Notice2025-06272
Certain Audio Players and Components Thereof (I); Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Part an Initial Determination Granting Summary Determination of Invalidity and Terminating the Investigation for Good Cause; Termination of Investigation
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 14, 2025
Issuing agencies
International Trade Commission
Abstract
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission ("Commission") has determined to review in part an initial determination ("ID") (Order No. 39) issued by the presiding administrative law judge ("ALJ") granting respondent's motion for summary determination of invalidity of the asserted patent claims due to indefiniteness and also terminating the investigation for good cause. On review, the Commission vacates the ID's termination for good cause. The investigation is terminated with a finding of no violation of section 337 based on invalidity of the asserted patent claims.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 70 (Monday, April 14, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 70 (Monday, April 14, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15579-15580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-06272]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1329]
Certain Audio Players and Components Thereof (I); Notice of
Commission Determination To Review in Part an Initial Determination
Granting Summary Determination of Invalidity and Terminating the
Investigation for Good Cause; Termination of Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission (``Commission'') has determined to review in part an initial
determination (``ID'') (Order No. 39) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (``ALJ'') granting respondent's motion for
summary determination of invalidity of the asserted patent claims due
to indefiniteness and also terminating the investigation for good
cause. On review, the Commission vacates the ID's termination for good
cause. The investigation is terminated with a finding of no violation
of section 337 based on invalidity of the asserted patent claims.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl P. Bretscher, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2382. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may
be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at <a href="https://edis.usitc.gov">https://edis.usitc.gov</a>. For help accessing EDIS, please email
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c88d8c819bfb80ada4b888bdbba1bcabe6afa7be"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="01444548523249646d714174726875622f666e77">[email protected]</span></a>. General information concerning the Commission may
also be obtained by accessing its internet server at <a href="https://www.usitc.gov">https://www.usitc.gov</a>. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal
on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
on September 15, 2022, based on a complaint filed by Google LLC of
Mountain View, California (``Google''). 87 FR 56702-703 (Sept. 15,
2022). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section
337''), in the importation into the United States, sale for
importation, or sale in the United States after importation of certain
audio players and components thereof by reason of infringement of
certain asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,705,565 (``the '565
patent''); 10,593,330 (``the '330 patent''); and 10,134,398 (``the '398
patent''). Id. The complaint further alleges that a domestic industry
exists. Id. The Commission's notice of investigation names Sonos, Inc.
of Santa Barbara, California (``Sonos'') as the respondent. Id. at
56703. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was not named as a
party to this investigation. Id.
On November 2, 2022, the Commission terminated the investigation
with respect to the '565 patent. Order No. 7 (Oct. 18, 2022),
unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Nov. 2, 2022).
On November 30, 2022, the parties filed a joint claim construction
chart, identifying the term ``low power mode'' among the terms in
dispute. The parties filed their initial claim construction briefs on
December 23, 2022, and their reply briefs on February 10, 2023. The ALJ
held a Markman hearing on January 19, 2023.
On May 17, 2023, Sonos filed a motion for summary determination
that the asserted claims of the '330 patent and the '398 patent are,
inter alia, invalid as indefinite (``First MSD''). Google filed its
opposition to Sonos's First MSD on May 30, 2023.
After the Markman hearing, the Commission granted the parties'
multiple requests for extensions of time, in order to accommodate the
Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (``PTAB'') inter partes review
(``IPR'') of the patents at issue. On May 15, 2024, the PTAB issued two
Final Written Decisions (``FWD''), concluding that all of the
challenged claims of the asserted patents are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. 318(a). Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC, IPR2023-00119, Patent No.
10,593,30, Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims
Unpatentable (May 15, 2024); Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC, IPR2023-00118,
Patent No. 10,134,398, Final Written Decision Determining All
Challenged Claims Unpatentable (May 15, 2024).
On July 31, 2024, Sonos filed its second motion for summary
determination of invalidity (``Second MSD'') that the asserted patent
claims are invalid as anticipated or obvious. Google filed its
opposition to Sonos's Second MSD on August 20, 2024.
On February 4, 2025, the presiding ALJ issued an order (Order No.
35) inviting the parties to file a motion to terminate the
investigation in view of the PTAB's two FWDs of invalidity. Order No.
35 (Feb. 4, 2025), clarified in Order No. 36 (Feb. 19, 2025).
On February 14, 2025, Sonos also moved to terminate the
investigation in view of the PTAB's FWDs of invalidity. Google filed
its opposition to Sonos's termination motion on February 28, 2025.
On March 7, 2025, the presiding ALJ issued a claim construction
order (Order No. 37) finding that the claim term ``low power mode,''
which is used in both of the remaining patents, is indefinite, and the
asserted patent claims are thus invalid. Order No. 37 (March 7, 2025).
On March 7, 2025, the ALJ issued an order (Order No. 38) denying
Sonos' Second MSD because Sonos is estopped from asserting the same
prior art in the present investigation that it asserted in the PTAB
proceedings. Order No. 38 (March 7, 2025) (citing 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(2)).
On March 7, 2025, the ALJ also issued the subject ID (Order No. 39)
granting Sonos's First MSD of invalidity because the claim term ``low
power mode'' is indefinite. Order No. 39 (March 7, 2025) (citing Order
No. 37, supra). The ALJ also granted Sonos's motion to terminate the
investigation for ``good cause'' in view of the PTAB's two FWDs of
invalidity. Sonos, the ALJ found, represented that there are no
agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between the parties
concerning the subject matter of the investigation.
No party filed a petition for review of the subject ID.
The Commission has determined to review Order No. 39 in part.
Specifically, the Commission has determined not to review, and thus
adopts, the ALJ's finding that the asserted claims of the '330 patent
and '398 patent are invalid because the term ``low power mode'' is
indefinite. Accordingly, the Commission finds there is no violation of
section 337, per 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)(1) (requiring infringement of
a valid claim for a finding of violation). The Commission, however, has
determined sua sponte to review in part Order No. 39's termination of
the investigation for
[[Page 15580]]
``good cause.'' The Commission finds that there is no basis in either
Commission precedent or the Commission's rules to terminate an
investigation based on a PTAB final written decision that may still be
appealed. See Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components
Thereof (II), Inv. No. 337-TA-945, Comm'n Op. at 12 (Aug. 2017)
(explaining that ``the law is clear that patent claims are valid until
the PTO issues certificates cancelling those claims, which it cannot do
until the exhaustion of any appeals . . . take[n] from the PTAB's final
written decisions''). On review, the Commission has determined to
vacate the ALJ's termination for ``good cause.''
The investigation is terminated based on the finding of no
violation.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on April 8,
2025.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and
in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: April 8, 2025.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2025-06272 Filed 4-11-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 14, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.