[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 133 (Thursday, July 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38101-38102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13495]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-556]
In the Matter of Certain High-Brightness Light Emitting Diodes
and Products Containing Same Notice of Commission Decision To Reverse-
In-Part and Modify-In-Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a
Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order; and
Termination of the Investigation.
AGENCY: International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to reverse-in-part and modify-in-part a final
initial determination (``ID'') of the presiding administrative law
judge (``ALJ'') finding a violation of section 337 by the respondent's
products in the above-captioned investigation, and has issued a limited
exclusion order directed against products of respondent Epistar
Corporation (``Epistar'') of Hsinchu, Taiwan.
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) 708-5468. 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 December 8, 2005, based on a complaint filed by Lumileds Lighting
U.S., LLC (``Lumileds'') of San Jose, California. 70 Federal Register
73026. The complaint, as amended and supplemented, alleges 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
[[Page 38102]]
the United States after importation of certain high-brightness light
emitting diodes (``LEDs'') and products containing same by reason of
infringement of claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 5,008,718 (``the `718
patent''); claims 1-3, 8-9, 16, 18, and 23-28 of U.S. Patent No.
5,376,580 (``the `580 patent''); and claims 12-16 of U.S. Patent No.
5,502,316 (``the `316 patent''). The complaint further alleges the
existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's notice of
investigation named Epistar, and United Epitaxy Company (``UEC'') of
Hsinchu, Taiwan as respondents.
On April 28, 2006, Lumileds moved to amend the complaint to: (1)
Remove UEC as a named respondent, (2) change the complainant's full
name from Lumileds Lighting U.S., LLC to Philips Lumileds Lighting
Company LLC (``Philips''), and (3) identify additional Epistar LEDs
alleged to infringe one or more patents-in-suit. Neither respondent
opposed the motion.
On May 15, 2006, the Commission determined not to review an ID
(Order No. 14) granting the complainant's motion for partial summary
determination to dismiss Epistar's affirmative defense that the `718
claims are invalid.
On August 2, 2006, the still pending motion to amend the complaint
was discussed with the parties during the prehearing conference, and
the evidentiary hearing was held from August 2-11, 2006. On October 23,
2006, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 29) granting Lumileds' motion to
amend the complaint, and further ordering that the Notice of
Investigation be amended to identify Philips as the complainant and to
remove UEC as a named respondent. On November 13, 2006, the Commission
published its notice that it had determined not to review Order No. 29.
71 Federal Register 66195.
On December 13, 2006, the Commission determined not to review an ID
(Order No. 31) extending the target date for this investigation to May
8, 2007, and the deadline for the ALJ's final initial determination to
January 8, 2007.
On January 8 and 11, 2007, the ALJ issued his final ID and
recommended determinations on remedy and bonding, respectively. The ALJ
found a violation of section 337 based on his findings that the
respondent's accused products infringe one or more of the asserted
claims of the patents at issue. On January 22, 2007, the complainant
and the respondent each filed a petition for review of the final ID. On
January 29, 2007, all parties, including the Commission investigative
attorney, filed responses to the petitions for review.
On February 22, 2007, the Commission determined to review-in-part
the ID. Particularly, the Commission determined to review claim
construction of the terms ``substrate'' and ``semiconductor substrate''
in claims 1 and 6 of the `718 patent, and claim construction of the
term ``wafer bonding'' in claims 1-3, 8-9, 16, 18, 23-25, 27 and 28 of
the `580 patent and claims 12-14 and 16 of the `316 patent. With
respect to violation, the Commission requested written submissions from
the parties relating to the following issue: the ALJ's addition of the
limitation ``must also be a material that provides adequate mechanical
support for the LED device'' to the construction of the term
``substrate,'' and the implications of this addition for the
infringement analysis. Further, the Commission requested written
submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
On March 5 and March 12, 2007, respectively, the complainant
Philips, the respondent Epistar, and the IA filed briefs and reply
briefs on the issues for which the Commission requested written
submissions.
Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the ID
and the parties' written submissions, the Commission has determined to
reverse-in-part and modify-in-part the ID. Particularly, the Commission
has modified the ALJ's claim construction of the term ``substrate'' in
claims 1 and 6 of the `718 patent to be ``the supporting material in an
LED upon which the other layers of an LED are grown or to which those
layers are attached'' and includes the case in which the supporting
material functioning as the substrate is grown on top of, or attached
to, the other layers. Also, the Commission has modified the ALJ's claim
construction of the term ``semiconductor substrate'' to be the above-
mentioned ``substrate'' construction where additionally, ``at least one
layer of the supporting material functioning as the substrate includes
a non-metallic solid that conducts electricity by virtue of excitation
of electrons across an energy gap, or by introduced materials, such as
dopants, that provide conduction electrons.'' Further, the Commission
has reversed the ALJ's ruling of non-infringement of the `718 patent by
GB I, GB II, OMA I, and OMA II LEDs and determined that those products
infringe claims 1 and 6 under the ALJ's original claim construction of
``substrate'' and the modified construction of ``semiconductor
substrate''.
Also, the Commission has modified the ALJ's claim construction of
``wafer bonding'' in claims 1-3, 8-9, 16, 18, 23-25, 27 and 28 of the
`580 patent and claims 12-14 and 16 of the `316 patent. Particularly,
the Commission has modified the claim construction of this term to be
``the bringing of two wafer surfaces into physical contact such that a
mechanically robust, largely optically transparent bond forms between
them, but does not include Van der Waals bonding.'' This modification
does not affect the ID's finding of non-infringement of the `316 and
`580 patent claims.
Further, the Commission has made its determination on the issues of
remedy, the public interest, and bonding. The Commission has determined
that the appropriate form of relief is a limited exclusion order
prohibiting the unlicensed entry of LEDs that infringe claims 1 or 6 of
the `718 patent that are manufactured by or on behalf of Epistar, its
affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or
other related business entities, or successors or assigns. The
Commission has also determined to prohibit the unlicensed entry of
packaged LEDs containing the infringing LEDs and boards primarily
consisting of arrays of such packaged LEDs.
The Commission further determined that the public interest factors
enumerated in section 337(d)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)) do not preclude
issuance of the limited exclusion order. Finally, the Commission
determined that the amount of bond to permit temporary importation
during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)) shall be
in the amount of 100 percent of the value of the LEDs or board
containing the same that are subject to the order. The Commission's
order and opinion was delivered to the President and to the United
States Trade Representative on the day of its issuance.
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, 210.45, and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42, 210.45, 210.50).
Issued: May 9, 2007.
By order of the Commission.
William R. Bishop,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E7-13495 Filed 7-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P