Certain Semiconductor Devices and Products Containing the Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-1414 (Violation)

The Commission found a violation of section 337 as to claims 4 and 17 of the '481 patent, but no violation as to claims 1-3 and 6, which it held invalid as obvious over Nega in view of Roberts. It issued a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders against all four Innoscience respondents, with a 100% bond during Presidential review. The orders reach the 33 accused GaN semiconductor products and products containing them, but not the adjudicated Redesign Products. The remedy overlaps with the earlier Inv. No. 337-TA-1366 orders and also covers the '1366 redesigns' that CBP found outside that LEO. Reversal of the FID on obviousness and the modified construction of 'lateral transistor device' are likely issues if the decision is appealed. Modified construction of 'lateral transistor device': a transistor in which current generally flows in the lateral direction and has electrodes on the upper surface of the device. Both requirements are drawn from the specification, the prosecution history and the expert testimony. Under the modified construction, the Accused Products infringe claims 1-4, 6 and 17. The Redesign Products do not infringe because they lack a third-lead connection to the source (limitations 1[F] and 17[D]). Claims 1-3 and 6 are invalid as obvious over Nega in view of Roberts. The FID erred by requiring a specific problem in Nega, Roberts is analogous art, a reasonable expectation of success was shown, and the secondary considerations were insufficient. Claims 4 and 17 survive: claims 1, 2, 4 and 6 are not obvious over Liu, and claims 3 and 17 are not obvious over Liu in view of Roberts. Domestic industry: the technical prong is met through the DI products practicing claims 4 and 17, and the invalid claims 1-3 and 6 cannot support it. The economic prong is met under sections 337(a)(3)(A) and (B), with Commissioner Kearns relying only on (B). Remedy: a standard LEO with no carve-out listing the Redesign Products, CDOs against all four Innoscience respondents, and no public interest bar. The bond is 100% of entered value because price differential and royalty analyses are impractical.