Certain Mobile Electronic Devices; Inv. No. 337-TA-1432 (Violation)

The ALJ found a § 337 violation only as to U.S. Patent No. 11,490,004, concluding that Samsung infringed claims 1 and 10, Maxell proved technical and economic domestic industry, and Samsung failed to prove invalidity. No violation was found for the ’280, ’103, ’953, or ’241 patents, principally because Maxell failed to prove infringement and/or the technical prong of domestic industry, despite Samsung largely failing on invalidity. The recommended remedy is a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders directed to infringing Samsung mobile devices, with a certification provision, a warranty/repair carveout, and no bond during Presidential review. On review, the Commission is likely to focus on the ’004 patent’s infringement, validity, and domestic-industry findings, plus any challenges to the ALJ’s no-violation determinations for the other patents. Violation found only for the ’004 patent; claims 1 and 10 were found infringed, practiced by the domestic industry products, and not invalid. No violation for the ’280 patent; the ALJ construed disputed HDR/image-signal terms and found Maxell failed to prove infringement or technical domestic industry for claims 1 and 14. No violation for the ’103 and ’241 patents because Maxell failed to prove infringement or technical domestic industry; Samsung’s invalidity defenses were rejected. For the ’953 patent, Samsung infringed claim 9 but Maxell failed to prove technical domestic industry for claims 2, 9, or 30, so no § 337 violation resulted. Economic domestic industry was proven for all asserted patents; the ALJ recommended an LEO and CDOs, but no Presidential-review bond.