Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits ...

In the Matter of 

Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp 

(“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits and Products 

Containing the Same 

Investigation No. 337-TA-666 

Publication 4269 October 2011 

U.S. International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436


COMMISSIONERS 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson, Vice Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert 

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436


Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov 


Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp 

(“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits and Products 

Containing the Same 


Publication 4269 October 2011


PUBLIC VERSION 

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Washington, D.C. 

CERTAIN COLD CATHODE FLUORESCENT 

LAMP ("CCFL") INVERTER CIRCUITS AND 

PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE SAME 

Inv. No. 337-TA-666 

INITIAL DETERMINATION ON VIOLATION OF SECTION 337 AND 

RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION ON REMEDY AND BOND 

Administrative Law Judge E. James Gildea 

(April 19, 2010) 

Appearances: 

For the Complainants 02 Micro International Ltd and 02 Micro Inc.: 

Burt C. Reiser, Esq.; Margaret MacDonald, Esq.; and Mark L. Whitaker, Esq. of Howrey LLP of 


Henry C. Bunsow, Esq.; K.T. Cheri an, Esq.; Duane Mathiowetz, Esq.; and Robert Harkins, Esq. 

of Howrey LLP of San Francisco, C.A. 

For the Respondents ASUSTeK Computer Inc., ASUS Computer International and Monolithic 

Power Systems, Inc.: 

Smith R. Brittingham, IV, Esq.; Amanda L. Blaurock, Esq. of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, 

Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P. of Washington, D.C. 

Lionel M. Lavenue, Esq.; Darren M. Jiron, Esq.; and John M. Mulcahy, Esq. of Finnegan, 

Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P. of Reston, V.A. 

Stephen E. Kabakoff, Esq. of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P. of 

Atlanta, G.A. 

Mark A. Flagel, Esq.; Robert Steinberg, Esq.; and Franklin D. Kang, Esq. of Latham & Watkins 

LLP of Los Angeles, C.A. 

Dean G. Dunlavey, Esq. of Latham & Watkins LLP of Costa Mesa, C.A.

For the Respondent Microsemi Corporation: 

Joel D. Covelman, Esq. and Paul Kim, Esq. of The Yocca Law Firm, LLP ofIrvine, C.A. 

Fred T. Grasso, Esq. of Grasso, PLLC of Reston, V.A. 

For the Commission Investigative Staff: 

Lynn 1. Levine, Esq., Director; T. Spence Chubb, Esq., Supervisory Attorney; David O. Lloyd, 

Esq., Investigative Attorney, ofthe Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, of Washington, D.C.


Pursuant to the Notice ofInvestigation, 74 Fed. Reg. 2099 (2009), this is the Initial 

Determination of the Investigation in the Matter of Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp 

("CCFL") Inverter Circuits and Products Containing Same, United States International Trade 

Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-666. See 19 C.F.R. § 21O.42(a). 

With respect to Respondents ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer 

International, it is held that no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 

U.S.C. § 1337), has occurred in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, 

or the sale within the United States after importation, of certain CCFL inverter circuits by reason 

of infringement of one or more of claims 1,2,4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14 of United States Patent No. 

7,417,382. 

With respect to Respondent Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., it held that no violation of 

Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, has occurred in the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation, of 

certain CCFL inverter circuits by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 

11 and 14 of United States Patent No. 7,417,382. 

With respect to Respondent Microsemi Corporation, it held that no violation of Section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, has occurred in the importation into the United States, 

the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation, of certain CCFL 

inverter circuits by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9 and 11 of United 

States Patent No. 7,417,382. 

7,417,382. 

It is further held that a domestic industry does not exist that practices U.S. Patent No.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INITIAL DETERMINATION ON VIOLATION OF SECTION 337 AND RECOMMENDED 

DETERMINATION ON REMEDY AND BOND .................................................................................... v 

I. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 1 

A. Institution and Procedural History of this Investigation .......................................................... 1 

B. The Parties ............................................................................................................................... 4 

1. Complainants 02 Micro International Ltd. and 02 Micro Inc ...................................... 4 

2. Respondent Monolithic Power Systems Inc .................................................................. 5 

3. Respondent Microsemi Corporation ............................................................................. 5 

4. Respondents ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer InternationaL ............. 5 

5. Respondents LG Electronics and LG Electronics U.S.A. ............................................. 6 

6. Respondents LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc ............................... 6 

7. Respondents BenQ Corporation and BenQ America Corp ........................................... 6 

C. Overview of the Technology ................................................................................................... 6 

D. The Patent at Issue ................................................................................................................... 7 

E. The Products at Issue ............................................................................................................. 12 

II. mRlSDICTION AND IMPORTATION ....................................................................................... 13 

III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................ 15 

A. Applicable Law ...................................................................................................................... 15 

B. Level of Skill in the Art ......................................................................................................... 18 

C. The Disputed Claim Terms of the '382 Patent and Their Proper Construction ..................... 18 

1. Claim 1, Portion of Element 'f', and Claim 8, Portion of Element 'h'-"a timer 

circuit . .. for providing a time-out sequence of a predetermined duration" ........................ 18 

2. Claim 1, Portion of Element 'f', and Claim 8, Portion of Element 'h' -"when saidfirst 

voltage signal exceeds a predetermined threshold for said predetermined duration" .......... 22 

3. Claim 1, Portion of Element 'g' and Claim 8, Portion of Element 'i' -"shutting down 

said first switch and said second switch after said predetermined duration" ....................... 23 

4. Claim 1, Portion of Element 'd' and Claim 8, Portion of Element 'f' -"electrically 

coupled' ................................................................................................................................. 26 

IV. INFRINGEMENT DETERMINATION ........................................................................................ 26 

A. Applicable Law ...................................................................................................................... 26 

1. Direct Infringement. .................................................................................................... 26 

2. Indirect Infringement .................................................................................................. 27 

Induced Infringement. ................................................................................................. 27 

Contributory Infringement. ......................................................................................... 27 

B. Analysis of the Accused MPS Products with Respect to the '382 patent... ........................... 28 

1. Claim 1 ........................................................................................................................ 41 

2. Claim 2 ........................................................................................................................ 42 

3. Claim 4 ........................................................................................................................ 43 

4. Claim 7 ........................................................................................................................ 44 

5. Claim 8 ........................................................................................................................ 45 

6. Claim 9 ........................................................................................................................ 46 

7. Claim 11 ...................................................................................................................... 47 

8. Claim 14 ...................................................................................................................... 48 

9. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 49 

C. Analysis of the Accused ASUS Products with Respect to the '382 patent. .......................... 50 

1. Claim 1 ........................................................................................................................ 53 

ASUS EeeTop Unit. .................................................................................................... 53 

ASUS VHI96T Monitor ............................................................................................. 53 

ASUS LS221 Monitor ................................................................................................. 53

ASUS F5RL Notebook ............................................................................................... 54 

Other ASUS products identified in CX-403C. ............................................................ 54 

2. Claim 2 ........................................................................................................................ 55 


ASUS VH196T Monitor ............................................................................................. 55 

ASUS LS221 Monitor ................................................................................................. 55 



3. Claim 4 ........................................................................................................................ 56 



ASUS LS221 Monitor. ................................................................................................ 57 


Other ASUS products identified in CX-403C ............................................................. 58 

4. Claim 7 ........................................................................................................................ 58 






5. Claim 8 ........................................................................................................................ 59 






6. Claim 9 ........................................................................................................................ 61 






7. Claim 11 ...................................................................................................................... 63 






8. Claim 14 ...................................................................................................................... 65 



ASUS LS22I Monitor. ................................................................................................ 65 



9. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 66 

D. Analysis of the Accused Microsemi Products with Respect to the '382 patent. ................... 66 

1. Claim 1 ........................................................................................................................ 69 

LXI69I Family ........................................................................................................... 70 

LXI692 Family ........................................................................................................... 78 

LX1693 Family ........................................................................................................... 83 

LX 1691 Modules ........................................................................................................ 89

LX 1692 Modules ........................................................................................................ 90 

LX 1693 Modules ........................................................................................................ 90 

2. Claim 2 ........................................................................................................................ 91 

3. Claim 4 ........................................................................................................................ 95 

4. Claim 8 ........................................................................................................................ 99 

5. Claim 9 ...................................................................................................................... 103 

6. Claim 11 .................................................................................................................... 105 

7. Indirect Infringement. ............................................................................................... 107 

Induced Infringement. ............................................................................................... 108 

Contributory Infringement. ....................................................................................... 112 

8. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 112 

V. VALIDITY ................................................................................................................................... 113 

A. Background .......................................................................................................................... 113 

B. Conception Date for the '387 Patent. .................................................................................. 114 

C. Anticipation ......................................................................................................................... 119 

The MP 1 010 Inverter Circuits and Associated Documentation .......................................... 120 

Claim 1 ...................................................................................................................... 127 

Claim 2 ...................................................................................................................... 129 

Claim 4 ...................................................................................................................... 129 

Claim 7 ...................................................................................................................... 131 

Claim 9 ...................................................................................................................... 133 

Claim 11 .................................................................................................................... 133 

Claim 14 .................................................................................................................... 133 

D. Obviousness ......................................................................................................................... 133 

1. Claims 1 and 8 ........................................................................................................... 137 

2. Claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 11 and 14 ....................................................................................... 150 

3. Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ....................................................... 150 

E. Validity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................... 151 

VI. ENFORCEABILITY .................................................................................................................... 155 

A. Inequitable Conduct. ............................................................................................................ 155 

1. Alleged inequitable conduct involving Declaration of Dr. Lin ................................. 157 

2. Alleged inequitable conduct by burying references of prior art among numerous 

records ................................................................................................................................. 163 

3. Alleged inequitable conduct by withholding a relevant court order in other litigation. 

165 

4. Alleged inequitable conduct by withholding documents describing the MP1011 prior 

art. 167 

B. Unclean Hands ..................................................................................................................... 168 

VII. WAIVER OR WITHDRAWAL OF RESPONDENTS' OTHER DEFENSES ........................... 170 

VIII. DOMESTIC INDUSTRy .................................................................................................... 170 

A. Technical Analysis .............................................................................................................. 171 

'382 Patent. .......................................................................................................................... 172 

B. Economic Analysis .............................................................................................................. 178 

'382 Patent. .......................................................................................................................... 179 

lX. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW .......................................................................................................... 179 

X. INITIAL DETERMINA nON AND ORDER ............................................................................. 181 

RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION ON REMEDY AND BOND ............................................. 183 

I. REMEDY AND BONDING ........................................................................................................ 183 

A. Applicable Law .................................................................................................................... 183 

B. Remedy with Respect to the '382 Patent. ............................................................................ 183 

II. CEASE AND DESIST ORDER ................................................................................................... 185

III. BOND DURING PRESIDENTIAL REVIEW PERlOD ............................................................. 187 

N. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 188


The following abbreviations may be used in this Initial Determination: 

JX Joint Exhibit 

CX Complainants' exhibit 

CDX Complainants' demonstrative exhibit 

CPX Complainants' physical exhibit 

CFF Complainants' proposed findings of fact 

CCL Complainants' proposed conclusions of law 

CBr. Complainants' initial post-hearing brief 

CORFF Complainants' objections to MPS/ASUS Respondents' proposed findings offact 

COMFF Complainants' objections to Respondent Microsemi's proposed findings of fact 

COSFF Complainants' objections to Staffs proposed findings of fact 

CRBr. Complainants' reply post-hearing brief 

CSBr. Complainant's supplemental briefing pursuant to Order No. 45 

RX Respondents' exhibit 

RDX Respondents' demonstrative exhibit 

RPX Respondents' physical exhibit 

RFF MPS/ASUS Respondents' proposed findings of fact 

RCL MPSI ASUS Respondents' proposed conclusions of law 

RBr. MPS/ASUS Respondents' initial post-hearing brief 

ROCFF MPS/ASUS Respondents' objections to Complainant's proposed findings of fact 

ROSFF MPS/ASUS Respondents' objections to Staffs proposed findings of fact 

ROMFF MPS/ASUS Respondents' objections to Microsemi's proposed findings of fact 

RRBr. MPS/ASUS Respondents' reply post-hearing brief 

RSBr. MPS/ASUS Respondents' supplemental briefing pursuant to Order No. 45 

MFF Respondent Microsemi's proposed findings of fact 

MCL Respondent Microsemi's proposed conclusions of law 

MBr. Respondent Microsemi's initial post-hearing brief 

MOCFF Respondent Microsemi's objections to Complainant's proposed findings of fact


MOSFF Respondent Microsemi's objections to Staffs proposed findings of fact 

MRBr. Respondent Microsemi's reply post-hearing brief 

MSBr. Respondent Microsemi's supplemental briefing pursuant to Order No. 45 

SFF Staff s proposed findings of fact 

SCL Staff s proposed conclusions of law 

SBr. Staffs initial post-hearing brief 

SOCFF Staff s objections to Complainant's proposed findings of fact 

SORFF Staffs objections to MPS/ASUS Respondents' proposed findings of fact 

SOMFF Staffs objections to Respondent Microsemi's proposed findings of fact 

SRBr. Staffs reply post-hearing brief 

SSBr. Staffs supplemental briefing pursuant to Order No. 45 

Tr. Hearing transcript

I. BACKGROUND. 


A. Institution and Procedural History of this Investigation. 

By publication of a Notice ofInvestigation in the Federal Register on January 8, 2009, 

pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the Commission 

instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-666 with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,417,382 (the "'382 

patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6,856,519 (the "'519 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6,809,938 (the "'938 

patent") and U.S. Patent No. 7,120,035 (the "'035 patent") to determine the following: 

74 Fed. Reg. 2099 (2009). 

whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(l)(B) of section 337 

in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, 

or the sale within the United States after importation of certain 

cold cathode fluorescent lamp ("CCFL") inverter circuits or 

products containing same that infringe one or more of claims 1, 2, 

4,6-9, 11, 13, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,417,382; claim 7 of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,856,519; claims 1-3 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,809,938; and claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 7,120,035, and whether 

an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection 

(a)(2) of section 337[.] 

02 Micro International Ltd. of the Cayman Islands and 02 Micro Inc. of Santa Clara, 

California (collectively "02 Micro") are named in the Notice of Investigation as the 

Complainants. Id The Respondents named in the Notice of Investigation were Monolithic 

Power Systems Inc. of San Jose, California; Microsemi Corporation ofIrvine, California; 

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; ASUSTeK Computer International America of 

Fremont, California; LG Electronics of Seoul, Korea; LG Electronics U.S.A. of Englewood 

Cliffs, New Jersey; LG Display Co., Ltd. of Seoul, Korea; LG Display America, Inc. of San Jose, 

California; BenQ Corporation of Taipei, Taiwan; and BenQ America Corp. of Irvine, California. 

Id The Commission Investigative Staff of the Commission's Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations is also a party in this Investigation. Id. 

- 1 -


On May 13,2009, the Administrative Law Judge issued an initial determination granting 

an unopposed motion to amend the Complaint and Notice ofInvestigation to correct the name of 

Respondent ASUSTeK Computer International America to ASUS Computer International. (See 

Order No.8.) The Commission determined not to review the order. (See Notice of Commission 

Decision Not to Review an Initial Determination Correcting the Name of ASUS Computer 

International in the Complaint and Notice ofInvestigation (June 2,2009).) 

On June 22, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge issued an initial determination granting 

an unopposed motion to partially terminate the Investigation with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 

6,856,519,6,809,938, and 7,120,035. (See Order No. 12.) The Commission determined not to 

review the order. (See Notice of Commission Decision Not to Review the Administrative Law 

Judge's Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation as to the '519, '938, and '035 

Patents (July 13, 2009).) 

On June 23, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge issued an initial determination granting 

a joint motion to terminate Respondents BenQ Corporation and BenQ America Corp. (See Order 

No. 13.) The Commission determined not to review the order. (See Notice of Commission 

Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation as to 

Respondents BenQ Corporation and BenQ America Corp. Based on a Settlement Agreement 

(July 16, 2009).) 

On August 31, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge issued an initial determination 

granting a motion to terminate Respondents LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics USA, Inc. 

from the Investigation. (See Order No. 24.) The Commission determined not to review the order. 

(See Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination Terminating 

-2-


the Investigation as to Respondents LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics USA, Inc. Based on 

a Settlement Agreement (September 17,2009).) 

On September 9,2009, the Administrative Law Judge issued an initial determination 

granting a joint motion to terminate Respondents LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, 

Inc. from the Investigation. (See Order No. 25.) The Commission determined not to review the 

order. (See Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination 

Terminating the Investigation with Respect to Respondents LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG 

Display America, Inc. Based on a Consent Order (September 25,2009).) 


granting Complainants 02 Micro International Ltd. and 02 Micro Inc.' s motion for summary 

determination regarding the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. (See Order 

No. 30.) The Administrative Law Judge found that the economic prong was satisfied based on 

Complainants' investments in the production ofthe OZ964 inverter circuit by X-F AB, and the 

direct investments in research and development and product support, including testing, service 

and repair, for the OZ960 and OZ964 CCFL inverter circuits. (Id at 6.) The Commission 

determined not to review the order. (See Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review an 

Initial Determination Granting Summary Determination as to the Economic Prong of Domestic 

Industry (October 20, 2009).) 


granting in part Complainants' motion for summary determination that Respondent ASUSTeK 

Computer, Inc.'s activities satisfY the importation requirement of Section 337. (See Order No. 

31.) The Administrative Law Judge found that the importation requirement was established for 

purposes of this Investigation through the importation, sale for importation, and sale after 

- 3 -


importation into the United States ofthe accused products by ASUSTeK. (Id at 9.) The 

Commission determined not to review this order. (See Notice of Commission Determination Not 

to Review an Initial Determination Granting In-Part a Motion for Summary Determination; 

Summary Determination ofImportation (October 21,2009).) 

The evidentiary hearing on the question of violation of Section 337 began on October 19, 

2009, and ended on October 30,2009. Respondent Microsemi Corporation ("Micro semi"); 

Respondent Monolithic Power System, Inc. ("MPS"); Respondents ASUSTeK Computer Inc. 

and ASUS Computer International (collectively, "ASUS"); Complainants 02 Micro International 

Ltd. and 02 Micro Inc. ("02 Micro"); and Commission Investigative Staff ("Staff'), were 

represented by counsel at the hearing. 

B. The Parties. 

1. Complainants 02 Micro International Ltd. and 02 Micro Inc. 

02 Micro International Ltd. is a Cayman Islands Corporation with its principal place of 

business in George Town, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands. (Am. Complaint at 2; CBr. at 5; 

SFF 11 (undisputed).) 02 Micro International Ltd. "designs, develops, and markets high 

performance integrated circuits for power management and security operations, as well as 

systems security solutions." (CBr. at 5; SFF 12 (undisputed).) 02 Micro Inc. is a wholly owned 

subsidiary of 02 Micro International Ltd. and is located in Santa Clara, California. (Am. 

Complaint at 2; CBr. at 5; SFF 14 (undisputed).) 02 Micro Inc. "designs, develops, tests, sells 

and supports" CCFL inverter controllers for 02 Micro inverter circuit designs and other products. 

(Am. Complaint at 2-3; CBr. at 5.) 

-4-


2. Respondent Monolithic Power Systems Inc. 

MPS is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in San Jose, California. 

(RBr. at 6; Am. Complaint at 3; SFF 16 (undisputed).) MPS is allegedly engaged in the 

manufacture, sale for importation, importation, and sale after importation into the United States 

of CCFL inverter controllers for inverter circuits that infringe certain claims of the' 3 82 patent. 

(Am. Complaint at 3.) According to 02 Micro, MPS sells the accused CCFL inverter controllers 

for inverter circuits to original equipment manufacturers for importation in such products as 

notebook computers and LCD televisions. (Id at 3-4.) 

3. Respondent Microsemi Corporation. 

Microsemi is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Irvine, 

California. (Am. Complaint at 4; SFF 18 (undisputed).) Microsemi is allegedly engaged in the 

manufacture, sale for importation, importation, and sale after importation into the United States 

ofCCFL inverter controllers for inverter circuits that infringe the '382 patent. (Am. Complaint 

at 4.) According to 02 Micro, Microsemi sells the accused CCFL inverter controllers for 

inverter circuits to original equipment manufacturers for importation in such products as 

notebook computers and LCD televisions. (Id.) 

4. Respondents ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer 

International. 

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. is a Taiwanese corporation with a principal place of business in 

Taipei, Taiwan. (Am. Complaint at 4; RBr. at 6; SFF 20 (undisputed).) ASUSTeK Computer 

Inc. is allegedly engaged in the manufacture, sale for importation, importation, and sale after 

importation into the United States of notebook computers and/or LCD monitors that contain 

CCFL inverter circuits with MPS inverter controllers that infringe the '382 patent. (Am. 

Complaint at 4.) ASUS Computer International is a wholly owned subsidiary of ASUSTeK 

- 5 -


Computer Inc. and is located in Fremont, California. (Am. Complaint at 5; RBI. at 6; SFF 23 

(undisputed).) ASUS Computer International is allegedly engaged in the sale for importation, 

importation, and sale after importation into the United States of notebook computers and/or LCD 

monitors that contain CCFL inverter circuits with MPS inverter controllers that infringe the '382 

patent. (Am. Complaint at 4.) 

5. Respondents LG Electronics and LG Electronics U.S.A. 

Respondents LG Electronics and LG Electronics U.S.A. were terminated from the 

Investigation. (See Order No. 24.) 

6. Respondents LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc. 

Respondents LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc. were terminated from 

the Investigation. (See Order No. 25.) 

7. Respondents BenQ Corporation and BenQ America Corp. 

Respondents Corporation and BenQ America Corp. were terminated from the 

Investigation. (See Order No. 13.) 

C. Overview of the Technology. 

At issue are cold cathode fluorescent lamp ("CCFL") inverter circuits and products, such 

as notebook computers and liquid crystal display ("LCD") monitors, that contain them. (Am. 

Complaint at 7.) These inverter circuits are used to convert direct current ("DC") to the 

alternating current ("AC") used by the CCFLs and to control the amount of power the CCFLs 

receive. (Id at 8-9.) These inverter circuits also include protection circuitry to respond to a 

dangerous high voltage or "over-voltage" condition resulting from a broken or disconnected 

lamp (an "open lamp condition"). (Id at 9.) 

- 6 -

D. The Patent at Issue. 


This Investigation concerns U.S. Patent No. 7,417,382 (the "'382 patent"), entitled "High 

Efficiency Adaptive DCI AC Converter," which resulted from a continuation application 

claiming priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 101776,417 filed February 11,2004 and now 

U.S. Pat. No. 6,804,129, which itself is a continuation application of U.S. Patent Application No. 

10/132,016 filed April 24, 2002, which itself is a continuation application of U.S. Patent 

Application No. 09/850,222 filed May 7, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,396,722, which itself is a 

continuation application of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/437,081 filed November 9, 1999, 

now U.S. Pat. No. 6,259,615, all of which claim priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 

60/145,118, filed July 22, 1999. (See JX-1 at 02ITC 037273.) The '382 patent was filed on 

September 7, 2004, and issued on August 26,2008. (Jd) The '382 patent names Yung-Lin Lin 

as the inventor. (Id) The '382 patent was assigned to 02Micro International Limited. (Id) 

The '382 patent discloses a DC to AC power converter circuit "for controllably 

delivering power to a load." (JX-1 at 2:33-34.) The '382 patent discloses a switch network with 

two sets of overlapping switches 80 [Switch_A & Switch_D, Switch_B & Switch_C] coupled to 

a DC voltage source 12 [VI]. (Id at 2:35-3:19, Fig. 2.) Drive circuitry 50 controls the switches 

80, alternating the conduction path between the two sets of switches.! (!d.) Below is a figure of 

one of the embodiments of the inverter circuit disclosed in the '382 patent. 

1 This results in a "switched AC signal." (Tr. at 320:22-23 (Lin); SFF 27 (undisputed).) 

- 7 -


FIG. 2 

(JX-l, Fig. 2.) The switches 80 are connected to the primary side ofa transformer [TXl, left 

side], and the secondary side of the transformer [TXl, right sidef is connected to a load 20, such 

as a CCFL on an LCD panel. (Id at 2:43-48,3:20-34, Fig. 2.) Because the CCFL has high 

impedance characteristics, a significant amount of energy must be delivered to ignite 3 the CCFL. 

(Id at 7:20-24.) After the CCFL is lit, the CCFL impedance "decreases to its normal operating 

value." (Id at 7:25-26.) The '382 patent discloses a feedback signal [FB] as part of a feedback 

control loop 40 "permitting controllable power to be delivered to the load." (Id at 2:48-50, 5:49- 

52, Fig. 2.) The '382 patent further discloses an over-voltage protection circuit 60 to protect the 

converter circuit and the load from an open lamp condition. 4 (Id at 8:1-9:9, Fig. 2.) 

2 The transformer is part ofthe "resonant tank," which "steps up" the voltage and smoothes out the AC waveform. 

(Tr. at 322:16 (Lin).) 

3 This may also be referred to as "striking the lamp." (Tr. at 315:23-25 (Lin).) 

4 If, for example, the CCFL lamp becomes broken or disconnected (open lamp), the inverter could provide 

excessive voltage resulting in arcing and damage to the components or operator. (Tr. at 326: 13-329:5 (Lin).) "In an 

- 8 -


The '382 patent has eight asserted claims, two of which are independent. Asserted claims 

1,2,4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14 read as follows: 

1. A DC to AC cold cathode fluorescent lamp inverter circuit, comprising: 

[a.] a step-up transformer with a primary winding and a secondary winding 

for providing increased voltage to a cold cathode fluorescent lamp; 

[b.] a first switch coupled to said step-up transformer for selectively allowing 

said step-up transformer to receive DC voltage of a first polarity; 

[c.] a second switch coupled to said step-up transformer for selectively 

allowing said step-up transformer to receive DC voltage of a second 

polarity; 

[d.] a capacitor divider electrically coupled to said cold cathode fluorescent 

lamp for providing a first voltage signal representing a voltage across 

said cold cathode fluorescent lamp; 

[e.] a first feedback signal line coupled to said capacitor divider for receiving 

said first voltage signal from said capacitor divider representing said 

voltage across said cold cathode fluorescent lamp; 

[f.] a timer circuit coupled to said first feedback signal line for providing a 

time-out sequence of a predetermined duration when said first voltage 

signal exceeds a predetermined threshold for said predetermined 

duration; and 

[g.] a protection circuit coupled to said timer circuit, said first switch and said 

second switch for shutting down said first switch and said second 

switch after said predetermined duration. 

2. A DC to AC cold cathode fluorescent lamp inverter circuit as claimed in 

claim 1 wherein said predetermined duration is sufficient for ignition of said cold 

cathode fluorescent lamp when properly operating. 

4. A DC to AC cold cathode fluorescent lamp inverter circuit as claimed in claim 

1 further comprising: 

[a.] a sense resistor electrically coupled to said cold cathode fluorescent lamp 

and electrically coupled to ground for providing a second voltage 

signal representing current through said cold cathode fluorescent lamp; 

open lamp condition, the circuitry of Figure 2 protects the device by shutting down the power before electrical 

arcing or similar problems can occur." (SFF 33 (undisputed).) 

-9-


[b.] a second feedback signal line coupled to said sense resistor for receiving 

said second voltage signal from said sense resistor representing current 

through said cold cathode fluorescent lamp; and 

[c.] a feedback control circuit coupled to said second feedback signal line for 

adjusting power to said cold cathode fluorescent lamp to a power level 

such that said second voltage signal approaches a reference value 

representing desired load conditions of said cold cathode fluorescent 

lamp. 


claim 1 further comprising: 

[a.] a third switch coupled to said first switch and said step-up transformer for 

providing a first electrical path through said-up transformer to ground 

when said third switch and said first switch are simultaneously on; 

[b.] a fourth switch coupled to said second switch and said-up transformer for 

providing a second electrical path through said step-up transformer to 

ground when said fourth switch and said second switch are 

simultaneously on; 

[c.] a sense resistor electrically coupled to said cold cathode fluorescent lamp 



[d.] a second feedback signal line coupled to said sense resistor for receiving 



[e.] a feedback control circuit coupled to said second feedback signal line, 

said first switch and said third switch for adjusting time when said 

third switch and said first switch are simultaneously on such that said 

second voltage signal approaches a reference value representing 

desired load conditions of said cold cathode fluorescent lamp. 

8. A liquid crystal display unit comprising: 

[a.] a liquid crystal display panel; 

[b.] a cold cathode fluorescent lamp for illuminating said liquid crystal 

display panel; 

[c.] a step-up transformer with a primary winding and a secondary winding 

coupled to said cold cathode fluorescent lamp for providing increased 

voltage to said cold cathode fluorescent lamp; 

[d.] a first switch coupled to said step-up transformer for selectively allowing 


[e.] a second switch coupled to said step-up transformer for selectively 


polarity; 

- 10 -


[f.] a capacitor divider electrically coupled to said cold cathode fluorescent 



[g.] a first feedback signal line coupled to said capacitor divider for receiving 



[h.] a timer circuit coupled to said first feedback signal line for providing a 



duration; and 

[i.] a protection circuit coupled to said timer circuit, said first switch and said 



9. A liquid crystal display unit as claimed in claim 8 wherein said predetermined 

duration is sufficient for ignition of said cold cathode fluorescent lamp when 

properly operating. 

11. A liquid crystal display unit as claimed in claim 8 further 






through said cold cathode fluorescent lamp; 





lamp. 

14. A liquid crystal display unit as claimed in claim 8 further comprising: 


providing a first electrical path through said step-up transformer to 

ground when said third switch and said first switch are simultaneously 

on; 

[b.] a fourth switch coupled to said second switch and said step-up 

transformer for providing a second electrical path through said step-up 

transformer to ground when said fourth switch and said second switch 

are simultaneously on; 



signal representing current through said cold cathode fluorescent lamp: 

- 11 -










(JX-l at 02ITC 037301-3.) 

E. The Products at Issue. 

The products at issue in this Investigation are CCFL inverter circuits, including products 

such as modules, boards, notebook computers and LCD monitors that incorporate them. (CBr. at 

7-9.) With respectto infringement of claims 1,2,4,8,9, and II of the '382 patent, 02 Micro 

accuses the following MPS inverter controller product families 5 : MPlOI5, MPlO08, MPI009, 

MPI0091,MPI0I0B,MPIOI6,MPIOI7,MPIOI8,MPI026,MPI028,MPIO37,MPI038, 

MP1048, MPI060, MPI061, MP1062, MP1872, MP61093, VN800, VN830 (collectively, the 

"MPS Products"). (CBr. at 7,33; SFF 47 (undisputed).) According to 02 Micro, the MPI015 

product is representative of all the accused MPS Products because they "include the same basic 

circuitry and functionality with respect to the overvoltage protection circuit described in the '382 

patent claims and that was first present in the MPlOI5." (Id.; CFF III.C.25, 26.) With respect to 

infringement of claims 7 and 14 of the' 3 82 patent, 02 Micro accuses the following MPS 

Products: MPIOI5, MPIOIOB, MPIOI6, MPI017, MPlOI8, MP1026, MPI028, MPI037, 

MP1038, MP1048, MP1060, MPI061, MP1062, MP1872, VN800, VN830. (CBr. at 33.) 

02 Micro further identifies the ASUS inverter modules, boards, notebook computers, and 

LCD monitors listed in CX-403C and attached hereto as Appendix A (the "ASUS Products") as 

infringing some or all of claims 1,2,4, 7,8,9, II and 14 of the '382 patent because they 

5 Identified by base model numbers. (eEr. at 7.) 

- 12 -


incorporate accused MPS Products. (CBr. at 7-8, 48-53; CFF III.C.I171; CFF III.C. 1173; CFF 

III.C.II75-76.) According to 02 Micro, the ASUS Products that contain the MPS MPlO09 and 

MP1038 inverter drivers infringe claims 1,2,4,8,9, and 11 of the '382 patent. (CBr. at 48-53.) 

According to 02 Micro, the ASUS Products that contain the MPS MPIOlOB, MPIOI5, MPI017, 

MPI018, MP1037, MP1060, and MP1872 inverter drivers infringe claims 1,2,4, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 

14 of the '382 patent. (Jd.) 

02 Micro further identifies Microsemi inverter circuits incorporating the LX 1691, 

LX1691A, LX1691B, LX1692, LX1692A, LX1692B, LXI696, LX1696A, LX6512, LX1693, 

LX1697 and LX1699 CCFL inverter controller families as infringing some or all of claims 1, 2, 

4,8,9, and 11 of the '382 patent, as well as the Microsemi inverter module families containing 

accused Microsemi inverter controllers that are listed in CDX-47 and RX-991C and attached 

hereto as Appendix B (collectively, the "Micro semi Products"). (CBr. at 8-9.) 

II. JURISDICTION AND IMPORTATION. 

In order to have the power to decide a case, a court or agency must have both subject 

matter jurisdiction, and jurisdiction over either the parties or the property involved. See Certain 

Steel Rod Treating Apparatus and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-97, Commission 

Memorandum Opinion, 215 U.S.P.Q. 229,231 (U.S.I.T.C., 1981). For the reasons discussed 

below, the Administrative Law Judge finds the Commission has jurisdiction over this 

Investigation. 

Respondents MPS, ASUS, and Microsemi have responded to the Complaint and Notice 

ofInvestigation and have fully participated in the Investigation by, among other things, 

participating in discovery, participating in the hearing, and filing pre-hearing and post-hearing 

briefs. (SFF 52 (undisputed); MFF 69 (undisputed).) Accordingly, the Administrative Law 

- 13 -


Judge finds that Respondents MPS, ASUS, and Microsemi have submitted to the personal 

jurisdiction of the Commission and that the Commission has in rem jurisdiction over the accused 

MPS Products, ASUS Products, and Microsemi Products. Certain Cloisonne Jewelry, Inv. No. 

337-TA-195, Initial Determination at 40-43 (U.S.LT.C., March, 1985) (unreviewed). 

Section 337 declares to be unlawful "[t]he importation into the United States, the sale for 

importation, or the sale within the United States after importation by the owner, importer, or 

consignee, of articles" that infringe a valid and enforceable United States patent if an industry 

relating to the articles protected by the patent exists or is in the process of being established in 

the United States. See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1337(a)(1)(B)(i) and (a)(2). Pursuant to Section 337, the 

Commission shall investigate alleged violations of the Section and hear and decide actions 

involving those alleged violations. 

With respect to the '382 patent, the importation or sale requirement of Section 337 

establishing subject matter jurisdiction as to Respondent ASUSTeK Computer Inc. has already 

been established. (Order No. 31 at 9. See also CFF ILA.I-24 (undisputed); SFF 53 

(undisputed).) Furthermore, Respondents MPS, ASUS Computer International, and Microsemi 

do not dispute that the importation requirement of Section 337 has been met. (RBf. at 10; SFF 

54 (undisputed); CFF ILB.I-26 (undisputed); CFF II.C.I-6 (undisputed); CFF II.C.9-19 

(undisputed); CFF ILC.21-44 (undisputed); CFF ILD.I-6 (undisputed); CFF II.D.l6-18 

(undisputed in relevant part); CFF II.D.22 (undisputed in relevant part).) 

Thus, the Administrative Law Judge finds that Respondents MPS, ASUS, and Microsemi 

sell for importation, import, or sell after importation into the United States, articles that are 

accused in this Investigation. The importation or sale requirement of Section 337 is satisfied. 

- 14-

III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION. 

A. Applicable Law. 


At this stage, the Investigation concerns one utility patent. See 74 Fed. Reg. 2099 (2009). 

All of the unfair acts alleged by 02 Micro are infringements of the '382 patent. 

Any finding of infringement requires a two-step analysis. First, the asserted patent 

claims must be construed as a matter oflaw to determine their proper scope. 6 Second, a factual 

determination must be made whether the properly construed claims read on the accused devices. 

See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967,976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 

517 U.S. 370 (1996). 

Claim construction begins with the language of the claims themselves. Claims should be 

given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, 

viewing the claim terms in the context of the entire patent. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 

1303,1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language is 

readily apparent and claim construction will involve little more than "the application of the 

widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words." Id at 1314. In other cases, claim 

terms have a specialized meaning and it is necessary to determine what a person of ordinary skill 

in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean by analyzing "the words of 

the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic 

evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, as well as the meaning of technical terms, and 

the state of the art." Id. (quoting InnovaiPure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 

381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004». 

6 Only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the 

controversy. Vanderlande Indus. Nederland BVv. Int'l Trade Comm., 366 F.3d 1311,1323 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Vivid 

Tech., Inc. v. American Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

- 15 -


The claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of disputed claim 

language. Id. at 1314. "[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly 

instructive." Id. Likewise, other claims of the patent at issue, regardless of whether they have 

been asserted against respondents, may show the scope and meaning of disputed claim language. 

Id. 

With respect to claim preambles, a preamble may limit a claimed invention if it (i) recites 

essential structure or steps, or (ii) is "necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality" to the claim. 

Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). 

The Federal Circuit has explained that a "claim preamble has the import that the claim as a 

whole suggests for it. In other words, when the claim drafter chooses to use both the preamble 

and the body to define the subject matter ofthe claimed invention, the invention so defined, and 

not some other, is the one the patent protects." Id. (quoting Bell Communications Research, Inc. 

v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615,620 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). When used in a patent 

preamble, the term "comprising" is well understood to mean "including but not limited to," and 

thus, the claim is open-ended. CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. 

Cir. 2007). The patent term "comprising" permits the inclusion of other unrecited steps, 

elements, or materials in addition to those elements or components specified in the claims. Id. 

In cases where the meaning of a disputed claim term in the context of the patent's claims 

remains uncertain, the specification is the "single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." 

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321. Moreover, "[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language 

and most naturally aligns with the patent's description of the invention will be, in the end, the 

correct construction." Id. at 1316. As a general rule, however, the particular examples or 

- 16 -


embodiments discussed in the specification are not to be read into the claims as limitations. Id 

at 1323. 

The prosecution history may also explain the meaning of claim language, although "it 

often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction 

purposes." Id at 1317. The prosecution history consists of the complete record of the patent 

examination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including cited prior art. 

Id It may reveal "how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited 

the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would 

otherwise be." Id 

If the intrinsic evidence is insufficient to establish the clear meaning of a claim, a court 

may resort 7 to an examination of the extrinsic evidence. Zodiac Pool Care, Inc. v. Hoffinger 

Industries, Inc., 206 F.3d 1408, 1414 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Extrinsic evidence may shed light on the 

relevant art, and consists of all evidence external to the patent and the prosecution history, 

"including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises." Phillips, 415 F.3d 

at 1317. In evaluating expert testimony, a court should disregard any expert testimony that is 

conclusory or "clearly at odds with the claim construction mandated by the claims themselves, 

the written description, and the prosecution history, in other words, with the written record of the 

patent." !d. at 1318. Extrinsic evidence is inherently "less reliable" than intrinsic evidence, and 

"is unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation of patent claim scope unless considered in the 

context of the intrinsic evidence." Id at 1318-19. 

7 "In those cases where the public record unambiguously describes the scope ofthe patented invention, reliance on 

any extrinsic evidence is improper." Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

- 17 -

B. Level of Skill in the Art. 


Claims should be given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person 

of ordinary skill in the art. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13. 

The parties essentially agree that the relevant technological field is DC-to-AC power 

inverter circuits for cold cathode fluorescent lamps. (MFF70; COMFF 70; ROMFF 70.) 

