On April 10, 2015, ALJ Dee Lord issued the public version (originally dated February 27, 2015) of the Initial Determination ("ID") on Violation of Section 337 in Certain Television Sets, Television Receivers, Television Tuners, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-910).  Due to the size of the ID, we have split the document into part 1 and part 2.

By way of background, this investigation is based on a January 28, 2014 complaint filed by Cresta Technology Corp. ("Cresta") alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain television sets, television receivers, television tuners, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,075,585 (the '585 patent), 7,265,792 (the '792 patent), and 7,251,466 (the '466 patent).  See our January 30, 2014 and March 24, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.  The named Respondents in the investigation are Silicon Laboratories, Inc. ("Silicon Labs"), MaxLinear, Inc. ("MaxLinear"), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America (collectively, "Samsung"), VIZIO, Inc. ("VIZIO"), LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A. (collectively, "LG"), and Sharp Corporation and Sharp Electronics (collectively, "Sharp") (hereinafter, "Respondents"). 

Standing

ALJ Lord began by providing a detailed summary on the background of the case and the parties involved.  ALJ Lord then discussed standing, as Respondents asserted that Cresta lacked standing with respect to the asserted patents due to certain security agreements with Cresta's investors that Respondents argued caused Cresta to "forfeit[] its rights to freely dispose of the asserted patents."  Cresta argued that it retained all significant rights in the patents except in the event of bankruptcy or default.  ALJ Lord found that the security agreement did not limit Cresta's right to sue, license its patents, or enter into settlement agreements resolving the patents, and therefore found that Cresta had standing.

Claim Construction

Cresta argued that the relevant filed of the art is television tuners and receivers.  Respondents' experts, however, described a broader field of art of "integrated circuits and radio frequency communication receivers" and "RF receivers and signal processing design."  ALJ Lord agreed with Cresta that the relevant field of the invention is television tuners and receivers.

The parties also disagreed over the level of ordinary skill in the art and each party submitted different proposals of the qualifications a person of ordinary skill in the art would have.  After reviewing the proposals, ALJ Lord noted that there were only minor differences between each proposals and found that a person of ordinary skill in the art for the asserted patents would have a BSEE (or equivalent) and four years of industry experience in RF integrated circuit and signal processing design or a MSEE with two years of similar industry experience.  ALJ Lord also noted that more specialized experience or education with television tuners could substitute for additional years of experience,-e.g., a BSEE with two years of experience implementing RF integrated circuits for television applications or a MSEE with one year of experience implementing or studying RF integrated circuits for television applications.

With respect to the disputed claim terms, ALJ Lord first construed the term "receiver," which appears in the preamble of claim 1 of the '585 patent.  ALJ Lord found that the preamble did not recite essential structure or give life to the claim, and, therefore, was not limiting.

ALJ Lord next construed the term "tuner," which appears in claim 1 of the '585 patent.  Cresta argued the term should be limited to "television" signals.  Respondents opposed the "television" limitation and argued that tuning requires selection of a bandwidth of radio frequency.  ALJ Lord declined to read Cresta's proposed "television" limitation into the term because, while Cresta pointed to evidence that the overall invention of the '585 patent is directed to tuners, there are no statements in the patent's specification limiting the term "tuner" to television or disavowing tuners that receive different frequency input signals.  ALJ Lord also declined to import Respondents' proposed limitation into the claim term finding there was no support for the additional limitation in the '585 patent.  Thus, ALJ Lord construed the term "tuner" to mean circuitry that converts radio frequency input signals to signals at an intermediate frequency.

ALJ Lord then construed the term "frequency conversion circuit," which appears in claim 1 of the '792 patent.  Cresta again sought to limit the term to "television" signals while Respondents again argued that tuning implied selection of a bandwidth of radio frequency.  ALJ Lord again declined to import these limitations, construing the term to mean circuitry that converts radio 'frequency input signals to signals at an intermediate frequency.

ALJ Lord next construed the term "input RF signal(s)," which appears in claims 1, 10, and 13 of the '585 patent and claims 1, 8, and 26 of the '792 patent.  Cresta again sought to limit the term to "television" signals, while Respondents explained that "RF" simply stands for radio frequency and that the ordinary meaning of "RF signal" is not limited to television.  ALJ Lord did not find any reason to read limitations into the term, noting that Cresta failed to identify any evidence that the '585 patent defined "input RF signal(s)" to be limited to television and accorded the term is plain and ordinary meaning – radio frequency input signal(s).

