Certain Glass Substrates for Liquid Crystal Displays, Products Containing the Same, and Methods for Manufacturing the Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-1433 (Violation)

The ALJ found a violation of section 337(a)(1)(A) based on trade secret misappropriation. The evidence showed misappropriation by Caihong of Design Trade Secrets TS 15.1, 16.1, 17.1, 22.1, 24.1, 30.1, 35.1, 35.2, 41.1 and 51, and of Operational Trade Secret TS 68, but not TS 12.1, 19, 20.1, 52.2, 59, 61, 62 or 64. Corning showed a domestic industry and injury or threat of injury, and the affirmative defenses (estoppel, limitations, laches, acquiescence, waiver, implied license, unclean hands) failed. This is a trade secret case about LCD glass substrates made with Corning's fusion draw technology, reaching downstream panels and TVs. The ALJ will issue a recommended determination on remedy, bonding and public interest within 14 days; the middle of the document, including the full domestic industry reasoning, is omitted from this text. Absent a petition or Commission review, the ID becomes the Commission determination 60 days after service. Gao PicVue and Gao Caihong drawings were held reliable circumstantial evidence, combined with Dr. Bravman's comparison, of misappropriation and substantial use in Caihong's Gen 5 and later FDMs. Statements by Gao and Sun, Mr. Zou's views on their veracity, and Mr. Park's PicVue declaration were given no or little weight. Misappropriation was found for ten Design Trade Secrets (TS 15.1, 16.1, 17.1, 22.1, 24.1, 30.1, 35.1, 35.2, 41.1, 51); it was not shown for TS 12.1, 20.1 and 52.2. Among the Operational Trade Secrets only TS 68 was found misappropriated, while TS 59, 61, 62 and 64 and the Isopipe scaling secret TS 19 were not. The ALJ also granted in part Respondents' motion to strike testimony linking documents to Operational Trade Secrets in a manner not fairly disclosed. Laches was waived because it was not pleaded and would fail anyway. The statute of limitations, waiver, acquiescence, implied license and unclean hands defenses all failed, with no sanctions, because Respondents did not prove a Corning claim accrual or egregious misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. The ALJ granted summary determination on importation earlier and addressed domestic industry and injury as a requirement of section 337(a)(1)(A); the conclusion states that a violation was found for the secrets listed. The ALJ certified the record to the Commission and deferred remedy and bond to a recommended determination.