While Staff, ASUS, MPS and Microsemi set forth differing definitions in the briefing as 

to the level of skill held by a person of ordinary skill in the art of designing power inverter 

circuits at the time of the invention of the '382 patent, Staffs definition set forth in the proposed 

fact findings is undisputed. (RBr. at 93; MBr. at 28-29; SBr. at 70.) The parties agree that "[a] 

person of ordinary skill in the art to which the '382 patent pertains would have had a bachelor's 

degree in electrical engineering with at least one year of practical experience, or a master's 

degree with studies in power electronics." (SFF 227 (undisputed); CORFF 4.1.) Therefore, the 

Administrative Law Judge finds that the disputed claim terms in this Investigation are to be 

construed in accordance with this definition of a person of ordinary skill. 

C. The Disputed Claim Terms of the '382 Patent and Their Proper Construction. 

02 Micro is asserting some or all of claims 1,2,4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14 of the '382 patent 

against respondents. However, only portions of the language of independent claims 1 and 8 are 

disputed. 

1. Claim 1, Portion of Element 'f', and Claim 8, Portion of Element 'h'-"a 

timer circuit . .. for providing a time-out sequence of a predetermined 

duration" 

The first disputed claim term is quoted by the parties as follows: "a timer circuit ... for 

providing a time-out sequence of a predetermined duration[.]" 

- 18 -


02Micro and Staff propose the following claim construction: "a circuit that provides a 

'predetermined' amount of time before shutdown occurs." 

This construction has several faults. First, as MPS and ASUS point out, it injects the 

word "shutdown" into the timer circuit; whereas, shutdown is a function of the protection circuit 

element. (RBf. at 13.) 

Second, the word "shutdown" is not defined, and as included in the proposed 

construction, is ambiguous. Although the protection circuit element of claims 1 and 8 uses the 

term "shutting down" the first and second switches, it is not clear if that is what is intended by 

02 Micro and Staff. (See Section lILC.3.) 

Third, an overvoltage condition is not the only time or way a shutdown can occur; a 

shutdown can also occur when the user turns off the power, in which case the timer circuit is not 

initiated, because, for one thing, a first voltage signal does not exceed a predetermined threshold. 

The proposed construction of 02 Micro and Staff denotes that the timer circuit provides a 

predetermined duration before a "shutdown" occurs, which is not always the case. 

Fourth, the proposed construction changes the terms of the claim from "for providing" to 

"that provides." According to the teaching, the invention allows the time-out to be set by the 

user: 

The duration of the time-out is preferably designed according to the requirements 

of the loads (e.g., CCFLs of an LCD panel) but could alternately be set at some 

programmable value. 

(JX-l at 8:66-9:2.) The term "for providing" connotes that possibility; whereas, the term "that 

provides" connotes that the predetermined duration is entirely endogenous to the design. 

Respondents MPS and ASUS' s proposed construction reads as follows: "a circuit that 

measures a time period having a duration determined beforehand." This, too, has faults. 02 

- 19 -


Micro and Staff note that the word "measures" does not denote the same thing as the word 

"providing," and therefore misrepresents the essence of the claim element, with respect to the 

time-out sequence portion of the claim. (CBr. at 19-20; SBr. at 20.) 

Microsemi's proposed construction is as follows: "a circuit that provides a signal once a 

duration of time determined beforehand has passed since the circuit received an earlier signal 

[said first voltage signal]." (MBr. at 31-32.) Complainants fault this construction by noting that 

it ignores the term "time-out sequence" and say that it adds structural limitations, "start signal" 

and "output signal," that are not part of the claim. (CBr. at 20.) The Administrative Law Judge 

agrees and, further, finds it ambiguous as well. 

The claim element at issue, which is part of claims 1 and 8 of the patent, pertains to a 

circuit for igniting a cold cathode fluorescent lamp. Claim 1 reads: A DC to AC cold cathode 

fluorescent lamp inverter circuit. ... " And Claim 8 reads: A liquid crystal display unit 

comprising ... a cold cathode fluorescent lamp for illuminating .. .liquid crystal display panel." 

The claim element itself, which is the same for both claims, reads as follows: 

a timer circuit coupled to said first feedback signal line for providing a time-out 

sequence of a predetermined duration when said first voltage signal exceeds a 

predetermined threshold for said predetermined duration 

In the case of this invention, a period of time is "predetermined" (i.e. determined beforehand, 

according to the unanimity of the parties) and the timer circuit is initiated when the first voltage 

signal exceeds a predetermined threshold. The function of the timer circuit is described in the 

specification: 

Preferably, a timer 64 is initiated once the OVP exceeds the threshold, thereby 

initiating a time-out sequence. The duration of the time-out is preferably 

designed according to the requirement of the loads (e.g., CCFLs of an LCD panel), 

but could alternately be set at some programmable value. Drive pulses are 

disabled once the time-out is reached, thus providing safe-operation output of the 

converter circuit. That is, circuit 60 provides a sufficient voltage to ignite the 

- 20-


lamp, but will shut off after a certain period if the lamp is not connected to the 

converter, so that erroneous high voltage is avoided at the output. This duration is 

necessary since a non-ignited lamp is similar to an open-lamp condition. 

(JX-1 at 8:64-65; 9:1-8.) Thus, the specification teaches that the timer circuit is initiated once 

the OVP exceeds the threshold and a shutdown will occur if erroneous high voltage persists 

during the time-out period. The purpose of the timer circuit is to give the inverter controller 

enough time to supply sufficient voltage to the lamp to allow for the correction of erroneous high 

voltage, such as through lamp ignition, bearing in mind that both claims concern cold cathode 

fluorescent lamps. If, for example, the lamp ignites during the time-out, the inverter controller 

will continue to supply voltage, at a reduced level, to the transformer; but if the lamp does not 

ignite by the end of the time-out, drive pulses are disabled and the system shuts down. Thus, the 

timer circuit limits, by predetermining, the amount of time that will be allowed for the 

overvoltage condition to persist. 

This is consistent with the "time-out sequence" language of the claim element. 

According to SX-1 (The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms), a "time- 

out" is "[a] condition that occurs when a predetermined amount of time elapses without the 

occurrence of an expected event." The expected event with respect to the patented invention is 

the ignition of a cold cathode fluorescent lamp, and the timer circuit limitation provides a time- 

out sequence of sufficient duration, determined beforehand, to ignite that lamp. 

For these reasons, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a person of ordinary skill 

in the art would construe the contested portion of the claim element as follows: "a circuit that 

limits the time for an overvoltage condition to persist." 

- 21 -


2. Claim 1, Portion of Element 'f', and Claim 8, Portion of Element 'b' 

"when said first voltage signal exceeds a predetermined threshold for said 

predetermined duration" 

The second disputed claim term is quoted by the parties as follows: "when said first 

voltage signal exceeds a predetermined threshold for said predetermined duration[.]" 

02 Micro and Staff propose that this portion of the claim element be construed as follows: 

"when the first voltage signal exceeds and continues to exceed a predetermined threshold for said 

predetermined duration." (CBr. at 20; SBr. at 21-22.) This construction is ambiguous because it 

includes a redundancy: "exceeds and continues to exceed." If something continues to exceed, 

ipso facto, it exceeds. This leads to the possibility that the proponents have something additional 

in mind. If the word "and" after the word "exceeds" and before the word "continues" is intended 

to denote the occurrence of two events-first, the voltage exceeds the threshold initiating a time- 

out sequence; and, second, the voltage must thereafter continue to exceed the threshold until the 

time-out period expires-the point is not clearly stated. Therefore the proposed claim 

construction is confusing. Also, the phrase "said predetermined duration" within the proposed 

construction does not have an antecedent, since there is no previously mentioned "predetermined 

duration" but instead a "predetermined amount of time," and this creates another ambiguity. 

MPS and ASUS propose the following construction: "The time-out sequence begins after 

the first voltage signal has remained above a voltage value determined beforehand for a period of 

time equal to the duration of the time-out sequence." (RBr. at 13.) This construction involves 

two predetermined durations of equal measure: first, the voltage signal must exceed a threshold 

for the predetermined duration in order to initiate the time-out sequence, and then the voltage 

signal has to remain above that threshold for the same amount of time. This interpretation is not 

warranted by the words of the claim, and all of the other parties reject it. The phrase "said 

- 22-


predetermined duration" refers to the previously mentioned duration and does not denote a 

second, or additional, duration. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that there is only one 

predetermined duration mentioned in the claim element. 

Microsemi proposes the following construction: "When said voltage signal exceeds a 

predetermined threshold throughout said predetermined duration." (MBr. at 36.) The word 

"throughout" is defined as "through the whole of; in every part of' (Webster's New World 

College Dictionary, 4th Ed.) and denotes constancy from start to finish. In view of the fact that 

that the inverter circuit involves alternating current, this is not necessary for purposes of the 

invention. (CBr. at 26; Tr. at 2527,2566 (Chapman).) There is no intimation anywhere in the 

intrinsic evidence that the voltage must at all times and in all ways exceed the predetermined 

threshold. 

According to the claim element, the time-out sequence occurs when the first voltage 

signal exceeds a threshold for a predetermined duration. All of the parties expressly agree that 

the voltage signal must exceed, for an extent of time that is predetermined, a certain threshold. 

(CBr. at 20-21; RBr. at 13-14; MBr. at 36; SBr. at 21-22.) Accordingly, the Administrative Law 

Judge construes this portion of the claim element as follows: "when a first voltage signal 

continually exceeds a predetermined threshold for a predetermined duration." 

3. Claim 1, Portion of Element 'g' and Claim 8, Portion of Element 'i' 

"shutting down said first switch and said second switch after said 

predetermined duration" 

02 Micro argues that the claimed element "shutting down said first switch and said 

second switch after said predetermined duration" should mean "turning off the first and second 

switches after the 'predetermined' duration has elapsed." (CBr. at 26.) 

- 23 -


ASUS and MPS argue that the claimed element "shutting down said first switch and said 

second switch after said predetermined duration" should mean "turning off the first and second 

switches when the time-out sequence has elapsed." (RBr. at 21.) 

Microsemi does not make any argument with respect to the claimed element "shutting 

down said first switch and said second switch after said predetermined duration" in its initial 

post-hearing brief. (MBr. at 30-39.) In its pre-hearing brief, Microsemi had argued that the 

claim language at issue should mean "disabling the drive circuitry for said first and second 

switch," although Microsemi appears to have abandoned this argument. (Microsemi Prehearing 

Brief at 36. See also Ground Rule 11.1.) 

Staff agrees with 02 Micro that "shutting down said first switch and said second switch 

after said predetermined duration" should mean "turning off the first and second switches after 

the 'predetermined' duration has elapsed." (SBr. at 27.) 

This disputed portion of both claims 1 and 8 of the '382 patent, "shutting down said first 

switch and said second switch after said predetermined duration," is located in element 'g' of 

claim 1 and element 'i' of claim 8. The pertinent parts of the surrounding claim language are 

identical in claims 1 and 8. Elements 'b' through 'g' of claim 1 and elements 'd' through 'i' of 

claim 8 read- 

a first switch coupled to said step-up transformer for selectively allowing said 

step-up transformer to receive DC voltage of a first polarity; 

a second switch coupled to said step-up transformer for selectively allowing 

said step-up transformer to receive DC voltage of a second polarity; 

a capacitor divider electrically coupled to said cold cathode fluorescent lamp 

for providing a first voltage signal representing a voltage across said cold 

cathode fluorescent lamp; 

a first feedback signal line coupled to said capacitor divider for receiving said 

first voltage signal from said capacitor divider representing said voltage 

across said cold cathode fluorescent lamp; 

- 24-


a timer circuit coupled to said first feedback signal line for providing a timeout 

sequence of a predetermined duration when said first voltage signal 

exceeds a predetermined threshold for said predetermined duration; and 

a protection circuit coupled to said timer circuit, said first switch and said 

second switch for shutting down said first switch and said second switch 

after said predetermined duration. 

(JX-1 at 02ITC 037301-2 (emphasis added).) Under the plain language of the claims, as 

discussed above in Section III.C.i., the timer circuit is initiated when the first voltage signal 

exceeds a predetermined threshold. The time-out sequence lasts for a duration determined 

beforehand, after which the protection circuit (element 'g' of claim 1, element 'i' of claim 8) 

shuts down the first and second switches if the overvoltage condition persists. Accordingly, a 

person of ordinary skill in the art would find that the language "shutting down said first switch 

and said second switch after said predetermined duration" means "turning off the first and 

second switches after the predetermined duration has elapsed." 

This finding is consistent with the specification. As discussed above in Section IILC.I., 

the specification explains, with respect to a preferred embodiment, that the time-out sequence of 

the timer 64 (shown in Fig. 2) is initiated once the voltage signal, or OVP 66, exceeds the 

threshold and lasts for a designated duration. (JX-I at 8:40-9:8.) "Drive pulses are disabled 

once the time-out is reached, thus providing safe-operation output of the converter circuit." (Id. 

at 9:2-3.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would likely understand that when "drive pulses 

are disabled" the switches are effectively shut down. (Id. at 2:57-3:7.) 

The Administrative Law Judge finds that the language proposed by Respondents MPS 

and ASUS does not as closely track the language of the claims as the language proposed by 02 

Micro and Staff. For the reasons discussed above in Section III.C.2, the Administrative Law 

Judge further rejects MPS and ASUS's argument that 02 Micro's proposed language is 

- 25 -


confusing because "there are two applicable 'predetermined duration [ s]' introduced by the 'timer 

circuit' element." (RBr. at 21-22.) 

4. Claim 1, Portion of Element 'd' and Claim 8, Portion of Element 'f' 

"electrically coupled" 

Respondent Microsemi argues that the term "electrically coupled" should mean 

"connected by passing electricity between." (MBr. at 30.) 02 Micro, MPS, and ASUS did not 

construe this limitation in their initial post-hearing briefs. Staff does not object to Microsemi's 

proposed construction. (SBr. at 28.) As there is no controversy as to the meaning of 

"electrically coupled," the Administrative Law Judge declines to construe this limitation. Only 

claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve 

the controversy. Vanderlande Indus. Nederland BVv. Int'l Trade Comm., 366 F.3d 1311,1323 

(Fed. Cir. 2004); Vivid Tech., Inc. v. American Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,803 (Fed. Cir. 

1999). 

IV. INFRINGEMENT DETERMINATION 

A. Applicable Law 

1. Direct Infringement. 

"Determination of infringement is a two-step process which consists of determining the 

scope of the asserted claim (claim construction) and then comparing the accused product ... to 

the claim as construed." Certain Sucralose, Sweeteners Containing Sucralose, and Related 

Intermediate Compounds Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-604, Comm'n Op. at 36 (U.S.I.T.C., April 

28,2009) (citing Litton Sys., Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 140 F.3d 1449, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 

"Litton"). An accused device literally infringes a patent claim if it contains each limitation 

recited in the claim exactly. Litton, 140 F.3d at 1454. Each patent claim element or limitation is 

- 26-


considered material and essential. London v. Carson Pirie Scott & Co., 946 F.2d 1534, 1538 

(Fed. Cir. 1991). In a Section 337 investigation, the complainant bears the burden of proving 

infringement of the asserted patent claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Enercon GmbH v. 

Int'l Trade Comm'n, 151 F.3d 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

Induced Infringement. 

2. Indirect Infringement. 

"Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer." 35 

U.S.C. § 271(b). A patentee asserting a claim of inducement must show (i) that there has been 

direct infringement and (ii) that the alleged infringer "knowingly induced infringement and 

possessed specific intent to encourage another's infringement." Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. 

Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294, 1304-05 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The specific intent requirement for 

inducement necessitates a showing that the alleged infringer was aware of the patent, induced 

direct infringement, and that he knew or should have known that his actions would induce actual 

direct infringement. DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co., Ltd, 471 F.3d 1293, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 

(en banc in relevant part). The intent to induce infringement may be proven with circumstantial 

or direct evidence and may be inferred from all the circumstances. Id at 1306; Broadcom Corp. 

v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d 683, 699 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

Contributory Infringement. 

35 U.S.C. § 271(c) sets forth the rules for contributory infringement: 

Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United 

States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination, or 

composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, 

constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially 

made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a 

staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing 

use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer. 

- 27-


35 U.S.C. § 271(c). As explained by the Federal Circuit, in order to succeed on a claim of 

contributory infringement, complainant must show that respondent "knew that the combination 

for which its components were especially made was both patented and infringing" and that 

respondent's components have "no substantial noninfringing uses." Cross Med. Prods., Inv. v. 

Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293,1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). 

B. Analysis of the Accused MPS Products with Respect to the '382 patent. 

02 Micro accuses MPS Products MP1015, MP1008, MP1009, MP10091, MP1010B, MP1016, 

MP1017, MP1018,MP1026, MP1028, MP1037, MPI038, MPI048,MPI060 , MPI061, MPI062, 

MP1872, MP61093, VN800, VN830 of infringing claims 1,2,4,8,9, and 11 of the '382 patent. 

(CBr. at 7,33; SFF 47 (undisputed).) 02 Micro asserts that the MP1015 product is 

representative of all the accused MPS Products because they "include the same basic circuitry 

and functionality with respect to the overvoltage protection circuit described in the '382 patent 

claims and that was first present in the MPI015." (Id.; CFF III.C.25, 26.) 02 Micro also 

accuses MPS Products MP1015, MPlOlOB, MPlOI6, MP1017, MPlOI8, MPI026, MPI028, 

MPI037, MP1038, MP1048, MP1060, MP1061, MP1062, MP1872, VN800, and VN830 of 

infringing claims 7 and 14 of the '382 patent. (CBr. at 33.) 

Only the timer circuit element of the accused MPS Products is contested in the matter of 

infringement. (CBr. 35; RBr. 27-31; Tr. at 1257 (Flasck).) 

The accused MPS Products have a timer circuit coupled to a first feedback signal line for 

providing a time-out sequence of a predetermined duration. (Tr. at 1226-29 (Flasck).) During 

the normal operation of MPS' s accused Products, the VLFB pin receives 5 volts of direct current 

on top of which is an alternating current that ranges, plus or minus, 2.5 volts (from 7.5 to 2.5 

volts). (Tr. at 1228 (Flasck).) If an open lamp condition occurs (if, for example, the lamp is not 

struck, or is not connected to the inverter, or is broken (Tr. at 368:5-14 (Lin)), the alternating 

- 28-


current at the VLFB pin will increase in amplitude and eventually swing below ground, or zero 

volts, on the negative side ofthe alternating waveform. This is an over-voltage, condition. (Tr. 

at 1228-29 (Flasck).) 

When that happens, a comparator, denominated OLF, connected to the VLFB pin will 

signal the event to a "retriggerable multivibrator" to which OLF comparator is also connected. 

(Tr. at 1365-67 (Flasck).) Once it is triggered, the multivibrator operates for a span of 150 

microseconds. (JX-185C, Moyer Dep. Tr. 93-94.) That time span is restarted each time the 

multivibrator receives another over-voltage signal from the OLF comparator (Tr. at 1365 

(Flasck», even if that should occur before the expiration of an extant ISO-microsecond span. (Tr. 

at 1366-67 (Flasck).) (Some ofthe MPS devices have "retriggerable multivibrators" that span 

190 microseconds, rather than 150.) (Tr. at 1366 (Flasck); CDX-27.) 

While in its "triggered" state, the multi vibrator activates a current source that charges a 

capacitor labeled CFT connected to Pin 17 (the fault timer pin) at the rate of one microampere. 

(Tr. at 1369-70 (Flasck).) The current source will continue to charge the CFT capacitor at that 

rate for as long as the multi vibrator remains in a "triggered" state. (Id.) If the voltage created by 

the current charge to the capacitor reaches 1.2 volts, a fault threshold value is met, power to the 

switches will cease, and the device will shut down. (Tr. at 1385-88 (Flasck).) That takes 0.98 

seconds, according to the typical application shown in the MPI015 application notes. (Tr. at 

1229 (Flasck); JX-35 at MONO-ITC-00527772, 0052776-77.) 

In addition to charging the CFT capacitor, the OLF comparator causes another capacitor, 

labeled CCOMP, to discharge, and this discharge signals the switch control logic to reduce the duty 

cycles of the power switches. (Tr. at 2040 (Silzars).) The reduction in the duty cycles of the 

- 29-


power switches decreases the power to the transfonner and, consequently, the voltage across the 

lamp and at the capacitor divider is reduced. (Tr. at 1373-74 (Flasck); Tr. at 2040 (Silzars).) 

As the voltage across the lamp is decreased, so is any current flowing through the lamp. 

(Tr. at 1374 (Flasck).) If the lamp is not ignited at this point, there will be no current flowing 

through it. (Tr. at 2035-36 (Silzars).) A current regulation circuit connected to the lamp senses, 

by means of a resistor, either too little or no current through the lamp, and this causes an error 

amplifier ("EA"), which is part of the current regulation circuit, to tum on a constant current 

source that sends an electric charge to the CCOMP capacitor. (Tr. at 2028-30 (Silzars).) That 

charge will increase the voltage of the CCOMP capacitor, and this increased voltage causes the 

switch control logic to expand the duty cycles of the power switches, thereby increasing power to 

the transfonner and raising its output voltage to the lamp and the capacitor divider. (Tr. at 2032 

(Silzars). ) 

In a persistent open-lamp condition, the increasing voltage at the VLFB pin will 

eventually swing below zero again, and the OLF comparator will again trigger the multivibrator, 

setting the stage for more current to be fed to the CFT capacitor. (Tr. at 2045 (Silzars).) When 

the MPS Products are started, the voltage amplitude increases with the passage of time, and if not 

checked, would eventually damage the circuit. (Tr. at 1867 (Moyer).) 

Because of this recursive process, the voltage at the VLFB pin oscillates across the zero 

threshold and, therefore, does not continually exceed that threshold for a predetennined duration. 

This oscillation of voltage is called squegging. (Tr. at 2045-46 (Silzars).) 

It is Complainants' contention that, despite the squegging behavior of the voltage at the 

VLFB pin, the MPS Products infringe the timer circuit element of claims 1 and 8 of the '382 

patent. They argue, based on testimony of their expert on claim construction and infringement, 

- 30-


Richard Flasck, that the "first voltage signal"8 in the case of the MPI015, as well as the other 

MPS Products, is represented by an alternating current waveform. (CBr. at 35.) They say that, 

during an over-voltage condition, the first voltage signal at the VLFB pin is simply a modulated 

waveform, by reason of its periodically increasing and decreasing in value. (ld.) They argue 

that peak-to-peak voltage is the best way to characterize amplitude modulated signals such as 

that presented to the VLFB pin, and that it is the waveform that constitutes the voltage signal, 

because the waveform carries information regarding an over-voltage condition. (Id. at 36.) 

Complainants also argue that instantaneous voltage of a pure sinusoidal alternating- 

current waveform and a modulated alternating-current waveform will change up and down with 

the passing of time and, for that reason, instantaneous voltage is not a useful measure for 

detecting when an over-voltage signal exceeds a threshold. (ld.) They say that the only 

reasonable way to characterize a squegging waveform is by its peak-to-peak voltage. (!d.) 

Further, they argue that in an open lamp condition the VLFB pin of the MPS Products will swing 

below zero volts, and when that happens, the inverter controller regulates the VLFB to ten volts 

peak-to-peak, and a one microampere current source will inject into the fault timer pin. (ld. at 

37.) 

In reply, MPS says that a waveform is not a voltage signal; that Complainants' arguments 

amount to an abstract characterization of what a "first voltage signal" is, contrary to the plain 

language ofthe asserted claims; that Complainants' claim construction conflicts with their 

domestic industry analysis, where Complainants interpret "first voltage signal" as the voltage 

signal across the capacitor divider that is received at the OVP, Pin 2; and that Complainants' 

construction conflicts with the description of "first voltage signal" contained in the specification. 

8 The "first voltage signal" is distinguished from the "second voltage signal" mentioned in other claims ofthe '382 

patent, which performs a separate function. (See, for example, claim 11.) 

- 31 -


(RBr. at 10.) Furthermore, they argue that Complainants' discussion of waveforms as a first 

voltage signal is a veiled attempt to inject an infringement analysis that is based on the doctrine 

of equivalents, which was not presented by Complainants' expert witness in his expert's report. 

(ld. at 10-11.) 

Staff argues that the accused MPS Products do not satisfy the timer circuit limitation of 

claims 1 and 8, because those accused Products regulate the voltage signal in a way that causes it 

to oscillate and, therefore, it does not consistently exceed a predetermined threshold for a 

predetermined duration. (SBr. at 34.) Staff argues that "the MPS products actually shut down 

regardless of whether the voltage signal exceeds the threshold for the predetermined duration, so 

long as the signal exceeds the threshold often enough to keep the timer running." (SRBr. at 15.) 

Staff, like MPS and ASUS, finds that Complainants' argument that the MPS Products 

meet the timer circuit limitation of the '382 patent despite the fact that their voltage signal 

squeggs is essentially one of equivalency. (SRBr. at 16). Staff also says that Complainants' 

arguments with respect to the nature of the claimed voltage signal are contradictory insofar as 

when a voltage signal should be considered a waveform and when it should not. (ld at 16-17.) 

Staff criticizes Complainants' argument that the over-all peak-to-peak voltage is the criterion for 

establishing whether the voltage signal exceeds the threshold, on the basis that it makes 

meaningless the phrase "for said predetermined duration." (Id at 18.) 

Voltage is electromotive force or potential difference expressed or measured in volts or in 

multiples or divisions thereof. (SX-l:1185; 2:2142; 4:27-28.) Due to their impedance 

characteristics before ignition, cold cathode fluorescent lamps are subjected to high voltage. 

(JX-l at 7:21-24.) The voltage referenced in the timer circuit element of claims 1 and 8 of the 

- 32-


'382 patent is that which is required to ignite cold cathode fluorescent lamps, but less than the 

rated voltage ofthe transformer. (Id at 8:55-57.) 

The amount of voltage, or the number of volts, needed to ignite cold cathode fluorescent 

lamps varies, depending on several factors, such as the dimensions of the lamps, their ages, and 

temperature. (Tr. at 369,396-97,401 (Lin); Tr. at 2151-52 (Silzars).) Some latitude, in terms of 

time and magnitude, has to be allowed in order for voltage to ignite different sized lamps under 

varying conditions and circumstances. (Id.) However, given the fact that too much voltage can 

engender harmful current that could damage various elements of the inverter and related 

components, including the transformer, a limit has to be put on the amount of voltage permitted 

to be delivered by the transformer to the lamps. (Tr. at 388,396-97 (Lin).) According to 

Complainants' expert witness, Melving Mercer, Ph.D., it is peak voltage that causes damage. (Tr. 

at 2657 (Mercer).) 

None of the parties has sought construction of the term "voltage signal." According to 

Mr. Flasck, the term, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, requires no 

construction. (Tr. at 1641 (Flasck).) He testified that a waveform is a voltage signal and that 

peak-to-peak voltage is the proper way to measure that signal. (Tr. at 1348 9 (Flasck).) On the 

other hand, Dr. Silzars, the electrical engineer who testified for MPS and ASUS, says that it is 

instantaneous voltage, and not the waveform, that constitutes the voltage signal. (Tr. at 2055 

(Silzars).) 

Dr. Mercer, also an electrical engineer, testified that, although the terms "voltage signal" 

and "voltage waveform" are two different things, the "underlying meaning associated with 

voltage waveforms" is the "voltage signal." (Tr. at 2653-54 (Mercer).) By way of example, he 

9 This citation excludes lines 19-20 as they were stricken from the record. (See Order No. 48 at 6.) 

- 33 -


testified that a traffic light that displays red is a voltage waveform that is perceived by the retina, 

but the signal is the message conveyed by the waveform, which is to stop. (Id. at 2656.) 

There is no mention of the word "waveform" in either the claims or the specification of 

the '382 patent. (JX-l; RBr. at 10.) Language contained in other claims or in the specification 

can be a valuable source of enlightenment as to the meaning of a disputed claim term. Phillips, 

415 F. 3d at 1314-15. Although the '382 patent does not define the term "first voltage signal" in 

claims 1 and 8, claim 3 does contain the following language: 

A DC to AC cold cathode fluorescent lamp inverter circuit as claimed in claim 1 

wherein said predetermined threshold represents a value of said voltage across 

said cold cathode fluorescent lamp greater than a minimum striking voltage of 

said cold cathode fluorescent lamp and less than a rated voltage of said step-up 

transformer. 

(JX-l at 11:22-26.) 

Also, the specification contains the following statement: 

An overvoltage protection can be provided to receive a voltage signal from across 

the load and the first output signal and compare the voltage signal from across the 

load and the first output signal, to control the pulse generator based on the value 

of the voltage signal from across the load. 

(ld. at 4:42-48.) Both of these citations use the word "value" in referring to "voltage signal." 

Claim 3 specifies that the threshold represents a "value" of said voltage across the lamp and the 

quoted specification uses the term "value" in reference to the "voltage signal from across the 

load," when describing what constitutes overvoltage for purposes of the protection circuit. (ld.) 

Dr. Mercer testified that it is peak amplitude of voltage that causes damage. (Tr. at 2657 

(Mercer).) Peak amplitude is consistent with the word "value" as applied to a "voltage signal" in 

the specification: protection against damage that can be caused by an excessive voltage when the 

value of that voltage exceeds a threshold. 

- 34-


According to the application notes for the MP1015, the threshold value for voltage 

protection is zero: "When the Vpk- ofVLFB is below OV, open_lamp protection will work." 

(JX-35 at MONO-ITC-00527779.) The zero threshold ofthe MPS Products is peak value 

("Vpk"). 

The application notes also contain the following comments: 

Fault Protection 

Open Lamp: The VLFB pin (#18) is used to detect whether an open lamp 

condition has occurred. During normal operation the VLFB pin is typically at 5V 

DC with an AC swing of ± 2.5V. If an open lamp condition exists then the AC 

voltage on the VLFB line will swing below zero volts. When that occurs, the IC 

regulates the VLFB voltage to 10V p-p and a lilA current source will inject into 

the FT pin. If the voltage at the FT pin exceeds 1.2V, then the chip will shut 

down. 

(JX-35 at MONO-ITC-00527775.) This says that when an open lamp condition occurs, the 

voltage on the VLFB line will swing below zero volts, and when it does, the inverter circuit will 

regulate the voltage to IOV p-p (peak-to-peak). It is peak voltage (Vpk- ofVLFB is below zero), 

not peak-to-peak voltage (10V p-p), that constitutes the voltage signal for starting the voltage 

protection circuit of the accused MPS Products. 

Once the voltage swings below zero, which is the threshold for the MPS accused 

inverters, the inverters regulate the VLFB voltage to ten volts peak-to-peak ("1 OV p-p"). 

According to Mr. Flasck, that means the voltage will oscillate between ten and zero volts. (Tr. at 

1228 (Flasck).) However, zero is the threshold, and so long as the voltage is regulated within the 

ten and zero volts peak-to-peak, voltage does not exceed the zero threshold. 

Although Complainants point out in their reply brief that James Moyers acknowledged 

during his testimony that, according to Exhibit RX-343C (at PEGA-ITC-00350670), there is no 

squegging waveform demonstrated (CRBr. at 13-14), that exhibit shows a sinusoidal waveform 

- 35 -


at OV, whose peak-to-peak voltage ranges from 0 to above 5 (presumably to 10, although the 

upper value is not mentioned). (Id.) This is consistent with the fact that the voltage is being 

regulated, as designed. 

Complainants also argue in their reply brief that, according to Exhibit RX-117, several of 

the MPS Products, including MPI01OB, MPlOI5, MPlOI6, MPI017, MP1026, and MPI028, do 

not show apparent squegging, and every cycle of the OV waveform exceeds the threshold 

throughout the predetermined duration. (CRBr. 13.) However, that statement is both 

contradicted and explained by Dr. Silzars during his testimony at the hearing. According to his 

testimony, the oscilloscopic tests show that those products manifest squegging behavior. (Tr. at 

2053 (Silzars); RDX-230.) 

The various exhibits referred to by Dr. Silzars during his testimony about squegging of 

the MPS Products show waveform traces at different time scales (in some cases, measured in 

microseconds, and in other cases, measured in milliseconds), and not every time scale of a 

waveform trace depicts squegging, nor need it do so. Mr. Flasck confirms that whether or not 

squegging is disclosed in the traces of oscilloscopic exhibits depends on the time scale at which 

the oscilloscope records them. (Tr. at 1676-79 (Flasck).) In the case of Exhibit RX-117, as 

depicted in RDX-230, Dr. Silzars specifically made reference to the waveform trace at the CCOMP 

capacitor to illustrate the sudden discharge of current from the capacitor, as one facet ofthe 

circuit design that contributes to the squegging behavior of the products. (Id.) Therefore, 

Complainants' argument, that the Products mentioned infringe even under MPS's proposed 

claim construction, based on Exhibit RX-117, does not overcome Dr. Silzars' testimony that 

squegging behavior is present in each of the MPlOI0B family of Products. 

- 36-


According to Mr. Flasck, an overvoltage condition with respect to the MPS Products 

occurs "when you get an oscillating wavefonn that goes up above 10 volts and down below 5 

volts." [sic] (Tr. at 1228 (Flasck).) He says that the way these products detect 

when the threshold is exceeded, is actually to measure the instantaneous voltage 

at the pin. And when the instantaneous voltage at the pin goes down below zero, 

this is the detection method, that means that the-that the threshold of a 10-volt 

peak to peak signal on the pin has been exceeded. And when that happens, this 

says that it-it-it turns on the 1 micro amp current source and begins to charge 

the time-out pin. So the threshold is 10-volt peak to peak. 

(Tr. at 1229 (Flasck).) He repeats this opinion later during his cross-examination: 

Therefore, the threshold that is referred to must be peak-to-peak threshold. And 

in point of fact, it's even-that's even said in, I believe, it's the MP1015 data 

sheet. It mentions that the lO-volt peak-to-peak threshold as the threshold of the 

signal. 

(Tr. at 1349 (Flasck).) Actually, the MP1015 data sheet says the "IC regulates the VLFB voltage 

to 10V p-p" if the AC voltage on the VLFB line swings below zero. (JX-35 at Mono-ITC- 

00527775.) However, according to claims 1 and 8, the predetennined threshold must be 

exceeded for the predetermined duration. 

In the case of the MPS accused inverters, according to Mr. Flasck, when a zero volt 

"detection" threshold is exceeded, the inverters regulate the voltage to 10 volts peak to peak; that 

is, 10 volts to 0 volts (Tr. at 1228-29 (Flasck).) Although he acknowledges that, for purposes of 

"detection," a zero-volt threshold must be exceeded (that is, instantaneous voltage must actually 

swing below zero), he does not explain how a voltage wavefonn that is being regulated to 10 

volts peak to peak, as the MP1015 and related accused MPS inverters are, exceeds a threshold 

having those parameters. He explained his conclusions about infringement of the '382 patent's 

timer circuit element in claims 1 and 8 by the MPS accused inverters this way: 

But in all the cases that I looked at and all the MPS products that I 

examined, when they go into-when there's an overvoltage condition, the-the 

- 37-


part does cause it to squeg, that squegging waveform is the overvoltage waveform, 

and in every case, the detection method may vary one way or another, but in 

every case, there's a trigger when the peak-to-peak voltage of the waveform is 

exceeded. 

So that peak-to-peak waveform is the predetermined threshold. And once 

that peak-to-peak waveform is exceeded, there are mechanisms inside the chip 

that we talked a little bit about yesterday with the comparator and the one-shot 

multivibrator, you know, where it continually checks and makes sure that the 

waveform is continuing to exceed that threshold. And after a predetermined time 

for a persistent fault, that is an overvoltage fault that continues, then the timer 

circuit notifies the protection circuit that it should shut down the chip. 

So it's my analysis that the timer circuit element is satisfied by all of the 

MPS chips. 

(Tr. at 1349-50 (Flasck).) 

Mr. Flasck does not explain what segment (how much) of the waveform he considered 

when he concluded that it exceeds the threshold for purposes of his infringement analysis. 

According to him, only some of the alternating current's peaks have to exceed the threshold. 

Although the accused Products' multivibrator has a time span of 150 or 190 nanoseconds during 

which it continues to activate a constant current source that charges the fault capacitor at a rate of 

one microampere (which allows the fault timer to continuously be charged so long as the OFL 

comparator is retriggered at least once every 150 nanoseconds), Mr. Flasck does not explain how, 

given the regulation function of the devices, the voltage signal continually-as opposed to 

periodically- exceeds the threshold. However, he did testifY that as long as the zero threshold 

is exceeded at least once within the 150 or 190 nanosecond span of the multivibrator, the fault 

timer will continue to receive current from the current source which will increase the voltage to 

the fault comparator and eventually cause a shut down of the power switches. (Tr. at 1793-94 

(Flasck).) 

- 38-


Dr. Silzars testified that a voltage waveform is a representation of instantaneous voltage 

recorded constantly over a span oftime. (Tr. at 2055,2143-44 (Silzars).) At any given instant, 

voltage of an alternating current has amplitude. (Id) This amplitude changes with the passage 

oftime, one instant to the next. (Id) As a current's polarity changes, the voltage amplitude 

changes in the course of going from either positive to negative or vice versa. (Id) Mr. Flasck 

said he relied on the data sheets and the application notes, primarily, for forming his opinions, 

plus some schematics and the deposition testimony of the MPS designers. (Tr. at 1203 (Flasck).) 

Therefore, his conclusions and inferences were drawn from those sources, but were not 

independently verified by him through scientific testing. 

Dr. Silzars testified that he tested MPS products that were representative of the accused 

MPS Products "using a Tectronics [sic] oscilloscope." (Tr. at 2048-49 (Silzars).) He concluded 

that none of the accused MPS Products infringe the '382 patent, because their timer circuits do 

not provide a time-out sequence of a predetermined duration when the first voltage signal 

exceeds a predetermined threshold for a predetermined duration, because of the squegging 

behavior of the devices. (Tr. at 2024-25 (Silzars).) He testified that, based on his oscilloscope 

tests, all of the accused MPS Products exhibit squegging, which results in their alternating 

current waveforms rising above and falling below the threshold. (Tr. at 2049 (Silzars).) He 

testified that he disagrees with Mr. Flasck with respect to his testimony that the voltage signal 

need only exceed a threshold occasionally in order to meet the limitation of the timer circuit 

element. (Tr. at 2054 (Silzars).) 

Dr. Silzars testified that he conducted his oscilloscopic tests while there were no lamps 

connected to the tested inverter circuits. (Id.) This is considered an open-lamp condition. (Tr. at 

368:5-14 (Lin).) During his testimony, Dr. Silzars referred to graphs produced in connection 

- 39-


with his tests, depicting waveforms that display squegging behavior (Exs. RDX-227-231). (!d.) 

He testified that squegging is a periodic variation in a waveform, in which case amplitude 

increases and decreases. (Tr. at 2024 (Silzars).) 

Although all of the instantaneous voltage of an alternating waveform does not have to 

exceed the predetermined threshold for the predetermined duration of the timer circuit in order to 

satisfy the limitations of claims 1 and 8 of the' 3 82 patent for purposes of infringement, the peak 

voltage does. Inasmuch as peak voltage constitutes the maximum amplitude of a waveform, if 

the peak voltage of an alternating current waveform does not exceed the threshold for the 

predetermined duration, the timer circuit element is not satisfied. Dr. Mercer points out in his 

testimony that it is peak voltage that causes damage. (Tr. at 2657 (Mercer).) Dr. Silzars testified 

that a voltage signal is simply voltage recorded at some point in time at some location on the 

circuit (Tr. at 2143 (Silzars)); it is one point on a waveform. (ld. at 2055 (Silzars).) The 

testimony of Mr. Flasck does not establish that, when the predetermined threshold of the accused 

MPS Products has been exceeded by peak voltage, in each instance thereafter the peak voltage 

continues to exceed the zero threshold for the predetermined duration of the time-out. The 

testimony of Dr. Silzars establishes that they do not. (Id. at 2024-25 (Silzars).) 