ALJ Lord then construed the terms "intermediate signal" / "intermediate frequency (IF)," which appear in claim 1 of the '585 patent and claim 1 of the '792 patent.  ALJ Lord noted that the parties did not dispute that the claimed intermediate frequency was different from the input RF frequency, and only disputed whether the construction excluded low-IF and zero-IF (baseband) frequencies.  ALJ Lord, however, found that the intrinsic evidence did not support Respondents' limitations because while the patents distinguish between intermediate and baseband signals, they do not distinguish between intermediate and baseband frequencies.  Additionally, ALJ Lord found that references in the '792 patent to low-IF do not preclude IF from overlapping with low-IF.  Further, ALJ Lord found that there was nothing in the extrinsic evidence to conclusively overcome the specification's disclosure that the IF can have a frequency of "any values" and thus declined to construe "intermediate frequency" to exclude zero-IF or low-IF.  Accordingly, ALJ Lord adopted Cresta's construction and found that an intermediate frequency is a frequency of any value other than the RF signal frequency.

ALJ Lord next construed the term "analog-to-digital converter," which appears in claim 1 of the '585 patent and claim 1 of the '792 patent.  Cresta did not propose a construction and Respondents agreed that the term is used in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning but proposed an explicit construction.  ALJ Lord found that Respondents' construction repeated and rephrased language already embodied in the relevant limitation of the asserted claims and added the limitation "periodic" to account for the sampling rate described in an embodiment of the invention.  ALJ Lord, however, found that the asserted patents and dictionaries cited by the Commission Investigative Staff ("OUII") showed a straightforward meaning for the term without a "periodic" limitation.  ALJ Lord thus construed the term to have its plain and ordinary meaning, which is a component that converts an analog input into a digital output.

ALJ Lord then construed the term "signal processor," which appears in claim 1 of the '585 patent and claim 1 of the '792 patent.  Cresta proposed limiting the term to the circuitry that processes a television signal in the digital domain, but ALJ Lord declined to adopt the proposed limitation for the reasons discussed above with respect to the terms "tuner," "frequency conversion circuit," and "input RF signal(s)."  MaxLinear proposed constructions for the term and asserted that it should be construed subject to § 112(f).  ALJ Lord declined to construe the term subject to § 112(f) and found that MaxLinear's proposed construction unduly restricted the term to one disclosed embodiment of a programmable digital signal processor ("DSP").  Silicon Labs and OUII proposed the term had its plain and ordinary meaning, and ALJ Lord agreed, construing the term to mean circuitry that processes a signal.

ALJ Lord next construed the terms "digital representation of said intermediate signal(s)" / "said digitized signals" / "the digital representation of the intermediate frequency signal," which appear in claims 1, 10, and 15 of the '585 patent and claim 1 of the '792 patent.  The parties agreed these terms have their plain and ordinary meaning and ALJ Lord saw no reason to construe the terms.

ALJ Lord then construed the term "baseband signal(s)," which appears in claim 1 of the '585 patent and claim 8 of the '792 patent.  The parties agreed that a baseband signal has been demodulated and is encoded but not yet decoded.  Cresta also proposed limiting the term to television signals and Respondent admitted that there was no substantive difference between the parties' constructions.  ALJ Lord again rejected Cresta's television limitation and construed the term to mean signals that have been demodulated but not yet decoded.

ALJ Lord next construed the term "format," which appears in claims 1, 10, and 13 of the '585 patent and in claims 1, 8, and 26 of the '792 patent. Respondents argued that the patents used the term "standard" to refer to television standards and "format" to refer to analog or digital formats.  ALJ Lord, however, found that the term "format" was not used consistently in the patents and construed the claim language to mean the transmission standard corresponding to the input RF signal.

ALJ Lord then construed the term "analog format," which appears in claim 3 of the '585 patent.  Respondents proposed that the term needed a construction to clarify that it does not have the same meaning as format and Cresta argued it required no construction.  ALJ Lord found that the term has its plain and ordinary meaning and declined to adopt any formal construction.

ALJ Lord next construed the terms "real part of said/the finite impulse response filter operation" / "imaginary part of said/the finite impulse response filter operation," which appear in claim 12 of the '585 patent and claim 25 of the '792 patent.  ALJ Lord found that the intrinsic evidence was ambiguous regarding these limitations and construed the term to mean the real/imaginary part of the weighted sum output, calculated using complex numbers for the weights or signal samples or both.

