Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/3/2019 ITCoffice
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/itcoffice 1/9
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
Before The Honorable Theodore R. Essex
Administrative Law Judge
In the Matter of
CERTAIN SEMICONDUCTOR CHIPS AND
PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME Inv. No. 337-TA-753
PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW OF THE
COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF
OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS
Lynn I. Levine, Director
David O. Lloyd, Supervisory AttorneyDaniel L. Girdwood, Investigative Attorney
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, S.W. Suite 401-HWashington, D.C. 20436
202.205.3409 (ph)
202.205.2158 (fax)
November 8, 2011
8/3/2019 ITCoffice
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/itcoffice 2/9
1
Pursuant to Ground Rule 11.1 and Order No. 16, the Commission Investigative Staff
(“Staff”) hereby submits its proposed conclusions of law:
SPCL 1: The asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,591,353 (the “‘353 patent”) are infringed.
SPCL 2: The asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,470,405 (the “‘405 patent”) are infringed.
SPCL 3: The asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,287,109 (the “‘109 patent”) are infringed.
SPCL 4: The asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,602,857 (the “‘857 patent”) are infringed.
SPCL 5: The asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,715,494 (the “‘494 patent”) are infringed.
SPCL 6: A domestic industry exists with respect to the ‘353 patent.
SPCL 7: A domestic industry exists with respect to the ‘405 patent.
SPCL 8: A domestic industry exists with respect to the ‘109 patent.
SPCL 9: A domestic industry exists with respect to the ‘857 patent.
SPCL 10: A domestic industry exists with respect to the ‘494 patent.
SPCL 11: The asserted claims of the ‘353 patent are invalid.
SPCL 12: The asserted claims of the ‘405 patent are invalid.
SPCL 13: The asserted claims of the ‘109 patent are invalid.
SPCL 14: The asserted claims of the ‘857 patent are invalid.
SPCL 15: The asserted claims of the ‘494 patent are invalid.
SPCL 16: The asserted claims of the ‘353, ‘405, and ‘109 patents were not shown to be
unenforceable due to unclean hands arising out of Rambus’s document destruction
activities.
SPCL 17: The asserted claims of the ‘353, ‘405, and ‘109 patents were not shown to be
unenforceable due to patent misuse.
SPCL 18: The asserted claims of the ‘353 patent were not shown to be unenforceable due to
prosecution laches.
8/3/2019 ITCoffice
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/itcoffice 3/9
2
SPCL 19: The asserted claims of the ‘405 patent were not shown to be unenforceable due toprosecution laches.
SPCL 20: The asserted claims of the ‘109 patent were not shown to be unenforceable due toprosecution laches.
SPCL 21: The asserted claims of the ‘857 patent were not shown to be unenforceable due toprosecution laches.
SPCL 22: The asserted claims of the ‘494 patent were not shown to be unenforceable due to
prosecution laches.
SPCL 23: The asserted claims of the ‘353 patent were not shown to be unenforceable due to
inequitable conduct.
SPCL 24: The asserted claims of the ‘405 patent were not shown to be unenforceable due to
inequitable conduct.
SPCL 25: The asserted claims of the ‘109 patent were not shown to be unenforceable due to
inequitable conduct.
SPCL 26: Complainant is not estopped from enforcing the ‘353 patent.
SPCL 27: Complainant is not estopped from enforcing the ‘405 patent.
SPCL 28: Complainant is not estopped from enforcing the ‘109 patent.
SPCL 29: The sale of licensed Samsung and/or Elpida memory devices to Garmin in the United
States has exhausted Rambus’s rights in the asserted ‘353 patent claims as to Garminproducts incorporating those memory devices.
SPCL 30: The sale of licensed Samsung and/or Elpida memory devices to Garmin in the UnitedStates has exhausted Rambus’s rights in asserted ‘109 patent claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 20,
21, and 24 as to Garmin products incorporating those memory devices.