Mr. Flasck's opinion with respect to infringement of the '382 patent by the accused MPS 

Products is that, because peak voltage exceeds the zero threshold often enough to keep re 

triggering the multi vibrator for a period of time sufficient to cause a constant current source to 

charge the fault capacitor to a voltage level of 1.2 volts, which will result in the system shutting 

down, the timer circuit element is satisfied. It is his opinion that even if a squegging waveform 

were to exceed the requisite threshold only once, that would constitute an infringement of the 

'382 patent. (Tr. at 1791-92 (Flasck).) That conclusion, however, does not adhere to the plain 

- 40-


and ordinary meaning, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, of the phrase "for 

said predetermined duration." (Tr. at 2054-55 (Silzars).) 

Because of the squegging behavior of all of the accused MPS Products, as established by 

the oscilloscopic tests conducted by Dr. Silzars, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that 

none ofthe accused MPS Products infringes independent claims 1 and 8 and, consequently, any 

of the remaining claims that depend from them. 

Claims 1,2,4, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 14 have been asserted by Complainants against MPS. 

(CBr.33.) Claims 1,2,4, and 7 pertain to inverter circuits. Claims 8, 9, 11, and 14 pertain to 

liquid crystal displays using those circuits. (Id.) Claims 7 and 14 pertain to the use of inverter 

controllers or drivers employing full-bridge topology. (Id.) MPS's infringing products include 

inverter circuits employing full-bridge topology. (Id.) The infringing drivers include the 

MPI015, MPI0I0B, MPI016, MPI017, MPI018, MPI026, MPI028, MPI0 60, MPI061, 

MP1062, VN800 and VN830. (Id.) The infringing MPS inverter controllers include the 

MPI038, MPlO08, MPlO09, MPI0091, MPI037, MPI048, MP872, and MP61093. (Id.) The 

MPI015 is representative of all of the accused MPS Products for purposes of infringement. (Tr. 

at 1214 (Flasck).) The inverter drivers incorporate the power transistors (switches) the drive the 

primary side of a step-up transformer, and the inverter controllers use external power transistors 

to drive the primary side of the transformer. (Id.) 

1. Claim 1. 

This claim reads as follows: 






- 41 -




polarity; 










duration; and 




(JX-l at 10:37-11: 16.) Because of the squegging behavior, described above, of all of the accused 

MPS Products, as demonstrated by the oscilloscopic tests conducted by Dr. Silzars, the 

Administrative Law Judge concludes that none of the accused MPS Products meets the limitation 

of the timer element of claim 1. As to the other elements of claim 1, according to the unrebutted 

testimony of Richard Flasck, they are met by the accused MPS Products, as represented by the 

MPI015. (Tr. at 1222-31 (Flasck).) 

2. Claim 2. 

This claim reads as follows: 


1 wherein said predetermined duration is sufficient for ignition of said cold 

cathode fluorescent lamp when properly operating. 

(JX-l at 11: 17-20.) According to the unrebutted testimony of Richard Flasck with respect to the 

accused MPS Products, again as represented by the MP1015, the predetermined duration 

described in claim 1 and referred to in claim 2, as the construction of that term has been agreed 

upon by the parties to this Investigation, is sufficient for ignition of the cold cathode fluorescent 

- 42-


lamp, when the circuit is properly operating. (Tr. at 1231-32 (Flasck).) Thus, the evidence is 

sufficient to establish that the accused MPS Products meet the additional limitations of claim 2; 

however, because they do not satisfy the timer element of claim 1, they do not infringe 

dependent claim 2. 

3. Claim 4. 

Claim 4 reads as follows: 













lamp. 

(JX-l at 11:27-43.) According to the testimony of Richard Flasck, the MPI015 representative 

inverter circuit includes a sense resistor that meets the limitations of claim 4 ofthe '382 patent. 

(Tr. at 1232-34 (Flasck).) He also testified that the MP1015 includes a second feedback signal 

line coupled to the sense resistor for receiving the second voltage signal from the sense resistor 

and representing current through the lamp. (ld. at 1234.) And he testified that it also has a 

feedback signal line for adjusting power to the lamp. (ld. at 1234-35.) For these reasons he 

concluded that the MP 1 0 15 meets all of the elements of claim 4 and thus infringes the' 3 82 

patent. (Id at 1236.) 

Respondent MPS has not specifically challenged Complainants' allegation that the 

accused MPS Products infringe the additional limitations of claim 4 and, therefore, with respect 

- 43-


to the additional limitations of claim 4, they are unrebutted. However, because claim 4 also 

depends from claim 1, which has been found not to be infringed by any of the accused MPS 

Products, for that reason it is concluded that claim 4 is not infringed by any of the accused MPS 

Products. 

4. Claim 7. 



1 further comprising: 

(JX-l at 11:55-12:13.) 


providing a first electrical path through said-up transformer to ground 

when said third switch and said first switch are simultaneously on; 

[b.] a fourth switch coupled to said second switch and said-up transformer for 

providing a second electrical path through said step-up transformer to 

ground when said fourth switch and said second switch are 

simultaneously on; 












Richard Flasck testified that the MP 1 0 15 is representative of all of the accused MPS 

Products for purposes of infringement, with exception of claims 7 and 14, which are not asserted 

against the MPI008, MPlO09, MPI0091 and MP6109, because they are not used in full-bridge 

(two pairs oftransistor switches) inverter circuits. (CBr. at 33; Tr. at 1317, 1425-25.) He 

testified that, with respect to the remaining accused MPS Products, each of the elements of this 

- 44-


claim is included in those products. (Tr. at 1236-39 (Flasck).) MPS does not specifically 

challenge or refute Mr. Flasck with respect to his assertions that the additional elements of claim 

7 are included in the identified products, and in that respect his testimony is uncontested. 

However, because claim 7 depends from claim 1, for the same reason that the MPS' s accused 

Products do not infringe claim 1, it is concluded that they also do not infringe claim 7. 

5. Claim 8. 













polarity; 










duration; and 




- 45-


(JX-l at 12:14-44.) Claim 8 is an independent claim under the '382 patent; however, it includes 

the elements of claim 1 but adds a liquid crystal display unit that is illuminated by the cold 

cathode fluorescent lamp. Richard Flasck testified that the representative MP 1 0 15 comprises a 

liquid crystal displp.y unit and all of the other elements of claim 8. (Tr. at 1240-41 (Flasck).) For 

these reasons, Mr. Flasck opined that the accused MPS Products infringe claim 8. 

MPS does not dispute that the MPI015 comprises a liquid crystal display unit. It disputes 

that its accused Products infringe claim 8 for the same reasons that it disputes that its Products 

infringe claim 1: they do not meet the limitations of the timer circuit element of claim 8 because 

they do not provide a time-out sequence of a predetermined duration when a first voltage signal 

exceeds a predetermined threshold for a predetermined duration. For the same reasons given 

above for finding that the accused MPS Products do not infringe claim 1, it is concluded that 

those Products also do not infringe claim 8 of the '382 patent. 

6. Claim 9. 


9. A liquid crystal display unit as claimed in claim 8 wherein said predetermined 



(JX-l at 12:44-47.) Richard Flasck said that his testimony concerning Claim 9 would be the 

same as the testimony he gave with respect to claim 2 (the two claims are similar except that 

claim 9 adds a liquid crystal display); therefore, that testimony was adopted by reference. In 

opposition, MPS and Staff generally take the same position with respect to this dependent claim 

as they do with respect to claim 2, which is that the accused MPS Products do not infringe, 

because they do not comprise a timer circuit that provides a time-out sequence of a 

predetermined duration when a first voltage signal exceeds a predetermined threshold for a 

- 46-


predetermined duration. (RBr. at 27-34; SBr. at 34-39.) The Administrative Law Judge 

concludes, on the basis of his analysis above with respect to claim 1, that the accused MPS 

Products do not include an element of the timer circuit of claim 9, which requires that a first 

voltage signal exceed a predetermined threshold for a predetermined duration, and therefore do 

not infringe this claim. 

7. Claim 11. 













lamp. 

(JX-l at 12:55-13:3.) Claim 11 depends from claim 8 and is identical to claim 4, with the 

addition of a liquid crystal display unit. Here again, MPS and Staff dispute that the MPS 

accused Products infringe this claim, for the same reasons they give for non-infringement ofthe 

preceding claims: the accused Products do not include a timer circuit that comprises a time-out 

sequence of a predetermined duration when a first voltage signal exceeds a predetermined 

threshold for said predetermined duration. For the same reasons already given as to why claims 

1,4, and 8 are not infringed by the accused MPS Products, it is concluded that claim 11 is not 

infringed by them. 

- 47-

8. Claim 14. 



14. A liquid crystal display unit as claimed in claim 8 further comprising: 

(JX-l at 13:15-40.) 


providing a first electrical path through said step-up transformer to 

ground when said third switch and said first switch are simultaneously 

on; 

[b.] a fourth switch coupled to said second switch and said step-up 

transformer for providing a second electrical path through said step-up 

transformer to ground when said fourth switch and said second switch 

are simultaneously on; 



signal representing current through said cold cathode fluorescent lamp: 









Claim 14 depends from claim 8. It is similar to claim 7 with the addition of a liquid 

crystal display unit. There is no dispute the accused MPS Products can be used with a liquid 

crystal display unit. Richard Flasck testified that the MP 1 0 15 is representative of all of the 

accused MPS Products for purposes of infringement, with exception of claims 7 and 14, which 

are not asserted against the MPI008, MPI009, MPI0091 and MP6109, because they are not used 

in full-bridge (two pairs of transistor switches) inverter circuits. (CBr. at 33; Tr. at 1317, 1425- 

25 (Flasck).) He testified that, with respect to the remaining accused MPS Products, each of the 

elements this claim is included in those Products. (Id at 1236-39 (Flasck).) MPS does not 

specifically challenge or refute Mr. Flasck with respect to his assertions that the additional 

- 48-


elements of claim 14 are included in the identified products, and in that respect his testimony is 

uncontested. However, because claim 14 depends from claim 8, for the same reason that the 

MPS's accused Products do not infringe claim 1, it is concluded that they also do not infringe 

claim 14. 

9. Conclusion. 

02 Micro alleges that the accused MPS Products infringe the '382 patent with respect to 

several of the claims therein, in some instances directly, and in other instances indirectly. In 

each instance, and for the reasons given above, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that 

none of the accused MPS Products infringes any ofthe claims of the '382 patent. 

MPS and ASUS additionally argue that several of their accused products are configured 

to determine whether the voltage drops below a reference for the comparator. They identify the 

following accused products as having this feature: MPI01OB, MPlOI5, MPlOI6, MPlOI7, 

MPI018, MPI026, and MP1028. (RBr. at 32.) These respondents note that 02 Micro, in a 

previous federal court action, took the position with respect to a different, but related, patent that 

the word "exceeds" should be construed to mean "above" and, further, that after the court in that 

case agreed with 02 Micro and entered an order to that effect, 02 Micro submitted a copy of that 

order to the PTO during the prosecution of the '382 patent. For these reasons, MPS and ASUS 

argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reviewing the '382 prosecution history, 

would be on notice that "exceeds" means "above." (Jd.) Thus, they argue, the just-identified 

MPS Products do not meet the limitations of independent claims 1 and 8 because they do not 

exceed a predetermined threshold. (Jd. at 32-33.) 

To this argument, 02 Micro responds that, according to MPS and ASUS's expert, Aris 

Silzars, Ph.D., most of the accused products do go above the threshold. Second, they say Dr. 

- 49-


Silzars confused the predetermined threshold of the overvoltage with the reference voltage of the 

detection method. And last, they argue that the fact that the signal is conditioned in the MPS 

Products makes no difference in determining whether the 10 volt peak-to-peak threshold is 

exceeded. (CBr. at 71.) 

Staff says that there is no difference between detecting the "peak" and detecting the 

"valley." Thus the accused products detect when the voltage signal exceeds a threshold. (SBr. at 

40.) 

The Administrative Law judge concludes that MPS and ASUS' s argument on this point 

lacks merit. Inasmuch as alternating current is involved, voltage that falls below, rather than 

rising above, a threshold, still exceeds a predetermined value established for determining an 

overvoltage condition in accordance with the '382 patent. 

C. Analysis of the Accused ASUS Products with Respect to the '382 patent. 

02 Micro identifies the ASUS Products listed in CX-403C and attached hereto as 

Appendix A as infringing some or all of claims 1,2,4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14 ofthe '382 patent 

because they incorporate accused MPS Products. (CBr. at 7-8, 48-53; CFF III.C.II7I; CFF III.C. 

1173; CFF III.C.II84; CFF III.C.II75-76.) 02 Micro asserts that the ASUS Products that 

contain the MPS MPlO09 and MPI038 inverter drivers infringe claims 1,2,4,8,9, and 11 of the 

'382 patent. (CBr. at 48-53.) According to 02 Micro, the ASUS Products that contain the MPS 

MPlOIOB, MPlOI5, MPIOI7, MPIOI8, MPI037, MPI060, and MPI872 inverter drivers 

infringe claims 1,2,4, 7, 8,9, 11, and 14 ofthe '382 patent. (Id) 

The accused ASUS Products include monitors and notebooks, which are identified in 

CX-403C. All of the accused ASUS Products include LCD's. 02 Micro classifies these accused 

Products into four categories: notebooks that contain boards and controllers; monitors and 

- 50-


"EeeTops"; notebooks that include inverter boards that incorporate MPS controllers and drivers; 

and combinations of inverter boards and controllers. All of these Products allegedly infringe the 

'382 patent. (CBr. at 48.) 

For its infringement evidence, 02 Micro relies substantially on the testimony of Richard 

Flasck who disassembled, inspected, or reversed engineered three ASUS monitors, an EeeTop 

1602, a VHI96T, and an LS221. He also inspected a disassembled ASUS model F5RL notebook 

and reviewed technical information (schematics) relating to the accused ASUS Products. (Tr. at 

1442-43 (Flasck).) He concluded that, by reason of these products' inclusion of one or another 

of the accused MPS inverter controllers or drivers, they, too, infringe the '382 patent. He· 

specifically mentioned the EeeTop, which utilizes the timer and protection circuit elements of the 

MP10091 , as infringing claim 1 of the '382 patent. (Id at 1410-12.) He testified that this 

product also infringes claim 2 and claim 4 (id. at 1413-14), as well as claims 8, 9, and 11. (Id at 

1415-17). 

Richard Flasck testified that a VH196T monitor he analyzed, which uses an MPI0I0 

inverter driver, infringes claims 1,2,4,8,9, and 11. (Tr. at 1427 (Flasck).) He testified that his 

infringement analysis ofMPS's MPI009, which incorporates his analysis of the MPI015, also 

applies to the VHI96T. (Id.) 

As regards the ASUS LS221 monitor he analyzed, which uses an MPI038 inverter driver, 

Mr. Flasck concluded that it infringes claims 1,2,4,8,9, and 11. He adopted his analysis of the 

MP1038, which incorporates his analysis of the MP1015, for his conclusions that the LS221, 

with the addition of its LCD display, infringes all of these claims. (Tr. at 1427-28 (Flasck).) 

Mr. Flasck testified that his analysis of the ASUS model F5RL led him to conclude that it 

infringed each of the asserted claims. (Tr. at 1432-33 (Flasck).) He said the inverter board of 

- 51 -


this product uses an MPI0I0B inverter controller. (Id. at 1433.) He based his infringement 

analysis of this product on his analysis of the MPI015 which is representative of his analysis of 

the MPlOI0B. (Id at 1435.) 

According to Mr. Flasck, the ASUS Products identified in CX-403C that have inverter 

modules that use the MPlO09 inverter driver infringe claims 1,2,4,8,9, and 11 of the '382 

patent. (Tr. at 1431 (Flasck).) He said that he based his infringement conclusions on a review of 

schematics CX-80C and CX-78C as well as his infringement analysis of the MPI009 inverter 

controller. (Id. at 1430.) He came to the same conclusions as to infringement of those claims, as 

well as claim 14, by those identified ASUS Products that use the MP 1 0 lOB inverter driver (Tr. at 

1431), the MPI015 inverter driver (Tr. at 1435), the MPI017 inverter driver (Tr. at 1441), the 

MPlO18 inverter driver (Tr. at 1436-37), the MP1872 inverter driver (Tr. at 1438), the MP1037 

inverter controller (Tr. at 1438-39), and the MPI060 inverter driver (Tr. at 1440). 

Without separately discussing each of the accused ASUS Products, MPS, ASUS, and 

Staff address the issue of alleged infringement of the '382 patent by concentrating on the fact 

that independent claims 1 and 8, which require a timer circuit, which provides a time-out 

sequence of a predetermined duration when a first voltage signal exceeds a predetermined 

threshold for a predetermined duration, is not met by any of the ASUS Products, because it is not 

met by any of the MPS inverters used in them. (RBr. at 27-31; SBr. at 33-39.) 

The ASUS Products at issue are accused of infringing the '382 patent because oftheir use 

of accused MPS inverters. Although the accused ASUS Products include additional circuits, 

components, and features, absent the accused MPS inverters, they are not alleged to infringe the 

'382 patent. Consequently, for the same reasons mentioned above as to why the accused MPS 

- 52-


Products do not infringe the '382 patent, it is concluded that the accused ASUS Products do not 

infringe. 

ASUS EeeTop Unit. 

1. Claim 1. 

Because of the squegging behavior of all of the accused MPS Products, as demonstrated 

by the oscilloscopic tests conducted by Dr. Silzars, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that 

the MP10091, on which Richard Flasck based his opinion that ASUS's EeeTop product infringes 

the '382 patent (Tr. at 1222-31 (Flasck)), does not meet the limitation of the timer element of 

claim 1 and, therefore, the accused ASUS EeeTop products do not infringe the '382 patent. 

ASUS VH196T Monitor. 

Richard Flasck testified that the accused ASUS VH196T Monitor uses an MP1009 

inverter driver. Therefore, his infringement analysis for the MPlO09, which incorporates his 

analysis of the MP1015, applies to the VH196T, with the additional consideration that the 

VH196T it includes a liquid crystal display ("LCD"). (CBr. at 50.) Because the MP1015 does 

not meet the timer circuit element, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the accused 

VH196T does not infringe independent claim 1 of the '382 patent. 

ASUS LS221 Monitor. 

Richard Flasck testified that he analyzed the ASUS LS221 Monitor and concluded that it 

infringes claim 1 of the '382 patent. (CBr. at 50-51.) The product uses an MP1038 inverter 

driver. Therefore, he testified, his infringement analysis of the MP1038, which incorporates his 

analysis of the MP1015, applies to the LS221, with the additional consideration that the LS221 is 

a LCD. (Jd.) 

- 53 -




the MPI038, on which Richard Flasck based his opinion that ASUS's LS221 Monitor infringes 

the '382 patent, does not meet the limitation of the timer element of claim 1 and, therefore, the 

accused ASUS LS221 Monitor does not infringe the '382 patent. 

ASUS F5RL Notebook. 

A schematic of the ASUS F5RL Notebook was prepared by 02 Micro and reviewed by 

Richard Flasck. (CBr. at 51.) This product uses a MP1010B inverter driver. (Tr. at 1433.) 

Richard Flasck concluded that this product literally infringes all of the asserted claims of the 

'382 patent because of its use of the MPIOlOB. (Tr. at 1433-35.) Inasmuch as Richard Flasck 

basis his infringement analysis on the product's use of the MP1010B inverter driver, the 

Administrative Law Judge concludes that his testimony is not supported by the evidence because 

the MP 1 0 1 OB does not provide a time-out sequence of a predetermined duration when a first 

voltage signal exceeds a predetermined threshold for a predetermined duration. Therefore claim 

1, which includes a timer circuit having those limitations, is not met by the accused product. 

Other ASUS products identified in CX-403C. 

There are other accused ASUS Products, identified in CX-403C, that have inverter 

modules, which include the following MPS inverter drivers: MPlO09, MPI01OB, MP1015, 

MP1017, MP1018, MP1872, MPI037, and MP1060. (CBr. at 51-53.) Richard Flasck testified 

that these products also infringe the '382 patent. (Id.) As with the foregoing accused ASUS 

Products that are specifically mentioned by name, these remaining groups of various accused 

ASUS Products are alleged to infringe the '382 patent by reason of their use of the 

- 54-


aforementioned MPS inverter drivers. However, because these Products all lack the timer circuit 

element of independent claim 1, they do not infringe. 


2. Claim 2. 

Richard Flasck testified that the EeeTop 1602 infringes claim 2. He based his opinion on 

measurement of the time-out capacitor used on the inverter module in the EeeTop 1602, which is 

longer than the required ignition time for the lamp. (Tr. at 1412-13.) In this respect, Richard 

Flasck's testimony is unrebutted. The Administrative Law Judge therefore concludes that while 

the accused EeeTop 1602 does satisfy the additional limitations set forth in claim 2 of the '382 

patent, because it does not meet the timer element of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, it 

does not infringe claim 2. 


Richard Flasck testified that the accused ASUS VH196T Monitor uses an MPI009 

inverter driver. Therefore, his infringement analysis for the MPI 009, which incorporates his 

analysis of the MP1015, applies to the VHI96T, with the additional consideration that the 

VH196T is an LCD. (CBr. at 50.) Because the MP1015 does not meet the timer circuit element 

of independent claims 1 and 8, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the accused ASUS 

VH196T Monitor likewise does not infringe claim 2, which depends from claim 1. 


Richard Flasck testified that the accused ASUS LS221 Monitor uses an MP 1038 inverter 

driver. Therefore, his infringement analysis for the MPI038, which incorporates his analysis of 

the MP1015, applies to the ASUS LS221. (Tr. at 1427.) Because the MPI038 does not meet the 

- 55 -


timer circuit element of independent claims 1 and 8, the Administrative Law Judge concludes 

that the accused ASUS LS221 likewise does not infringe dependent claim 2. 


Richard Flasck testified that the accused F5RL Notebook uses an MPlOI0B inverter and 

therefore, for reasons already mentioned in the discussion of this product under independent 

claim 1, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that it does not meet the timer circuit element. 

Because claim 2 is dependent from claim 1, it, too, is not infringed by this product. 



modules, which include the following MPS inverter drivers: MPlO09, MPI0I0B, MPI015, 

MPI017, MPI018, MP1872, MPI037, and MPI060. (CBr. at 51-53.) Richard Flasck testified 

that these products also infringe various claims of the '382 patent. (ld.) As with the foregoing 

accused ASUS Products that are specifically mentioned by name, these remaining groups of 

various accused ASUS Products are alleged to infringe the '382 patent by reason of their use of 

the aforementioned MPS inverter drivers. However, because these Products all lack the timer 

circuit element of independent claim 1, they also do not infringe claim 2 of the '382 patent. 


3. Claim 4. 

Richard Flasck testified that the accused ASUS EeeTop products have a sense resistor 

electrically coupled to the CCFL and to ground for providing a second voltage signal. (Tr. at 

1413.) He also testified that this accused product has a second feedback signal line that couples 

a sense resistor R5 to pin 2, the LI pin, through resistor R14. (Tr. at 1413-14.) He testified that, 

given its use of an MPI 0091 inverter driver, the EeeTop 1602 also has a feedback control circuit 

- 56-


coupled to the second feedback signal line for adjusting power to the CCFL to a power level 

such that the second voltage signal approaches a reference value representing the desired load 

conditions on the CCFL. (Tr. at 1414.) He testified that the EeeTop 1602 has all the additional 

elements that claim 4 adds to claim 1 and therefore literally infringes claim 4. (Tr. at 1414.) 

Insofar as Richard Flasck gave testimony that the accused EeeTop 1602 includes the additional 

elements described in claim 4 of the '382 patent, his testimony is unrebutted and found to be 

credible. However, inasmuch as claim 4 depends from claim 1, the Administrative Law Judge 

concludes, for reasons previously stated, that the timer element of claim 1 is not met, and 

therefore the accused ASUS EeeTop products do not infringe claim 4 of the '382 patent. 



inverter driver. Therefore, his infringement analysis for the MP 1 009, which incorporates his 

analysis ofthe MPI015, applies to the VHI96T, with the additional consideration that the 

VH196T is an LCD display. (CBr. at 50.) Because the MP1015 does not meet the timer circuit 

element of independent claim 1, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the accused ASUS 

VH196T Monitor likewise does not infringe dependent claim 4. 


Richard Flasck testified that the accused ASUS LS221 Monitor uses an MPI038 inverter 

driver. Therefore, his infringement analysis for the MP1038, which incorporates his analysis of 

the MPI015, applies to the ASUS LS221. (Tr. at 1427.) Because the MP1038 does not meet the 

timer circuit element of independent claim 1, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the 

accused ASUS LS221 likewise does not infringe dependent claim 4. 

- 57 -

ASUS FSRL Notebook. 


Richard Flasck testified that the accused F5RL Notebook uses an MPIOIOB inverter and 


claim 1, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the F5RL does not meet the timer circuit 

element. Because claim 4 is dependent from claim 1, it too is not infringed by this product. 



modules, which include the following MPS inverter drivers: MPI009, MPI010B, MP1015, 

MP1017, MPI018, MP1872, MP1037, and MP1060. (CBr. at 51-53.) Richard Flasck testified 

that these Products also infringe various claims of the '382 patent. (Jd.) As with the foregoing 




circuit element of independent claim 1, they also do not infringe dependent claim 4 of the '382 

patent. 


4. Claim 7. 

ASUS's EeeTop Unit is not alleged by 02 Micro to infringe claim 7 of the '382 patent. 


ASUS's VH196T Monitor is not accused of infringing claim 7 of the '382 patent. 


The ASUS LS221 Monitor is not accused of infringing claim 7 of the '382 patent. 

- 58-



Richard Flasck testified that the accused F5RL Notebook uses an MP 10 lOB inverter and 



element. Because claim 7 is dependent from claim 1, it too is not infringed by this product. 



modules, which include the following MPS inverter drivers: MP1009, MP1010B, MP1015, 

MP1017, MP1018, MP1872, MP1037, and MP1060. (CBr. at 51-53.) Richard Flasck testified 

that these Products also infringe various claims of the '382 patent. (Id.) As with the foregoing 




circuit element of independent claim 1, they, too, do not infringe claim 7 of the '382 patent. 


5. Claim 8. 

Richard Flasck testified that the accused EeeTop 1602 includes a liquid crystal display 

and therefore infringes claim 8, as well as claim 1. (Tr. at 1415.) His testimony with respect to 

the presence of a liquid crystal display is not disputed and is accepted as an established fact. The 

Administrative Law Judge concludes that the accused EeeTop 1602 does not infringe claim 8, 

because it does not meet the timer circuit element, for the same reasons already stated with 

respect to claim 1. 

- 59-



Richard Flasck testified that the accused ASUS VH196T Monitor uses an MPlO09 

inverter driver. Therefore, his infringement analysis for the MP1009, which incorporates his 

analysis of the MP1015, applies to the VH196T, with the additional consideration that the 

VH196T is an LCD display. (CBr. at 50.) For the reasons already stated with respect to claim 1, 

the accused ASUS VH196T Monitor does not meet the timer circuit element and thus does not 

infringe claim 8. 


Richard Flasck testified that he analyzed the ASUS LS221 Monitor and concluded that it 

infringes claim 1 of the '382 patent. (CBr. at 50-51.) The product uses an MP1038 inverter 

driver. Therefore, he testified, his infringement analysis of the MP 1 03 8, which incorporates his 

analysis ofthe MP1015, applies to the LS221, with the additional consideration that the LS221 is 

an LCD. (Jd.) 



the MP1038, on which Richard Flasck based his opinion that ASUS's LS221 Monitor infringes 

the '382 patent, does not meet the limitation of the timer element of claim 8 and, therefore, the 

accused ASUS LS221 Monitor does not infringe the '382 patent. As to the other elements of 

claim 8, according to the unrebutted testimony of Richard Flasck, they are met by the accused 

MPS Products, as represented by the MP1015, and therefore the LS221 Monitor does satisfy 

those elements of the '382 patent. 

- 60-



A schematic of the ASUS F5RL Notebook was prepared by 02 Micro and reviewed by 

Richard Flasck. (CBr. at 51.) This product uses a MP1010B inverter driver. (Tr. at 1433.) 

Richard Flasck concluded that this product literally infringes all of the asserted claims of the 

'382 patent because of its use of the MP101OB. (Tr. at 1433-35.) Inasmuch as Richard Flasck 

based his infringement analysis on the product's use of the MP1010B inverter driver, the 

Administrative Law Judge concludes that his testimony is not supported by the evidence, 

because the MP 1 0 1 OB does not provide a time-out sequence of a predetermined duration when a 

first voltage signal exceeds a predetermined threshold for a predetermined duration. Therefore 

independent claim 8, which includes a timer circuit having those limitations, is not met by the 

accused ASUS F5RL Notebook. 



modules, which include the following MPS inverter drivers: MP1009, MP101OB, MP1015, 

MP1017, MP1018, MP1872, MP1037, and MP1060. (CBr. at 51-53.) Richard Flasck testified 

that these Products also infringe various claims of the '382 patent. (Jd.) As with the foregoing 



the aforementioned MPS inverter drivers. However, for the reasons discussed with respect to 

claim 1, these Products all lack the timer circuit element of independent claim 8 and therefore do 

not infringe the '382 patent. 

6. Claim 9. 

- 61 -



Richard Flasck testified that because the accused EeeTop 1602 includes a liquid crystal 

display, it infringes claim 9 for the same reasons that he concludes that it infringes claim 2 with 

the addition of an LCD. (Tr. at 1415.) The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the 

accused EeeTop 1602 does not infringe claim 9 for the same reasons given with respect to its 

non-infringement of claim 2. 


Richard Flasck testified that the accused ASUS VH 196T Monitor uses an MP 1 009 

inverter driver. Therefore, his infringement analysis for the MP1009, which incorporates his 

analysis ofthe MP1015, applies to the VH196T, with the additional consideration that the 

VH196T is an LCD display. (CBr. at 50.) Because the MP1015 does not meet the timer circuit 





driver. Therefore, his infringement analysis for the MP1038, which incorporates his analysis of 

the MP1015, applies to the ASUS LS221. (Tr. at 1427.) Because the MP1038 does not meet the 


accused ASUS LS221 likewise does not infringe dependent claim 9. 


Richard Flasck testified that the accused F5RL Notebook uses an MP1010B inverter and 


- 62-



element. Therefore dependent claim 9 is not infringed by the accused F5RL Notebook. 



modules, which include the following MPS inverter drivers: MPI009, MPlOlOB, MPlO15, 

MPlO17, MPI018, MP1872, MP1037, and MPI060. (CBr. at 51-53.) Richard Flasck testified 

that these products also infringe various claims ofthe '382 patent. (Id.) As with the foregoing 




circuit element of independent claim 8, they, too, do not infringe claim 9 ofthe '382 patent. 


7. Claim 11. 

Richard Flasck testified that for the same reasons he gave for concluding that the accused 

EeeTop 1602 infringes claim 4, with the addition of an LCD, he concludes that the product also 

infringes claim 11. (Tr. at 1417.) For those reasons previously given as to why the accused 

EeeTop 1602 does not infringe claim 4, the Administrative Law Judge finds that it does not 

infringe claim 11. 



inverter driver. Therefore, his infringement analysis for the MPI 009, which incorporates his 

analysis ofthe MPlOI5, applies to the VHI96T, with the additional consideration that the 

VHI96T is an LCD display. (CBr. at 50.) Because the MPI015 does not meet the timer, circuit 

- 63 -






driver. Therefore, his infringement analysis for the MPI038, which incorporates his analysis of 

the MPI015, applies to the ASUS LS221. (Tr. at 1427.) Because the MPI038 does not meet the 


accused ASUS LS221 likewise does not infringe dependent claim 11 


Richard Flasck testified that the accused F5RL Notebook uses an MPI010B inverter and 



element. For that reason, the accused F5RL Notebook does not infringe dependent claim 11. 



modules, which include the following MPS inverter drivers: MPlO09, MPI01OB, MPlOI5, 

MPI017, MPI018, MP1872, MPI037, and MPI060. (CBr. at 51-53.) Richard Flasck testified 

that these products also infringe various claims of the '382 patent. (Id.) As with the foregoing 





- 64-


patent. 

8. Claim 14. 


ASUS's EeeTop Unit is not alleged by 02 Micro to infringe claim 14 of the '382 


ASUS's VH196T Monitor is not accused of infringing claim 14 of the '382 patent. 


The ASUS LS221 Monitor is not accused of infringing claim 14 of the '382 patent. 


Richard Flasck testified that the accused F5RL Notebook uses an MPI0I0B inverter and 



element. Therefore, dependent claim 11 is not infringed by this product. 



modules, which include the following MPS inverter drivers: MPI009, MPI01OB, MPI015, 

MPlOI7, MPlOI8, MP1872, MPI037, and MP1060. (CBr. at 51-53.) Richard Flasck testified 

that these Products also infringe various claims of the '382 patent. (Id.) As with the foregoing 





- 65 -



Complainant alleges that the accused ASUS Products infringe the '382 patent with 

respect to several of the claims therein, in some instance directly, and in other instances 

indirectly. In each instance, and for the reasons given above, the Administrative Law Judge 

concludes that none of the accused ASUS Products infringes any of the claims ofthe '382 patent. 

D. Analysis of the Accused Microsemi Products with Respect to the '382 patent. 

02 Micro has accused a number of Microsemi' s inverter controllers and inverter 

controller modules containing inverter controllers ofliteral infringement of claims 1,2,4,8,9, 

and 11 of the '382 patent by the importation, the sale for importation or the sale after importation 

of the accused Microsemi Products in the United States. 

According to 02 Micro, the inverter controllers "can be grouped into three families, 

based on the method of overvoltage detection." (CBr. at 54.) 

The LX1691 family includes the LXI69I, LXI69IA and LXI69IB. CFF 

IILC.876 ... [;] CFF III.C.877. The LX1692 family includes the LXI692, 

LXI692A, LXI692B, LXI696, LX1696A, LX1699, and LX6512. CFF IILC.878. 

The LX1693 family of controllers includes the LX1693 and the LX1697.10 CFF 

IILC.879. Although Microsemi separated the LX1699 and LX612 from the 

LX1692 family to create a fourth group, { 

} CFF IILC.1170, 1138, 1139. The 

grouping of the controllers was confirmed by the testimony of Mr. Kevin Choi, 

Mr. George Henry, and Dr. Patrick Chapman at their depositions and again at trial. 

CFF IILC.880, CFF IILC.1135, 1137, 1138, 1139, 1150. 

(Id. (emphasis added); CFF IILC.877-80 (undisputed); MFF 2-3 (undisputed).) Microsemi's 

LX1691A, LX1692, and LX1693 products are representative of the LX1691, LX1692 and 

LX1693 product Families, respectively, for purposes of infringement. (Id. at 55,59,63.) 02 

10 It is undisputed that the LX1693 and LX1697 have the same fault protection circuitry. (CFF IILC.I059 

(undisputed).) 

- 66-


Micro also classifies the inverter modules into three groups, based on the inverter controller 

families used in the modules. (Id.) 

The LX1691 group of inverter modules includes the LXMG1617A-03-2x, 

the LXMG1617A-05-2x, the LXMG1617A-05-4x, the LXMG1617A-05-6x, the 

LXMG1617A-12-4x, the LXMG1617A-12-6x, the LXMG1618A-03-2x, the 

LXMGI618A-05-2x, the LXMG1618A-05-4x, the LXMGI618A-05-6x, the 

LXMGI618A-12-4x, the LXMG1618A-12-6x, the LXMGI626-05-45, the 

LXMG1626-05-65, the LXMG1626-12-45, the LXMG1626-12-46, the 

LXMG1626-12-64, the LXMG1626-12-65, the LXMGI626-12-66, the 

LXMGI626-12-67, the LXMG1628-12-6x, the LXMGI626-12-65, the 

LXMG1626-12-66, the LXMGI626-12-67, and the LXMG1628-12-6x. CFF 

III.C.871 [(undisputed)]. 

The LX1692 group of inverter modules includes the LXMGI627-05-44, 

the LXMGI627-12-44, the LXMG1627-12-6x, the LXMG1628-12-4x, the 

LXMGI811-05-6x, and the LXMG181l-05-6xS. CFF IILC.872 [(undisputed by 

Staff)].ll 

The third and final [LX1693] group of inverter modules includes the 

LXMG1813-12-6x and the LXMG1813-12-6xs. CFF IILC.873 [(undisputed)]. 

(Id. at 54-55 (emphasis added).) Microsemi's module LXMG1617A-03-02x (LX1691B inverter 

controller), LXMGI627A-05-44 (LX6512 inverter controller), and LXMG1813-12-6x (LX1697 

inverter controller) are representative ofthe LX1691, LX1692 and LX1693 inverter module 

Groups, respectively, for purposes of infringement. (Id. at 66-67.) 

02 Micro argues that the Microsemi LX1691, LX1692 and LX1693 Families of inverter 

controllers meet all of the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 4 of the' 3 82 patent when used in an 

inverter circuit and all of the limitations of claims 8, 9, and 11 when used in an LCD display. In 

1l Microsemi disputes that the inverter controllers in the LXl692 Family are incorporated into any of the accused 

modules, and asserts that the module LXMG 1628 only incorporates the LXl691 Family of inverter controllers. 

(MOCFF III.C.872; RX-991C.) The exhibit Microsemi cites, RX-99IC, shows a correspondence between the 

LX6512 inverter controller, which 02 Micro grouped in the LX1692 Family, and the LXMG1627 series of inverter 

modules. (RX-99IC.) The fIrst portion of Microsemi's assertion appears to be groundless, based on Microsemi's 

own document. With respect to Microsemi' s second assertion, RX -991 C does show that the LXMG 1628-12-6x 

module incorporates the LX169IBIPW inverter controller. However, 02 Micro included this module in the LX1691 

Group of modules. Exhibit RX-991C is silent as to what controller corresponds with the LXMGI628-12-4x module, 

and Microsemi points to no evidence to show that 02 Micro's assertion that an inverter controller in the LXI692 

Family corresponds to a module in the LX1691 Group is erroneous. 

- 67-


Microsemi's engineers, Hwang Soo (a.k.a. Kevin) Choi and George Henry, were examined to 

determine whether the Microsemi Products have a timer circuit for providing a time-out 

sequence of a predetermined duration. (CFF III.C.883 (undisputed in relevant part); CFF 

IILC.887 (undisputed in relevant part); CFF IILC.949 (undisputed); CFF III.C.1 041-2 

(undisputed).) Furthermore, Microsemi conceded at the hearing or through admissions that the 

Microsemi Products meet several limitations of the asserted claims of the '382 patent. (CFF 

IILC.884 (undisputed in relevant part 12 ); CFF IILC.894 (undisputed in relevant part 1 \ CFF 

IILC.896-8 (undisputed in relevant part); CFF IILC.947-8 (undisputed); CFF IILC.951-52 

(undisputed); CFF IILC.953-56 (undisputed in relevant part)14; CFF IILC.1043 (undisputed); 

CFF IILC.1079-80 (undisputed); CFF IILC.1154 (undisputed); Tr. at 2563:10-25 (Chapman).) 

1. Claim 1. 

Claim 1 of the '382 patent reads as follows: 








polarity; 




12 Microsemi objects that 02 Micro's finding offact does not refer to a specific product or design, although it 

specifically refers to the LX1691A. (MOCFF III.C.884.) Microsemi does not appear to dispute the substance of the 

statement, however. (!d.) 