ALJ Lord then construed the term "anti-aliasing filter," which appears in claims 1, 6, and 17 of the '585 patent.  ALJ Lord found that the description in the specification was consistent with the extrinsic definitions for anti-aliasing filters in the record and construed the term to mean a circuit that filters the intermediate signals to prevent aliasing from occurring during sampling.

ALJ Lord next construed the term "a signal output circuit for receiving the digital output signals from the signal processor and for providing one or more output signals corresponding to the digital output signals," which appears in claim 1 of the '792 patent.  MaxLinear argued that the term should be construed under § 112(f), but ALJ Lord disagreed.  Despite the parties providing conflicting constructions, ALJ Lord found that the term did not need construction and that it should be construed based on its plain and ordinary meaning.

Infringement

After discussing the applicable law for determining infringement, ALJ Lord assessed infringement with respect to the Silicon Labs and MaxLinear tuners.

Silicon Labs

For Silicon Labs, ALJ Lord assessed infringement with respect to the Si2150 series and Si2170 series of tuners, considering the analog-only tuners and digital-only tuners separately, and addressing the "V" tuners and Si2185 tuner separately for specific limitations.  ALJ Lord also assessed Samsung, LG, and VIZIO televisions that incorporate accused Silicon Labs tuners.  ALJ Lord also noted that certain analog-only and digital-only tuners were no longer accused of infringement and therefore do not infringe any asserted claims of the '585 or '792 patent.

With respect to infringing the '585 patent, ALJ Lord found that the tuners met all of the limitations of claim 1, except that the Si2158V tuners did not meet the "signal processor" limitation.  Thus, ALJ Lord found direct infringement of claim 1 of the Si2185 tuner and televisions incorporating this tuner, but further found that Cresta failed to prove direct infringement by other Silicon Labs' tuners, televisions incorporating other Silicon Labs' tuners, or the Si2158V tuner.  ALJ Lord also found that the Si2185 tuner and televisions incorporating this tuner infringed claims 2 and 3 of the '585 patent.

ALJ Lord found that Cresta failed to meet its burden to prove infringement of claim 10 of the '585 patent because Cresta failed to identify any evidence that the Channel Filter or Video FIR filters apply format-specific processing.  Accordingly, ALJ Lord also found that claim 13, which depends from claim 10, was not infringed.

With respect to contributory infringement of the '585 patent, ALJ Lord found that (1) Silicon Labs met the knowledge requirement for contributory infringement; (2) there were no substantial non-infringing uses for the tuners; and (3) the tuners were a material part of the invention.  Thus, ALJ Lord found contributory infringement by Silicon with respect to the televisions incorporating tuners that directly infringe claims 1-3 of the '585 patent.

With respect to infringement of the '792 patent, ALJ Lord found that none of the Silicon Labs tuners infringed claim 1 because Cresta failed to prove infringement of "the plurality of finite impulse response filters" limitation.  Thus, ALJ Lord found that none of dependent claims 2-4, 7, 8, and 26 infringed the '792 patent.  Additionally, while ALJ Lord found that Silicon Labs met the requirements for contributory infringement, because the tuners do not directly infringe the '792 patent, ALJ Lord found that there was no contributory infringement.

MaxLinear

For MaxLinear, ALJ Lord assessed infringement with respect to the MxL601 and MxL661 tuners and Samsung, Sharp, and VIZIO televisions incorporating the tuners.  With respect to infringement of the '585 patent, ALJ Lord found that the tuners met all of the limitations of claim 1 and therefore found direct infringement of claim 1 of the '585 patent by televisions incorporating MaxLinear tuners.  ALJ Lord also found that all televisions incorporating MaxLinear tuners also infringed claims 2, 3, 10, 12, and 13 of the '585 patent.

With respect to contributory infringement, ALJ Lord found that (1) Silicon Labs met the knowledge requirement for contributory infringement; (2) there were no substantial non-infringing uses for the tuners; and (3) the tuners were a material part of the invention.  Thus, ALJ Lord found contributory infringement by Silicon with respect to the televisions incorporating tuners that directly infringe claims 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, and 13 of the '585 patent.

With respect to infringement of the '792 patent, ALJ Lord found that the MaxLinear tuners directly infringed claim 1 of the '792 patent. ALJ Also found that MaxLinear tuners directly infringed claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 25, and 26 of the '792 patent and found contributory infringement of claim 8 by the MaxLinear tuners when incorporated in televisions.

