDevices and iOS SDK do not infringe asserted claims 7, 12, 15, and 23 of the '417 patent. 5. All of the accused Mac OS X Devices identified in Section I.E. above that implement DXT literally infringe asserted claims 11, 14, and 16 of the '978 patent. The accused iDevices and iOS SDK do not infringe asserted claims 11, 14, and 16 of the '978 patent. 6. All of the accused Mac OS X Devices identified in Section I.E. above that implement DXT literally infringe asserted claims 4, 13, and 16 ofthe '146 patent. The accused iDevices and iOS SDK do not infringe asserted claims 4, 13, and 16 of the '146 patent. 7. None of the Accused Products indirectly infringe asserted claims 1 and 6 of the '087 patent. 8. None of the Accused Products indirectly infringe asserted claims 7, 12, 15, and 23 of the '417 patent.

- 275 -

9. None of the Accused Products indirectly infringe asserted claims 11, 14, and 16 of the '978 patent. 10. None of the Accused Products indirectly infringe asserted claims 4, 13, and 16 of the '146 patent 11. The asserted claims 1 and 6 ofthe '087 patent are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for anticipation. 12. The asserted claims 7, 12, 15, and 23 of the '417 patent are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for anticipation. 13. The asserted claims 11, 14, and 16 of the '978 patent are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for anticipation. 14. The asserted claims 4, 13, and 16 of the '146 patent are not invalid under 35 U.S.c. § 102 for anticipation. 15. The asserted claims 1 and 6 of the '087 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness. 16. The asserted claims 7, 12, 15 and 23 ofthe '417 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness. 17. Asserted claims 14 and 16 of the '978 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness, but asserted claim 11 is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness. 18. Asserted claim 13 of the '146 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness, but asserted claims 4 and 16 of the '146 patent are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness.

- 276-

19. None of the asserted claims of the '417, '978, and '416 patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112. 20. An implied license and the doctrine of patent exhaustion apply to those Mac OS X Devices incorporating the NVIDIA GPU that are protected by the NVIDIA License (MacBook, MacBook Air, and Mac mini). 21. The evidence does not demonstrate that the NVIDIA Term Sheet was unenforceable for lack of substantial performance. 22. The doctrine of patent exhaustion does not apply to those Accused Products protected by the Intel License. 23. Apple's estoppel and constructive contract affirmative defenses are rejected. 24. A domestic industry exists with respect to the '087 patent, as required by Section 337. 25. A domestic industry exists with respect to the '417 patent, as required by Section 337. 26. A domestic industry exists with respect to the '978 patent, as required by Section 337. 27. A domestic industry exists with respect to the' 146 patent, as required by Section 337. 28. With respect to Respondent Apple Inc., it has been established that no violation exists of Section 337 for claims 1 and 6 of the '087 patent. 29. With respect to Respondent Apple Inc., it has been established that no violation exists of Section 337 for claims 7, 12, 15, and 23 of the '417 patent. 30. With respect to Respondent Apple Inc., it has been established that no violation exists of Section 337 for claims 14, and 16 of the '978 patent. A violation exists of Section 337 for claim 11 of the '978 patent for the accused Mac OS X Accused Products that do not contain an NVIDIA GPU.

- 277-

31. With respect to Respondent Apple Inc., it has been established that no violation exists of Section 337 for claim 13 of the '146 patent. A violation exists of Section 337 for claims 4 and 16 of the' 146 patent for the accused Mac OS X Accused Products that do not contain an NVIDIA GPU.

This Initial Determination's

failure to discuss any matter raised by the parties, or any Rather, any such

portion of the record, does not indicate that it has not been considered.

matter(s) or portiones) of the record has/have been determined to be irrelevant, immaterial or meritless. Arguments made on brief which were otherwise unsupported by record evidence or legal precedent have been accorded no weight.

IN THE MATTER OF CERTAIN ELECTRONIC DEVICES WITH IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS, COMPONENTS THEREOF, AND ASSORTED SOFTWARE PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

337-TA-724

I, James R. Holbein, hereby certify that the attached ORDER has been served by hand upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Kecia J. Reynolds, Esq., and the following parties as indicated on'JUl 6

J+es R. Holbefn Secretary to the Commission U.S. International Trade Commission 500 E Street, SW, Room 1I2A Washington, D.C. 20436

FOR COMPLAINANTS

S3 GRAPHICS

CO., LTD. AND S3 GRAPHICS,

INC.:

Thomas LJarvis, Esq. FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER,LLP 901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 P: 202-408-4000

( ) Via Hand Delivery ( ) Via Overnight Mail ( v{Via First Class Mail ( ) Other: _

FOR RESPONDENT

APPLE INC.: ( ( ( ( ) Via Hand Delivery ) Via Overnight Mail 1Via First Class Mail ) Other: _

Chris R. Ottenweller, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON SUTCLIFFE, LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 P: 650-614-7400

&

IN THE MATTER OF CERTAIN ELECTRONIC DEVICES WITH IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS, COMPONENTS THEREOF, AND ASSORTED SOFTWARE

337-TA-724

CERTIFICATE

OF SERVICE - PAGE TWO

PUBLIC MAILING LIST

Heather Hall LEXIS - NEXIS 9443 Springboro Pike Miamisburg, OH 45342 Kenneth Clair THOMSON WEST 1100 13th Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005

( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

) Via Hand Delivery ) yia Overnight Mail ...,Via First Class Mail ) Other: _ ) Via Hand Delivery ) Via Overnight Mail IVia First Class Mail ) Other: _

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)//-->