13 Microsemi objects that the cited data sheet is not an actual circuit, but fails to demonstrate, such as through 

citations to testimony or other evidence, that the data sheet is in some way inaccurate. (MOCFF III.C.894. See also 

MOCFF III.C.896-8.) 


citations to testimony or other evidence, that the cited portion of Microsemi's own data sheet is in some way 

inaccurate. (MOCFF III.C.953-56.) 

- 69-








duration; and 




(JX-l at 02ITC 037301-2.) 

As discussed above, the disputed claim terms of the '382 patent have been construed as 

follows. The language "a timer circuit ... for providing a time-out sequence of a predetermined 

duration" should mean "a circuit that limits the time for an overvoltage condition to persist." 

The language "when said first voltage signal exceeds a predetermined threshold for said 

predetermined duration" should mean "when a first voltage signal continually exceeds a 

predetermined threshold for a predetermined duration." The language "shutting down said first 

switch and said second switch after said predetermined duration" should mean "turning off the 

first and second switches after the predetermined duration has elapsed." 

LX1691 Family. 

The parties do not dispute that all of the Microsemi Products in the LX1691 Family of 

inverter controllers meet the preamble and elements 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd' and 'e' of claim 1 of the 

'382 patent when used in an inverter circuit. 15 (CFF III.C.884 (undisputed in relevant part I6 ); 

15 It is undisputed that the Microsemi inverter modules contain the step-up transformer, the fITst switch, the second 

switch, the capacitor divider, and the fITst feedback signal listed in claim 1 of the '382 patent. (CFF III.C.1080 


16 Microsemi objects that that CFF III.C.884 does not refer to a specific product or design, although the fmding of 

fact specifically refers to the LX1691A. (MOCFF III.C.884.) Microsemi does not appear to dispute the substance 

of the statement, however. (/d.) 

-70 -


CFF IILC.894 (undisputed in relevant part l \ CFF IILC.896-8 (undisputed in relevant part); Tr. 

at 1453:18-21, 1455:9-1457:10, 1550:14-19, 1551 :9-25 (Hasck); CX-227C at MICROSEMI 

195062-3, 195070.) Microsemi admits for the representative LX1691A product that it only 

disputes 02 Micro's infringement allegations with respect to elements 'f and 'g' of claim 1. (Tr. 

at 2563:21-2564:7 (Chapman); MOCFF IILC.891.) The Administrative Law Judge finds that the 

accused LX1691 Family of DC to AC cold cathode fluorescent lamp inverter controllers, when 

used in an inverter circuit, are designed to have a step-up transformer with a primary winding 

and a secondary winding for providing increased voltage to a cold cathode fluorescent lamp, a 

first switch coupled to said step-up transformer for selectively allowing said step-up transformer 

to receive DC voltage of a first polarity, a second switch coupled to said step-up transformer for 

selectively allowing said step-up transformer to receive DC voltage of a second polarity, a 

capacitor divider electrically coupled to said cold cathode fluorescent lamp for providing a first 

voltage signal representing a voltage across said cold cathode fluorescent lamp, and a first 

feedback signal line coupled to said capacitor divider for receiving said first voltage signal from 

said capacitor divider representing said voltage across said cold cathode fluorescent lamp. 

The central focus of the parties' dispute with respect to infringement of claim 1 is 

whether the accused Microsemi Products in the LX1691 Family have (i) "a timer circuit coupled 

to said first feedback signal line for providing a time-out sequence of a predetermined duration 

when said first voltage signal exceeds a predetermined threshold for said predetermined 

duration"; and (ii) "a protection circuit coupled to said timer circuit, said first switch and said 

second switch for shutting down said first switch and said second switch after said predetermined 

duration." (JX-l at 02ITC 037301-2.) 


citations to testimony or other evidence, that the cited portion of Micro semi's own data sheet is in some way 

inaccurate. (MOCFF IILC.S94. See also MOCFF IILC.S96-S.) 

- 71 -


02 Micro argues that the LX1691A product has a counter that satisfies the timer circuit 

limitation of element 'f' of claim 1 of the '382 patent because it "detect[s] an over-voltage 

condition during the run mode." (CBr. at 56.) According to 02 Micro, in circumstances such as 

a persistent fault occurring at the start of a counting session, the timer circuit of the LX 1691 A 

will provide a time-out sequence of the predetermined duration of { 

} (Id) 02 Micro further argues 

that at the end of the timeout sequence, "the AND gate logic [becomes] true and the controller 

takes action to shut down." (Jd) 02 Micro argues that the LX1691A product is also designed to 

shut down after a predetermined duration of350 milliseconds if the lamp is open during run 

mode, which it asserts it confirmed by testing on an LG television. (Id at 57.) 

Microsemi argues, inter alia,I8 that its products do not infringe because "the Microsemi 

ICs use current monitoring to shutdown the inverter's switches when a persistent overvoltage 

fault occurs during run mode[,]" and because its products "employ active voltage limiting to 

reduce the excessive voltage" caused by an open lamp. (MBr. at 43-44.) In addition, Microsemi 

argues that 02 Micro is mistaken that the 350 millisecond timeout for the LX1691A relates to 

run mode, but instead applies to strike mode. (MRBr. at 8-9.) 

Staff argues that because the duration of the time-out sequence may vary depending on 

when in the counting session an overvoltage fault begins, the LX1691 Family of products do not 

literally infringe claim 1. (SBr. at 43.) Staff relies, in part, on evidence that was stricken from 

the record. (See Order No. 49 at 4-6.) 

18 The Administrative Law Judge has disregarded Microsemi's argument with respect to the last 25% of a counting 

period, see MBr. at 56-57, as it is based upon evidence that was stricken from the record. (See Order No. 49 at 4-6.) 

-72 -


The Administrative Law Judge finds that the evidence shows that the LX1691A product 

has a timer circuit that limits the time for an overvoltage condition to persist when a first voltage 

signal continually exceeds a predetermined threshold for a predetermined duration, and a 

protection circuit coupled to the timer circuit and two switches (elements 'b' and 'c' of claim 1) 

that turns off the switches after the predetermined duration has elapsed. 

The record shows that in the event of a persistent fault during run mode, the LX 1691 A 

has a timer circuit that limits the time for an overvoltage condition to persist when a first voltage 

signal continually exceeds a predetermined threshold for a predetermined duration. The parties 

do not dispute that { 

(CFF III.C.900 (undisputed); SFF 115-117 (undisputed); Tr. at 1576: 18-1578:1 (Flasck); CX-19; 

SBr. at 42; MBr. at 55.) { 

} (Tr. at 2238:14-23; 2239:12-14; 2248:11-14; 

2251:10-13; 2252:8-14 (Choi); CFF III.C.901 (undisputed in relevant part); SBr. at 42.) { 

III.C.902 (undisputed in relevant part).) { 

} 

} (CFF 

(Tr. at 2239:21-2240:4; 2241 :8-19; 2243:23-2244:16; 2248:11-14 (Choi); Tr. at 1577:23-1578:4, 

1578:23-1579:9 (Flasck); CX-19; CFF III.C.903 (undisputed); CFF III.C.918 (undisputed); MBr. 

at 55.) { 

} (Tr. at 2239:21-2240:4; 2241:8-19; 2243:23-2244:16; 2248:11-21 (Choi); CFF 

III.C.904 (undisputed in relevant part); SFF 122 (undisputed).) { 

- 73 - 

}


} (Tr. at 2245:3-18; 2246:8-13; 2248:5-24; 2250:19- 

2251:9; 2310:6-19 (Choi); Tr. at 1578:8-22 (Flasek); CX-19; CX-1450C at M059754, M059756; 

CFF lILC.905 (undisputed in relevant part); SFF 123-124 (undisputed); MBr. at 44; SBr. at 42- 

43; JX-4C at M003099.) 

{ 

(Tr. at 2312:6-2313:3,2313:21-2314:3 (emphasis added); see also id at 2240:7-17 (Choi); CX- 

1450C at M059756; RDX-448.) 

-74 - 

}

{ 


(CX-1450C at M059756.) Mr. Choi also noted that the LX1691 is specifically designed to 

handle a persistent fault by shutting down. (Tr. at 2250:10-13 (Choi).) 

Based upon the undisputed evidence and Microsemi' s own admissions, the 

Administrative Law Judge finds that the LX1691A and consequently the LX1691 Family of 

accused Microsemi Products have a timer circuit that limits the time for an overvoltage condition 

to persist during run mode when a first voltage signal continually exceeds a predetermined 

threshold { } such that the limitation of 

element 'f of claim 1 of the '382 patent is met. The Administrative Law Judge further finds that 

the LX1691A and consequently the LX1691 Family of accused Microsemi Products have a 

protection circuit coupled to the timer circuit and two switches (elements' b' and 'c' of claim 1) 

that turns off the switches after the predetermined duration { } has elapsed such 

that the limitation of element 'g' of claim 1 of the '382 patent is met. 

It should be noted that 02 Micro does not argue that the Microsemi LX1691 Family of 

inverter controllers meets all ofthe limitations of claim 1 of the '382 patent unless each of them 

is used in an inverter circuit. The discussion as to whether there should be a finding of direct or 

indirect infringement with respect to these inverter controllers follows below in this Section with 

respect to the LX1691 Modules and in Section IY.D.7. 

-75 - 

}


The Administrative Law Judge rejects Staffs argument that because the duration of the 

time-out sequence may vary depending on when in the counting session an overvoltage fault 

begins, the LX1691 Family of products do not infringe claim 1. As discussed above, the 

evidence shows that the LX1691A inverter controller is reasonably capable of satisfying the 

limitations of claim 1 under normal operation, depending on the circumstances of the persistent 

overvoltage condition during run mode, even though it may also be capable of non-infringing 

modes of operation. See Hilgraeve Corp. v. Symantec Corp., 265 F.3d 1336, 1343 (Fed Cir. 

2001). 

With respect to 02 Micro's argument that the LX1691A product also meets the timer 

circuit limitation of claim 1 of the '382 patent because it shuts down after a set time of 350 

milliseconds under certain conditions, the Administrative Law Judge finds that 02 Micro has 

failed to make a showing that the 350 millisecond shutdown meets all the limitations of element 

'f. The record does reflect that Microsemi's own product documentation shows that the 

LX1691A will invoke the fault mode after 350 milliseconds if the lamp is open or short circuited. 

Microsemi's expert, Mr. Choi, confirmed that the Microsemi LX1691A Production Data Sheet 

contains such a disclosure: 

Q. Ifwe could have CX-227C, please. Ifwe could have page 10. Under the fault 

timeout section right here, it states, "fault mode will also be invoked if the lamp is 

short circuited or left open for more than 350 seconds." You wrote that, right? 

A. Yes, I saw that. 

JUDGE GILDEA: You said 350 seconds. I think you meant- 

BY MR. MATHIOWETZ: 

Q. Milliseconds. I apologize. Fault mode will also be invoked if the lamp is 

short circuited or left open for more than 350 milliseconds. Is that what it states? 

I read that right, didn't I, Mr. Choi? 

A. Yes. 

(Tr. at 2314:4-:20 (Choi); CX-227C at MICROSEMI195071.) What is not clear from the data 

sheet is whether this particular predetermined timeout of 350 milliseconds is effected by a timer 

- 76-


circuit coupled to a feedback signal line for receiving a voltage signal from a capacitor divider 

representing the voltage across the cold cathode fluorescent lamp or whether it is effected some 

other way, such as through current sensing. (MBr. at 43-44; MRBr. at 8-9.) According to 02 

Micro's expert, Mr. Flasck, this timeout meets the claim limitation, and is confirmed by testing 

done by 02 Micro. (Tr. at 1551:20-1552:8, 1573:23-1577:3 (Flasck); CX-227C at MICROSEMI 

195071; CX-18; CX-21-22; CX-23.) Yet, Mr. Flasck was unable to satisfactorily explain how 

this timeout is achieved. (Tr. at 1799:24-1800:5 (Flasck).) Thus 02 Micro did not meet its 

burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the predetermined timeout of350 

milliseconds is in any way related to a timer circuit coupled to a feedback signal line for 

receiving a voltage signal from a capacitor divider representing the voltage across the cold 

cathode fluorescent lamp. 

The Administrative Law Judge also rejects Microsemi's argument that its products do not 

infringe because "the Microsemi ICs use current monitoring to shutdown the inverter's switches 

when a persistent overvoltage fault occurs during run mode[.]" (MBr. at 43-44.) As noted above, 

Microsemi's own engineer described a specific instance during which the LX1691A inverter 

controller would use voltage monitoring to shut down the inverter's switches if a persistent 

overvoltage fault occurred during run mode. The Administrative Law Judge further rejects 

Microsemi's argument that because its products "employ active voltage limiting to reduce the 

excessive voltage" caused by an open lamp, its products do not infringe. Microsemi cites to no 

evidence to explain its statement that "if some current is flowing, (as would be the case when a 

lamp connection becomes intermittent, or there is arcing someplace in the circuit), but the 

voltage is getting dangerously high, as detected at the capacitor divider or other analogous 

circuitry, voltage limiting will be applied." (MBr. at 58.) "Unsworn attorney argument is not 

-77 -


evidence." Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 

2009) (quoting Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1372, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009)) 

(internal formatting omitted). Furthermore, it should be noted that Microsemi confirmed that 

"the counter-and-register overvoltage protection circuit ... will screen the fault to be sure it is 

not a transient episode, and if recurring, will shut off the inverter's switches." (Id.) 


The parties do not dispute that all ofthe Microsemi Products in the LX1692 Family of 

inverter controllers meet the preamble and elements 'a', 'b', 'd' and 'e' of claim 1 of the '382 

patent when used in an inverter circuit. 19 (CFF III.C.947-8 (undisputed); CFF III.C.951-52 

(undisputed); CFF III.C.953-56 (undisputed in relevant part)20; Tr. at 1581:17-1583:6 (Flasck); 

JX-6; CDX-92; CX-83.) 02 Micro argues that the circuit in which the LX1692 is used also has a 

second switch coupled to the transformer such that the LX 1692 meets element' c' of claim 1 (see 

CBr. at 59); however, the proposed finding of fact to which 02 Micro cites contains no such 

language. (CFF III.C.953.) The record shows, however, that Microsemi's own production data 

sheet for the LX1692 discloses a second switch coupled to the transformer in the typical 

application of the product. (CX-83 at 10. See also Tr. at 1584.) The Administrative Law Judge 

finds that the accused LX1692 Family of DC to AC cold cathode fluorescent lamp inverter 

controllers, when used in an inverter circuit, are designed to have a step-up transformer with a 

primary winding and a secondary winding for providing increased voltage to a cold cathode 

fluorescent lamp, a first switch coupled to said step-up transformer for selectively allowing said 

step-up transformer to receive DC voltage of a first polarity, a second switch coupled to said 

19 It is undisputed that the Microsemi inverter modules contain the step-up transformer, the fIrst switch, the second 

switch, the capacitor divider, and the fIrst feedback signal listed in claim I of the '382 patent. (CFF IlLC.I080 



citations to testimony or other evidence, that the cited portion of Micro semi's own data sheet is in some way 

inaccurate. (MOCFF IILC.953-56.) 

-78 -


step-up transformer for selectively allowing said step-up transformer to receive DC voltage of a 

second polarity, a capacitor divider electrically coupled to said cold cathode fluorescent lamp for 

providing a first voltage signal representing a voltage across said cold cathode fluorescent lamp, 

and a first feedback signal line coupled to said capacitor divider for receiving said first voltage 

signal from said capacitor divider representing said voltage across said cold cathode fluorescent 

lamp. 

The central focus of the parties' dispute with respect to infringement of claim 1 is 

whether the accused Microsemi Products in the LX1692 Family have (i) "a timer circuit coupled 

to said first feedback signal line for providing a time-out sequence of a predetermined duration 

when said first voltage signal exceeds a predetermined threshold for said predetermined 

duration"; and (ii) "a protection circuit coupled to said timer circuit, said first switch and said 

second switch for shutting down said first switch and said second switch after said predetermined 

duration." (JX-l at 02ITC 037301-2.) 

02 Micro argues that the LX1692 product has a timer circuit that counts pulses ifthe 

peak voltage on the OV _SNS pin rises above a predetermined threshold of 3.2 volts. (CBr. at 

60.) 02 Micro further argues that the LX1692 meets the protection circuit limitation of claim 1: 

"[i]f 16 events are counted, an open lamp fault is declared and the IC outputs are shut down." 

(Id. at 60, 62.) 

Microsemi argues that the LX1692 product does not infringe because the voltage signal 

from the capacitor divider "cannot exceed a threshold for any meaningful predetermined 

duration" because "there are points when no voltage at all [is] being applied to the CCFL." 

(MBr. at 63-64.) 

-79 -


Staff is of the view that the LX1692 does not infringe claim 1 because "each time the 

device records an overvoltage event, { 

} (SBr. at 44.) 

The Administrative Law Judge finds that the evidence shows that the LX1692 product 

has a protection circuit, but does not have a timer circuit such that the limitation of element 'f of 

claim 1 is met. It is undisputed that a "signal representative of an overvoltage condition 

appearing at the CCFL, measured at the capacitor divider, is fed to the OVSNS pin of the 

LX1692 controller." (CFF IILC. 962 (undisputed); Tr. at 2260:17-23 (Choi); RX-789C). "The 

OVSNS signal is compared to a 3.2 volt reference { } IfOVSNS exceeds 

3.2 volts, an 'event,' the comparator outputs a pulse signal called 'Over Voltage,' which is fed to 

a four bit counter. The four bit counter monitors overvoltage pulses." (CFF IILC. 962 

(undisputed); Tr. at 2263:20-2264:4, 2267:24-2268:17 (Choi); RX-796C). When the counter 

counts 16 events,21 a fault is declared and the IC outputs are shut down. (Tr. at 2264,2317 

(Choi); JX-6 at 7, 15.) Furthermore, it is undisputed that 

{ 

(Choi, Tr. 2267:23-2267:3, 2270:2-2271:1, 2318:10-14). 

When the overvoltage condition is removed { 

soft-start. (Choi, Tr. 2270:11-12, 2274:1-13). 

} 

} This is called 

21 For the LX1699 inverter circuit { } (SFF 153 (undisputed).) In all 

other respects, the LX1699 inverter circuit operates in "basically the same way" as the LXI692. (SFF 155 


- 80-


If the fault condition still exists at the lamp, the OVSNS will again exceed the 3.2 

volt threshold at { } another event will be counted, Icomp will be 

pulled to ground, and the process will repeat until 16 events are counted and the 

controller is shut down. (Choi, Tr. 2318: 18-2319:7). 

The waveform shown on page 15 of the LXI691/A/B application note (JX-6), 

section 3_2,22 depicts the voltage signal at the OVSNS pin when there is a fault 

condition. The first spike shows a fault in excess of 3.2 volts. { 

} until there have been 16 

events, and the controller shuts down. (Choi, Tr. 2317:19-2319:7). 

(CFF III.C.964-66 (undisputed); CFF III.C.967 (undisputed in relevant part)23 (emphasis added). 

See also Tr. at 1583:7-21 (Flasck).) 02 Micro likens this process to squegging. (CBr. at 61.) 

- 81 - 

}


The Administrative Law judge previously found, as discussed above in Section N.B. above, that 

with respect to squegging- 

{ 

Although all of the instantaneous voltage of an alternating waveform does not 

have to exceed the predetermined threshold for the predetermined duration of the 

timer circuit in order to satisfy the limitations of claims 1 and 8 of the '382 patent 

for purposes of infringement, the peak voltage does. Inasmuch as peak voltage 

constitutes the maximum amplitude of a waveform, if the peak voltage of an 

23 Microsemi argues that the cited drawing lacks foundation, even though it was drawn by its own engineer, Mr. 

Choi, forthe Application Note for the LX1692 CCFL Controller. (JX-6 at 15; MOCFF III.C.967.) Furthermore, 

Microsemi points to no actual evidence or testimony to support its objections. (MOCFF IILC.967.) The 

Administrative Law Judge also fmds Microsemi's disclaimers of its own LX1692 product documentation-because 

it was drafted by Mr. Choi, a non-native English speaker-to be disingenuous in light of Microsemi's own reliance 

on Mr. Choi's English testimony at the hearing. 

- 82- 

}


alternating current waveform does not exceed the threshold for the predetermined 

duration, the timer circuit element is not satisfied. 

See Section IV.B above. Therefore, the issue here is whether the peak: voltage continues to 

{ 

happens is that { 

} The Administrative Law Judge finds that it does not. According to Mr. Choi, what 

(excerpt from JX-6C at 15, Fig. 19.) Thus, { 

} (See JX-6C at 15, Fig. 19.) { 

} (Tr. at 2266:17-2267:7 (Choi).) 

} As a result, the Administrative 

Law Judge finds that the signal does not amount to a first voltage signal that continually exceeds 

a predetermined threshold for a predetermined duration. Therefore the LX1692 inverter 

controller, as well as the inverter controllers in the LX1692 Family, does not meet the limitations 

of element 'f of claim 1 of the '382 patent. 


The parties do not dispute that all of the Microsemi Products in the LX1693 Family of 

inverter controllers meet the preamble of claim 1 of the '382 patent when used in an inverter 

24 According to Microsemi's expert, Dr. Chapman, this also means that no power is being supplied to the lamp. (Tr. 

at 2530-32 (Chapman); RDX-427; RDX-430.) 

- 83 -


circuit. (CFF III.C.1043 (undisputed); Tr. at 1602:21-1603:1 (Flasck); CX-215C.) Furthermore 

the evidence shows that the LX1693 Family meets elements 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd' and 'e' of claim 1 of 

the '382 patent when used in an inverter circuit. 25 (Tr. at 1603:6-1605:6 (Flasck); CX-215C; 

CFF III.C.1046-1052 26 ; SOCFF III.C.I046-1052.) The Administrative Law Judge finds that the 

accused LX1693 Family of DC to AC cold cathode fluorescent lamp inverter controllers, when 

used in an inverter circuit, are designed to have a step-up transformer with a primary winding 

and a secondary winding for providing increased voltage to a cold cathode fluorescent lamp, a 

first switch coupled to said step-up transformer for selectively allowing said step-up transformer 

to receive DC voltage of a first polarity, a second switch coupled to said step-up transformer for 

selectively allowing said step-up transformer to receive DC voltage of a second polarity, a 

capacitor divider electrically coupled to said cold cathode fluorescent lamp for providing a first 

voltage signal representing a voltage across said cold cathode fluorescent lamp, and a first 

feedback signal line coupled to said capacitor divider for receiving said first voltage signal from 

said capacitor divider representing said voltage across said cold cathode fluorescent lamp. 

Just as with the LX1691 and LX1692 product Families, the focus of the parties' dispute 

with respect to infringement of claim 1 is whether the accused Microsemi Products in the 

LX1693 Family have (i) "a timer circuit coupled to said first feedback signal line for providing a 

time-out sequence of a predetermined duration when said first voltage signal exceeds a 

25 It is undisputed that the Microsemi inverter modules contain the step-up transformer, the fIrst switch, the second 

switch, the capacitor divider, and the fIrst feedback signal listed in claim 1 of the '382 patent. (CFF 1II.C.1080 



citations to testimony or other evidence, that the cited portion of Microsemi's own data sheet is in some way 

inaccurate. (MOCFF 1II.C.1046-52.) Furthermore, a review of the transcript shows that Microsemi's boilerplate 

objections that these fIndings offact mischaracterize Mr. Flasck's testimony are groundless. (Tr. at 1603:6-1605:6 

(Flasck).) On the contrary, Microsemi's own representations as to Mr. Flasck's testimony, see MOCFF 1II.C.1051- 

52, are inaccurate and taken out of context. (Tr. at 1769: 1-4 (Flasck).) The Administrative Law Judge further fmds 

that Microsemi's objection that Mr. Flasck did not do an internal analysis of the inverter controller is irrelevant in 

light of the unrefuted admissions found in Microsemi' s product documentation. 

- 84-


predetennined threshold for said predetennined duration"; and (ii) "a protection circuit coupled 

to said timer circuit, said first switch and said second switch for shutting down said first switch 

and said second switch after said predetennined duration." (JX-l at 02ITC 037301-2.) 

02 Micro argues that the representative LX1693 product has a timer circuit that provides 

a timeout of a predetennined duration of { 

} (CBr. at 64.) 02 Micro further argues that the 

LX1693 has a protection circuit that shuts off the device operation. (Id. at 65.) 

Microsemi argues that the LX1693 inverter controller, { 

} does not infringe because it has a time-out sequence with an unpredictable 

duration. (MBr. at 68-71.) Staff agrees. (SBr. at 47.) 

The Administrative Law Judge finds that the evidence shows that the LX1693 inverter 

controller has a timer circuit that limits the time for an overvoltage condition to persist during 

run mode when a first voltage signal continually exceeds a predetennined threshold for a 

predetennined duration, and a protection circuit coupled to the timer circuit and at least two 

switches (elements 'b' and 'c' of claim 1) that turns off the switches after the predetennined 

duration has elapsed. It is undisputed that- 

In the LX1693, an overvoltagecondition at the lamp is presented { 

transcription error-{ 

In addition to { 

} (Choi, Tr. 2293:5-13; 2294:16-19 Note 

} RX-838C). 

} (Choi, Tr. 2293:11-20, 2324:14-2325:1). 

- 85 -

{ 


} (Choi, Tr. 2294:24-2295:1, 2324:4-13). 

(CFF III.C.1060-63 (undisputed).) Thus the undisputed record shows that { 

{ 

} (Id.) 

(Excerpt of Operation Flow Chart, JX-117C at p. 6, Fig. 2 (highlighting added).) Microserni's 

Application Note for the LX1693 inverter controller further discloses that { 

also Tr. at 1607:2-10 (Flasck).) 

- 86- 

} (Id. at Section 6-5-4. See 

}

{ 


(JX-117C at p. 12, Fig. 12.) Mr. Choi, Microsemi's engineer confirmed that { 

{ 

} 

Q. Now, if we can have page 11, please. Let's go to the section down here. 

Okay. This states that { 

right? 

A. Yes. 

Q. SO this { 

Q. So what this { 

} 

* * * 

Q. And eventually, because you are { 

} 

} 

- 87- 

} 

} Did I read that 

}


(Tr. at 2323:7-2325:1 (Choi) (emphasis added). See also Tr. at 2294:3-15 (Choi) { 

} RX-830C; RX-838C.) Accordingly, the 

Administrative Law Judge finds that the evidence shows that the LX1693 inverter controller has 

a timer circuit that limits the time for an overvoltage condition to persist when a first voltage 

signal continually exceeds a predetermined threshold { 

{ 

} for the predetermined duration 

} such that the limitations 

of element 'f' of claim 1 ofthe '382 patent are met. The Administrative Law Judge further finds 

that because the controller shuts down when { 

are met. 

} the limitations of element 'g' of claim 1 of the '382 patent 

It should be noted that 02 Micro does not argue that the Microsemi LX1693 Family of 

inverter controllers meets all of the limitations of claim 1 of the '382 patent unless each of them 

is used in an inverter circuit. The discussion as to whether there should be a finding of direct or 

indirect infringement with respect to these inverter controllers follows below in this Section with 

respect to the LX1693 Modules and in Section IV.D.7. 

The Administrative Law Judge finds that Microsemi and Staff's arguments with respect 

to { } see MBr at 

69-72; SBr. at 47, to be irrelevant to the issue of how { 

} Compare { } with { 

} JX-117C at p. 6, Fig. 2 above. While Mr. Choi testified that the LX1693 has a { 

- 88-


} (Tr. at 2294:20-23, 2295:9-17, 2296:14-24), the evidence discussed above 

shows that the LX1693 inverter controller is reasonably capable of satisfying the limitations of 

claim 1 under normal run mode operation, when { 

LX1691 Modules. 

} 

02 Micro argues that the LX1691 Group of modules, based on the representative 

LXMGI617A-03-02x module ("LX1691 Module"), infringes claim I of the '382 patent. (CBr. 

at 66.) Microsemi's objections to this argument are based solely on its belief that the inverter 

controllers in the LX1691 Family do not infringe claim 1. (MBr. at 75.) The LX1691 Module 

contains the LX1691B 27 inverter controller (CFF IILC.I082 (undisputed)), an inverter controller 

in the LX1691 Family of inverter controllers found above to infringe claim 1 ofthe '382 patent. 

It is undisputed that the Microsemi inverter modules each contain a Microsemi inverter 

controller and a circuit board containing additional components. (CFF IILC.I079 (undisputed). 

See also CFF III.C.1154 (undisputed).) Furthermore, it is undisputed that the Microsemi inverter 

modules contain the step-up transformer, the first switch, the second switch, the capacitor divider, 

and the first feedback signal listed in claim 1 ofthe '382 patent. (CFF IILC.1080 (undisputed).) 

As discussed above, the LXl691 Family of inverter controllers each contain a timer circuit and 

protection circuit satisfying the remaining elements of claim I of the '382 patent. Based on the 

evidence discussed in this Section IV.D.I, the Administrative Law Judge finds that the inverter 

modules in the LX1691 Group that contain inverter controllers from the LX1691 Family literally 

infringe claim 1 of the '382 patent. (JX-19C; CFF IILC.1080 (undisputed); Tr. at 1612 (Flasck).) 

Microsemi's U.S. sales of the inverter modules in the LX1691 Group containing inverter 

27 It is undisputed that the LX1691B is identical to the LX1691A with respect to fault processing. (CFF III.C.llS2.) 

- 89-


controllers from the LX1691 Family, including the LXMG1617A-02-2x, LXMG1617A -05, 

LXMGI617A-12, LXMGI618A-03-2x, LXMGI618A-05, LXMGI618A-12, LXMG1626-05-4x, 

LXMGI626-12-4x, LXMGI626-05-6x, LXMG1626-12-64, LXMG1626-12-6x, and 

LXMG1628-12-6x inverter modules, directly infringe claim 1 of the '382 patent. (See JX-I03C 

at 7-16; CDX-47; RX-991C.) 



LXMGI627A-05-44 module ("LX1692 Module"), infringes claim I of the '382 patent. (CBr. at 

66-67.) However, the LXI692 Module contains the LX1692 inverter controller (CFF III.C.I094 

(undisputed)), an inverter controller in the LX1692 Family of inverter controllers that do not 

infringe claim 1 of the' 3 82 patent. Based on the evidence discussed in this Section IV.D.l, the 

Administrative Law Judge finds that the inverter modules in the LX1692 Group that contain 

inverter controllers from the LX1692 Family do not literally infringe the '382 patent. (CDX-47; 

RX-991C.) 


02 Micro argues that the LXI693 Group of modules, based on the representative 

LXMGI813-12-6x module ("LXI 693 Module"), infringes claim 1 of the '382 patent. (CBr. at 

67.) Microsemi's objections to this argument are based solely on its belief that the inverter 

controllers in the LX1693 Family do not infringe claim 1. (MBr. at 75.) The LX1693 Module 

contains the LX1697 inverter controller (CFF IILC.II 02 (undisputed)), an inverter controller in 

the LX1693 Family of inverter controllers found above to infringe claim 1 ofthe '382 patent. It 

is undisputed that the Microsemi inverter modules each contain a Microsemi inverter controller 

and a circuit board containing additional components. (CFF IILC.l079 (undisputed). See also 

- 90-


CFF IILC.1154 (undisputed).) Furthermore, it is undisputed that the Microsemi inverter modules 

contain the step-up transformer, the first switch, the second switch, the capacitor divider, and the 

first feedback signal listed in claim 1 ofthe '382 patent. (CFF III.C.1080 (undisputed).) As 

discussed above, the LX1693 Family of inverter controllers each contain a timer circuit and 

protection circuit satisfying the remaining elements of claim 1 of the '382 patent. Based on the 

evidence discussed in this Section IV.D.1, the Administrative Law Judge finds that the inverter 


infringe claim 1 of the '382 patent. (CX-932C; CFF IILC.1080 (undisputed); Tr. at 1615-16 

(Flasck).) Microsemi's U.S. sales ofthe inverter modules in the LX1693 Group containing 

inverter controllers from the LX1693 Family, including the LXMG1813-12-6x and the 

LXMG1813-12-6xS inverter modules, directly infringe claim 1 of the '382 patent. (See JX- 

103C at 7-16; CDX-47; RX-991C.) 

2. Claim 2. 

Claims 2 and 4 depend on independent claim 1 of the '382 patent. Inasmuch as each 

claim limitation must be present in an accused device in order for infringement to be found 

(either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents), an accused product cannot infringe a 

dependent claim if it does not practice every limitation of the independent claim from which it 

depends. See Monsanto Co. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 503 F.3d 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2007); 

Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17,40 (1997). Furthermore, 

the Federal Circuit has explained: 

One may infringe an independent claim and not infringe a claim dependent on 

that claim. The reverse is not true. One who does not infringe an independent 

claim cannot infringe a claim dependent on (and thus containing all the limitations 

of) that claim. 

- 91 -


Wahpeton Canvas Co., Inc. v. Frontier, Inc., 870 F.2d 1546, 1552 n.9 (Fed.Cir.1989) (citing 

Teledyne McCormick Selph v. United States, 558 F.2d 1000, 1004 (Ct. Cl. 1977)). 

As noted above, the inverter controllers in the LX1691 and LX1693 Families (when used 

in an inverter circuit) and modules in the LX1691 and LX1693 Groups meet the limitations of 

independent claim 1 of the '382 patent, but the inverter controllers in the LX1692 Family and 

inverter modules in the LX1692 Group do not. (See Section IV.D.l. above.) Therefore, the 

Administrative Law Judge must now determine whether those accused Microsemi Products that 

meet the limitations of independent claim 1 meet the limitations of dependent claims 2 and 4 as 

well. 



claim 1 wherein said predetermined duration is sufficient for ignition of 

said cold cathode fluorescent lamp when properly operating. 

(JX-l at 02ITC 037302.) 

02 Micro argues that the LX1691A infringes claim 2 ofthe '382 patent because "[t]he 

fault mode will be invoked if the lamp is short-circuited or open for more than 350 milliseconds, 

which is longer than the typical time for a CCFL to light." (CBr. at 57.) For the reasons 

discussed in Section IV.D.l. above, 02 Micro's argument must fail. While the Administrative 

Law Judge did find that the inverter controllers in the LX1691 Family meet the limitations of 

claim 1, the Administrative Law Judge also found that 02 Micro did not meet its burden to show 

by a preponderance of the evidence that the predetermined timeout of 350 milliseconds is in any 

way related to a timer circuit coupled to a feedback signal line for receiving a voltage signal 

from a capacitor divider representing the voltage across the cold cathode fluorescent lamp. 02 

Micro submits no evidence as to whether the predetermined duration { 

- 92-


} would be sufficient to ignite the lamp, and therefore the Administrative Law Judge 

finds that the LX1691 Family of accused Microsemi Products, and therefore the LX1691 Group 

of inverter modules, does not meet the limitations of claim 2. 

For the same reasons that the Administrative Law Judge found that the LX1692 Family 

of accused inverter controllers does not infringe claim 1 of the' 3 82 patent, they do not infringe 

claim 2. Because the first voltage signal measured at the capacitor divider { 

} it does not 

amount to a first voltage signal that continually exceeds a predetermined threshold for a 

predetermined duration. Thus the LX1692 Family, and therefore the LX1692 Group of inverter 

modules, also does not have a predetermined duration sufficient for ignition of said cold cathode 

fluorescent lamp. 

With respect to the LX1693 Family of inverter controllers, 02 Micro argues that the 11 

millisecond time out identified in the LX1693 data sheet "is longer than the few cycles it takes to 

light the CCFL." (CBr. at 65.) Microsemi and Staff appear to rely on their arguments that the 

LX1693 Family does not infringe independent claim 1 and therefore does not infringe dependent 

claim 2. (MBr. at 68-71; SBr. at 47-48.) As discussed above with respect to claim 1, 

Microsemi's Application Note for the LX1693 inverter controller discloses that { 

} (JX-117C at Section 6-5- 

4. See also Tr. at 1607:2-10 (Flasck).) According to 02 Micro's expert, the approximate time of 

{ } is more than sufficient for ignition of the lamp: 

Q. Turning to claim 2, does the LX1693 group of controllers literally infringe 

claim 2? 

A. Yes. Based on the { 

} that's more than sufficient for the initial striking of a lamp. 

- 93 -


(Tr. at 1608:1-5 (Flasck).) While it is possible that users could program the predetermined 

duration of time out of the LX1693 Family of inverter controllers to be shorter than the strike 

time ofthe lamp by changing Rl, R7 and C9 (Tr. at 1607:2-10 (Flasck)), Microsemi's own 

documentation shows that absent some affirmative alteration by the user, the LX1693 is 

normally designed to have a time out that lasts longer than the strike time for the lamp. 

Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge finds that the LX1693 Family of inverter controllers 

have a predetermined duration sufficient for ignition of the lamp during normal operation such 

that the limitations of claim 2 of the '382 patent are met. 

It should be noted, however, that the Microsemi LX1693 Family of inverter controllers 

do not meet all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2 of the '382 patent unless each of them is used 

in an inverter circuit. The discussion as to whether there should be a finding of direct or indirect 

infringement of claim 2 with respect to these inverter controllers follows below in this Section 

with respect to the LX1693 Modules and in Section IV.D.7. 

Because the Administrative Law Judge has found that the inverter controllers in the 

Microsemi LX1691 and LX1692 Families do not meet the limitations of dependent claim 2 of 

the '382 patent, it follows that the inverter modules in the LX1691 and LX1692 Groups, which 

contain inverter controllers in the Microsemi LX1691 and LXI692 Families, do not infringe 

claim 2 of the '382 patent. 

With respect to the inverter modules in the LX1693 Group, the Administrative Law 

Judge has found that (i) the inverter controllers in the LX1693 Family, when used in an inverter 

circuit, meet the limitations of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 of the '382 patent, and 

(ii) the inverter modules in the LX1693 Group that contain inverter controllers from the LX1693 

Family literally infringe claim 1 ofthe '382 patent. See Section IV.D.l. above. Based on the 

- 94-


evidence discussed in Sections IV.D.1 and IV.D.2, the Administrative Law Judge finds that the 

inverter modules in the LX1693 Group that contain inverter controllers from the LX1693 Family 

literally infringe claim 2 of the '382 patent. (CX-932C; CFF III.C.1080 (undisputed); Tr. at 

1606-8, 1615-16 (Flasck); JX-117C.) Microsemi's U.S. sales of the inverter modules in the 

LX1693 Group containing inverter controllers from the LX1693 Family, including the 

LXMG1813-12-6x and the LXMG1813-12-6xS inverter modules, directly infringe claim 2 of the 

'382 patent. (See JX-103C at 7-16; CDX-47; RX-991C.) 

3. Claim 4. 













representing desired load conditions of said cold cathode fluorescent lamp. 

(JX-1 at 02ITC 037302.) 

02 Micro argues that the inverter controllers in the LX1691 Family infringe dependent 

claim 4 when used in an inverter circuit. (CBr. at 58.) Microsemi and Staff appear to rely on 

their arguments that the LX1691 Family does not meet the limitations of independent claim 1 

and therefore does not infringe dependent claim 4. (MBr. at 54-60; SBr. at 41-43.) The record 

shows that the representative LX1691A inverter controller is designed to be used in an inverter 

circuit with a sense resistor (R22R) electrically coupled to the cold cathode fluorescent lamp and 

- 95 -


electrically coupled to ground for providing a second voltage signal representing current through 

said lamp. (Tr. at 1556:15-1557:1 (Flasck); Tr. at 2565 (Chapman); CX-227C at p.9, Fig. 2.) 