Invalidity

After discussing the applicable law for determining invalidity, ALJ Lord assessed the invalidity of the '585 and '792 patents.

'585 Patent

Cresta contended that while the application for the '585 patent was filed on September 6, 2002, it is entitled to a priority date of September 17, 2001, when the provisional application was filed.  Respondents argued that the subject matter disclosed in the '585 patent were not disclosed in the provisional application and that the claims of the '585 patent are not entitled to an earlier priority date.  ALJ Lord found that the '585 patent was not entitled to the priority date of the provisional application because one of ordinary skill would not have understood the provisional to disclose the non-standard IF.

Anticipation

Respondents argued that claims 1 and 2 of the '585 patent are anticipated by EP Patent Application No. 0 966 854 A1 to Boie ("Boie") under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (a) and (b).  ALJ Lord found that Boie disclosed each of these limitations and thus found that claim 1 of the '585 patent is invalid as anticipated.  ALJ Lord also found that claim 2 is invalid as anticipated by Boie.

Obviousness

Respondents also contended that claims 3, 10, 12, and 13 were obvious in view of Boie in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,804,497 to Kerth et al. ("Kerth").  While Cresta argued that it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Boie and Kerth, ALJ Lord disagreed and found that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Boie to use a well-known digital-to-analog converter coupled to a well-known demodulator receiving analog inputs.  Therefore, ALJ Lord found claim 3 was invalid as obvious.

With respect to claim 10, ALJ Lord noted that the only limitation of claim 10 not disclosed in Boie is the implementation of the band-pass filter as a plurality of FIR filters wherein "each of said plurality of finite impulse response [filters] corresponding to a format of said input RF signal."  Respondents also argued that claim 10 was obvious in view of Boie and U.S. Patent No. 6,643,502 to Van De Plassche et al. ("VDP").  ALJ Lord found that Respondents did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement the band-pass filter in Boie as a plurality of FIR filters with filter "corresponding to a format of said input RF signal" and that VDP does not disclose a signal processor.  Thus, as Boie did not render claim 1 obvious, the addition of VDP also did not render it obvious.

With respect to claim 12, Respondents argued that Boie alone, in combination with U.S. Patent No. 5,388,062 to Knutson ("Knutson"), or in combination with VDP, rendered claim 12 obvious.  As ALJ Lord found that claim 10 was not obvious in view of Boie alone or in combination with VDP, ALJ Lord also found that claim 12, which depends from claim 10, is not invalid as obvious.  ALJ Lord also noted that even if claim 10 were obvious, Respondents had not shown that Boie alone, or in combination with Knutson or VDP, rendered claim 12 obvious.

With respect to claim 13, Respondents argued that Boie alone, in combination with Micronas DRX3960A Digital Receiver Front-End Advance Information ("Micronas"), or in combination with U.S. Patent No. 6,147,713 to Robbins et al. ("Robbins") rendered claim 13 obvious.  As ALJ Lord found that claim 10 was not obvious in view of Boie alone or in combination with VDP, ALJ Lord also found that claim 13, which depends from claim 10, is not invalid as obvious.  ALJ Lord also noted that even if claim 10 were obvious, Respondents had not shown that Boie alone, or in combination with Micronas or Robbins, rendered claim 13 obvious.

Cresta also argued that there were several secondary considerations of non-obviousness.  ALJ Lord found that Cresta's secondary considerations should not be accorded substantial weight because (1) with respect to claim 3, Respondents demonstrated a strong prima facie case of obviousness and (2) Cresta failed to establish a nexus between the evidence of secondary considerations and the claimed invention.

MaxLinear also argued that the '585 patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for (1) lack of written description of "having an intermediate frequency;" (2) indefiniteness of "processor for processing" and "input RF signal," and (3) having an improper dependent claim (claim 3).  ALJ Lord rejected each of these arguments.

'792 Patent

Cresta argued that while it was entitled to an earlier priority date, the date did not pre-date any of the asserted prior art references.  Accordingly, ALJ Lord found that the priority date for the '792 patent is July 1, 2004.

Anticipation

Respondents asserted that claims 1, 2, 4, and 25 of the '792 patent were anticipated by VDP and that claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 25, and 26, of the '792 patent were anticipated by the '585 patent.

After reviewing the parties' arguments and the claims, ALJ Lord found that VDP does not disclose each and every limitation of claim 1, and therefore does not anticipate claim 1 of the '792 patent.  Similarly, as ALJ Lord found that VDP does not disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, ALJ Lord found that it does not anticipate claims 1 or claim 4 of the '792 patent.

