On February 19, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 96 (dated February 5, 20140, an initial determination granting-in-party and denying-in-part respondent Samsung’s motion for summary determination that it does not infringe certain patents in Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities And Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-868). 

According to the Order, Respondents Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) filed a motion for summary determination that it does not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,706,830 (the ‘830 patent), 8,009,636 (the ‘636 patent), 7,190,966 (the ‘966 patent), and 7,286,847 (the ‘847 patent) (collectively, “the Power Ramp-Up patents”). Respondents Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., Future Wei Technologies, Inc., ZTE Corporation, and ZTE (USA) joined the motion in part with respect to the ‘966 and ‘847 patents. Complainants InterDigital Communications Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDitigal Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “InterDigital”) filed an opposition. 

Samsung argued that its accused products do not infringe any of the asserted claims of the Power Ramp-Up patents for the same reasons relied on by the Commission in determining that the accused products in the 337-TA-800 investigation did not infringe the ‘830 and ‘636 patents based on the “successively sends transmissions” limitation. With respect to the ‘966 and 847 patents, Samsung argued that the “successively transmits signals” limitation found in the asserted claims of those patents is “substantially identical” to the “successively sends transmissions” limitation considered by the Commission in the 337-TA-800 investigation. Therefore, Samsung argued that the two limitations should be construed similarly, and, that if they are construed similarly, the accused products do not infringe the asserted claims of the ‘966 and ‘847 patents. 

InterDigital opposed the motion in part, arguing that, with respect to the ‘830 and ‘636 patents, InterDigital believed that the Commission’s affirmance rested on an erroneous claim construction and that InterDigital intends to appeal the determination. InterDigital, however, acknowledged that in the present investigation ALJ Essex would likely consider himself to be bound by the Commission’s previous construction of the limitation in the 800 investigation, and, as such, acquiesced to the termination of the investigation as to the ‘830 and ‘636 patents. With respect to the ‘966 and ‘847 patents, InterDigital argued that Samsung’s motion attempted to extend the Commission’s previous determination of non-infringement to patents that were not at issue, and that contain a different limitation from the limitation at issue, in the 337-TA-800 investigation. InterDigital further argued that the Federal Circuit implicitly construed the limitation “signals” in the appeal of the 337-TA-613 investigation, and that under that construction the accused products necessarily infringe. 

With respect to the ‘830 and ‘636 patents, ALJ Essex found that he was bound by the Commission’s previous claim construction of the “successively sends transmissions” limitation. Additionally, ALJ Essex found that there was no dispute between the parties that the accused Samsung devices cannot meet the “successively sends transmissions” limitation under the Commission’s previous claim construction. Accordingly, ALJ Essex granted the motion in part, finding that Samsung was entitled to summary determination that there is no infringement of the asserted claims of the ‘830 and ‘636 patents.

Regarding the ‘966 and ‘847 patents, ALJ Essex found that the parties disputed both the appropriate claim construction and application of the claim construction to the parties at issue and that a evidentiary hearing and full briefing was necessary. Accordingly, ALJ Essex denied the motion for summary determination with respect to the ‘966 and ‘847 patents.