The record further shows that the representative LX1691A inverter controller is designed to be 

used in an inverter circuit with a second feedback signal line coupled to the sense resistor (R22R) 

for receiving the second voltage signal from the sense resistor (R22R) representing current 

through the lamp. (Tr. at 1557:1-8 (Flasck); Tr. at 2565 (Chapman); CX-227C at p. 9, Fig. 2.) 

In addition, the record shows that the representative LX1691A inverter controller is designed to 

be used in an inverter circuit { 

} to a power level such that { 

at 1557:1-1558:4 (Flasck); Tr. at 2565 (Chapman); CX-227C at p. 8-9, Figs. 1-2.) As a result, 

the Administrative Law Judge finds that the LX1691A inverter controller and consequently the 

LXl691 Family of accused Microsemi Products are designed to meet the limitations of claim 4 

of the '382 patent when used in an inverter circuit. 

It should be noted, however, that the Microsemi LXl691 Family of inverter controllers 

} (Tr. 

do not meet all of the limitations of claims I and 4 of the '382 patent unless each of them is used 



with respect to the LXl691 Group of modules and in Section IV.D.7. 

02 Micro argues that the inverter controllers in the LXl692 Family infringe dependent 

claim 4 when used in an inverter circuit. (CBr. at 62.) As the Administrative Law Judge found 

above in Section IV.D.I that the LXl692 Family of inverter controllers do not meet the 

- 96-


limitations of independent claim 1 of the' 3 82 patent, they cannot meet the limitations of 

dependent claim 4. 

02 Micro argues that the inverter controllers in the LX1693 Family infringe dependent 

claim 4 when used in an inverter circuit. (CBr. at 65-66.) Microsemi and Staff appear to rely on 

their arguments that the LX1693 Family does not meet the limitations of independent claim 1 

and therefore does not infringe dependent claim 4. (MBr. at 68-71; SBr. at 47-48.) The record 

shows that the representative LX1693 inverter controller is designed to be used in an inverter 

circuit with a sense resistor (R6) electrically coupled to the cold cathode fluorescent lamp and 

electrically coupled to ground for providing a second voltage signal representing current through 

said lamp. (Tr. at 1608:10-1609:11 (Flasck); CX-215C at p.lO, Fig. 1.) The record further 

shows that the representative LX1693 inverter controller is designed to be used in an inverter 

circuit with a second feedback signal line coupled to the sense resistor (R6) for receiving the 

second voltage signal from the sense resistor (R6) representing current through the lamp. (Tr. at 

1608:10-1609:11 (Flasck); CX-215C at p.10, Fig. 1.) In addition, the record shows that the 

representative LX1693 inverter controller is designed to be used in an inverter circuit { 

} such that the second voltage signal { 

} (Tr. at 1608:10-1610:12 (Flasck); CX- 

215C at p.9-10, Fig. 1.) As a result, the Administrative Law Judge finds that the LX1693 

inverter controller and consequently the LX1693 Family of accused Microsemi Products are 

designed to meet the limitations of claim 4 of the '382 patent when used in an inverter circuit. 

It should be noted, however, that the Microsemi LX1693 Family of inverter controllers 

do not meet all ofthe limitations of claims 1 and 4 of the '382 patent unless each ofthem is used 

- 97-




with respect to the LX1693 Group of modules and in Section IV.D.7. 


LX1691 Module, infringes claim 4 of the '382 patent. (CBr. at 66.) Microsemi relies on its 

belief that the inverter controllers in the LX1691 Family, and thus the modules in the LX1691 

Group, do not infringe claim 1. (MBr. at 75.) The Administrative Law Judge found above in 

Sections IV.D.1 and IV.D.3. that (i) the inverter modules in the LX1691 Group that contain 

inverter controllers from the LX1691 Family literally infringe claim 1 of the '382 patent and (ii) 

the LX1691 Family of inverter controllers meet the limitations of claims 1 and 4 of the '382 

patent when used in an inverter circuit. Based on the evidence discussed in Sections IV.D.1 and 

IV.D.3., the Administrative Law Judge finds that the inverter modules in the LX1691 Group that 

contain inverter controllers from the LX1691 Family literally infringe claim 4 of the '382 patent. 

(JX-19C; CFF III.C.1080 (undisputed); Tr. at 1556:15-558:4, 1612 (Flasck); Tr. at 2565 

(Chapman); CX-227C at p.8-9, Figs. 1-2.) Microsemi's U.S. sales of the inverter modules in the 

LX1691 Group containing inverter controllers from the LX1691 Family, including the 

LXMG 1617 A-02-2x, LXMG 1617 A -05, LXMG 1617 A-12, LXMG 1618A-03-2x, LXMG 1618A- 

05, LXMG1618A-12, LXMG1626-05-4x, LXMG1626-12-4x, LXMG1626-05-6x, LXMG1626- 

12-64, LXMG1626-12-6x, and LXMG1628-12-6x inverter modules, directly infringe claim 4 of 

the '382 patent. (See JX-103C at 7-16; CDX-47; RX-991C.) 

02 Micro argues that the inverter modules in the LX1692 Group infringe dependent 

claim 4. (CBr. at 66-67.) As the Administrative Law Judge found above in Section IV.D.1 that 

the LX1692 Family of inverter controllers do not meet the limitations of independent claim 1 of 

- 98-


the '382 patent, the LX1692 Group of inverter modules containing the LX1692 Family of 

inverter controllers cannot meet the limitations of dependent claim 4. 


LX1693 Module, infringes claim 4 ofthe '382 patent. (CBr. at 67.) Microsemi relies on its 

beliefthat the inverter controllers in the LX1693 Family, and thus the modules in the LX1693 

Group, do not infringe claim 1. (MBr. at 75.) The Administrative Law Judge found above in 

Sections IV.D.1 and IV.D.3. that (i) the inverter modules in the LX1693 Group that contain 

inverter controllers from the LX1693 Family literally infringe claim 1 of the '382 patent and (ii) 

the LX1693 Family of inverter controllers meet the limitations of claims 1 and 4 of the '382 

patent when used in an inverter circuit. Based on the evidence discussed in Sections IV.D.1 and 

IV.D.3., the Administrative Law Judge finds that the inverter modules in the LX1693 Group that 

contain inverter controllers from the LX1693 Family literally infringe claim 4 ofthe '382 patent. 

(CX-932C; CX-215C at p.9-10, Fig. 1; CFF IILC.1080 (undisputed); Tr. at 1608:10-1610:12, 

1615-16 (Flasck).) Microsemi's U.S. sales of the inverter modules in the LX1693 Group 

containing inverter controllers from the LX1693 Family, including the LXMG1813-12-6x and 

the LXMG1813-12-6xS inverter modules, directly infringe claim 4 of the '382 patent. (See JX- 

103C at 7-16; CDX-47; RX-991C.) 

4. Claim 8. 









- 99-






polarity; 










duration; and 




(JX-l at 02ITC 037302.) As discussed above, the disputed claim terms of the '382 patent have 

been construed as follows. The language "a timer circuit ... for providing a time-out sequence 

of a predetermined duration" should mean "a circuit that limits the time for an overvoltage 

condition to persist." The language "when said first voltage signal exceeds a predetermined 

threshold for said predetermined duration" should mean "when a first voltage signal continually 

exceeds a predetermined threshold for a predetermined duration." The language "shutting down 

said first switch and said second switch after said predetermined duration" should mean "turning 

off the first and second switches after the predetermined duration has elapsed." 

Claim 8 is an independent claim under the '382 patent but is nearly identical to claim 1, 

adding only a liquid crystal display unit that is illuminated by the cold cathode fluorescent lamp. 

(See e.g. Tr. at 2569-70 (Chapman).) For the reasons discussed above in Section IY.D.l, the 

Administrative Law Judge finds that the LX1691 and LX1693 Families of inverter controllers, 

when used in an inverter circuit, are designed to have a step-up transformer with a primary 

- 100-


winding and a secondary winding coupled to said cold cathode fluorescent lamp for providing 

increased voltage to said cold cathode fluorescent lamp; a first switch coupled to said step-up 

transformer for selectively allowing said step-up transformer to receive DC voltage of a first 

polarity; a second switch coupled to said step-up transformer for selectively allowing said step 

up transformer to receive DC voltage of a second polarity; a capacitor divider electrically 

coupled to said cold cathode fluorescent lamp for providing a first voltage signal representing a 

voltage across said cold cathode fluorescent lamp; a first feedback signal line coupled to said 

capacitor divider for receiving said first voltage signal from said capacitor divider representing 

said voltage across said cold cathode fluorescent lamp; a timer circuit coupled to said first 

feedback signal line for providing a time-out sequence of a predetermined duration when said 

first voltage signal exceeds a predetermined threshold for said predetermined duration; and a 

protection circuit coupled to said timer circuit, said first switch and said second switch for 

shutting down said first switch and said second switch after said predetermined duration, such 

that elements 'c' through 'i' of claim 8 of the '382 patent are met. Furthermore, for the reasons 

discussed above in Section IV.D.l, the Administrative Law Judge finds that the LX1691 and 

LX1693 Groups of inverter modules, when they contain inverter controllers from the LX1691 

and LX1693 Families, have a step-up transformer with a primary winding and a secondary 

winding coupled to said cold cathode fluorescent lamp for providing increased voltage to said 

cold cathode fluorescent lamp; a first switch coupled to said step-up transformer for selectively 

allowing said step-up transformer to receive DC voltage of a first polarity; a second switch 

coupled to said step-up transformer for selectively allowing said step-up transformer to receive 

DC voltage of a second polarity; a capacitor divider electrically coupled to said cold cathode 

fluorescent lamp for providing a first voltage signal representing a voltage across said cold 

- 101 -


cathode fluorescent lamp; a first feedback signal line coupled to said capacitor divider for 

receiving said first voltage signal from said capacitor divider representing said voltage across 

said cold cathode fluorescent lamp; a timer circuit coupled to said first feedback signal line for 

providing a time-out sequence of a predetermined duration when said first voltage signal exceeds 

a predetermined threshold for said predetermined duration; and a protection circuit coupled to 

said timer circuit, said first switch and said second switch for shutting down said first switch and 

said second switch after said predetermined duration, such that elements 'c' through 'i' of claim 

8 of the '382 patent are met. It should also be noted that for the reasons discussed above in 

Section IV.D.I, the LXI 692 Family of inverter controllers and therefore the LXI692 Group of 

inverter modules do not meet element 'h' of claim 8 ofthe '382 patent. 

The only issue with respect to the LXI691 and LXI693 Families of inverter controllers 

and the LXI691 and 1693 Groups of inverter modules is whether they meet the limitations of 

elements 'a' and 'b' of claim 8. The record shows that the LXI691 and LXI693 Families of 

inverter controllers are designed to be used with cold cathode fluorescent lamps. (See e.g., CX- 

19 at p. 1; CX-8IC at p.I; CX-215C at p. 1; CX-227C at p.l; CX-I450C at p.2; CX-II93C at 2; 

RX-941 at p. 1) The record further shows that the LXI691 and 1693 Groups of inverter modules, 

containing the LXI691 and LXI693 Families of inverter controllers, are designed to be used 

with a wide variety of CCFL appliances, including cameras, PDAs, notebook displays, and other 

monitors. (See e.g., CX-I9 at p. 1; CX-8IC at p.l; CX-215C at p. 1; CX-227C at p.I; RX-941 at 

p. 1; JX-I9C at MICROSEMI 228508.) The datasheet for the representative LXI691 Module 

states that it is "a Single Output 2 2W Direct Drive CCFL (Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp) 

Inverter Module designed for driving LCD backlight lamps." (JX-I9C at MICROSEMI 228508.) 

Likewise, the datasheet for the representative LXI693 Module states that it is "a Single Output 

- 102-


6W CCFL (Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp) Inverter Module designed for ... driving LCD 

backlight lamps[.]" (CX-932 at p.l.) Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge finds that the 

LX1691 and LX1693 Families of inverter controllers, when used in an inverter circuit in a liquid 

crystal display unit that is illuminated by the cold cathode fluorescent lamp, are designed to meet 

the limitations of elements 'a' and 'b' of claim 8 of the '382 patent. As the Microsemi LX1691 

and LX1693 Families of inverter controllers do not meet all of the limitations of claim 8 of the 

'382 patent unless each ofthem is used in an inverter circuit in a liquid crystal display unit that is 

illuminated by the cold cathode fluorescent lamp, the discussion as to whether there should be a 

finding of indirect infringement with respect to these inverter controllers follows below in 

Section IV.D.7. 

The Administrative Law Judge further finds that the LX1691 and 1693 Groups of 

inverter modules, when used with an inverter controller from the LX1691 and LX1693 Families 

and inside a liquid crystal display unit that is illuminated by the cold cathode fluorescent lamp, 

are designed to meet the limitations of elements 'a' and 'b' of claim 8 of the '382 patent. As the 

Microsemi LX1691 and LX1693 Groups of inverter modules do not meet all of the limitations of 

claim 8 of the '382 patent unless each of them is used with an inverter controller from the 

LX1691 and LX1693 Families and inside a liquid crystal display unit that is illuminated by the 

cold cathode fluorescent lamp, the discussion as to whether there should be a finding of indirect 

infringement with respect to these inverter controllers follows below in Section IV.D.7. 

5. Claim 9. 

Claims 9 and 11 depend on independent claim 8 of the '382 patent. As noted above, the 

LX1691 and LX1693 Families of inverter controllers, when used in an inverter circuit in a liquid 

crystal display unit that is illuminated by the cold cathode fluorescent lamp, are designed to meet 

- 103 -


the limitations of claim 8 ofthe '382 patent. (See Section IV.D.4. above.) The LX1691 and 

1693 Groups of inverter modules, when used with an inverter controller from the LX1691 and 

LX1693 Families and inside a liquid crystal display unit that is illuminated by the cold cathode 

fluorescent lamp, are designed to meet the limitations of claim 8 of the' 3 82 patent. (Id) The 

Administrative Law Judge further found that inverter controllers in the LX1692 Family and 

inverter modules in the LX1692 Group do not meet the limitations of claim 8 of the '382 patent. 

(Id) Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge must now determine whether those accused 

Microsemi Products that meet the limitations of independent claim 8 meet the limitations of 

dependent claims 9 and 11 as well. 


9. A liquid crystal display unit as claimed in claim 8 wherein said 

predetermined duration is sufficient for ignition of said cold cathode 

fluorescent lamp when properly operating. 

(JX-l at 02ITC 037302.) Claim 9 requires one of the same limitations as claim 2: a 

predetermined duration sufficient for ignition of the lamp. For the reasons discussed above in 

Section IV.D.2., the Administrative Law Judge finds that with respect to the LX1691 Family of 

inverter circuits, and consequently the LX1691 Group of inverter modules that contain them, 02 

Micro has failed to make a showing as to whether the predetermined duration as calculated by 

{ } would be sufficient to ignite the lamp. Therefore the LX1691 Family of 

inverter circuits and the LX1691 Group of inverter modules that contain them do not meet the 

limitations of claim 9 of the '382 patent. 

With respect to the LX1693 Family of inverter controllers, the Administrative Law Judge 

found in Section IV.D.2 that these inverter controllers, when used in an inverter circuit, have a 

predetermined duration sufficient for ignition of the lamp during normal operation. The 

- 104-


Administrative Law Judge further found that the inverter modules in the LX1693 Group that 

contain inverter controllers from the LX1693 Family also have a predetermined duration 

sufficient for ignition ofthe lamp during normal operation. See Section IV.D.2 above. Based on 

the evidence in Sections IV.D.1, IV.D.2, and IV.DA., the Administrative Law Judge finds that 

the LX1693 Family of inverter controllers, as well as inverter modules in the LX1693 Group that 

contain inverter controllers from the LX1693 Family, are designed to meet the limitations of 

claim 9 of the '382 patent. As the Microsemi LX1693 Family of inverter controllers does not 

meet all of the limitations of independent claim 8 and dependent claim 9 of the '382 patent 

unless they are used in an inverter circuit in a liquid crystal display unit that is illuminated by the 

cold cathode fluorescent lamp, the discussion as to whether there should be a finding of indirect 

infringement with respect to these inverter controllers follows below in Section IV.D.7. As the 

Microsemi LX1693 Group of inverter modules does not meet all of the limitations of 

independent claim 8 and dependent claim 9 of the '382 patent unless each of them is used with 

an inverter controller from the LX1693 Family and inside a liquid crystal display unit that is 



Section IV.D. 7. 

6. Claim 11. 









- 105-





representing desired load conditions of said cold cathode fluorescent lamp. 

(JX-l at 02ITC 037302-3.) Claim 11 requires the same elements 'a' through 'c' as claim 4. 

As discussed in Section IV.D.3. above, the Administrative Law Judge found that the 

LX1691 and LX1693 Families of inverter controllers meet the limitations of claim 4 of the '382 

patent when used in an inverter circuit. The Administrative Law Judge further found that the 

inverter modules in the LX1691 and LX1693 Groups that contain inverter controllers from the 

LX1691 and LX1693 Families meet the limitations of claim 4 of the '382 patent when used in an 

inverter circuit. See Section IV.D.3. above. Based on the evidence and findings in Sections 

IV.D.1, IV.D.3, and IV.DA. above, the Administrative Law Judge finds that the LX1691 and 

LX1693 Families of inverter controllers, when used in an inverter circuit in a liquid crystal 

display unit that is illuminated by the cold cathode fluorescent lamp, are designed to meet the 

limitations of claim 11 ofthe '382 patent. As the Microsemi LX1691 and LX1693 Families of 

inverter controllers do not meet all of the limitations of independent claim 8 and dependent claim 

11 of the '382 patent unless each of them is used in an inverter circuit in a liquid crystal display 

unit that is illuminated by the cold cathode fluorescent lamp, the discussion as to whether there 

should be a finding of indirect infringement with respect to these inverter controllers follows 

below in Section IV.D.7. The Administrative Law Judge further finds, based on the evidence 

and findings in Sections IV.D.1, IV.D.3, and IV.DA. above, that the LX1691 and 1693 Groups 

of inverter modules, when used with an inverter controller from the LX1691 and LX1693 

Families and inside a liquid crystal display unit that is illuminated by the cold cathode 

fluorescent lamp, are designed to meet the limitations of claim 11. As the Microsemi LX1691 

and LX1693 Groups of inverter modules do not meet all of the limitations of independent claim 

- 106-


8 and dependent claim 11 of the '382 patent unless each of them is used with an inverter 

controller from the LX1691 and LX1693 Families and inside a liquid crystal display unit that is 



Section IV.D.7. 

7. Indirect Infringement. 

02 Micro argues that Microsemi has induced infringement of claims 1,2,4, 8,9, and 11 

of the '382 patent because it sells inverter controller chips and provides instructions and 

technical support that result in the manufacture, importation, and sale of products incorporating 

Microsemi inverter controllers that infringe the claims. (CBr. at 78.) Other than a vague 

reference to contributory infringement, (CBr. at 78), 02 Micro presents no analysis with respect 

to whether Microsemi should be liable for contributory infringement. (CBr. at 78-79.) 

Staff believes that if direct infringement has occurred (and it is the Staffs position that 

there is no direct infringement), then the Respondents have induced infringement of the claims. 

(SBr. at 51-52.) In addition, Staff argues that 02 Micro has further shown that Microsemi has 

committed contributory infringement with respect to some modules and end products. (Id. at 52- 

53.) 

Microsemi argues that the accused Microsemi Products do not infringe the '382 patent 

and therefore "Micro semi lacks the mens rea to induce any third party to infringe." (MBr. at 78.) 

Microsemi further argues that its inverter controllers have several substantial non-infringing uses 

that bar liability for contributory infringement. (Id.) The Administrative Law Judge notes that at 

least some portion ofthe evidence cited by Microsemi with respect to the alleged non-infringing 

uses of its inverter controllers was stricken from the record. (See Order No. 49 at 17.) 

- 107-

Induced Infringement. 


As noted above in Section IV.A.2., 02 Micro must show that there has been direct 

infringement of asserted '382 patent claims and that Microsemi knowingly induced infringement 

and possessed specific intent to encourage another's infringement. 

The record shows that former Respondents { 

} (CX-1400C.) According to the stipulation, 

these models contained inverter circuits including the Microsemi LX1691A inverter controller. 

(Id at 1-4.) However, the schematics that, according to the stipulation, would show how the 

LX1691A inverter controller was used with the { } inverter circuit are not attached to Exhibit 

CX-1400C. Although the Administrative Law Judge found with respect to the LX1691 Family 

of inverter controllers that they are designed to infringe certain claims of the '382 patent when 

used in an inverter circuit (see e.g., Section IV.D.1), 02 Micro has made no showing as to 

whether { } inverter circuits actually contain the step-up transformer, the first switch, the 

second switch, the capacitor divider, and the first feedback signal limitations of claims 1 and 8 of 

the '382 patent. Thus it is not possible for the Administrative Law Judge to determine whether 

direct infringement { } may have occurred. 

The record further shows that Microsemi's U.S. distributor, Avnet, sells Microsemi 

CCFL inverter controllers and modules in the United States. (CFF IILC.1592-97 (undisputed); 

CFF IILC.1600 (undisputed); CX-437C; Tr. at 2424:19-2425:15 (Holliday.) Microsemi's 

employee, Mr. Roger Holliday, further testified that all of the inverter modules that Microsemi 

sells today use the Microsemi inverter controllers, and that the purpose of the Microsemi inverter 

- 108-


modules is to drive a cold cathode fluorescent lamp. (Tr. at 2421:12-19 (Holliday).) In addition, 

{ } an end customer of Microsemi inverter modules in the United States, has purchased 

Microsemi inverter controllers and modules from A vnet and Microsemi; { } products 

incorporate at least the LX1691A inverter controller. (CFF III.C.1621 (undisputed); CFF 

IILC.1622; CFF IILC.1629 (undisputed in relevant part); CFF IILC.1632; CFF IILC.1636; CFF 

IILC.1637-39 (undisputed); CFF IILC.1640; CFF IILC.1641-42 (undisputed); CFF IILC.1646-49; 

CFF IILC.1650 (undisputed); CFF IILC.1653 (undisputed); CFF IILC.1658-60 (undisputed); 

CFF IILC.1665-66 (undisputed); CFF IILC.1667; CFF IILC.1668 (undisputed); CFF IILC.1669; 

CX-959C; CX-964C; CX-973C; CX-976C; CX-978C; CX-979C.) Douglas Strobel, 

Microsemi's Central Sales Manager, further testified that Microsemi ships inverter controllers 

and modules to the S1. Louis production facility of a company identified only as { } and that 

{ } assembles these products into panels that include a display and a CCFL. (JX-195C at 

112:14-115:24, 146:1-6 (Strobel Dep.).) { } another Microsemi/Avnet customer, sells 

products with LCDs that include Microsemi CCFL Modules and inverter controllers, including 

modules in the LX1691 Group. (CFF IILC.1670-71 (undisputed); CFF IILC.1673-75 

(undisputed); CFF IILC.1680-81 (undisputed); CFF IILC.1682; CFF IILC.1685-88 (undisputed); 

Tr. at 1166-1184, 1187 (Reitz); CX-2111C; CX-2112C; CX-2113C; CX-2115C.) 

Some of this evidence falls short of the showing needed for direct infringement for two 

reasons. First, where 02 Micro was able to identify U.S. purchasers of inverter controllers in the 

LX1691 Family, 02 Micro fails to demonstrate that the inverter circuits they are incorporated 

into, such as the { } inverter circuits,28 actually contain the step-up transformer, the first 

28 Perhaps a careful study of the { } schematics supplied by 02 Micro would show the presence of these claim 

limitations. However, as 02 Micro has not provided an element by element infringement analysis for the { } 

products in any of its post-hearing briefmg, let alone its two page discussion of indirect infringement, see CBr. at 

78-79, the Administrative Law Judge declines to make that assumption. 

- 109-


switch, the second switch, the capacitor divider, and the first feedback signal limitations of 

claims 1 and 8 of the '382 patent. Second, where 02 Micro was able to identify u.s. purchasers 

of Microsemi's inverter controllers and modules, such as { } 02 Micro failed to make a 

showing that these inverter controllers and modules are actually products accused in this 

Investigation. 

However, the Administrative Law Judge does find that the remainder of the above 

evidence shows direct infringement 29 with respect to claims 1,2,4,8, and 11 of the '382 patent. 

This evidence shows that Microsemi's distributor, Avnet, has sold inverter modules in the 

LX1691 and LX1693 Groups to customers in the United States. (See e.g. CX-436C.) The 

evidence further shows that all of the inverter modules that Microsemi sells today use the 

Microsemi inverter controllers, and that the purpose of the Microsemi inverter modules is to 

drive a cold cathode fluorescent lamp. (Tr. at 2421:12-19 (Holliday).) As discussed above in 

Sections IV.D.I and IV.D.3, the Administrative Law Judge has found that the inverter modules 

in the LX1691 Group that contain inverter controllers from the LX1691 Family literally and 

directly infringe claims 1 and 4 of the '382 patent. As discussed above in Sections IV.D.I, 

IV.D.2., and IV.D.3, the Administrative Law Judge further found that the inverter modules in the 

LXI693 Group that contain inverter controllers from the LXI693 Family literally and directly 

infringe claims 1, 2 and 4 of the '382 patent. Thus 02 Micro has demonstrated direct 

infringement with respect to claims 1,2 and 4 of the '382 patent. Additionally, the record with 

respect to { } use of modules in the LXI691 Group in LCD displays demonstrates 

direct infringement with respect to claims 8 and 11 of the '382 patent. (See Sections IV.DA and 

IV.D.6. above; CFF IILC.I670-71 (undisputed); CFF IILC.I673-75 (undisputed); CFF 

29 As A vnet and { } are not respondents in this Investigation, the Administrative Law Judge's 

determination with respect to direct infringement is solely for the purpose of establishing whether induced 

infringement has occurred. 

- 110-


IILC.1680-81 (undisputed); CFF IILC.1682; CFF III.C.1685-88 (undisputed); Tr. at 1166-1184, 

1187 (Reitz); CX-2111C; CX-2112C; CX-2113C; CX-2115C.) 

The Administrative Law Judge further finds that Microsemi knowingly induced 

infringement and possessed specific intent to encourage another's infringement. The record 

shows that Microsemi was aware of the '382 patent and took specific steps (via instructions and 

data sheets) to induce others to use the products in an allegedly infringing manner. (CFF 

III.C.1533-35 (undisputed); CFF III.C.1543 (undisputed in relevant part); CFF IILC.1544-45 

(undisputed); CFF III.C.1547-48 (undisputed); CFF III.C.1558 (undisputed); CFF III.C.l561 

(undisputed); CFF III.C.1587 (undisputed); CFF IILC.1590 (undisputed); CFF IILC.1606; CFF 

III.C.1609 (undisputed); CFF IILC.1611-13; CFF IILC.1617; CFF III.C.1662-4; CFF IILC.1681- 

82; MOCFF IILC.1682; CX-875.) In this regard, one of the Microsemi witnesses admitted to 

knowledge of the '382 patent, in particular because Microsemi's customers were asking for 

indemnifications. (Tr. at 1134:22-1135:6 (Battaglia).) In addition, the datasheets and other 

information provided by Microsemi to their customers teach the infringing configuration. (See, 

e.g., discussion at Sections IV.D.l through IV.D.6. above; CX-214; CX-215; CX-932; CX- 

1450C at 59751; JX-19C; JX-117C.) Moreover, as Staff points out, Microsemi has not provided 

an opinion of counsel, or redesigned its products, or taken other steps to avoid infringement. 

Broadcom, 543 F.3d at 700. The above evidence supports a finding of specific intent. DSU, 471 

F.3d. at 1306 (intent to induce infringement may be proven with circumstantial or direct 

evidence and may be inferred from all the circumstances). Accordingly, the Administrative Law 

Judge finds that Microsemi has induced infringement of claims 1,2,4,8, and 11 of the '382 

patent. 

- 111 -

Contributory Infringement. 


Here, 02 Micro must show that (i) Microsemi knew that the combinations for which its 

components were especially made, namely the combination of its inverter controllers with its 

inverter modules, and the combination of its inverter controllers and inverter modules with a 

LCD display, were both patented and infringing and (ii) that Microsemi's components have no 

substantial noninfringing uses. The Administrative Law Judge finds that 02 Micro's passing 

reference, see CBR. at 78-79, to contributory infringement by Microsemi does not amount to a 

prima facie showing on this issue. 


As discussed in Section IV.D.I, the Administrative Law Judge has found that the inverter 

modules in the LXl691 Group that contain inverter controllers from the LXl691 Family literally 

and directly infringe claim I of the '382 patent. The Administrative Law Judge further found 

that the inverter modules in the LX1693 Group that contain inverter controllers from the LX1693 

Family literally and directly infringe claim 1 of the '382 patent. 

As discussed in Section IV.D.2, the Administrative Law Judge found that the inverter 


and directly infringe claim 2 of the '382 patent. 

As discussed in Section IV.D.3., the Administrative Law Judge found that the inverter 


and directly infringe claim 4 of the '382 patent. The Administrative Law Judge further found 

that the inverter modules in the LX1693 Group that contain inverter controllers from the LX1693 

Family literally and directly infringe claim 4 of the '382 patent. 

- 112 -


As discussed in Section IV.D.7. above, the Administrative Law Judge finds that 

Microsemi has induced infringement of claims 1,2,4,8, and 11 of the '382 patent. 

V. VALIDITY 

A. Background 

One cannot be held liable for practicing an invalid patent claim. See Pandrol USA, LP v. 

AirBoss Railway Prods., Inc., 320 F.3d 1354, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003). However, patent claims are 

presumed valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282. A respondent that has raised patent invalidity as an 

affirmative defense must overcome the presumption by "clear and convincing" evidence of 

invalidity. Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm 'n, 54 F .3d 756, 761 (Fed. 

Cir. 1995). Further, as stated by the Federal Circuit in Ultra-Tex Surfaces, Inc. v. Hill Bros. 

Chem. Co.: 

when a party alleges that a claim is invalid based on the very same references that 

were before the examiner when the claim was allowed, that party assumes the 

following additional burden: 

When no prior art other than that which was considered by the PTO 

examiner is relied on by the attacker, he has the added burden of 

overcoming the deference that is due to a qualified government agency 

presumed to have properly done its job, which includes one or more 

examiners who are assumed to have some expertise in interpreting the 

references and to be familiar from their work with the level of skill in the 

art and whose duty it is to issue only valid patents. 

Ultra-Tex Surfaces, Inc. v. Hill Bros. Chem. Co., 204 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 

(emphasis added) (quoting American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d 1350, 

1359 (Fed. Cir. 1984) "American Hoist"). It should be noted however, that the Federal Circuit 

has found that a patent examiner is not presumed to have viewed factors material to patentability 

(such as prior art) if they are buried in voluminous and irrelevant material. Rohm & Haas Co. v. 

Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (unrealistic to find examiner was 

- 113 -


"fully informed" solely on the "presentation to him of a mountain of largely irrelevant data from 

which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have 

found the critical data" because of "the real world conditions under which examiners work"). 

B. Conception Date for the '387 Patent. 

Respondents MPS and ASUS, by way of affirmative defense, allege that the '382 patent 

is invalid because all of its claims were anticipated by the prior art of MPS' s MP 1 010 product, 

which they say was created no later than October 2, 1998. (RBr. at 66.) They argue that the 

earliest possible invention date of the '382 patent is July 22, 1999, when a provisional 

application for the patent was filed with the Patent and Trademark Office. (RBr. at 60; JX-l at 

02ITC 037273.). The filing of a patent application is constructive reduction to practice. 

Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 

Complainants, in opposition, argue that the '382 patent was conceived by Dr. Yung-Lin 

Lin as early as February 18, 1998. (CBr. at 89.) 

Staff argues that the documentary evidence is not sufficient to corroborate Dr. Lin's 

assertions that he fully conceived the '382 invention by February 18, 1998, although Staff 

maintains that there is sufficient corroboration to warrant the inference that he had fully 

conceived his invention by November 1998. (SBr. at 61-64.) 

Respondent Microsemi has not taken a position with respect to whether the MPI010 prior 

art anticipates the '382 patent. (See MBr. at 80.) 

According to Dr. Lin, in 1997, while working as a system applications manager at 02 

Micro, he received complaints from customers about dangerous arcing and startup problems 

with the firm's converters. (Tr. at 339-40 (Lin).) He wanted to correct these problems, and by 

February 18, 1998 he conceived an improved inverter circuit. He began testing his conception 

- 114-


with the aid of a software program for designing electrical circuits. The software program 

allowed him to simulate the effects of different designs containing varying components by 

producing schematics of electrical circuits. (Id at 380.) Based on these simulations, he was able 

to create a design for his conception of the '382 inverter circuit. He testified that he programmed 

his simulations and printed the schematics on February 18, 1998, a date that they bear. (Tr. at 

403 (Lin).) However, subsequently he has not been able to retrieve his schematics of that date 

and does not know what has happened to them. (Tr. at 564-65 (Lin).) 

He further testified that he re-ran the simulations and produced another set of schematics 

in June 1999. (Tr. at 402-03 (Lin).) Although the second set of schematics bear the date "Feb., 

18, 1998," he admits that he must have inserted that date at the later time, contrary to what he 

had previously testified in a trial in a federal court in California. (Tr. at 550-52 (Lin).) During 

that trial, he testified that the computer software program he had used to create the schematics, 

called PSpice, had self-generated and inserted "Feb., 18, 1998" [sic], thereby independently 

corroborating the date of origination. (Id) At the hearing in this Investigation, he testified that 

his federal court testimony was erroneous. (Id) He also testified that 02 Micro had discarded 

the 'computer he had used to create the original schematics, when the firm replaced that computer 

with another one some time afterwards. 

Dr. Lin also testified that, in addition to the February 1998 schematics, he entered various 

notations in his notebooks and travel logs and planners during 1998 that reference or mention 

some of his discussions with customers about complaints and ideas underlying his conception of 

the'382 invention. (Tr. at 353-57, 360 (Lin); CX-384, 386, 387.) He testified that on November 

17, 1998 he sent a partial schematic for an inverter circuit, which included hand-drawn additions 

- 115-


of some of his ideas, to another 02 Micro employee by the name of C. C. Kuo, who worked for 

the firm in Taiwan, for him to review and test out. (Tr. at 524-25 (Lin).) 

Complainants argue that the computer-aided schematics that Dr. Lin prepared in June 

1999 were simply re-creations of ideas he had fully conceived in February 1998, and they, along 

with the partial schematic he had sent to Mr. Kuo and his various notebook and travel notations, 

corroborate that he had fully conceived the '382 patent as early as February 18, 1998. (CRBr. at 

43-44.) 

Respondents MPS and ASUS argue that the schematics that were made in June 1999 do 

not corroborate Dr. Lin's claim that he conceived his invention in February 1998, because they 

lack many ofthe key elements ofthe '382 patent claims, such as a capacitor divider, first voltage 

signal, timer circuit, time-out sequence, predetermined threshold, predetermined duration, 

protection circuit, sense resistor, and second voltage signal, and thus are not sufficient to 

corroborate an invention that was fully conceived at that time. (RBr. at 60-61.) They also argue 

that Dr. Lin's notations in his notebooks and travel planner are, in their entirety, too incomplete 

to corroborate the alleged 1998 conception date, because none of the entries discloses the 

claimed capacitor divider, a timer circuit, or a protection circuit. (RBr. at 62.) Furthermore, they 

say that in the months after February 18, 1998, prior to provisional application for the patent on 

July 22, 1999, there are substantial time gaps that are devoid of evidence of any work activity by 

Dr. Lin that he was pursuing his invention. (Id.) 

As for the schematic sent to Mr. Kuo, they say that it, too, lacks key elements of the '382 

invention, such as a timer circuit, a predetermined duration, a predetermined threshold, and a 

time-out sequence. (RBr. at 63.) Because of these omissions and evidentiary deficiencies, they 

- 116 -


say that the earliest possible date for which there is evidence that would support conception of 

the '382 invention is July 22, 1999, when the provisional application was filed. 

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2), priority of invention "goes to the first party to reduce an 

invention to practice, unless the other party can show that it was the first to conceive the 

invention and that it exercised reasonable diligence in later reducing that invention to practice. 

Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1993). "Conception is the touchstone of 

inventorship, the completion of the mental part of invention." Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr 

Laboratories, Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1227-28 (Fed. Cir. 1994). It is the mental formation of a 

definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention as it is to be applied in 

practice. Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 

"Conception is complete only when the idea is so clearly defined in the inventor's mind 

that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive 

research or experimentation." Burroughs, 40 F.3d at 1227-28. "A conception must encompass 

all ofthe claimed invention." Singh v. Brake, 317 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2003). "Because it 

is a mental act, courts require corroborating evidence of a contemporaneous disclosure that 

would enable one skilled in the art to make the invention." (Id.) The inventor "must provide 

independent corroborating evidence in addition to his own statements and documents." Hahn v. 

Wong, 892 F.2d 1028, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1989). "[B]ecause ofthe danger in post-hoc rationales by 

an inventor claiming priority, the court requires objective evidence to corroborate an inventor's 

testimony concerning his understanding of the invention." Invitrogren Corp. v. Clontech Labs., 

Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1065 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

02 Micro relies on the probity of the testimony of Dr. Lin for their proof that the '382 

invention was conceived by him as early as February 18, 1998. Although Dr. Lin testified that 

- 117 -


he fully conceived the invention on that date, as disclosed in the schematics he generated using 

the PSpice program, the Administrative Law Judge finds that sufficient independent 

corroborative evidence is lacking. The schematics that 02 Micro relies on were admittedly 

prepared in June 1999. The fact that they bear the date of "Feb., 18, 1998" is not corroborative 

of the date of invention, since Dr. Lin acknowledged that he must have entered that date when he 

produced the schematics in June 1999. The fact that earlier in the sequence of events preceding 

this Investigation he had given erroneous testimony about the derivation of the February 18, 

1998 date compromises the reliability of his testimony, at least with respect to conception date. 

The 1999 schematics are not contemporaneous documents of an event that allegedly occurred in 

February 1998. Also, the 1999 schematics do not show important elements of the '382 invention, 

such as the feedback signal from a capacitor divider, the timer circuit, or the protection circuit. 

(Tr. at 674-77 (Lin).) 

As to the other documents that Complainants say corroborate Dr. Lin's testimony that his 

invention was conceived by February 18, 1998, the Administrative Law Judge finds that they, 

too, lack important elements of the '382 invention. His various notes about his discussions with 

customers and some particulars about his business trips do not reveal enough information, even 

in combination with each other and with the schematics, to show that he had fully conceived his 

invention or that he was diligently pursuing or testing those ideas that are contained in the 

application that was filed on July 22, 1999 and are included in the '382 patent. 

While Staff agrees with MPS and ASUS that the documentary evidence is not sufficient 

to corroborate Dr. Lin's assertions that he fully conceived the '382 invention by February 18, 

1998, Staff maintains that there is sufficient corroboration, based on Mr. Kuo' s testimony and a 

facsimile sent to him by Dr. Lin in November 1998 that discloses some, but not all, ofthe 

- 118 -


essential elements of the '382 patent, to warrant the inference that he had fully conceived his 

invention by that time. (SBr. at 61-64.) In response, MPS and ASUS say that Staffs reasoning 

errs insofar as Staff concludes that, because the "conception of an entire invention need not be 

reflected in a single document source," the documents shown to have existed in November 1998 

are sufficient to corroborate Dr. Lin's assertion. (RRBr. at 20-21.) They say that, even taking 

into account the facsimile sent by Dr. Lin to Mr. Kuo in November 1998, there still is no 

corroborating documentation of a fully conceived '382 design prior to July 22, 1999. (Id.) 