After reviewing the parties' arguments and the claims, ALJ Lord found that claim 1 of the '792 patent is anticipated by the '585 patent.  ALJ Lord also found that the '585 patent anticipates claims 2, 3, 4, 25, and 26 of the '792 patent.

Respondents also argued that, by Cresta's own admission, all claims of the '792 patent except for claim 25 were reduced to practice in May 2003 and that Morton2 was a tuner integrated chip that practiced those claims.  Specifically, Respondents argued that on May 16, 2013, Xceive uploaded the Morton2 design to Jazz Semiconductor ("Jazz"), a semiconductor foundry, that Xceive paid Jazz for the Morton2 tape-out, and that the transaction was a commercial sale.

Cresta argued that the transaction was not a commercial sale because Jazz sold Xceive the service of fabricating a silicon wafer as opposed to a product embodying the invention and because the silicon wafer Jazz sold to Xceive needed further cutting, packaging, and bonding before it would operate as the prototype invention.  Cresta also argued that the Morton2 prototype was a test chip and not a product for commercial exploitation.  Cresta further noted that there was no evidence showing that product samples were provided to customers before the critical date.  Additionally, Cresta paid sales tax on its order of wafers to Jazz, indicating it did not intend to resell the wafers.

In response, Respondents argued that any steps Xceive took after receiving the silicon wafer are immaterial to the on-sale bar analysis.  Additionally, Respondents argued that whether the product was commercially viable is irrelevant to whether the products embodied the claimed invention.  Respondents also argued that Jazz's sale to Xceive was not experimental.  In rebuttal, Cresta submitted that the fact that the evaluation boards were loaned to customers after the critical date does not change the initial transaction from an experimental purpose to a commercial purpose.

ALJ Lord found that because (1) the Morton2 design embodied all asserted claims of the '792 patent except for claim 25; (2) Xceive paid Jazz to manufacture Morton2 silicon; (3) the Morton2 silicon was used in evaluation boards that were eventually provided to customers; and (4) the purpose of the evaluation boards was to demonstrate the capabilities of Xceive's products to at least one of the customers as early as May 23, 2003, Respondents had demonstrated that the transaction between Xceive and Jazz was a commercial sale.  ALJ Lord found that Cresta's arguments that the sale was not a commercial sale because it was not a commercially viable product was without merit, and also rejected Cresta's experimental use defense because experimental use or sale cannot occur after a reduction to practice.   Accordingly, ALJ Lord found that claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-12, and 26-27 of the '792 patent were invalid as anticipated pursuant to the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Obviousness

Respondents argued that claim 1 was obvious in view of Boie alone or in combination with VDP.  ALJ Lord, however found that Respondents had not demonstrated that it would have been obvious to implement Boie's band-pass filter as a plurality of FIR filters wherein each of the FIR filters correspondents to a format of the input RF signal. Additionally, ALJ Lord found that VDP did not disclose this limitation. Because ALJ Lord found that Boie does not anticipate claim 1, ALJ Lord also found that it does not render claim 2 obvious.

With respect to claim 3, Respondents argued that Boie in combination with VDP, Mirconas, Robbins, or Tuttle, or the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art would render claim 3 obvious.  Because, however, ALJ Lord found that Boie does not render claim 1 obvious, ALJ Lord also found that it does not render claim 3 obvious. Similarly, because ALJ Lord found that Boie does not render claim 1 obvious, ALJ Lord also found that it does not render claims 4, 7, 25, and 26 obvious.  With respect to claim 7, ALJ Lord also found that Boie in combination with the Aero datasheet did not render the additional limitation of claim 7 obvious. Because claims 1 and 7 were not rendered obvious by Boie in combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art or the Aero datasheet, ALJ Lord also found that claim 8 was not obvious.  ALJ Lord also found that claims 3, 7, 8, 25, and 26 of the '792 patent were not rendered obvious by VDP alone or in combination with various prior art references.  Because Respondents had not made a prima facie case of obviousness for the '792 patent, ALJ Lord did not consider Cresta's arguments regarding secondary considerations.

Domestic Industry

Economic Prong

Cresta's complaint contains no indication that it seeks to establish domestic industry on any basis other than its activities set forth between October 2011 and September 2012 ("Year 1") and between October 2012 and September 2013 ("Year 2"). Additionally, there was no indication Cresta sought to establish a domestic industry at any time other than January 28, 2014, the date the Complaint was filed.