SPCL 31: The sale of licensed Samsung and/or Elpida memory devices to Garmin in the UnitedStates was not shown to have exhausted Rambus’s rights in the claims 5 and 13 of the
‘109 patent as to Garmin products incorporating those memory devices.
SPCL 32: The sale of licensed Samsung and/or Elpida memory devices to Respondents other
than Garmin was not shown to have exhausted Rambus’s rights in the asserted ‘353
patent claims.
SPCL 33: The sale of licensed Samsung and/or Elpida memory devices to Respondents other
than Garmin was not shown to have exhausted Rambus’s rights in the asserted ‘109patent claims.
8/3/2019 ITCoffice
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/itcoffice 4/9
3
SPCL 34: The sale of licensed Samsung and/or Elpida memory devices to Respondents was notshown to have exhausted Rambus’s rights in the asserted ‘405 patent claims.
SPCL 35: Complainant is not precluded from obtaining exclusionary relief as to the ‘353 patent.
SPCL 36: Complainant is not precluded from obtaining exclusionary relief as to the ‘405 patent.
SPCL 37: Complainant is not precluded from obtaining exclusionary relief as to the ‘109 patent.
SPCL 38: Complainant is not precluded from obtaining exclusionary relief as to the ‘857 patent.
SPCL 39: Complainant is not precluded from obtaining exclusionary relief as to the ‘494 patent.
SPCL 40: Complainant has standing to enforce the ‘353 patent.
SPCL 41: Complainant has standing to enforce the ‘109 patent.
SPCL 42: Complainant has standing to enforce the ‘405 patent.
SPCL 43: Complainant has standing to enforce the ‘857 patent.
SPCL 44: Complainant has standing to enforce the ‘494 patent.
SPCL 45: In the event that a violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy includes acease and desist order as to Respondent ASUS.
SPCL 46: In the event that a violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy includes a
cease and desist order as to Respondent Biostar.
SPCL 47: In the event that a violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy includes a
cease and desist order as to Respondent Broadcom.
SPCL 48: In the event that a violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy includes a
cease and desist order as to Respondent ECS.
SPCL 49: In the event that a violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy includes acease and desist order as to Respondent EVGA.
SPCL 50: In the event that a violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy includes acease and desist order as to Respondent Galaxy.
SPCL 51: In the event that a violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy includes acease and desist order as to Respondent Garmin.
SPCL 52: In the event that a violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy includes acease and desist order as to Respondent Gigabyte.
8/3/2019 ITCoffice
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/itcoffice 5/9
4
SPCL 53: In the event that a violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy includes acease and desist order as to Respondent Jaton.
SPCL 54: In the event that a violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy includes acease and desist order as to Respondent Micro-Star.
SPCL 55: In the event that a violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy includes acease and desist order as to Respondent Motorola.
SPCL 56: In the event that a violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy includes a
cease and desist order as to Respondent nVidia.
SPCL 57: In the event that a violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy includes a
cease and desist order as to Respondent Oppo Digitial.
SPCL 58: In the event that a violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy includes a
cease and desist order as to Respondent Pine.
SPCL 59: In the event that a violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy includes a
cease and desist order as to Respondent Seagate.
SPCL 60: In the event that a violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy includes a
cease and desist order as to Respondent Sparkle.
SPCL 61: In the event that a violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy includes a
cease and desist order as to Respondent Zotac.
SPCL 62: In the event that a violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy includes a
cease and desist order as to Respondent Hitachi.
SPCL 63: In the event that a violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy includes a
cease and desist order as to Respondent LSI.
SPCL 64: In the event that a violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy includes a
limited exclusion order encompassing an infringing DDR memory controller
manufactured by or on behalf of Respondents LSI, Broadcom, STM, and/or MediaTek and the Respondents’ products that incorporate such a controller.
SPCL 65: In the event that a violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy includes alimited exclusion order encompassing an infringing interface chip manufactured by or
on behalf of Respondents LSI, Broadcom, STM, and/or nVidia the Respondents’
products that incorporate such an interface chip.