The Administrative Law Judge finds that the evidence, aside from Dr. Lin's testimony, 

does not corroborate that he had fully conceived the '382 invention before July 22, 1999. The 

documentation referred to by Complainants for corroboration lacks key elements of the '382 

patent. Complainants have failed to establish that Dr. Lin fully conceived his invention by 

February 18, 1998. Nor does the evidence support Staffs conclusion that Dr. Lin conceived his 

invention as early as November 1998. As ofthat time there were still key elements that 

remained missing from evidence to justify the conclusion that Dr. Lin had fully conceived his 

'382 invention before July 22, 1999. (Tr. at 718-19 (Lin).) 

C. Anticipation. 

A determination that a patent is invalid as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 

requires a finding, based upon clear and convincing evidence, that each and every limitation is 

found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference. See Celeritas Techs. Inc. v. 

Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Anticipation is a question of fact, 

including whether a limitation, or element, is inherent in the prior art. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 

1331, 1334-35 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The limitations must be arranged or combined the same way as 

- 119 -


in the claimed invention, although an identity of terminology is not required. Id at 1334 ("the 

reference need not satisfY an ipsissimis verbis test"); MPEP § 2131. 

In addition, the prior art reference's disclosure must enable one of ordinary skill in the art 

to practice the claimed invention "without undue experimentation.,,3o Gleave, 560 F.3d at 1334- 

35. A prior art reference that allegedly anticipates the claims of a patent is presumed enabled; 

however, a patentee may present evidence of nonenablement to overcome this presumption. 

Impax Labs., Inc. v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

"[W]hether a prior art reference is enabling is a question of law based upon underlying factual 

findings." Gleave, 560 F.3d at 1335. 

The MPIOIO Inverter Circuits and Associated Documentation. 

As discussed above, Respondents argue that each asserted claim of the '382 patent is 

invalid as anticipated by the MPI010 inverter circuits and associated documentation (the 

"MPIOIO Materials"). (RBr. at 66.) 

02 Micro argues that the MPIOIO does not anticipate, because it does not include one of 

the elements of the claims of the '382 patent, namely, a timer circuit. (CBr. at 96-98.) 

Staff argues that the evidence as to whether the MP 1 010 inverter satisfies the timer 

circuit element of the '382 patent, requiring a predetermined duration for the time-out sequence, 

is not clear and convincing. Therefore, Staff argues that MPS and ASUS have not established by 

clear and convincing evidence their alleged affirmative defense that the '382 patent is invalid by 

reason of the MP 10 10 prior art. (SBr. at 65-67.) 

The Administrative Law Judge finds that the evidence is not sufficient to invalidate the 

'382 patent on the basis of anticipation by the MP 1 010 prior art. In order to prevail on an 

30 This is not to be confused with the standards for enablement to support issuance of a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. 

§ 112. Gleave, 560 F.3d at 1334. 

- 120-


affirmative defense of anticipation, the defending party must produce clear and convincing 

evidence that the prior art includes all of the elements of the challenged claims. Although MPS 

and ASUS furnished opinion testimony of Dr. Silzars that all of the elements of claims 1 and 8 of 

the '382 patent are present in the MPI010 prior art, including the timer circuit (Tr. at 2081-91 

(Silzars)), the Administrative Law Judge finds that Complainants provided more persuasive 

countervailing testimony from Dr. Mercer that the MPIOIO inverter circuit does not meet the 

timer-circuit elements of claims 1 and 8. His opinion was based on computer simulations, 

prepared at his direction, using component values from the application notes of the MPI010 

product. He testified that these simulations show that the MP 1 010 does not include a timer 

circuit that provides a time-out sequence of a predetermined duration when a first voltage signal 

exceeds a predetermined threshold. (Tr. at 2668-70 (Mercer).) According to Dr. Mercer, 

because the MPIOI0 incorporates a resistor and capacitor combination, under certain conditions, 

the MPIOIO inverters will not provide the same time-out duration as under other conditions. (Id. 

at 2664, 2673-84 (Mercer).) 

MPS and ASUS counter by arguing that Dr. Mercer's simulations are irrelevant, because 

they fail to take into account the voltage regulation feature of the MPlOI0. They say that Dr. 

Mercer's simulations involve voltage amplitudes that would not exist in the actual operation of 

the MPI0I0 inverter because, by internal regulation, voltage amplitude is restricted to a lesser 

range than those used in the simulations. (RRBr. at 38-40.) Dr. Mercer acknowledged that the 

simulations do not mimic the actions of the MPI0I0 with respect to its voltage regulation feature, 

but said that fact does not affect the validity of his conclusions based on the simulations. (Tr. at 

2815-19 (Mercer).) 

- 121 -


Regardless of the fidelity of Dr. Mercer's simulations to the actual operation of the 

MPIOlO inverter, the pivotal question as to whether the inverter anticipates the '382 patent is, 

Does it provide a time-out sequence of a predetermined duration when a first voltage signal 

exceeds a predetermined threshold for a predetermined duration? The Administrative Law Judge 

concludes that it does not. The device used for the timer is a capacitor and resistor combination 

(C21R1), in series, a feature of which is a time constant rate of discharge. (Tr. at 2666-69 

(Mercer).) Dr. Mercer testified that this time constant does not mean that the MPI0I0 provides 

for time out of a predetermined duration. (Id) Instead, he testified, it provides a delay, the 

duration of which can vary according to the operating conditions of the circuit. (Tr. at 2666-71 

(Mercer).) In this respect he is supported by MPS's employees James Moyer (Moyer, Tr. 1906- 

07) and John Shannon (JX-192C, Shannon Dep. Tr. 72-73). 

The MPI0I0 Open Lamp Protection does not require that a first voltage signal exceed a 

predetermined threshold for a predetermined duration. Dr. Mercer testified that, according to his 

simulations, the initial voltage across the capacitor (which in series with a resistor performs the 

timer, or what he calls delay, function of the MPlOlO) varies according to the operating 

conditions of the inverter. (Tr. at 2670-71 (Mercer).) The voltage variation affects the rate of 

discharge of the capacitor, which leads to the inverter shutting down. (Tr. at 2670-71 (Mercer).) 

He testified that for that reason the MPI010 does not include a fixed predetermined duration as 

prescribed by the '382 patent. (Id at 2671.) 

Dr. Mercer testified that, at his direction, computer generated simulations based on the 

MPI0I0 application note, with some modifications, which he said did not affect the validity of 

the results, were run by Dr. Larry Nagel, using a SPICE software program. (Id 2672-74.) These 

simulations differed from one another with respect to the amplitude of the input, or operating, 

- 122-


voltage, ranging from 700 to 2,000 volts. (Tr. at 2676-77,2680,2684-86 (Mercer).) The results 

reveal variations, in certain instances, in the discharge time of the capacitor, which constitutes 

the predetermined time before shutdown for the MPI01O. (Id at 2684-88.) 

MPS and ASUS argue that the regulation feature of the MPlOI0 would not allow some of 

the voltage amplitudes used in the simulations. (RRBr. at 39-40.) Dr. Mercer testified that the 

simulation that was run at 1,000 volts would not have been great enough to initiate the regulation 

feature of the MPlOlO, yet the inverter would still shut down due to the operation of the delay 

circuit, although at a much slower rate than would occur at 2,000 volts, an amplitude that would 

result in regulation of the voltage. (Tr. at 2686-87 (Mercer).) In this testimony, Dr. Mercer is 

supported by 02 Micro's employees and witnesses, John Shannon and James Moyer, as 

discussed below. 

According to John Shannon, in the case of the MPlOI0, a minor overvoltage will require 

a longer time to produce a shutdown than will a major overvoltage. (JX-192C at 21-22, 70, 73 

(Shannon Dep.).) Mr. Shannon analogized the time disparity to that of a 10 ampere fuse which, 

by way of example, might take three minutes to bum out if subjected to 12 amperes of current, 

but will bum out considerably faster if subjected to 400 amperes. (Id at 20-21.) 

Likewise, Mr. Moyer testified that the time it takes for a shutdown after an overvoltage 

has occurred in the MP1010 will vary depending on the operating conditions of the circuit at that 

moment. (Tr. at 1907-08 (Moyer).) 

MPS and ASUS additionally argue that the MP1010 anticipates the '382 patent when it is 

started up into an open lamp condition, because the time-out sequence is not only 

"predetermined" but is also constant and repeatable. (RRBr. at 36.) They say that "[aJ device 

that only meets the claim limitations during some modes of operation still infringes." (RRBr. at 

- 123 -


37.) They point out that 02 Micro's own expert (Dr. Mercer) agrees that the MPIOIO-based 

inverters will shut down in a constant and repeatable period of time when the open lamp 

condition exists at startup. (Id.) 

In response to this argument, 02 Micro says that the claims ofthe '382 patent require that 

the predetermined duration be provided "when said first voltage signal exceeds a predetermined 

threshold for said predetermined duration" and are not limited to the strike phase. And even if 

they were, 02 Micro argues, the MP 1 010 would still not meet the "predetermined duration" 

requirement because 1) the claims are not limited to a particular condition in the strike phase; 2) 

there is a material difference between voltage required to induce shutdown and voltage required 

to induce regulation, and different levels of overvoltage will yield different duration delays; and 

3) the variability would be even greater if some separate circuitry, such as the MPI 010 

regulation circuit was not used or not working properly. (CRBr. at 47.) 

Staffs position on this point is that, although 02 Micro's validity expert, Dr. Mercer, 

conceded that the MP 1 010 will always shut down in the same amount of time in the strike mode, 

an overvoltage condition can still be highly variable, citing testimony of Microsemi's expert, Dr. 

Chapman (Tr. at 2551). Thus, Staff does not believe the MPI010 anticipates the '382 patent. 

(SRBr. at 35-36.) 

The element of claims 1 and 8 of the '382 patent that is in issue reads as follows: 



predetermined threshold for a predetermined duration 

(JX -1 at 11: 9-12.) The word "predetermined," by agreement of all of the parties, means 

"determined beforehand." (CBr. at 18; RBr. at 11; MBr. at 29; SBr. at 26.) According to Dr. 

Mercer, 02 Micro's expert witness on validity issues, the '382 device has a fixed invariant 

- 124-


predetermined time period. (Tr. at 2689.) He also testified that the predetermined duration 

encompassed in the '382 patent is not restricted to startup; it includes any time there is an 

overvoltage condition. (Tr. at 2894 (Mercer).) He testified that the MPI 010 has a delay circuit 

rather than a timer circuit, because it uses a resistor and capacitor combination which, because of 

different initial charges on the capacitor, can require different amounts of time before shutdown 

after an overvoltage. (Tr. at 2894-95 (Mercer).) 

MPS and ASUS do not dispute Dr. Mercer on this point; however, they point to the fact 

that, because Dr. Mercer agrees that in the case of an open lamp condition at startup the MPlOl0 

will always shut down in the same amount of time, it meets the timer limitation at least part of 

the time and therefore anticipates the '382 patent. (RRBr. at 30.) 

This argument rests on the assumption that a "predetermined duration" is not fixed and 

constant. (RRBr. at 28.) This argument is not tenable under the '382 patent. The fact that the 

MP 1 0 1 0 inverter, under one set of conditions, will shut down in a certain amount of time, such 

as when no lamp is present at startup; and under another set of conditions will shut down in a 

different amount of time, such as when the lamp goes out after it has been in operation for awhile, 

does not meet the requirement that the shutdown time be "determined beforehand." (Tr. at 2893- 

94.) While a certain combination of physical (electrical) events will affect the resistor and 

capacitor of the MPlOl0 in a particular way that will result in a shutdown occurring in a certain 

amount of time, even so, the shutdown time will vary according to each particular combination 

of events affecting it. (Jd.) The predetermined duration of the timer circuit element of the '382 

patent is not satisfied by a circuit that shuts down at different times for different events, even 

though it may shut down in the same amount time each instance that a particular combination of 

events occurs, such as in the instance of repeatedly being started with an absent, or open, lamp. 

- 125 -


(Id.) That is only one set of conditions (open lamp, start up, and an amount of charge or absence 

of charge at the capacitor) that will cause a shut down in a certain amount of time. There are 

other combinations that will result in different shutdown times. The shutdown times are not 

determined by the MPIOIO beforehand (that is, before they occur), but vary according to the 

operating conditions of the circuit, according to the testimony of Dr. Mercer. (Tr. at 2894-95 

(Mercer).) 

Given the variations in the length of time before an overvoltage shutdown, depending on 

the operating conditions of the inverter when the voltage exceeds the inverter's threshold, the 

Administrative Law Judge concludes that the MPIOlO does not anticipate the '382 patent, 

because it does not include a timer circuit the provides a time-out sequence of a predetermined 

duration when a first voltage signal exceeds a predetermined threshold for said predetermined 

duration. 

- 126-

Claim 1. 


A DC to AC cold cathode fluorescent lamp inverter circuit, comprising: 

The MP1010 discloses a DC to AC cold cathode fluorescent lamp inverter circuit and 

thus anticipates the preamble of claim 1. (RX-85 at Mono-ITC 00116695 31 ; RX-86 at Mono- 

ITC-00096731; Tr. 2081 (Silzars).) 

a step-up transformer with a primary winding and a secondary winding for 

providing increased voltage to a cold cathode fluorescent lamp; 

The MP 1 010 discloses a step-up transformer, with a primary winding and a secondary 

winding, that provides increased voltage to a cold cathode fluorescent lamp. (RX-85 at Mono- 

ITC-00116694; Tr. at 2082 (Silzars).) The Administrative Law Judge concludes that this 

element is satisfied by the MP 1 010 prior art. 

31 

a first switch coupled to said step-up transformer for selectively allowing said 

step-up transformer to receive DC voltage of a first polarity; 

(RX-85 at Fig. 3.) 

- 127- 

Figure 3. 

Tjpkal 

Application 

Ciruit.


The MPIOIO discloses transistor switches coupled to the step-up transformer for 

selectively allowing the step-up transformer to receive DC voltage of a first and second priority. 

(RX-85 at Figures 2,3; Tr. at 2082-83 (Silzars); Tr. at 2800-01 (Mercer).) The Administrative 

Law Judge concludes that this element is satisfied by the MP 1 010 prior art. 

a second switch coupled to said step-up transformer for selectively allowing said 

step-up transformer to receive DC voltage of a second polarity; 

The MPIOI0 discloses transistor switches coupled to the step-up transformer for 

selectively allowing the step-up transformer to receive DC voltage of a first and second priority. 

(RX-85 at Figures 2,3; Tr. at 2082-83 (Silzars); Tr. at 2800-01 (Mercer).) 02 Micro's expert on 

validity, Melvin Mercer, Ph.D., testified that this element of claim 1 is present in the MPI0l O. 

(Tr. at 2800-01.) The Administrative Law Judge concludes that this element is satisfied by the 

MP 1 010 prior art. 

a capacitor divider electrically coupled to said cold cathode fluorescent lamp for 

providing a first voltage signal representing a voltage across said cold fluorescent 

lamp; 

The MPI010 discloses a capacitor divider that is electrically coupled to the CCFL. (RX- 

85 at Mono-ITC-00116693; RX-86 at Figure 2; Tr. at 2083 (Silzars); Tr. at 2800-01,2795-96 

(Mercer).) The Administrative Law Judge concludes that this element is satisfied by the 

MPlOlO prior art. 

a first feedback signal line coupled to said capacitor divider for receiving said first 

voltage signal from said capacitor divider representing said voltage across said 

cold cathode fluorescent lamp; 

The MPIOI0 discloses a signal line between two capacitors for receiving a voltage signal 

from the capacitor divider representing voltage across a cold cathode fluorescent. (RX-85; Tr. at 

2083 (Silzars); Tr. at 2800-01 (Mercer).) The Administrative Law Judge concludes that this 

element is satisfied by the MP 1 010 prior art. 

- 128-




predetermined threshold for said predetermined duration; and 

The MP 1 010 does not disclose a timer circuit that provides a time-out sequence of a 

predetermined duration, for reasons that are set forth above. 

a protection circuit coupled to said timer circuit, said first switch and said second 

switch for shutting down said first switch and said second switch after said 

predetermined duration. 

The MP 1 010 includes shutdown circuitry when voltage exceeds a predetermined 

threshold. (RX-85 at Mono-ITC-001l6693; Tr. at 1879-87, 1889-91 (Moyer); Tr. at 2085-86 

(Silzars).) However, because the MP1010 does not include a timer circuit that provides a time- 

out sequence of a predetermined duration, its protection circuit does not disclose a protection 

circuit for shutting down switches after a predetermined duration, and therefore does not 

anticipate this element of claim 1 of the '382 patent. 

Claim 2. 


wherein said predetermined duration is sufficient for ignition of said cold cathode 

fluorescent lamp when properly operating. 

The MP1010 provides for a one-second time-out period when the suggested values in its 

application note are used. (RX-1 at Mono-ITC 00116693-94; Tr. at 2086-87). 02 Micro's 

expert testified that except for the timer circuit element requirement of a fixed predetermined 

duration, the MP1010 would satisfY claim 2. (Tr. at 2802-05.) The Administrative Law Judge 

concludes that the MPlOlO satisfies claim 2. 

Claim 4. 


further comprising: 

- 129-


a sense resistor electrically coupled to said cold cathode fluorescent lamp and 

electrically coupled to ground for providing a second voltage signal representing 

current through said cold cathode fluorescent lamp; 

The MPlOI0 discloses a sense resistor which is electrically coupled to a CCFL and 

electrically coupled to ground for providing a second voltage signal representing the current 

through a CCFL. (RX-85 at Mono-ITC00116692 and 00116695: Tr. at 2087 (Silzars); Tr. at 

1870-71.) 02 Micro's expert, Melvin Mercer, Ph.D., agreed that the MPI0I0 satisfied this 

element of claim 4. (Tr. at 2803, 2805-06.) The Administrative Law Judge concludes that this 

element is satisfied by the MPlOI0 prior art. 

a second feedback signal line coupled to said sense resistor for receiving said 

second voltage signal from said sense resistor representing current through said 

cold cathode fluorescent lamp; and 

The MPI0I0 discloses a second feedback signal line coupled to the sense resistor. (RX- 

85 at Mono-ITCOOI16695; RX-86 at Mono-ITC 00096734; Tr. at 2087-88 (Silzars).) Dr. 

Mercer agreed that this part of the MPI010 circuitry satisfied this element of claim 4. (Tr. at 

2803,2805-86.) The Administrative Law Judge concludes that this element is satisfied by the 

MP 10 10 prior art. 

a feedback control circuit coupled to said second feedback signal line for 

adjusting power to said cold cathode fluorescent lamp to a power level such that 

said second voltage signal approaches a reference value representing desired load 

conditions of said cold cathode fluorescent lamp. 

The MPI0I0 discloses a feedback control circuit coupled to the second feedback signal 

line for adjusting power to the CCFL such that the second voltage signal will approach a 

reference value representing the desired load conditions of the CCFL. (RX-85 at Mono- 

ITCOOI16691-92; RX-86 at Mono-ITC00096735; Tr. at 2088 (Silzars).) Dr. Mercer testified 

that the MPlOlO satisfied this element of claim 4. (Tr. at 2803,2805-06.) The Administrative 

Law Judge concludes that this element is satisfied by the MPlOI0 prior art. 

- 130-

Claim 7. 



further comprising: 

a third switch coupled to said first switch and said step-up transformer for 

providing a first electrical path through said step-up transformer to ground when 

said third switch and said first switch are simultaneously on; 

The MP 1 0 1 0 discloses four transistor switches that are connected to the step-up 

transformer. (RX-85 at Figure 2; Tr. at 2089 (Silzars).) Dr. Mercer agreed that the MPIOlO 

satisfies this element of claim 7. (Tr. at 2803,2805-06.) The Administrative Law Judge 

concludes that this element is satisfied by the MPI 010 prior art. 

a fourth switch coupled to said second switch and said-up [sic] transformer for 

providing a second electrical path through said step-up transformer to ground 

when said fourth switch and said second switch are simultaneously on; 

The MPIOIO discloses four transistor switches coupled to a step-up transformer for 

selectively allowing the step-up transformer to receive DC voltage of a first and second polarity. 

(RX-85 at Figure 2.) Drs. Silzars and Mercer testified that the MPIOIO satisfies this element of 

claim 7. (Tr. at 2089-90 (Silzars); Tr. at 2803-04 (Mercer). The Administrative Law Judge 

concludes that this element is satisfied by the MPIOlO prior art. 

a sense resistor electrically coupled to said cold cathode fluorescent lamp and 

electrically coupled to ground for providing a second voltage signal representing 

current through said cold cathode fluorescent lamp; 

This element is substantively the same as the sense resistor element of claim 4, and for 

the reasons expressed above with reference thereto is found to satisfy this claim element. (Tr. at 

2089-90.) Dr. Mercer testified that this element is satisfied by the MPIOlO. (Tr. at 2803-04, 

2806.) The Administrative Law Judge concludes that this element is satisfied by the MPIOIO 

prior art. 

- 131 -


a second feedback signal line coupled to said sense resistor for receiving said 

second voltage signal from said sense resistor representing current through said 

cold cathode fluorescent lamp; and 

This element is substantively the same as the second feedback signal line of claim 4, and 

for the reasons expressed above with reference thereto, it is concluded that the MP 1010 satisfies 

this claim element. (Tr. at 2089-90.) Dr. Mercer testified that this element is satisfied by the 

MPIOIO. (Tr. at 2803-04,2806.) The Administrative Law Judge concludes that this element is 

satisfied by the MP 1 010 prior art. 

a feedback control circuit coupled to said second feedback signal line, said first 

switch and said third switch for adjusting time when said third switch and said 

first switch are simultaneously on such that said second voltage signal approaches 

a reference value representing desired load conditions of said cold cathode 

fluorescent lamp. 

The MPI0I0 discloses this element, according to the expert witnesses for both MPS and 

ASUS, and 02 Micro. (Tr. at 2089-90 (Silzars); id. at 2083-04,2086 (Mercer).) The 

Administrative Law Judge concludes that this element is satisfied by the MP1010 prior art. 

Claim 8. 

This claim is substantively the same as claim 1 with the addition of the following 

language: "A liquid crystal display unit comprising: a liquid crystal display panel; a cold cathode 

fluorescent lamp for illuminating said liquid display panel." 

The MPIOI0 inherently discloses a liquid crystal display unit and LCD panel. (RX-86 at 

Mono-ITC00096731; Tr. 2081-82 (Silzars).) Dr. Mercer agrees that these elements are present 

in the MP1010 prior art. (Tr. at 2804-05.) In all other respects, claim 8 is the same as claim 1, 

and for that reason, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the MP1010 anticipates those 

elements of claim 8 other than the timer circuit and, to the extent it includes an element of the 

- 132-


timer circuit, the protection circuit, which it does not anticipate, for reasons expressed above 

under the discussion of claim 1. 

Claim 9. 

A liquid crystal display unit as claimed in claim 8 wherein said predetermined 



This claim is the same as claim 2, with the addition of a liquid crystal display unit. 

Therefore, for those reasons expressed above with respect to claim 2, the Administrative Law 

Judge concludes that the MP1010 prior art satisfies claim 9. 

Claim 11. 

Claim 11 is substantively the same as claim 4, with the addition of a liquid crystal display 

unit. Therefore, for those reasons expressed above with respect to claim 4, the Administrative 

Law Judge concludes that the MP1010 prior art satisfies claim 11. 

Claim 14. 

Claim 14 is substantively the same as claim 7, with the addition of a liquid crystal display 

unit. Therefore, for those reasons expressed above with respect to claim 7, the Administrative 

Law Judge concludes that the MPlOlO prior art satisfies claim 14. 

D. Obviousness. 

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), a patent is valid unless "the differences between the subject 

matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would 

have been obvious at the time the invention was made" to a person having ordinary skill in the 

art. 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a). The ultimate question of obviousness is a question oflaw, but "it is well 

understood that there are factual issues underlying the ultimate obviousness decision." 

- 133 -


Richardson-Vicks Inc. v. Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Graham v. 

John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966) ("Graham")). 

After claim construction, "[t]he second step in an obviousness inquiry is to determine 

whether the claimed invention would have been obvious as a legal matter, based on underlying 

factual inquiries including: (l) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the level of ordinary 

skill in the art, (3) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) 

secondary considerations of non-obviousness." Smiths Indus. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Vital Signs, Inc., 

183 F.3d 1347, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 17). The existence of 

secondary considerations of non-obviousness does not control the obviousness determination: a 

court must consider "the totality of the evidence" before reaching a decision on obviousness. 

Richardson-Vicks, 122 F.3d at 1483. 

The Supreme Court recently clarified the obviousness inquiry in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex 

Inc., 550 U.S. 389 (2007) ("KSR"). The Supreme Court said: 

When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other 

market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different 

one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 

likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to 

improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that 

it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious 

unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida and Anderson 's 

Black Rock are illustrative-a court must ask whether the improvement is more 

than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established 

functions. 

Following these principles may be more difficult in other cases than it is 

here because the claimed subject matter may involve more than the simple 

substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known 

technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement. Often, it will be 

necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the 

effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; 

and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the 

art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the 

- 134-


known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue. To facilitate review, 

this analysis should be made explicit. 

* * * 

The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the 

words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the 

importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents. The 

diversity of inventive pursuits and of modem technology counsels against limiting 

the analysis in this way. In many fields it may be that there is little discussion of 

obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market 

demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design trends. Granting patent 

protection to advances that would occur in the ordinary course without real 

innovation retards progress and may, in the case of patents combining previously 

known elements, deprive prior inventions of their value or utility. 

KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-19. 

The Federal Circuit has since held that when a patent challenger contends that a patent is 

invalid for obviousness based on a combination of several prior art references, "the burden falls 

on the patent challenger to show by clear and convincing evidence that a person of ordinary skill 

in the art would have had reason to attempt to make the composition or device, or carry out the 

claimed process, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." 

PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations 

omitted). 

The TSM 32 test, flexibly applied, merely assures that the obviousness test 

proceeds on the basis of evidence--teachings, suggestions (a tellingly broad term), 

or motivations (an equally broad term)--that arise before the time of invention as 

the statute requires. As KSR requires, those teachings, suggestions, or 

motivations need not always be written references but may be found within the 

knowledge and creativity of ordinarily skilled artisans. 

Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 

2008). 

As noted in Section III.B. above, the Administrative Law Judge has determined that that 

a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the '382 patent pertains would have had a bachelor's 

32 TSM means teaching, suggestion, motivation. 

- 135-


degree in electrical engineering with at least one year of practical experience, or a master's 

degree with studies in power electronics. The parties essentially agree that the relevant 

technological field is DC-to-AC power inverter circuits for cold cathode fluorescent lamps. 

(MFF70; COMFF 70; ROMFF 70.) 

Respondents ASUS and MPS argue that claims 1,2,4, 7,8,9, 11 and 14 of the '382 

patent are invalid as obvious by u.s. Patent No. 5,384,516 33 (the "Kawabata" prior art 34 

reference) in combination with chapter one of the textbook The Art of Electronics 35 (the 

"Horowitz,,36 prior art reference), u.s. Patent No. 5,866,968 37 (the "Mech" prior art reference 38 ), 

the Linfinity Microelectronics datasheet "Striker Direct Drive Topology,,39 (the "Striker" prior 

art reference 4o ), u.S. Patent No. 5,923,129 (the "Henry" prior art reference 41 ), the MPlOl 0 

Materials, or U.S. Patent No. 5,615,093 (the "Nalbant" prior art reference 42 ). (RBr. at 93-127; 

RX-93.) Respondents further argue that claims 1,2,4, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 14 ofthe '382 patent are 

invalid as obvious by the 1997 Micro Linear Corp. ML4878 LCD Backlight Lamp Driver 

datasheet prior art reference (the "ML4878" prior art reference 43 ) in combination with Kawabata 

and/or the MPlOlO references. (RBr. at 113-128.) 

02 Micro argues that Respondents' expert Dr. Silzars "engaged in an improper hindsight 

analysis" and ignored the state ofthe art at the time of conception. (CBr. at 101-02.) 02 Micro 

further argues that the Kawabata reference was before the examiner, and that it does not disclose 

33 (See RFF 7.C.l3 (undisputed).) 

34 Kawabata is undisputedly prior art. (RFF 7.C.14 (undisputed); SFF 233 (undisputed).) 

35 (See RFF 7.C.47 (undisputed).) 

36 Horowitz is undisputedly prior art. (RFF 7.C.47 (undisputed).) 


38 Mech is undisputedly prior art. (RFF 7.C.53 (undisputed).) 


40 Striker is undisputedly prior art. (RFF 7.C.61 (undisputed).) 

41 U.S. Patent No. 5,923,129 was filed on March 13, 1998 and is prior art to the '382 patent. (RX-72; RFF 7.C.63- 

64 (undisputed in relevant part).) 

42 U.S. Patent No. 5,615,093 was filed on March 25, 1997 and is prior art to the '382 patent. (RX-93; RFF 

7.C.107-08 (undisputed in relevant part).) 

43 The ML4878 is dated February 1997 and is undisputedly prior art to the '382 patent. (RFF 7.C.148 (undisputed).) 

- l36-


the capacitor divider element of claims 1 and 8. (Id. at 106.) According to 02 Micro, "the 

voltage dividing resistors in Kawabata are not standard voltage dividers that a person of ordinary 

skill in the art would recognize as being replaceable with a capacitor divider." (Id. at 106-107.) 

In addition, 02 Micro argues that Kawabata teaches away from having additional capacitance on 

the secondary side ofthe transformer. (Id. at 107.) Regarding the ML4878, 02 Micro asserts 

that it does not disclose a capacitor divider on the secondary side of the step-up transformer and 

teaches away from having one. (Id. at 115-116.) 02 Micro further argues that Dr. Silzars failed 

to explain how the timer circuit in the ML4878 operates. (Id. at 116.) 

Staff argues that claims 1,2,8, and 9 ofthe '382 patent are invalid as obvious in view of 

combinations involving the Kawabata patent, but that dependent claims 4, 7, 11, and 14 are not 

invalid. (SBr. at 72.) Staff is of the view that the "MPS Respondents have not established by 

clear and convincing evidence that the asserted claims ofthe '382 patent would have been 

obvious in view of combinations involving the ML4878." (Id. at 76.) In particular, Staff notes 

that- 

(SBr. at 79.) 

Dr. Silzars did not provide an explanation as to why one of ordinary skill in the 

art would consider the timer circuits of the MPI0I0 and the Kawabata inadequate, 

or why one of ordinary skill would be led to the particular solution used in the 

ML4878 device. (Silzars, Tr. at 2113-15). In order to show obviousness, there 

would have to be an explicit analysis of this issue. KSR Int'l Co., 127 S. Ct. at 

1741. The ... MPS Respondents have not shown by clear and convincing 

evidence that it would have been obvious to substitute the timer circuit of the 

ML4878 device for the timer circuits used in the other prior art." 

Respondent Microsemi makes no assertions with respect to obviousness. 

1. Claims 1 and 8. 

First, with respect to Kawabata, the record shows that it is undisputed that Kawabata 

discloses a DC to AC cold cathode fluorescent lamp inverter circuit, and that it is described as 

- 137-


suitable for a compact LCD unit, such that the preamble of independent claims 1 and 8 and 

elements 'a' and 'b' of claim 8 of the '382 patent are met. (RFF 7.C.25-32 (undisputed); SFF 

234 (undisputed); SFF 249-50 (undisputed); RX-78.) It is further undisputed that Kawabata 

discloses the step-up transformer, first switch, second switch, and first feedback signal line such 

that elements 'a', 'b', 'c', and 'e' and 'g' of claim 1 and elements 'c', 'd', 'e', and 'g' of claim 8 

ofthe '382 patent are met. (RFF 7.C.33-42 (undisputed); RFF 7.C.78-79 (undisputed); SFF 235- 

23 8 (undisputed); SFF 251 (undisputed); RX -78.) At issue is whether there is clear and 

convincing evidence to show that the capacitor divider, timer circuit, and protection circuit 

elements were also disclosed in Kawabata, or in combination with one or more of the other prior 

art references asserted by MPS and ASUS, such that the invention as claimed in the asserted 

'382 patent claims would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time the 

invention was made. 

The Kawabata patent is directed to an "information processing apparatus" that employs a 

liquid crystal display ("LCD") and a fluorescent lamp for backlighting the LCD screen. (RX-78 

at MPS-ITC 003912.) Kawabata discloses several embodiments of this apparatus, including the 

following relevant descriptions and figure: 

Referring to FIG. 13, there are shown a current detecting resistor 72, a 

switching element control circuit 73 for controlling switching elements 42, 43, 44 

and 45, a switch 74, a control signal 79 for controlling the switch 74, a selector 

switch 75, a control signal 80 for controlling the selector switch 75, a switch 

control circuit 83 for controlling the switch 74, an overcurrent detecting circuit 84, 

an overvoltage detecting circuit 85, an undervoltage detecting circuit 86, a chip 

temperature detecting circuit 87, a voltage dividing circuit 88, a lamp malfunction 

detecting circuit 89, an ON/OFF control signal input terminal 90 and a brightness 

control signal input terminal 91. 

* * * 

When lighting the fluorescent lamp 23, a voltage stabilized by a dc-to-dc 

converter comprising a chopper transistor 38, a choke coil 36 and a smoothing 

capacitor 35 is converted into an ac voltage by the switching action of the 

switching elements 42, 43, 44 and 45, and then an ac voltage is applied through a 

- 138-


resonant circuit conslstmg of a transformer 32 and a capacitor 33 to the 

fluorescent lamp 23. The pulse generator 41 is included in an Ie 34 to form the 

lighting device 24 by the least possible number of parts. 

* * * 

If any abnormal condition is detected by anyone of the detecting circuits 84, 85, 

86, 87 and 89, the selector switch 75 is connected immediately to the pulse 

generator 76 to maintain a low-power operating mode. The input signal applied 

to the brightness control signal input terminal 91 and the output signals of the 

detecting circuits 84,85,86,87 and 89 are monitored constantly. 

* * * 

When any abnormal condition in the fluorescent lamp 23 is detected by the 

lamp malfunction detecting circuit 89, the switch control circuit 83 opens the 

switch 74, sends an abnormal condition occurrence signal to the control circuit 77 

and stops the operation of the lighting device 24. 

* * * 

Referring to FIG. 16 showing the details of the lamp malfunction detecting 

circuit 89 shown in FIG. 13, there are shown a dc power source 92, a switch 74, a 

latch 93, a voltage comparator 94, a reference voltage source 95, a delay capacitor 

96, a delay resistor 97, voltage dividing resistors 98, 100 and 104, and a full-wave 

rectifier 99. 

The terminal voltage of the fluorescent lamp 23 is converted into a dc voltage 

by a full-wave rectifier 99, and a voltage obtained by dividing the dc voltage by 

the ratio between the respective resistances of the voltage dividing resistors 100 

and 104, and 98 appears across the voltage dividing resistor 98. The application 

of the voltage across the voltage dividing resistor 98 to the voltage comparator 94 

is delayed by the delay resistor 97 and the delay capacitor 96 to avoid the false 

operation of the protective circuit in response to the detection of a firing potential 

which is higher than a normal voltage and generated when starting the fluorescent 

lamp 23. 

When the terminal voltage of the fluorescent lamp 23 remains at a level higher 

than a normal level for a time longer than a predetermined time, the terminal 

voltage of the delay capacitor 96 increases beyond a reference voltage provided 

by the reference voltage source 95. Then, the output of the voltage comparator 94 

is inverted and the latch 93 is inverted. While the latch 93 maintains the inverted 

state, the switch 74 opens to stop the operation of the switching elements 42, 43, 

44 and 45 to extinguish the fluorescent lamp 23. Thus, increase of the 

temperature of the fluorescent lamp is prevented, so that the liquid crystal display 

is not damaged by the heat of the fluorescent lamp 23. 

- 139-

37 

[ 

N 20 

p 

U 

T 

PULSE 

GENER- A 

ATOR 

41 


FIG. 13 

fNPUT 

, 

71 

91 

SWITCH 

CONTROL 

(RX-78 at 19:58-21: 58 (excerpted) (emphasis added), Fig. 13.) It is undisputed that Kawabata 

illustrates the voltage dividing circuit 88 as a box, although Figure 16 further discloses an 

embodiment depicting it as a resistive circuit divider. (SFF 239-40 (undisputed).) 

- 140- 

89

92 

t 

FW RECTIFIER 


FIG 16 

(RX -78 at Fig. 16.) Kawabata does not disclose the limitation "a capacitor divider electrically 

coupled to said cold cathode fluorescent lamp for providing a first voltage signal representing a 

voltage across said cold cathode fluorescent lamp" found in element 'd' of claim 1 and 'f of 

claim 8 ofthe '382 patent. (RX-78; Tr. at 2707:22-24 (Mercer), 2092:10-14 (Silzars).) 

With respect to the timer circuit element 'f of claim 1 and element 'h' of claim 8, 

Kawabata discloses that when the "terminal voltage" of the lamp 23 exceeds a "normal level" for 

"longer than a predetermined time," the switching elements 42-45 are stopped. (RX-78 at 21 :46- 

55.) The voltage across the voltage dividing resistor 98 to the voltage comparator 94 is delayed 

by the delay resistor 97 and the delay capacitor 96 to avoid the false operation of the protective 

circuit, and when the lamp voltage exceeds the normal threshold for "longer than a 

predetermined time," the terminal voltage of the delay capacitor 96 increases beyond a reference 

voltage provided by the reference voltage source 95. According to Dr. Silzars, the delay resistor 

97 and the delay capacitor 96, as shown in Figure 16, constitute a timer circuit. (Tr. at 2095 :25- 

- 141 -


2096:4 (Silzars).) Dr. Mercer characterized the "predetennined time" noted in Kawabata as the 

time it takes to charge the delay capacitor 96 (Tr. at 2720:11-18 (Silzars)), and identified the 

same structures (the delay resistor 97 and the delay capacitor 96) as Silzars for achieving a "time 

delay." (Tr. at 2721:12-15,2722:9-14 (Silzars).) The two experts disagree as to whether 

Kawabata's disclosure amounts to "a timer circuit coupled to said first feedback signal line for 

providing a time-out sequence of a predetennined duration when said first voltage signal exceeds 

a predetennined threshold for said predetennined duration.,,44 According to Dr. Mercer, the 

Kawabata apparatus, like the MPI0I0, measures a predetennined time before detennining 

whether the voltage signal exceeds the threshold. (Tr. at 2723:12-2724:4 (Silzars).) For the 

reasons discussed above in Section v.c. with respect to the capacitor and resistor combination of 

the MPIOI0, the Administrative Law Judge finds that Kawabata does not disclose the timer 

circuit limitation of claims 1 and 8 of the '382 patent. 

With respect to the protection circuit element 'g' of claim 1 and element 'i' of claim 8, 

02 Micro essentially argues that if there is no timer circuit, it cannot be coupled to the protection 

circuit. (CORFF 7.C.95.) The Administrative Law Judge has found that Kawabata does not 

disclose the timer circuit element of claims 1 and 8 of the '382 patent. However, the 

Administrative Law Judge finds that Kawabata does disclose all the other limitations of element 

'g' of claim 1 and element 'i' of claim 8 of the '382 patent, namely a protection circuit, coupled 

to (the delay resistor 97 and the delay capacitor 96) and switching elements 42, 43, 44 and 45, 

for shutting down these switches after the tenninal voltage of the lamp 23 exceeds a nonnallevel 

for longer than a predetennined time. 