Respondents filed a motion for summary determination that Cresta failed to satisfy the domestic industry requirement, arguing that using the date a complaint is filed to decide domestic industy is subject to an exception where there is a substantial change in the complainant's status after filing. After Respondents' filed the motion, Cresta's approach to establishing a domestic industry shifted with Cresta seeking to prove that it engaged in substantial, post-filing domestic industry activity. Cresta, however, also still maintained that the operative date for the decision is the date the complaint was filed. ALJ Lord found that Cresta's conflicting strategies resulted in a confused and unpersuasive record regarding the existence of a domestic industry, and found that Cresta failed to prove a domestic industry existed as of the date its complaint was filed.

Specifically, ALJ Lord found that Cresta's pre-complaint domestic industry ceased six months or more before the complaint was filed and that its post-complaint domestic industry requirements, to the extent relevant, were insignificant. While Cresta's domestic industry witnesses explained that Cresta's U.S. personnel perform testing and product support after the production of the silicon tuners and that Cresta had established a domestic industry based on its engineering, R&D, and production support for the XC5000 series and next generation CTC70X and CTC71X series products, ALJ Lord found the assertions regarding the CTC71X series to be inconsistent with other evidence presented by Cresta. ALJ Lord found that these inconsistencies made the true nature, scope, and duration of the domestic industry unclear and that, therefore, Cresta failed to carry its burden of proof.

Technical Prong

Cresta asserted that its alleged domestic industry products practiced claims 1-3, 5-6, 10, 13-14, 16, 17-19, and 21 of the '585 patent when installed in televisions and rely on Dr. Snelgrove to support these claims. In response, Respondents argued that (1) Dr. Snelgrove fails to apply the Respondents' proposed claim constructions; (2) Cresta's alleged domestic industry products do not practice the "intermediate frequency" limitation under Respondents' constructions; and (3) Cresta fails to prove that the televisions containing Cresta's alleged domestic industry products satisfy the "plurality of demodulators" limitation of claim 1. While ALJ Lord did not adopt all of Respondents' proposed constructions, and found that Dr. Snelgrove's constructions did not affect the analysis, ALJ Lord found that only one series of Cresta products practices claims 1-3, 5-6, 10, 13-14, 16, 17-19, and 21 of the '585 patent.

Speifically, ALJ Lord found that Cresta largely failed to show that there are actual televisions that practice the asserted claims. Accordingly, ALJ Lord found that claim 1 of the '585 patent is practiced by Cresta's XC500A series tuners. ALJ Lord further found that Cresta's products that practice claim 1 also practice claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14, and 16. With respect to claims 17, 18, 19, and 21 ALJ Lord found only that a confidential series of Cresta's tuners practice those claims.

Cresta asserted that its domestic industry products practice claims 1-4, 7, 10-12, 18-19, and 26-27 of the '792 patent. After reviewing the evidence, ALJ Lord found that all of Cresta's alleged domestic industry products practice claims 1, 2, 7, 10-12, 18-19, and 26 of the '792 patent. ALJ Lord also found that only the XC5000A products practice claim 3 the '792 patent and that only the XC5000A, XC5000C, CTC703, CTC709, CTC713, and CTC719 products practice claim 4 of the '792 patent.

Remedy and Bond

Cresta sought a limited exclusion order (LEO) and a cease and desist order (CDO) for each Respondent.

ALJ Lord, noting that the consideration of remedy is relevant only if the Commission finds a violation of Section 337, recommended that a LEO and CDO be issued as requested against each of the Respondents but that the issuance of remedial orders should be delayed by 12 months and should include a requirement that Respondents certify compliance.

With respect to bond, Cresta proposed setting a bond of 100% for Respondents' infringing televisions and Respondents asserted that no bond is appropriate. After reviewing the evidence, ALJ Lord found that no bond is appropriate with respect to the XC5000, recommended a confidential bond rate for the MaxLinear and Silicon Labs tuners and found that no bond is appropriate for Respondents' accused televisions.

Public Interest

With respect to public health and welfare, Cresta argued the remedial orders would not negatively affect the public interest factors. Respondents argued that the orders would remove a significant portion of environmentally-friendly television sets and televisions with advanced features for the disabled from the U.S. market. ALJ Lord found that remedial orders would not significantly impact public health and welfare. However, because exclusion orders on such a large segment of the television market could be significant in the long term, ALJ Lord recommended that remedial order be issued after a period of 12 months to ameliorate the potential disruption for consumers.