SPCL 66: The appropriate Presidential review period bond is 2% of entered value.
8/3/2019 ITCoffice
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/itcoffice 6/9
5
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Daniel L. GirdwoodLynn I. Levine, DirectorDavid O. Lloyd, Supervisory Attorney
Daniel L Girdwood, Investigative Attorney
OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONSU.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, S.W., Suite 401
Washington, D.C. 20436
(202) 205-3409
(202) 205-2158 (Facsimile)
November 8, 2011
8/3/2019 ITCoffice
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/itcoffice 7/9
Certain Semiconductor Chips Inv. No. 337-TA-753
And Products Containing Same
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on November 8, 2011, he caused the foregoing
COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF’S PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW tobe filed with the Commission, served by hand (2 copies) on Judge Theodore R. Essex (including
a courtesy .pdf and .docx copy to [email protected]) and served upon the parties (1 copy
each) in the manner indicated below:
Complainant Rambus Inc.
Christine E. Lehman Via Email
c/o Finnegan Henderson
901 New York Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001-4413202.408.4000 (ph)
202.408.4400 (fax)
Respondents Broadcom Corp. MediaTek Inc., Cisco Systems Inc.
Motorola Mobility Inc., Oppo Digital Inc., Audio Partnership PLC, and
nVidia Corp.
Thomas Pease Via Email
c/o Quinn Emanuel 51 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor
New York, N.Y. 10010
212.849.7000212.849.7100
[email protected] (secondary counsel for Broadcom, MediaTek, Oppo Digital, andAudio Partnership)
S&[email protected] (secondary counsel for Motorola)
[email protected] (secondary counsel for Broadcom)
[email protected] (secondary counsel for nVidia)[email protected] (secondary counsel for nVidia)
[email protected] (secondary counsel for Cisco)
8/3/2019 ITCoffice
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/itcoffice 8/9
Respondents LSI Corp. and Seagate Technology
Jonathan D. Link Via Email c/o Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Suite 900
607 14th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005202.508.5800 (ph)
202.508.5858 (fax)
Respondents ASUSTek Computer Inc., Asus Computer Int’l Inc., Biostar Microtech (USA)
Corp., Biostar Microtech Int’l Corp., EliteGroup Computer System Co. Ltd., EVGA Corp.,
Galaxy Microsystems Ltd., Giga-Byte Tech. Co. Ltd., G.B.T. Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co.,
Jaton Corp., Jaton Technology TPE, Micro-Star Int’l Co., MSI Computer Corp., GracomTech. LLC, Palit Microsystems Ltd., Pine Technology Holdings Ltd., Sparkle Computer
Co. Ltd., Zotac USA Inc., and Zotac Int’l (MCO) Ltd.
Andrew R. Kopsidas Via Email
c/o Fish Richardson
1425 K Street, N.W. - 11th FloorWashington, D.C. 20005
202.783.5070 (ph)202.283.7331 (fax)
Respondents STMicroelectronics N.V. and STMicroelectronics Inc.
Eric Rusnak Via Email
c/o K&L Gates
1601 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006202.778.9000 (ph)
202.778.9100 (fax)
8/3/2019 ITCoffice
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/itcoffice 9/9
Respondent Hitachi Global Storage Tech.
Alexander J. Hadjis Via Email c/o Morrison & Foerster
2000 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20006202.887.1500 (ph)
202.887.0763 (fax)
Respondent Garmin Int’l
Louis S. Mastriani Via Email
c/o Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg LLP
1200 Seventeenth St., N.W. - 5th FloorWashington, D.C. 20036
202.467.6300 (ph)
202.466.2006 (fax)
/s/ Daniel L Girdwood
Office Of Unfair Import InvestigationsU.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, S.W., Suite 401-H
Washington, D.C. 20436202.205.3409
202.205.2158 (Facsimile)