44 As discussed above in Section IlLe., the language "a timer circuit ... for providing a time-out sequence of a 

predetermined duration" should mean "a circuit that limits the time for an overvoltage condition to persist." The 

language "when said first voltage signal exceeds a predetermined threshold for said predetermined duration" should 

mean "when a fIrst voltage signal continually exceeds a predetermined threshold for a predetermined duration." 

- 142-


Respondents further argue that that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary 

skill in the art to have substituted a capacitor divider for the voltage dividing resistor 98 

disclosed in Kawabata based upon the teachings of Mech. According to Respondents, Mech 

"teaches the equivalence of resistor and capacitor dividers for the specific purpose of providing 

feedback of the lamp voltage in a CCFL driver." (RBr. at 98.) A review of the Mech reference 

shows that the patent discloses circuits "adapted to drive a dynamic load, such as a cold cathode 

LCD backlight." (RX-87 at 8:14-16.) In Figure 3, Mech discloses a resistor divider (R6 and R7), 

,«0-----...., 

FIG.3 

and clearly says that this divider may be replaced by "an equivalent reactance capacitor divider." 

(RX-87 at 6:20-22, Fig. 3.) Such a capacitor divider is shown in Figure 5: 

- 145-


value on a chart, and that Kawabata discloses operation in a frequency range consistent with "all 

the products we have evaluated." (Tr. at 2170-71 (Silzars).) In light of Mech's specific teaching 

that the resistive voltage divider on the secondary side of the transfonner in Figure 3 is 

interchangeable with a capacitor divider in Figure 5, the Administrative Law Judge finds that the 

evidence clearly and convincingly shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of 

the invention as claimed in claims 1 and 8 of the '382 patent would have been motivated to 

combine Kawabata and Mech with respect to the use of a capacitor divider. 

As further support that a person of ordinary skill in the art would substitute a capacitor 

divider for a resistive voltage divider, MPS and ASUS argue that the Striker data sheet and the 

Henry patent both disclose a capacitor divider electrically coupled to a cold cathode fluorescent 

lamp for providing a first voltage signal representing a voltage across said cold cathode 

fluorescent lamp. (RX-80 at M002470; RX-72 at Figs. 6 and 8D; RBr. at 100-101; Tr. at 2860 

(Mercer).) While these two references don't expressly teach substitution in the manner of Mech, 

they provide added weight that such a use of a capacitor voltage divider would likely have 

already been known to one of ordinary skill in the art. 

With respect to the timer circuit, MPS and ASUS argue that the ML4878 datasheet 

discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8 other than a capacitor divider. (RBR. at 113.) It 

is undisputed that the ML4878 discloses the preamble and elements 'a', 'b', 'c' and 'g' of claim 

1 and the preamble and elements 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e' and 'i' of claim 8 ofthe '382 patent. (RFF 

7.e. 151-158 (undisputed); (RFF 7.e.174-75 (undisputed in relevant part 45 ).) The parties further 

agree that the ML4878 does not contain the capacitor divider element 'd' of claim 1 and element 

45 02 Micro's boilerplate objections as to whether the ML4878 datasheet discloses the protection circuit element 'g' 

of claim 1 and element 'i' of claim 8 ofthe '382 patent relate solely to the presence of a resistor divider and do not 

appear to be responsive to Respondents' proposed findings off act on this issue. (CORFF 174-174f; CORFF 175- 

175f.) 

- 147-


CCTLO Capacitor (CTLO pin) - Typical Value = O.331lF 

A capacitor to ground programs the maximum amount of time that the circuit can 

be in the over voltage or striking mode. The charge and discharge current is l/lA 

and the part latches off when the pin's voltage exceeds 3V. A 0.33/lF capacitor 

on this pin to ground will allow the part to strike for 1 second before the lamp is 

assumed to be malfunctioning and IC turns off. If a capacitance larger than l/lF 

is used, the ON pin must stay low for a time longer than 40/ls while VREG is still 

above 2V to ensure the circuit will reset properly. 

CCTLO = T DELAY (0 .3/lF) 

LAMP OUT DETECT 

* * * 

The ML4878 contains a lamp out detect circuit that will latch the circuit in the off 

state upon detection of a failed or open lamp connection. It has an adjustable time 

delay set by the value of the capacitor on the CTLO pin. This capacitor will set 

the maximum amount of time that the ML4878 will be in the over voltage or 

striking mode. A voltage of more than 0.25 volts nominal on the VSNS pin will 

initiate the charging of the capacitor on the CTLO pin. This capacitor is charged 

and discharged with a constant current of l/lA nominal. Once the voltage on the 

CTLO pin rises to approximately 3 volts the latch is set and the circuit enters a 

very low power state. 

The lamp out detect circuit can be reset by either taking the ON/OFF pin low 

momentarily or taking VREG below 4V nominally. Either of these will reset the 

latch, discharge the capacitor, and start a new striking sequence. If a capacitor 

larger than l/lF is used on CTLO the ON/OFF pin must be held low for at least 

50/ls while the voltage on VREG is above 2.0 volts to ensure that the capacitor 

will discharge and the circuit reset. 

(Id. at MPS-ITC 003709, MPS-ITC 003711 (emphasis added).) The datasheet discloses a lamp 

out detect circuit, with an adjustable time delay based upon the value of the capacitor on the 

CTLO pin, that will tum offthe circuit if the voltage on the CTLO pin rises to approximately 3 

volts. (Id.) If there is a voltage of more than the predetermined threshold of 0.25 volts nominal 

on the VSNS pin, the capacitor on the CTLO pin will begin to charge. (Id.) Based on this 

evidence, both Dr. Silzars and Dr. Mercer testified that the ML4878 discloses a timer circuit. (Tr. 

at 2888 (Mercer); Tr. at 2107:24-2108:10 (Silzars).) Neither expert, however, identified whether 

the ML4878 meets that portion of the timer circuit element in claims 1 and 8 of the '382 patent 

- 149-


that requires the voltage signal to continually exceed the predetermined threshold for a 

predetermined duration. There is no evidence to show that there is squegging, or that the voltage 

signal is irregular such that the constant current source charges the capacitor only part of the time. 

Yet Respondents must show by clear and convincing evidence that a person of ordinary skill in 

the art at the time of the invention as claimed in claims 1 and 8 of the '382 patent would have 

understood the ML4878 to disclose not only a timer circuit, but a timer circuit that has a voltage 

signal that continually exceeds the predetermined threshold for a predetermined duration. They 

have not done so. Based on the above, the Administrative Law Judge finds that the ML4878 

does not teach a timer circuit (element 'f of claim 1 and element 'h' of claim 8 of the '382 

patent) such that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice 

claims 1 and 8 of the '382 patent in light of Kawabata and Mech. Accordingly, the 

Administrative Law Judge finds that claims 1 and 8 are not obvious in light of the prior art cited 

by Respondents. 

2. Claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 11 and 14. 

The Administrative Law Judge found above that independent claims 1 and 8 are not 

obvious in light of the prior art references cited by MPS and ASUS because these references do 

not disclose the timer circuit as claimed in the '382 patent. It follows that dependent claims 2, 4, 

7,9, 11, and 14 are not obvious in light of these references. 

3. Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness 

The Administrative Law Judge has found that none of the asserted claims ofthe '382 

patent are obvious in light of the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art 

references cited by MPS and ASUS. Thus it is not necessary to reach a finding with respect to 

the secondary considerations of non-obviousness. The Administrative Law Judge notes in 

- 150-


passing, however, that much of 02 Micro's evidence regarding the commercial success of the 

OZ960 and OZ964 products would not be relevant, as the Administrative Law Judge has found 

that these two products do not practice the asserted claims of the '382 patent. See discussion at 

Section VIlLA. below. 

E. Validity Under 35 U.S.c. § 112. 

Failure To Provide An Adequate Written Description. 

MPS and ASUS say that the '382 patent fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, and 

therefore is unenforceable because it does not include an adequate description ofthe timer circuit 

element in independent claims 1 and 8. (RBr. at 128-29.) They say that the only description of 

the "timer circuit" is the statement in the specification: "Preferably, a timer 64 is initiated once 

the OVP exceeds the threshold, thereby initiating a time-out sequence." (Id at 16.) This, they 

say, only describes providing a time-out sequence after the voltage signal (i.e., OVP) exceeds a 

threshold. They say the '382 specification says nothing about providing a time-out sequence 

once a "voltage signal exceeds a predetermined threshold for said predetermined duration," as 

required by the asserted claims. (Id at 16-17.) They say the claim makes clear that the 

condition for providing the "time-out sequence" is "when said first voltage signal exceeds a 

predetermined threshold for said predetermined duration." (Id. at 17.) 

In making this argument, MPS and ASUS continue their contention for claim 

construction that there are two time periods described in independent claims 1 and 8: one that 

starts when a predetermined threshold has been exceeded for a predetermined duration, and the 

other that occurs once the voltage signal has been exceeded for the predetermined duration. (Id.) 

- 151 -


02 Micro and Staff disagree with this and respond that, to the extent it relies on a two 

period time-out period, the argument is erroneous. (CBr. at 128-30; CRBr at 66; SBr. at 82-83; 

SRBr. at 44-45.) 

The claim construction that MPS and ASUS rely on for their argument has been rejected 

for reasons set forth in Section lII.C. above and, therefore, their argument, insofar as it is based 

on that claim construction, is rejected for reasons already given. However, MPS and ASUS also 

contend that the asserted claims ofthe '382 patent are invalid under either a one- or a two-period 

construction of the predetermined duration of the timer circuit, because there is "no written 

description in the provisional application and the originally filed specification of exceeding a 

threshold for a length of time." (RRBr. at 69.) They say "[t]here is also no written description 

support for providing a time-out sequence conditioned upon a voltage signal exceeding the 

threshold for that length oftime. (Id. at 69-70.) 

02 Micro argues that a party alleging that a patent is invalid for failure to comply with 

the written description requirement has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing 

evidence that the requirement has not been met, citing Intirtool, Ltd v. Texar Corp., 369 F.3d 

1289, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1364 

(Fed. Cir. 2003)) .. (Id. at 129, n.140.) 

Patents are presumed valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282. The first paragraph of Section 112 says: 

"The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and 

process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any 

person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make 

and use the same .... " 35 U.S.C. § 112. The specification for the '382 patent contains the 

following language: 

- 152-


To protect the circuit from an over-voltage condition, the present embodiment 

preferably includes protection circuit 60, the operation of which is provided below 

(the description of the over current protection through the current sense 

comparator 42 is provided above). The circuit 60 includes a protection 

comparator 62 which compares signal CMP with a voltage signal 66 derived from 

the load 20. Preferably, voltage signal is derived from the voltage divider C2 and 

C3 (i.e., in parallel with load 20), as shown in FIG. 2. In the open-lamp condition, 

the frequency sweeper continues sweeping until the OVP signal 66 reaches a 

threshold. The OVP signal 62 is taken at the output capacitor divider C2 and C3 

to detect the voltage at the output of the transformer TXl. To simplify the 

analysis, these capacitors also represent the lump capacitor of the equivalent load 

capacitance. The threshold is a reference and circuit is being designed so that the 

voltage at the secondary side of the transformer is greater than the minimum 

striking voltage (e.g., as may be required by the LCD panel) while less than the 

rated voltage of the transformer. When OVP exceeds the threshold, the frequency 

sweeper stops the frequency sweeping. Meanwhile, the current-sense 42 detects 

no signal across the sense resistor Rs. Therefore the signal at 24, the output of a 

switch block 38, is set to be at minimum value so that minimum overlap between 

switches A,C and B,D is seen. Preferably, a timer 64 is initiated once the OVP 

exceeds the threshold, thereby initiating a time-out sequence. The duration of the 

time-out is preferably designed according to the requirement of the loads (e.g., 

CCFLs of an LCD pane!), but could alternately be set at some programmable 

value. Drive pulses are disabled once the time-out is reached, thus providing safeoperation 

output of the converter circuit. That is, circuit 60 provides a sufficient 

voltage to ignite the lamp, but will shut off after a certain period if the lamp is not 

connected to the converter, so that erroneous high voltage is avoided at the output. 

This duration is necessary since a non-ignited lamp is similar to an open-lamp 

condition. 

(JX-1 at 8:40-9:2 (emphasis added); id. at Figs. 2, 3.) The above portion of the specification 

teaches that the threshold is a reference, and that the circuit is designed so that the voltage at the 

secondary side of the transformer is greater than the minimum striking voltage (e.g., as may be 

required by the LCD panel) while less than the rated voltage of the transformer. This portion of 

the specification, as well as the cited figures, provide additional description of the purpose and 

manner of protecting the circuit from an over-voltage condition. 

"The form and presentation of the description can very with the nature of the invention; 

compliance with the written description requirement is a fact-dependent inquiry." In re Skvorecz, 

580 F.3d 1262, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2009). "[T]he applicant [for a patent] may employ 'such 

- 153 -


descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the 

claimed invention.'" (Id., citing In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1996).) The 

adequacy of the description depends on content, rather than length. In re Hayes Microcomputer 

Products, Inc. Patent Litigation, 982 F.2d 1527, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1992). "Specifically, the level 

of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature 

and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology." 

Ariad Pharms., Inc., v. Eli Lilly & Co., _F.3d __ , 2010 WLI007369 *12 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en 

banc). The specification must objectively demonstrate that the applicant was in possession of the 

claimed subject matter. (Id at 10, 12.) Here, reasonably considered in context, there is more 

described in the specification that explains the timer circuit and the predetermined duration than 

what MPS and ASUS argue. Their contention of invalidity for failure to provide a written 

description is therefore rejected. 

Microsemi further argues that there is insufficient disclosure in the '382 patent to show 

that applicant had possession of "signal conditioning" at the time of filing. (MBr. at 81.) 02 

Micro responds that this argument should be precluded based on Ground Rule 8.2 because 

Microsemi failed to raise this challenge in its pre-hearing briefing. (CRBr. at 66-67.) 02 Micro 

points out that Dr. Chapman essentially admitted that the '382 patent fully comports with the 

written description requirement. (Id) Staff argues that Microsemi's theory should be rejected 

because "[t]he specification and provisional application do not describe "squegging" or "ending" 

the overvoltage conditions because this is outside the claims (in both cases the voltage exceeds 

the threshold and is intentionally reduced so the overvoltage condition is not continuous)." (SBr. 

at 45.) 

- 154-


A review of Microsemi's pre-hearing brief shows that Microsemi provided a discussion 

of the enablement requirement of Section 112, but no theory that the claims of the' 3 82 patent 

were not enabled. (Microsemi Pre-Hearing Brief, dated September 25,2009, at 68-69.) 

Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge finds that Microsemi's arguments with respect to a 

failure of written description with respect to "signal conditioning" are waived. See Order No.2, 

Ground Rules 8.2, 11.1. Even if they were not waived, the Administrative Law Judge finds the 

arguments submitted by Staff and 02 Micro to be persuasive. 

Indefiniteness. 

Staff rightly points out that MPS and ASUS in their Post-Hearing Brief failed to assert 

that the claims are invalid based on indefiniteness, and that ground is therefore waived under 

Ground Rule 11.1. (SRBr. at 45.) 

VI. ENFORCEABILITY 

A. Inequitable Conduct. 

Patent applicants and their attorneys have "a duty of candor and good faith" in dealing 

with the PTO, "which includes a duty to disclose ... information known ... to be material to 

patentability." 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(a). A patent may become unenforceable on the grounds of 

inequitable conduct if the patentee withheld material information from the PTO with intent to 

mislead or deceive the PTO into allowing the claims. LaBounty Mfg., Inc. v. Us. Int'l Trade 

Comm 'n, 958 F.2d 1066, 1070-1074 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("LaBounty"). Both materiality and intent 

must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Id When inequitable conduct occurs in 

relation to one or more claims of a patent, the entire patent is unenforceable. Kingsdown Med 

Consultants, Ltd v. Hollister, Inc., 863 F.2d 867,877 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (en banc). 

- 155 -


"The materiality of information withheld during prosecution may be judged by the 

'reasonable examiner' standard." McKesson Information Solutions, Inc. v. Bridge Medical, Inc., 

487 F.3d 897, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("Materiality ... embraces any information that a reasonable 

examiner would substantially likely consider important in deciding whether to allow an 

application to issue as a patent."). However, a patentee need not disclose material information 

that is merely cumulative of other information already before the examiner. Baxter Int 'I, Inc. v. 

McGaw, Inc., 149 F.3d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 37 C.F.R. 1.56(b). 

Generally, when withheld information is highly material, a lower showing of deceptive 

intent will be sufficient to establish inequitable conduct. American Hoist and Derrick Co. v. 

Sowa and Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d 1350, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (America Hoist). Moreover, n[d]irect 

evidence of intent or proof of deliberate scheming is rarely available in instances of inequitable 

conduct, but intent may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances." Critikon, Inc. v. 

Becton Dickinson Vascular Access, Inc., 120 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Once the 

materiality of the withheld information and the patentee's intent to mislead have been established, 

the administrative law judge "must weigh them to determine whether the equities warrant a 

conclusion that inequitable conduct occurred." Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Rhone-Poulenc 

Rorer, Inc., 326 F.3d 1226, 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 

1172, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). 

"Because the effective filing date of each claim in a patent application determines which 

references are available as prior art for purposes of §§ 102 and 103, information regarding the 

effective filing date is of the utmost importance to an examiner." Li Second Family Ltd 

Partnership v. Toshiba Corp., 231 F.3d 1373, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir 2000) (applicant 

misrepresentation relating to benefit of earlier filing date is highly material.). "The affirmative 

- 156 -


act of submitting an affidavit must be construed as having been intended to be relied upon." 

Refac Int'l Ltd. v. Lotus Dev. Corp., 81 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Further, one cannot 

excuse a misleading affidavit on the grounds of being cumulative. Id. "Affidavits are inherently 

material." Id. "Intent is often inferred from surrounding circumstances when a material 

misrepresentation is shown"; however, such "an inference is not required in every case, even 

when the misrepresentation is in affidavit form." Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 

1048 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 

MPS and ASUS defend against Complainant's infringement claims by asserting the 

defense of inequitable conduct on the part of Dr. Lin, the applicant for the '382 patent. (RBr. at 

129-35.) They argue, in support of this defense, that Dr. Lin made material misrepresentations, 

false statements, and intentional omissions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office 

("PTO"). They further contend that Dr. Lin hid references from the PTO by overwhelming the 

examiner with voluminous submissions and withholding material prior art information, with 

deceptive intent. (Id.) Because of these allegations, these respondents advocate that no violation 

of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 should be found. (Id.) 

1. Alleged inequitable conduct involving Declaration of Dr. Lin. 

MPS and ASUS first argue that Dr. Lin, during the prosecution of the '382 patent, 

submitted to the PTO a false declaration. ("Declaration of Prior Invention in the United States to 

Overcome Cited Patent"-RX-14.) That declaration reads, in part, as follows: 

The declaration made hereof is to establish a conception of the invention 

in this Application in the United States, at a date prior to January 22, 1999 .... 

The present invention was conceived at least as early as February 18, 1998. 

- 157 -


(RX-14 at 02ITC 001445-46.) They say that this element of Dr. Lin's declaration is materially 

false because it purports that certain computer schematics appended to the declaration 

corroborate his claim that he conceived the '382 invention at least as early as February 18, 1998, 

because the schematics, which were created by a software program called SPice 46 , also 

automatically inserted the date that they were created, "Feb., 18, 1998 [sic]." (RBr. at 131.) 

They argue, further, that Dr. Lin admitted during the hearing that his former federal court trial 

testimony, some of which was also appended to the declaration, was erroneous with respect to 

the assertion that the date of the schematics was automatically inserted by PSpice program. (Id.) 

Staff's position on this point is that, although Dr. Lin testified that he had inadvertently 

erred in prior testimony by saying the date in question was computer-generated, he testified that 

he had, in fact, created the schematics in February 1998 and, further, said he had no idea why his 

cross-examination testimony in prior litigation was not tendered to the PTO. (SBr. at 86.) It is 

Staff's conclusion that MPS and ASUS have not produced clear and convincing evidence that Dr. 

Lin's declaration to the PTO was intentionally misleading. (Id.) 

Dr. Lin acknowledged at the hearing that during the course of his former federal court 

trial testimony he had erroneously said that the computer program he had been using 

automatically inserted the date of creation of the schematics, whereas he, himself, must have 

inserted the "Feb., 18, 1998" date, although he does not have an independent recollection of 

doing so. (Tr. 550-552, 707-08, and 801.) Therefore, to the extent that Dr. Lin's declaration to 

the PTO can reasonably be read to say that the SPice program automatically inserted the date of 

creation of the schematics, it would constitute false information. 

46 At various times in the hearing in this investigation this software has been alternatively referred to as SPICE or 

PSpice. 

- 158 -


However, the extracted portions ofthe testimony of Dr. Lin that are attached to his 

declaration to the patent examiner do not include any direct statements by Dr. Lin that the 

computer program that he used to produce the schematics automatically inserted the date. They 

simply mention that the schematics include the date they were created, that being February 18, 

1998. Although Dr. Lin has admitted that he did testifY in prior federal court trials that the 

PSpice program automatically inserted the February 18, 1998 date, that portion of his testimony 

is not included in the extracts of testimony that are appended to his declaration to the patent 

examiner. MPS and ASUS argue, however, that "02 Micro indicated the diagrams in Exhibit A 

[appended to Dr. Lin's declaration] were automatically dated." (RBr. at 131.) For this assertion, 

MPS and ASUS cite to IX-2, at 02ITC 014759, which is a portion of a transcript of a closing 

argument of counsel for 02 Micro in one of the cases in which Dr. Lin testified, wherein the 

attorney, quoting a witness other than Dr. Lin, states that there is corroborating evidence for Dr. 

Lin's testimony in the form of computer dating in February 1998. This statement of counsel 

during the course of making a closing argument to a jury does not disclose what the witness 

specifically said about that subject, and is too remote, indefinite, and speculative to justifY an 

inference that it was intentionally and materially false and misleading. 

Dr. Lin admitted during the hearing that he had been wrong in testifying previously that 

the PSpice program automatically inserted the date; and he testified that he must have entered the 

date himself. (Tr. at 550-552, 707-08, and 801 (Lin).) However, Complainants have not 

provided sufficient evidence that warrants the conclusion that February 18, 1998 is a reliable 

date for establishing conception of the '382 invention. All that Dr. Lin is able to say with respect 

to that issue is that he has never purposely changed a date on a document. (Tr. at 551 (Lin).) 

That does not explain how he came to enter the February 1998 date in the schematics he 

- 159 -


produced on June 24, 1999. He did not precisely testify to the source of the "Feb., 18, 1998" 

date that appears in the schematic produced in June 1999: whether he had strictly relied on 

memory or had referred to some source, and if so, what that source was and when it originated. 

Thus there are infirmities in Dr. Lin's account of what he considers corroborating evidence in the 

form of the schematics bearing the "Feb., 18, 1998 date. 

Nevertheless, Dr. Lin's declaration to the patent examiner is consistent with his testimony 

at the hearing, insofar as he asserts that he conceived his invention and produced schematics 

demonstrating his invention on February 18, 1998. The fact that the Administrative Law Judge 

concludes that evidence, independent of Dr. Lin's testimony, is not suffIcient to corroborate his 

claim that he fully conceived his invention at least as early as February 18, 1998, does not mean 

that his testimony in that respect is false. Furthermore, it is not enough for purposes of 

establishing inequitable conduct, simply to demonstrate that false or misleading information was 

given to the PTO. Clear and convincing evidence must show that the information was materially 

false and made with intent to deceive the examiner. Star Scientific, Inc. v. R. J Reynolds 

Tobacco Co., 537 F. 3d 1357, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2008.) 

Complainants counter MPS and ASUS's inequitable conduct defense by arguing that 

there is no evidence that the schematics in question were created after February 18, 1998 or that 

they were backdated. (CBr. at 134.) Although this is not quite accurate, inasmuch as the 

evidence does show that the schematics in question, the ones that are in evidence in this 

investigation, were actually produced in June 1999 (Tr. at 554-55, 702-03), to the extent that 

there is no evidence that refutes Dr. Lin's testimony that the schematics mirror what he had 

created on February 18, 1998, Complainants are correct. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that, 

- 160-


because Dr. Lin was wrong about the computer program having automatically inserted a date, he 

intentionally made a false statement to the patent examiner. 

MPS and ASUS also argue that Dr. Lin's declaration was materially false because none 

of the diagrams 47 that contain the "Feb., 18, 1998 [sic]" date showed or described every element 

of the invention as claimed on October 10,2006, when Dr. Lin's declaration was submitted to 

the PTO. (RBr. at 131.) Complainants respond that, insofar as the schematics do not include 

every item involved in the '382 patent claims, that is self-evident from the face of the documents, 

and thus Dr. Lin's cross-examination testimony would not have assisted the patent examiner. 

(CRBr. at 70.) 

MPS and ASUS argue that Dr. Lin's declaration to the patent examiner also failed to 

include portions of his cross-examination testimony from one the federal court trials wherein, 

they say, he admitted that his schematics, copies of which were attached to his declaration, do 

not show a feedback signal line, a timeout signal line to provide a delay, or an overvoltage 

protection line, all of which were limitations in the pending claims at the time Dr. Lin's 

declaration was submitted. (RBr. at 132.) Complainants counter that by saying that the 

transcript of Dr. Lin's testimony shows that he testified that, in fact, the features of his invention 

are contained in the schematics. (CBr. at 134, citing RX-25 at 02ITC 042010-11.) 

"While inequitable conduct includes affirmative misrepresentations of material facts, it 

also arises when the patentee fails to disclose material information to the PTO." Ferring B. V 

andAventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 437 F. 3d 1181, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 

2006). "The inequitable conduct analysis is performed in two steps comprising 'first, a 

determination of whether the withheld reference meets a threshold level of materiality and intent 

47 The diagrams are also described as schematics, and for the sake of consistency they shall be referred to by that 

word herein. 

- 161 -


to mislead, and second, a weighing of the materiality and intent in light of all the circumstances 

to determine whether the applicant's conduct is so culpable that the patent should be held 

unenforceable.'" Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F. 3d 1358, 1362-63 (Fed. 

Cir.2003). 

The cross-examination testimony of Dr. Lin is equivocal insofar as whether it undermines 

the schematics attached to Dr. Lin's declaration. "Given the ease with which a relatively routine 

act of patent prosecution can be portrayed as intended to mislead or deceive, clear and 

convincing evidence of conduct sufficient to support an inference of culpable intent is required." 

Northern Telecom v. Datapoint Corp., 908 F. 2d 931, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1990). That the schematics 

in question reveal some, but not all, of the features of the invention is evident from an 

examination of them in relation to the claims included in the patent application. Dr. Lin asserted 

during his cross-examination that all of the concepts of his invention are included in the 

schematics that were later appended to his declaration to the patent examiner during the 

prosecution of the '382 patent. (RX-25 at 02ITC 042010-11.) Although an argument can be 

made that Dr. Lin's cross-examination testimony could conceivably be construed in a way that 

undermines the proposition that the schematics depict all of the elements of the '382 invention, 

once again, what is disclosed in the schematics is self-revelatory, and Dr. Lin's commentary does 

not alter what is, and what is not, contained within them. Therefore, the Administrative Law 

Judge concludes that the failure to provide to the PTO the referenced cross-examination 

testimony of Dr. Lin does not meet the threshold of materiality and intent to mislead. 

For these reasons, it is concluded that with respect to Dr. Lin's declaration to the patent 

examiner and the inclusion and exclusion of certain testimony in conjunction therewith, the 

- 162-


evidence is not clear and convincing that there was misconduct of such degree as warrants 

setting aside the patent. 

2. Alleged inequitable conduct by burying references of prior art among 

numerous records. 

MPS and ASUS also argue that the Complainants were guilty of inequitable conduct 

before the PTO because they overwhelmed the patent examiner with over 500 documents, 

inclusive of prior art references comprising thousands of pages of information, thereby hiding by 

"burying" some of the important information contained within, including certain prior art 

references: Kawabata, Henry, ML4878. (RBr. at 132-33.) Complainants deny the accusation, 

pointing out that Kawabata and the Henry references are contained within the first few pages of 

the first Information Disclosure Statement ("IDS") submitted to the PTO on September 7,2004 

(CBr. at 133; JX-2 at 02ITC 000002-6, 02ITC 000032-44, and 02ITC 016576-611), and that 

the other two specific references mentioned by MPS and ASUS were disclosed in the first few 

pages of 02 Micro's IDS dated November 20,2006 and were also specifically called out in an 

accompanying transmittal letter to the PTO. (CBr. 133; JX-2 at 02ITC 002072-80.) They also 

note that all of those references were initialed by the patent examiner, thus signifying the fact 

that he had reviewed and considered them. (CBr. 133 and JX-2 at 02ITC 000064, 000071-80 

015778-79, and 015785-94.) However, MPS and ASUS, in turn, reply that the examiner also 

stated: "By initializing each of the cited references on the accompanying 1449 forms, the 

examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and merely indicating 

that only a cursory review has been made of the cited references." (RRBr. at 70; JX-2 at 02ITC 

015743-44.) They say that following the examiner's comments, 02 Micro did nothing to assist 

him in sorting through the material. (RRBr. at 71.) 

- 163 -


In reply to these remarks, Complainants point to the fact that the examiner's quoted 

comments specifically referred back to an October 9,2007 IDS submitted by 02 Micro which 

did not relate to Kawabata, ReillY, or ML4878. (CRBr. at 68-69.) They repeat their initial 

argument that three of the references specifically pointed to by respondents as having been 

buried were disclosed in the first few pages of the first IDS that was submitted on September 7, 

2004, and that the other two references mentioned by respondents were disclosed in the first few 

page of the IDS dated November 20, 2006-plus they were specifically called out in an 

accompanying transmittal letter to the PTO. (CRBr. at 68.) 

Staff s position on this point of contention is that three of the references that MPS and 

ASUS complain were buried were submitted with the initial application and the other two were 

identified before any of the alleged burying occurred. (SBr. at 87.) Staff does not believe that 

there is clear and convincing evidence that the alleged burying rose to the level of inequitable 

conduct. (Id.) 

The quoted comments of the examiner in his Detailed Action specifically referred to the 

IDS filed on October 9,2007. (JX-2 at 02ITC 015743.) The examiner referred to cited 

references in the accompanying 1449 forms and said he was acknowledging submission of the 

cited references and merely acknowledging a cursory review of them by him. (Id.) The 

references that MPS and ASUS argue were buried were submitted earlier and were not the 

express subject of the examiner's comments. Three of the references were among the first pages 

of the September 7, 2004 submission and the other two references were among the first few 

pages of the IDS of November 20,2006, and were also called out in an accompanying transmittal 

letter. It cannot be concluded on the basis of the October 7, 2007 action and the examiner's 

comments relevant thereto that the references identified by MPS and ASUS were buried or 

- 164-


secreted or that there was intent by 02 Micro to conceal them from the attention of the examiner. 

Absent proof to the contrary, it is assumed that the examiner did consider the references. Molins 

PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F. 3d 1172, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1995). "It is presumed that public officials 

do their assigned jobs." Northern Telecom v. Datapoint Corp:, 908 F. 2d 931, 939 (Fed. Cir. 

1990). For these reasons, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the evidence is not clear 

and convincing that 02 Micro's conduct insofar as its submission of materials to the PTO was 

intentionally misleading or otherwise constituted inequitable conduct. 

3. Alleged inequitable conduct by withholding a relevant court order in 

other litigation. 

MPS and ASUS accuse 02 Micro of inequitable conduct by failing to inform the PTO of 

an order entered by a federal court judge on October 30, 2007 denying a motion of 02 Micro for 

ajudgment as a matter oflaw that a certain patent (,722), which is a predecessor to the '382 

patent, was not invalid by virtue of the on-sale bar of35 U.S.C. § 102 (b). (RBr. at 133-34.) 

They argue that in a former federal court lawsuit ajury rendered a verdict that the '722 patent 

was invalid based on an on-sale bar and was obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,932,129 

(Henry). Following the verdict, 02 Micro sought and was denied judgment as a matter oflaw. 

(Id) MPS and ASUS say that the on-sale bar invalidating the '722 patent was based on an 

earlier offer for sale ofMPS's MPI010 products, and therefore was material and relevant to the 

validity of the '382 patent. (Id.) They contend that the order should have been disclosed to the 

PTO and its withholding by 02 Micro was done with deceptive intent. (Id.) 

02 Micro responds that the subject order was not material because it was cumulative and 

duplicative of information contained in other litigation documents that it disclosed to the PTO, 

including the MPIOIO datasheets, the joint pretrial conference statement in the case referred to, 

- 165 -


and the parties' briefs on the motions for judgment as a matter oflaw. (CBr. at 135.) 02 Micro 

also notes that MPS and ASUS did not raise an on-sale bar at the hearing in this Investigation 

and that the on-sale bar which they rely on here involved a different patent with different claims 

that do not include, for example, the timer circuit limitation. (Jd.) 

MPS and ASUS in their reply to 02 Micro argue that the judge's order explained why the 

jury's verdict was correct and supported the evidence produced at the trial. They say that this 

provided facts and context with which to evaluate the significance and materiality of the MP 1 010 

and Henry prior reference, and none of the other litigation documents submitted to the PTO were 

as explicit as the order. (RRBr. at 72.) 

Staff says that the jury verdict in the federal court case was disclosed to the PTO, citing 

JX-l at 6. (SBr. at 87.) Staff does not believe that the failure to submit the order of the judge 

cited by MPS and ASUS constitutes clear and convincing evidence of inequitable conduct on the 

part of 02 Micro. (Jd.) 

"Information is 'material' when there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable 

examiner would have considered the information important in deciding whether to allow the 

application to issue as a patent." Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F. 3d 1172, 1179 (Fed. Cir. 

1995). The order in question, although it may serve to add emphasis to the jury's verdict, does 

not disclose information that is materially new, different, or greater than what had already been 

disclosed to the PTO. It is cumulative of information revealed in the jury's verdict, the points of 

which have been disclosed to the PTO. (JX -1 at 6.) The fact that the judge evidenced by the 

order that he or she was not in disagreement with the jury does not impart greater weight or 

content to the jury's verdict. The story is the same after the judge's order as it was before the 

judge's order. It cannot be fairly concluded that there is a substantial likelihood that had the 

- 166 -


examiner reviewed the order in question he would not have decided other than he did in allowing 

the '382 patent to issue. 

Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the failure by 02 Micro to 

submit to the PTO the order in question was not an intentional nondisclosure of a material fact 

that constitutes inequitable conduct. 

4. Alleged inequitable conduct by withholding documents describing the 

MPIOll prior art. 

MPS and ASUS accuse 02 Micro of failing to disclose to the PTO an October 2, 1998 

reference circuit for their MPI0ll, which includes a capacitor divider. They argue that this 

reference is highly material and relevant to the validity of the '382 patent. (RBr. at 135.) 

02 Micro responds that the October 2, 1998 reference circuit 48 is merely cumulative of 

other documents that were disclosed to the patent examiner involving the MPlOlO. For example, 

they say, an MPI0I0 datasheet was disclosed to the PTO in 02 Micro's November 20,2006 IDS 

and was also specifically called out in an accompanying transmittal letter. (CBr. at 136; JX-2 at 

02ITC 037275, 000883-39, 001186-92, 000890-95, 037284, 00172 5-28, 015792, 001345, and 

001347). 

MPS and ASUS, however, reply that the October 2, 1998 reference circuit is the earliest 

dated MPlOil document that includes the claimed capacitor divider in the '382 patent and, 

therefore, it is not cumulative. (RRBr. at 73.) 

Staff says that because 02 Micro did submit various other data sheets concerning the 

MP 1 010 and Dr. Lin testified that he relied on counsel to submit all relevant documents. Staff 

48 02 Micro and Staff refer to this as MP 1 010, instead of MP 1011. According to the evidence, the MP 10 11 and the 

MP 1 0 1 0 are one and the same, the numbering changes coming about fIrst as a result of a passage of time, followed 

by a reversion to the original number for sentimental reasons. (Tr. at 1843-47 (Moyer).) 

- 167-


further argues that it is not appropriate to infer intent to deceive in light of these facts. (SBr. at 

88.) 

Although it appears to be true that the MPI0ll reference circuit (JX-169 at Mono-ITC- 

00111439), dated October 2, 1998, is the earliest MP1011 document that depicts a "capacitor 

divider," there was an MP1010 Preliminary Data Sheet submitted to the PTO on September 6, 

2005, dated February 1999, which signifies that it is second version ("V.2"), that includes a 

reference circuit that shows a capacitor divider. (JX-2 at 02ITC 000893.) Therefore, when MPS 

and ASUS say that the other documents describing the MPI0ll that were disclosed to the PTO 

are significantly later than the October 2, 1998 (RRBr. at 73), they are talking about a difference 

of four months, and while that can be a significant amount of time, depending on the 

circumstances, the arguments they present do not explain in what way this time difference is 

significant so as to constitute a material omission or deception with respect to the MP 1 0 11 and 

the issuance of the '382 patent. 

Thus, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the October 2, 1998 MPI0ll 

reference is cumulative of other information submitted to the PTO and 02 Micro's failure to 

submit it was not intentionally deceptive. 

B. Unclean Hands. 

Based on the same set of facts outlined above with respect to inequitable conduct, 

Respondents MPS and ASUS argue that 02 Micro's infringement claims should be dismissed 

based on unclean hands, citing Aptix Corp. v. Quickturn Design Systems, Inc., 269 F.3d 1369 

(Fed. Cir. 2001) (Aptix). (RBr. at 129-130.) In Aptix, the Federal Circuit upheld a trial court's 

inherent power to sanction a party's bad faith conduct, contempt, or unclean hands arising in 

- 168 -


front of the trial court. Aptix, 269 F.3d at 1378 (finding that this inherent power to sanction a 

party through, e.g., dismissal, for litigation misconduct does not extend to the patent property 

right and cannot render a patent unenforceable). Thus the Federal Circuit distinguishes between 

misconduct before the trial court (litigation misconduct/unclean hands) and in front of the PTO 

for patent procurement (inequitable conduct). Id; Winbond Electronics Corp. v. International 

Trade Comm'n, 262 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("inequitable conduct in patent 

procurement derives from the equitable doctrine of unclean hands"). However, the International 

Trade Commission is not a trial court, and the Administrative Law Judge does not share the same 

inherent contempt powers 49 noted in Aptix. Indeed, MPS and ASUS point to no precedent 

showing that such a litigation misconduct/unclean hands defense has successfully been alleged in 

a Section 337 patent investigation. Furthermore, MPS and ASUS fail to cite to any evidence, let 

alone clear and convincing evidence,50 to support the conclusory statement that "02 Micro has 

knowingly submitted this evidence of conception into these proceedings, purporting to rely upon 

it in order to overcome certain material prior art references." (Id at 135.) "[U]nsworn attorney 

argument is not evidence." Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 

1332 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal formatting omitted). 

Furthermore, as MPS and ASUS have not adduced any evidence separate and apart from 

that which supports their claim that 02 Micro's actions constitute inequitable conduct, for the 

same reasons previously stated for concluding that the evidence is not clear and convincing that 

02 Micro's actions as alleged by MPS and ASUS constitutes inequitable conduct, the 

49 The Commission's Rules do provide for sanctions in the event of misconduct, however, these rules have not been 

invoked by respondents. See e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 21O.4(d), 210.25. The Administrative Law Judge declines to invoke 

them sua sponte. 

50 In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, 483 F.3d 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 

- 169-


Administrative Law Judge concludes the evidence is not clear and convincing that 02 Micro has 

acted with unclean hands in the prosecution of its claims involving the '382 patent. 

