The Commission Opinion modifies ALJ Charneski's final initial determination ("ID") and finding of no violoation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337) exists in Inv. No. 337-TA-680, In the Matter of Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems and Products Containing Same. On July 16, 2010, the ALJ issued his final ID finding no violation of section 337 by the remaining respondents MVTec Software GmbH; MVTec LLCTech; Omron Corporation; Resolution Technology, Inc.; Visics Corp.; Daiichi Jitsugyo Viswill Co., Ltd.; and Daiichi Jitsugyo (America), Inc. The ALJ concluded that each accused product did not infringe any asserted claim of the '539 or '262 patents. Also, the ALJ found that claims 1, 12, 13, 28, and 29 of the '262 patent are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Further, the ALJ found that all asserted claims of both patents are invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter.
The Commission Opinion modifies-in-part the final ID but affirms the ALJ's ruling that the '539 and '262 patents fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter pursuant to § 101 because they do not satisfy the "machine-or-transformation" test. The Commission Opinion sets aside the the part of teh final ID finding that claims 1, 12, 13, 28, and 29 of the '262 patent are invalid as anticipated. All other findings in the ID were affirmed by the Commission.