On July 2, 2013, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice determining to review in part an Initial Determination (“ID”) issued by ALJ E. James Gildea on March 26, 2013 finding a violation of Section 337 in Certain Semiconductor Chips with DRAM Circuitry, and Modules and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-819).

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are Elpida Memory, Inc. and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. (collectively, “Elpida”) and the Respondents are Nanya Technology Corp. and Nanya Technology Corp., U.S.A. (collectively, “Nanya”).  In the ID, ALJ Gildea determined that a violation of Section 337 had occurred by Nanya in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain semiconductor chips with DRAM circuitry, and modules and products containing same that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,150,689 (the ‘689 patent), 6,635,918 (the ‘918 patent), 7,495,453 (the ‘453 patent), 7,713,828 (the ‘828 patent), and 7,906,809 (the ‘809 patent).  However, the ALJ found no violation of Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,659,571 (the ‘571 patent).  In particular, ALJ Gildea found that Nanya does not infringe the ‘571 patent and that there is no domestic industry that practices the ‘571 patent.  ALJ Gildea also found that certain claims of the ‘453 patent are invalid.  See our April 3, 2013 post for more details.

According to the July 2 notice, Elpida filed a petition for review of the ALJ’s determination that certain claims of the ‘453 patent are invalid.  In addition, Nanya filed a petition for review of a number of the determinations in the ID that were adverse to it.  Nanya also filed a contingent petition for review with respect to the validity of the ‘571 patent.

After examining the record of the investigation, including the ID and the parties’ submissions, the Commission determined to review the ID in part.  In particular, the Commission determined to review ALJ Gildea’s determinations with respect to the ‘689, ‘918, ‘453, ‘828, and ‘809 patents.  The Commission determined not to review the ALJ’s determination of no violation with respect to the ‘571 patent, and terminated the investigation with respect to that patent.

The notice states that the parties are requested to brief their positions on the issues under review.  The notice further states that, in connection with the Commission’s review, the Commission is particularly interested in responses to various questions listed in the notice.  The notice also requests briefing on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. 

Written submissions are due by July 19, 2013, with reply submissions due by July 26, 2013.