VII. WAIVER OR WITHDRAWAL OF RESPONDENTS' OTHER DEFENSES. 

Respondents' responses to the Complaint contain a number of defenses and arguments 

that were not raised in Respondents' pre-hearing briefing, discussed at the hearing, or raised in 

post-hearing briefing ("non-asserted defenses"). The non-asserted defenses include patent 

misuse, failure to state a claim, lack of unfair act, relief not in public interest, equitable estoppel, 

and waiver. (See Response of Microsemi Corporation to the Complaint and Notice of 

Investigation, dated February 27, 2009, at 13-18; Respondent Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.'s 

Response to the Notice of Investigation and the Complaint of Complainants 02 Micro 

International Limited and 02 Micro Inc., dated February 27,2009, at 33; Respondent ASUSTeK 

Computer Inc. and ASUSTeK Computer International America's Responses to the Notice of 

Investigation and the Complaint of Complainants 02 Micro International Limited and 02 Micro 

Inc., dated February 27,2009, at 30-31.) Under Ground Rules 8.2 and 11.1, these non-asserted 

defenses and arguments are deemed abandoned or withdrawn. (See Order No.2, Ground Rules 

8.2, 11.1.) 

VIII. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY 

As stated in the Notice ofInvestigation, a determination must be made as to whether an 

industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of Section 337. Section 337 

declares unlawful the importation, the sale for importation or the sale in the United States after 

importation of articles that infringe a valid and enforceable U.S. patent "only if an industry in the 

United States, relating to articles protected by the patent ... concerned, exists or is in the process 

- 170-


of being established." 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2); Certain Ammonium Octamolybdate Isomers, Inv. 

No. 337-TA-477, Comm'n Op. at 55 (U.S.LT.C., Jan. 2004) ("Certain Isomers"). The domestic 

industry requirement consists of both an economic prong (i.e., the activities of, or investment in, 

a domestic industry) and a technical prong (i.e., whether complainant practices its own patents). 

Certain Isomers, at 55. The complainant bears the burden of proving the existence ofa domestic 

industry. Certain Methods of Making Carbonated Candy Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-292, 

Comm'n Op. at 34-35, Pub. No. 2390 (U.S.LT.C., June 1991). 

Thus, in this Investigation 02 Micro must show that it satisfies both the technical and 

economic prongs of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '382 patent. The 

Administrative Law Judge has already found that 02 Micro has satisfied the economic domestic 

industry requirement with respect to the '382 patent based on 02 Micro's investments in the 

production of the OZ964 inverter circuit by X-FAB, and the direct investments in research and 

development and product support, including testing, service and repair, for the OZ960 and 

OZ964 CCFL inverter circuits. (Order No. 30.) However, as explained below, it is found that 

the technical domestic industry requirement is not satisfied with respect to the '382 patent. 

A. Technical Analysis 

A complainant in a patent-based Section 337 investigation must demonstrate that it is 

practicing or exploiting the patents at issue. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2) and (3); Certain 

Microsphere Adhesives, Process for Making Same, and Products Containing Same, Including 

Selj-StickRepositionable Notes, Inv. No. 337-TA-366, Comm'n Op. at 8, Pub. No. 2949 

(U.S.LT.C., January 16, 1996). "In order to satisfY the technical prong of the domestic industry 

requirement, it is sufficient to show that the domestic industry practices any claim of that patent, 

not necessarily an asserted claim ofthat patent." Certain Isomers, supra, at 55. Fulfillment of 

- 171 -


the "technical prong" of the domestic industry requirement is not determined by a rigid formula 

but rather by the articles of commerce and the realities of the marketplace. Certain Diltiazem 

Hydrochloride and Diltiazem Preparations, Inv. No. 337-TA-349, Initial Determination at 139, 

Pub. No. 2902 (U.S.I.T.C., June 1995) (unreviewed in relevant part); Certain Double-Sided 

Floppy Disk Drives and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-215, Views of the Comm'n, 

Additional Views of Chairwoman Stem on Domestic Industry and Injury at 22, 25, Pub. No. 

1860 (U.S.I.T.C., May 1986). 

The test for claim coverage for the purposes of the technical prong of the domestic 

industry requirement is the same as that for infringement. Certain Doxorubicin and 

Preparations Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-300, Initial Determination at 109, 1990 WL 

710463 (U.S.I.T.C., May 21, 1990), aff'd, Views of the Commission at 22 (October 31, 1990). 

"First, the claims of the patent are construed. Second, the complainant's article or process is 

examined to determine whether it falls within the scope of the claims." Id. The technical prong 

of the domestic industry can be satisfied either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 

Certain Dynamic Sequential Gradient Devices and Component Parts Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA- 

335, Initial Determination at 44, Pub. No. 2575 (U.S.I.T.C., November 1992). 

'382 Patent. 

02 Micro argues that its OZ960 and OZ964 circuits (collectively, the 02 Products) 

practice independent claims 1 and 8 of the '382 patent. (CBr. at 80.) Staff agrees. (SBr. at 54- 

59.) Respondents' chief argument is that the 02 Products do not meet the timer circuit limitation 

of the claims. (RBr. at 53-55; MBr. at 79-80.) 

Based on the undisputed evidence, the Administrative Law Judge finds that DC to AC 

cold cathode fluorescent lamp inverter circuits containing the 02 Products have a step-up 

- 172-


transformer with a primary winding and a secondary winding for providing increased voltage to 

a cold cathode fluorescent lamp; a first switch coupled to said step-up transformer for selectively 

allowing said step-up transformer to receive DC voltage of a first polarity; a second switch 

coupled to said step-up transformer for selectively allowing said step-up transformer to receive 

DC voltage of a second polarity; a capacitor divider electrically coupled to said cold cathode 

fluorescent lamp for providing a first voltage signal representing a voltage across said cold 

cathode fluorescent lamp; a first feedback signal line coupled to said capacitor divider for 


said cold cathode fluorescent lamp; and a protection circuit coupled to a timer circuit, said first 

switch and said second switch for shutting down said first switch and said second switch after 

said predetermined duration, such that the preamble and elements 'a' through 'e' and 'g' of claim 

1 ofthe '382 patent are met. (Tr. at 1623:7-1632:10 (Flasck); JX-168C; CX-29C; CX-30C; CFF 

IILD.ll (undisputed); CFF III.D.l3-22 (undisputed); CFF III.D.24-28 (undisputed); CFF 

IILD.30-33 (undisputed); CFF III.D.35-36 (undisputed); CFF IILD.38 (undisputed); CFF 

IILD.40-42 (undisputed); CFF IILD.44 (undisputed); CFF III.D.46 (undisputed); CFF IILD.48- 

49 (undisputed); CFF IILD.51-57 (undisputed); SFF 184-189 (undisputed); SFF 191 (undisputed 

by 02 Micro and Microsemi; MPS and ASUS only object to the extent the protection circuit 

limitation discusses the timer circuit); RFF 6.1-6.10 (undisputed).) 

The Administrative Law Judge further finds that the 02 Products, when used in liquid 

crystal display units,51 have a liquid crystal display panel; a cold cathode fluorescent lamp for 

51 It is undisputed that: 

Circuits containing the OZ960 and OZ964 are incorporated into liquid crystal display units. (JX- 

168C, at p. 1; CX-29C, at 37960). 

Liquid crystal display units incorporating the OZ960 and OZ964 satisfY the limitation of claim 8 

of the '382 patent calling for a liquid crystal display panel. (JX-168C, at p. 1; CX-29C, at 37960). 

- 173 -


illuminating said liquid crystal display panel; a step-up transformer with a primary winding and a 

secondary winding coupled to said cold cathode fluorescent lamp for providing increased voltage 

to said cold cathode fluorescent lamp; a first switch coupled to said step-up transformer for 

selectively allowing said step-up transformer to receive DC voltage of a first polarity; a second 

switch coupled to said step-up transformer for selectively allowing said step-up transformer to 

receive DC voltage of a second polarity; a capacitor divider electrically coupled to said cold 

cathode fluorescent lamp for providing a first voltage signal representing a voltage across said 

cold cathode fluorescent lamp; a first feedback signal line coupled to said capacitor divider for 


said cold cathode fluorescent lamp; and a protection circuit coupled to a timer circuit, said first 

switch and said second switch for shutting down said first switch and said second switch after 

said predetermined duration, such that the preamble, elements 'a' through 'g', and element 'i' of 

claim 8 of the '382 patent are met. (Tr. at 1623:7-1632:10 (Flasck); JX-168C; CX-29C; CX-30C; 

CFF IILD.ll (undisputed); CFF IILD.13-22 (undisputed); CFF III.D.24-28 (undisputed); CFF 

III.D.30-33 (undisputed); CFF III.D.35-36 (undisputed); CFF IILD.38 (undisputed); CFF 

IILDAO-42 (undisputed); CFF IILDA4 (undisputed); CFF IILDA6 (undisputed); CFF IILDA8- 

49 (undisputed); CFF IILD.51-57 (undisputed); SFF 184-189 (undisputed); SFF 191 (undisputed 

by 02 Micro and Microsemi; MPS and ASUS only object to the extent the protection circuit 

limitation discusses the timer circuit); SFF 192-195 (undisputed); RFF 6.1-6.10 (undisputed).) 

Liquid crystal display units incorporating the OZ960 and OZ964 satisfy the limitation of claim 8 

of the '382 patent calling for a cold cathode fluorescent lamp for illuminating said liquid crystal 

display panel. (JX-168C, at p. 1; CX-29C, at 37960). 

Liquid crystal display units containing the OZ960 and OZ964 satisfy the limitation of claim 8 of 

the '382 patent calling for the step-up transformer to be coupled to said cold cathode fluorescent 

lamp. (JX-168, at p. 1 & fig. 1; CX-29C, at 37960,37968). 

SFF 192-195 (undisputed). 

- 174 -


With respect to the disputed timer circuit limitation of claims 1 and 8, the record shows 

that the 02 Products do not have "a timer circuit coupled to said first feedback signal line for 

providing a time-out sequence of a predetermined duration when said first voltage signal exceeds 

a predetermined threshold for said predetermined duration."s2 The data sheet for the OZ964 

discloses that "[t]he controller provides open-lamp protection and over-voltage protection, while 

providing an appropriate response for either open-lamp ignition or removal of a lamp during 

normal operation. . .. { } (CX-29C at p.l. See also id. 

at p. 5, 7-8.) It further discloses that if the voltage reaches a predetermined threshold, { 

} The OZ960 datasheet contains similar disclosures. (JX-168C at p. 1, 7-8.) It 

is further undisputed that for the 02 Products- 

{ 

52 As discussed above, the language "a timer circuit ... for providing a time-out sequence of a predetermined 

duration" should mean "a circuit that limits the time for an overvoltage condition to persist." The language "when 

said first voltage signal exceeds a predetermined threshold for said predetermined duration" should mean "when a 

first voltage signal continually exceeds a predetermined threshold for a predetermined duration." 

- 175-


} The above evidence establishes for 

the 02 Products that after the voltage signal exceeds a predetermined threshold of { } during 

strike mode, a capacitor charges. The time that it takes for the capacitor to charge determines the 

period before the chip shuts down. However, this evidence does not show whether the voltage 

signal continually exceeds { } while the capacitor is charging. For example, there is no 

mention of whether the capacitor would cease to charge if the voltage signal were to drop below 

{ } On the contrary, the OZ964 data sheet suggests that, during start up mode, it is only 

after { } that the controller will shut down after { } (CX- 

29C at p. 8.) 

Mr. Flasck's testimony, which was based on his review of the 02 Product data sheets and 

discussions with Dr. Lin, provides little clarification. He testified that it is his opinion that the 

02 Products meet all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8, yet nowhere does he affirmatively state, 

or point to any specific evidence that shows, that the first voltage signal continually exceeds the 

predetermined threshold { } while the capacitor timer charges. (Tr. at 1623:7-1632:10 

(Flasck).) Respondents call into question Mr. Flasck's underlying analysis of the 02 Products, 

and also point to testimony by Dr. Lin that suggests that there is no data to show that { 

- 176-


} In particular, the following testimony by Dr. Lin creates some doubt as to 

whether the timer circuit limitations of claims 1 and 8 are met: 

{ 

53 As discussed above with respect to claim construction, there is no intimation anywhere in the intrinsic evidence 

for the '382 patent that the voltage must at all times and in all ways exceed the predetermined threshold. For 

example, as noted above with respect to the analysis of the MPS Products, it is the peak voltage of an AC voltage 

signal must exceed, for an extent of time that is predetermined, a certain threshold. 

- 177-

Lin repeatedly testified that he did not look at { 


} Because Dr. 

} 02 Micro's argument that "Mr. Flasck relied on 

conversations with Dr. Lin" in addition to the data sheets, with respect to this issue, is not 

supported by the record. (CRBr. at 38.) 

Staff counters that there is no evidence to demonstrate that '''squegging' occurs or that 

the voltage signal is irregular such that the constant current source charges the capacitor only 

part of the time." It is true that Respondents presented no such evidence. However, 02 Micro 

has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that one of the 02 Products meets 

all the limitations of at least one claim ofthe '382 patent--including the timer circuit limitation. 

Certain Isomers, supra, at 55. An absence of evidence to the contrary is not enough to show that 

the claim limitation at issue here is indeed met. 

Based on the above, the Administrative Law Judge finds that 02 Micro has failed to 

demonstrate that the 02 Products meet the timer circuit limitations of claims 1 and 8 of the '382 

patent. Therefore the Administrative Law Judge finds that the 02 Products do not practice 

claims 1 and 8 of the '382 patent. Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge finds that 02 

Micro has not satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to 

the '382 patent. 

B. Economic Analysis. 

The economic prong of the domestic industry requirement is defined in subsection 

337(a)(3) as follows: 

(3) For purposes of paragraph (2), an industry in the United States shall be 

considered to exist if there is in the United States, with respect to the articles 

protected by the patent, copyright, trademark or mask work concerned 

- 178 -


(A) Significant investment in plant and equipment; 

(B) Significant employment of labor or capital; or 

(C) Substantial investment in its exploitation, including 

engineering, research and development, or licensing. 

19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3). The economic prong of the domestic industry requirement is satisfied 

by meeting the criteria of anyone of the three factors listed. 

'382 Patent. 

The Administrative Law Judge previously found that 02 Micro satisfied the economic 

domestic industry requirement with respect to the '382 patent. (Order No. 30.) However, it 

should be noted as it was found above that the OZ960 and OZ964 products do not practice the 

'382 patent because they do not meet the timer circuit element of claims 1 and 8, this previous 

finding with respect to economic domestic industry must be reversed. 

IX. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. The Commission has personal jurisdiction over the parties, subject-matter jurisdiction, 

and in rem jurisdiction over the accused MPS Products, ASUS Products and 

Microsemi Products. 

2. The importation or sale requirement of Section 337 is satisfied. 

3. None of the accused MPS Products listed in Section I.E. literally infringe asserted 

claims 1,2,4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14 of the '382 patent. 

4. None of the accused ASUS Products listed in Section I.E. literally infringe asserted 

claims 1,2,4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14 of the '382 patent. 

5. The inverter modules in the LX1691 Group (identified in Section IV.D.) of the 

accused Microsemi Products that contain inverter controllers from the LX1691 

Family literally and directly infringe asserted claims 1 and 4 of the '382 patent. 

- 179-


6. The inverter modules in the LX1693 Group (identified in Section IV.D.) of the 

accused Microsemi Products that contain inverter controllers from the LX1693 

Family literally and directly infringe asserted claims 1,2 and 4 of the '382 patent. 

7. Microsemi has induced infringement of asserted claims 1,2,4,8 and 11 of the '382 

patent. 

8. Microsemi has not engaged in contributory infringement of the asserted claims of the 

'382 patent. 

9. The conception date for the '382 patent is July 22, 1999. 

10. The asserted claims 1,2,4, 7, 8,9, 11 and 14 of the '382 patent are not invalid under 

35 U.S.C. § 102 for anticipation. 

11. The asserted claims 1,2,4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14 of the '382 patent are not invalid under 

35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness. 

12. The asserted claims 1,2,4, 7, 8,9, 11 and 14 ofthe '382 patent are not invalid under 

35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written description. 

13. The asserted claims 1,2,4, 7, 8,9, 11 and 14 of the '382 patent are not invalid under 

35 U.S.C. § 112 for indefiniteness. 

14. The asserted claims 1,2,4, 7, 8,9, 11 and 14 of the '382 patent are not rendered 

unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. 

15. The asserted claims 1,2,4, 7, 8,9, 11 and 14 of the '382 patent are not rendered 

unenforceable due to unclean hands. 

16. A domestic industry does not exist, as required by Section 337. 

17. With respect to Respondent MPS, it has been established that no violation exists of 

Section 337 for claims 1,2,4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14 of the '382 patent. 

- 180-


18. With respect to Respondent ASUS, it has been established that no violation exists of 

Section 337 for claims 1,2,4, 7,8,9, 11 and 14 of the '382 patent. 

19. With respect to Respondent Microsemi, it has been established that no violation 

exists of Section 337 for claims 1,2,4,8,9, and 11 ofthe '382 patent. 54 

X. INITIAL DETERMINATION AND ORDER 

Based on the foregoing, it is the INITIAL DETERMINATION ("ID") of this 

Administrative Law Judge that with respect to Respondent MPS, no violation of Section 337 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, has occurred in the importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain cold cathode 

fluorescent lamp inverter circuits or products containing same by reason of infringement of one 

or more of claims 1,2,4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14 of United States Patent No. 7,417,382. 

The Administrative Law Judge further determines that with respect to Respondent ASUS 

that no violation of Section 337 ofthe Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, has occurred in the 

importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States 

after importation of certain cold cathode fluorescent lamp inverter circuits or products containing 

same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1,2,4,7,8,9,11 and 14 of United 

States Patent No. 7,417,382. 

The Administrative Law Judge further determines that with respect to Respondent 

Microsemi that no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, has occurred 

in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United 

States after importation of certain cold cathode fluorescent lamp inverter circuits or products 

54 Even though the Administrative Law Judge found that Microsemi has directly and indirectly infringed certain 

claims of the '382 patent, there can be no violation of Section 337 ifthere is no industry in the United States, 

relating to articles protected by the patent. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2). 

- 181 -


containing same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, and 11 of 

United States Patent No. 7,417,382. 

The Administrative Law Judge further determines that a domestic industry does not exist 

that practices U.S. Patent No. 7,417,382. 

Further, this ID, together with the record of the hearing in this Investigation consisting of: 

(1) the transcript of the hearing, with appropriate corrections as may hereafter be 

ordered, and 

(2) the exhibits received into evidence in this Investigation, as listed in the attached 

exhibit lists in Appendix C, 

are CERTIFIED to the Commission. In accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 210.39(c), all material 

found to be confidential by the undersigned under 19 C.F.R. § 210.5 is to be given in camera 

treatment. 

The Secretary shall serve a public version of this ID upon all parties of record and the 

confidential version upon counsel who are signatories to the Protective Order (Order No.1) 

issued in this Investigation, and upon the Commission Investigative Attorney. 

- 182-


RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION ON REMEDY AND BOND 

I. REMEDY AND BONDING 

The Commission's Rules provide that subsequent to an initial determination on the 

question of violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, the 

Administrative Law Judge shall issue a recommended determination containing findings of fact 

and recommendations concerning: (1) the appropriate remedy in the event that the Commission 

finds a violation of Section 337, and (2) the amount of bond to be posted by respondents during 

Presidential review of Commission action under Section 3370). See 19 C.F.R. § 2ID.42(a)(1)(ii). 

A. Applicable Law. 

The Commission may issue a remedial order excluding the goods of respondents found in 

violation of Section 337 (a limited exclusion order) or, if certain criteria are met, excluding all 

infringing goods regardless of the source (a general exclusion order). 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d); 

Certain Hydraulic Excavators and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-582, Comm'n Op., at 

15 (U.S.I.T.C., February 3, 2009) ("Certain Excavators"). Here, 02 Micro requests a limited 

exclusion order if it prevails in the Investigation. A limited exclusion order instructs the U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") to exclude from entry all articles that are covered by the 

patents at issue and that originate from a named respondent in the investigation. See 19 U.S.C. § 

1337(d). 

B. Remedy with Respect to the '382 Patent. 

As discussed above in the Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337, the 

Administrative Law Judge has found that no violation has occurred with Respondents Monolithic 

- 183 -


Power Systems Inc. ("MPS"), ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International 

(collectively, "AS US"), and Microsemi Corporation ("Microsemi"). Therefore, remedy with 

respect to the '382 patent is not warranted. In the event the Commission were to [md a violation 

of the '382 patent, the Administrative Law Judge's recommendation with respect to remedy 

follows. 

02 Micro requests that, if a violation is found, a limited exclusion order against 

Respondents be issued with respect to all articles that are covered by the '382 patent claims at 

issue and that originate from a named Respondent in this Investigation. (CBr. at 138.) 

Specifically 02 Micro seeks a limited exclusion order prohibiting from entry into the United 

States (i) all infringing CCFL inverter circuits made or imported by or on behalf of Respondents, 

and (ii) products, including notebook computers, LCD panels, and LCD televisions, made or 

imported by or on behalf of Respondents that contain Respondents' infringing CCFL inverter 

circuits. (Id.) Staff, MPS, ASUS, and Microsemi essentially agree, although MPS and ASUS 

request that the limited exclusion order be directed to the specific inverter circuits and products 

found to infringe the asserted claims of the '382 patent. (SBr. at 90; RBr. at 136-37; MBr. at 83- 

84.) Microsemi notes that any limited exclusion order should be tailored to only include those 

"current models of the accused Microsemi's CCFL inverter circuit chips and modules 

specifically found to infringe and found to be imported into the United States by or on behalf of 

Microsemi." (MBr. at 84.) 

The Administrative Law Judge agrees that if a violation is found, a limited exclusion 

order would be proper. The limited exclusion order should apply to Respondents and all of their 

affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, or other related business entities, or their successors 

- 184-


or assigns, and should apply to all of the accused MPS Products, ASUS Products and Microsemi 

Products that have been found to infringe the asserted claims of the '382 patent. 

II. CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

Section 337 provides that in addition to, or in lieu of, the issuance of an exclusion order, 

the Commission may issue a cease and desist order as a remedy for violation of Section 337. See 

19 U.S.C. § 1337(1)(1). The Commission generally issues a cease and desist order directed to a 

domestic respondent when there is a "commercially significant" amount of infringing, imported 

product in the United States that could be sold so as to undercut the remedy provided by an 

exclusion order. See Certain Crystalline Cefadroxil Monohydrate, Inv. No. 337-TA-293, 

Comm'n Op. on the Issue Under Review, and on Remedy, the Public Interest and Bonding at 37- 

42, Pub. No. 2391 (U.S.I.T.C., June 1991). Cease and desist orders have been declined when the 

record contains no evidence concerning infringing inventories in the United States. Certain 

Condensers, Parts Thereof and Products Containing Same, Including Air Conditioners for 

Automobiles, Inv. No. 337-TA-334, Comm'n Op. at 28 (U.S.I.T.C., Aug. 27, 1997). 

02 Micro argues that MPS, ASUS Computer International ("ACI"), and Microsemi 

"maintain commercially significant inventories of infringing products in the United States" 

warranting cease and desist orders. (CBr. at 138.) Staff agrees. (SBr. at 91; SRBr. at 50-51.) 

Respondents argue that 02 Micro has failed to show that they maintain commercially significant 

inventories. (MBr. at 85; RBr. at 135.) MPS and ASUS further argue that 02 Micro should not 

be permitted to attribute the domestic inventory ofMPS's distributor, Avnet, to MPS because 

there is no consignment arrangement between the two companies. (RRBr. at 74.) 

With respect to ACI, the record shows that ACI maintains an inventory of ASUS 

notebook computers and LCD monitors containing CCFL inverter controller or circuits, 

- 185 -


including accused products, in the United States. (SFF 313 (undisputed); CFF IV.B.l 

(undisputed); CFF IV.B.3 (undisputed).) ACI's inventory of products alleged to infringe the 

'382 patent includes 986 "AS N50V COT580012BG5/4GIUS" notebook computers, 2,205 "OE 

C90P WOCPU/WHOIWOMIUS" notebook computers; 2,907 "AS X83V 

COP8400/3BG5/4GIUS" notebook computers, 3,017 "AS VK222H BKl2MSINAlBB" LCD 

monitors, and 1,070 "AS VH222H BKl5MSINA" LCD monitors. (Id) The Administrative Law 

Judge finds ACI maintains a commercially significant amount of products containing CCFL 

inverter controller or circuits alleged to infringe the '382 patent in this Investigation. 

With respect to Microsemi, the evidence shows that Microsemi imports accused 

Microsemi Products into the United States and warehouses them in the United States. (CFF 

IV.B.4-5 (undisputed).) The undisputed record further shows that Microsemi had large 

quantities of accused Microsemi Products stored in California in February of2009. (CFF IV.B.6; 

SOCFF IV.B.6; ROCFF IV.B.6; MOCFF IV.B.6; CFF IV.B.7 (undisputed).) Microsemi 

provides no evidence to show that this inventory has declined. (MOCFF IV.B.6.) The 

Administrative Law Judge finds Microsemi maintains a commercially significant amount of 

accused Microsemi Products alleged to infringe the '382 patent in this Investigation. 

As for MPS, the undisputed evidence shows that Avnet is MPS's sole distributor for MPS 

products in the United States, and maintains an inventory of these products in Arizona. (CFF 

IV.B.17-18 (undisputed); CFF IV.B.23-26 (undisputed); CX-461C.) However, it is not possible 

to direct a cease and desist order to nonrespondent A vnet, and there is no evidence to show that a 

cease and desist order against MPS would have any effect on A vnet. See Certain Abrasive 

Products Made Using A Process for Powder Preforms, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 

- 186-


337-TA-449, Commission Opinion on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding at 8 (U.S.I.T.C., 

July 26, 2002); ROCFF IV.B.15. 

Therefore, should the Commission determine that a violation has occurred with respect to 

Respondents ACI or Microsemi, the Administrative Law Judge recommends that the 

Commission issue a cease and desist order. 

III. BOND DURING PRESIDENTIAL REVIEW PERIOD 

The Administrative Law Judge and the Commission must determine the amount of bond 

to be required of a respondent, pursuant to Section 337(j)(3), during the 60-day Presidential 

review period following the issuance of permanent relief, in the event that the Commission 

determines to issue a remedy. 19 C.F.R. § 210.42(a)(I)(ii). The purpose of the bond is to protect 

the complainant from any injury. 19 C.F.R § 210.50(a)(3). 

When reliable price information is available, the Commission has often set the bond by 

eliminating the differential between the domestic product and the imported, infringing product. 

See Certain Microsphere Adhesives, Process for Making Same, and Products Containing Same, 

Including Self-Stick Repositionable Notes, Inv. No. 337-TA-366, Comm'n Op., at 24 (U.S.I.T.C., 

December 15, 1995). In circumstances where pricing information is unclear, or where variations 

in pricing make price comparisons complicated and difficult, the Commission typically has set a 

100 percent bond. Id., at 24-25; Certain Digital Multimeters and Products with Multimeter 

Functionality, Inv. No. 337-TA-588, Comm'n Op., at 12-13 (U.S.I.T.C., June 3, 2008) (finding 

100 percent bond where each respondent set its price differently, preventing clear differentials 

between complainant's products and the infringing imports). When a pricing comparison is 

impossible, it is also appropriate to set the bond based on a reasonable royalty. Certain Digital 

- 187 -


Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods o/Using Same, Inv. No. 337- 

TA-617, Commission Opinion at 18 (U.S.I.T.C., April 23, 2009). 

02 Micro argues that a bond of 100% of the entered valued of the accused products 

found to infringe the '382 patent is appropriate, because "a meaningful price comparison is 

impractical, if not impossible." (CBr. at l39-142.) Staff argues that based on clear evidence 

concerning royalties, { } (SBr. at 92-93.) Microsemi, 

without suggesting an amount, argues that any bond should be limited to a price differential 

between "competitive Microsemi accused products found to infringe and any of 02 Micro's 

products found to practice the claimed invention and support the domestic industry." (MBr. at 

86.) MPS and ASUS request a bond of { 

The Administrative Law Judge finds that the variations in pricing make price 

comparisons too difficult to be used for setting a bond. (CFF IV.C.I-42 (undisputed in relevant 

part).) A review of the royalty rates between 02 Micro and its licensees shows that { 

IV. CONCLUSION 

} The Administrative Law Judge finds that the $0.17 { 

} 

} would be the most appropriate bond amount. 

In accordance with the discussion of the issues contained herein, it is the 

RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION of the Administrative Law Judge that in the event the 

- 188 -


Commission finds a violation of Section 337, the Commission should issue a limited exclusion 

order directed to Respondents and all of their affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, or other 

related business entities, or their successors or assigns, and should apply to all of the accused 

MPS Products, ASUS Products and Microsemi Products that have been found to infringe the 

asserted claims of the '382 patent. Should the Commission determine that a violation has 

occurred with respect to Respondents ACI or Microsemi, the Administrative Law Judge 

recommends that the Commission issue a cease and desist order. Furthermore, if the 

Commission imposes a remedy following a fmding of violation, respondents should be required 

to post a bond of $0.17 for each accused CCFL inverter controller, inverter circuit, or inverter 

module imported during the Presidential review period. 

Within seven days of the date of this document, each party shall submit to the office of 

the Administrative Law Judge a statement as to whether or not it seeks to have any portion of 

this document deleted from the public version. The parties' submissions must be made by hard 

copy by the aforementioned date. 

Any party seeking to have any portion of this document deleted from the public version 

thereof must submit to this office a copy of this document with red brackets indicating any 

portion asserted to contain confidential business information by the aforementioned date. The 

parties' submission concerning the public version of this document need not be filed with the 

Commission Secretary. 

SO ORDERED. 

- 189-

APPENDIX A 

ACCUSED ASUS PRODUCTS

First Supplemental Appendix E 

PRODUCTS THAT INCORPORATE ANY COMBINATION 

OF THESE INVERTER BOARDS AND INVERTER CONTROLLERS INFRINGE 

2


Seiies; .. 

DHSET1602 AS ET1602 lA 

DRS ETl602 AS ETl602 1A 

DRS ET1602 AS ETl602 lA 

DRS ETl602 AS ETl602 IA 

DRS ETl602 ASETl6021A 

DRSET1602 AS ET1602 IA 

DHS ETl602 AS ETl6021A 

DHS ETl602 AS ETl602 IA 

DRSETl602 AS ET16021A 

DHS ET1602 AS ET1602 lA 

DRS ETI602 AS ETl602 IA 

9PEORCIQZ I 9UPEORCll2210351ULQZ I MPlO091ES I DARFONIV164· 

40lGP 

040554012030 

9PEORCIQZ 90PEORCl122103523CQZ MPlO091ES 

DARFONNl64· 

40lGP 

040554012030 

9PEORCIQZ 90PEORC1l2210352LWQZ I MPlO09lES 

DARFONN164· 

4010P 

040554012030 

9PEORCIQZ 90PEORCl122103534CQZ MPlO09lES 

DARFONIV164· 

40lGP 

040554012030 

9PEORCIQZ 90PEORCl122103545BQZ MPI009lES 

DARFONNI64· 

40lGP 

04G554012030 

9PEORCIQZ 90PEORCl12210354VKQZ I MPlO091ES 

DARFONNl64· 

40lGP 

04G554012030 

9PEORCIQZ 90PEORC 1122103556CQZ MPI0091ES 

D ARFONIV 164· 

4010P 

040554012030 

9PEORCIQZ 90PEORCll2210355LWQZ I MPlO091ES 

DARFONN164· 

401GP 

04G554012030 

9PEORCIQZ 90PEORC112210355PCQZ MPlO091ES 

DARFONNI64· 

40lGP 

040554012030 

9PEORCIQZ 90PEORCl122103567CQZ MPlO091ES 

DARFONN164· 

40lGP 

040554012030 

9PEORC1QZ 90PEORCl1221OJ589CQZ MPI0091ES 

DARFONNI64· 

401GP 

040554012030 

2


90PEORC2122104589CQZ 

DRS ETl602 AS ETl6021B 9PEORC2QZ 90PEOR C21221 

DRS ETl602 AS ET1602 IB 9PEORC2QZ 

IB 19PEORC20Z I 90PEORC21221045BPCOZ I J\.1P10091ES 

40lGP 

040554012030 

I DARFONlVl64- 

40lGP 

040554012030 

16021B 19PEORC20Z I 90PEORC21221045CDCQZ J\.1P10091ES DARFONIV164- 

40lGP 

04055· 

90PEORC21221045FGCQZ MPlO091ES 

1221045GRCQ 

DHSETl602 I AS ET1602 1B 19PEORC2QZ I 90PEORC21221045MNCQ I J\.1PIOO91ES 

Z 

DHS ETl602 I AS ET1602 IB 19PEORC2QZ I 90PEORC21221045RSEQZ I J\.1P lOO91ES 

6


ASUS Notebook Computers With Inverter Boards Incorporating MPS Inverter Controllers 

Page 1 of 10



Page 2 of 10



Page 3 of 10



Page 5 of 10



Page 6 of 10



Page 7 of 10



Page 80flO



Page 10 of 10

APPENDIXB 

ACCUSED MICROSEMI PRODUCTS

{ 


}

{ 


}

APPENDIXC 

EXHIBIT LISTS




Before the Honorable E. James Gildea 

Adminlstrative Law Judge 


LAMP ("CCFL") INVERTER cmCUITS AND 

PRODUCTSCONTAUUNGSAME 

FINAL JOINT EXHIBIT LIST 

Investigation No. 337-TA-666

JX-l 

JX-2 

JX-3C 

JX-4C 

JX-5 

JX-6C 


Final Joint Exhibit List 

November 3, 2009 

DOCUMENTARYEXIITBITS 

U.S. Patent No. 7,417,382 Claim construction; Lin, Yung-Lin; Flasck, 

(02ITC 037272-37303) infringement; Non- Richard; Mercer, Ray; Hao, 

infringement James; Silzars, Aris 

validity; invalidity; 

domestic industry; 

ownership; 

File History for U.S. Patent Claim construction; Lin, Yung-Lin; Flasck, 

No. 7,417,382 infringement; Non- Richard; Mercer, Ray; 

(02ITC 000001-15794) infringement Slizars, Aris; Hao, James 

validity; invalidity; 

domestic industry; 

ownership; 

Manufacturer Price Book re Infringement; Hardin, Frank; Robertson, 

Micro semi importation; remedy; Lance; Holliday, Roger; 

(A VNET 000780-787) Bond; Damages Litchfield, Steven, 

Microsemi Application Note Infringement; Non Flasck, Richard; Choi, 

for LX1691, 1691A, 1691B Infringement Kevin; Holliday, Roger; 

Enhanced Multi-Mode CCFL Litchfield, Steven; 

Robertson, Lance; Henry, 

George; Jin, Xiaoping; 

Nguyen, Chien 

Microsemi Datasheet re Infringement; Non Flasck, Richard; Choi, 

LXI692A Full Bridge Infringement Kevin; Holliday, Roger; 

Resonant CCFL Controller, Litchfield, Steven; 

rev. 1.1b, dated 0113112007 Robertson, Lance; Henry, 

(MICRO SEMI 122010- George; Jin, Xiaoping; 

Chien 

Microsemi LX1692 Infringement; Non Flasck, Richard; Choi, 

Enhanced Multi-Mode CCFL Infringement; Kevin; Holliday, Roger; 

Application Note, K. Choi, invalidity Litchfield, Steven; 

Rev. 0.1, dated 04/1212005 Robertson, Lance; Henry, 

(MICROSEMI 194602- George; Jin, Xiaoping; 

Chien 

1 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

JX-29C 

JX-30C 

JX-31 

JX-32C 

JX-33C 

JX-34C 

JX-35 

JX-36C 




Proposed MP1009R1 Infringement; Flasck, Richard; Uenten, 

Simplified Schematic, dated invalidity Paul; Moyer, James; 

01123/2008; Proposed Sciammas, Maurice; Silzars, 

MP1009R1 / MP1009RO Aris 

Simplified Schematics, 

1115/08 

00109614-61 

AMBIT Microsystems Infringement; Shannon, John; Flasck, 

Corporation Commercial validity; invalidity Richard; Moyer, James; 

invoice # 0806062 to J Sciammas, Maurice; Mercer, 

Shannon·ofMPS Melvin 

00115117-1 

MP1016 Datasheet, Rev. 1.9, Infringement; Non- Flasck, Richard; Uenten, 

11123/05 infringement Paul; Moyer, James; 

(MONO-ITC 00410488- Sciammas, Maurice; Silzars, 

41 Aris 

MPI038 Simplified Infringement; Non- Flasck, Richard; Uenten, 

Schematic, dated 03/0712005 infringement Paul; Moyer, James; 

(MONO-LTC 00454754-60) Sciammas, Maurice; Silzars, 

Aris 

MPI060 Datasheet, Rev. 1.4, Infringement; Non- Flasck, Richard; Uenten, 

4/7/08 infringement Paul; Moyer, James; 

(MONO-LTC 00477817-28) Sciammas, Maurice; Silzars, 

Aris 

MPS Datasheet re MP61 093 Infringement; Non- Flasck, Richard; Uenten, 

Nu-Pulse CCFL Inverter infringement Paul; Moyer, James; 

Controller, Rev. 0.2, dated Sciammas, Maurice; Silzars, 

09/26/2008 Aris 

(MONO-ITC 00518744- 

5187 


10124/05 infringement Paul; Moyer, James; 

(MONO-ITC 00527772- Sciammas, Maurice; Silzars, 

Aris 

MPS Datasheet re MP1048- Infringement; Non- Flasck, Richard; Uenten, 

C097 Full-Bridge CCFL infringement Paul; Moyer, James; 

Controller; Rev. 1.0; dated Sciammas, Maurice; Silzars, 

11/09/2006 Aris 

(MONO-ITC 00548832- 

3 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

JX-37C 

JX-38C 

JX-39C 

JX-40C 

JX-41C 

JX-42C 

JX-45 

JX-46C 




MPS Datasheet re MP1008 Infringement; Non- Flasck, Richard; Uenten, 

Half-Bridge CCFL infringement Paul; Moyer, James; 

Controller; Rev. 0.92, dated Sciammas, Maurice; Silzars, 

07/09/2007 Aris 

(MONO-ITC 00556163- 

5561 

MPS Datasheet re MP10091 Infringement; Non- Flasck, Richard; Uenten, 

Nu-Pulse CCFL Inverter infringement Paul; Moyer, James; 


01114/2009 Aris 

(MONO-ITC 00558311- 

55 

MP1060/61 Datasheet, Rev. Infringement; Non- Flasck, Richard; Uenten, 

0.1,814/05 infringement Paul; Moyer, James; 

(MONO-ITC 00729872-83) Sciammas, Maurice; Silzars, 

Aris 

MP1062 Datasheet, Rev. 0.1, Infringement; Non- Flasck, Richard; U enten, 



Aris 

MPS VION Family Infringement; Non- Flasck, Richard; U enten, 

Datasheet infringement Paul; Moyer, James; 


Aris 

MPS Datasheet re MP1038 Infringement; Non- Flasck, Richard; U enten, 

Full-Bridge CCFL infringement Paul; Moyer, James; 


12/1912005 Aris 

000152-1 



(MPS-ITC 115382-91) Sciammas, Maurice; Silzars, 

Aris 

MP1028 Datasheet, Rev. 1.2, Infringement; Non- Flasck, Richard; U enten, 



Aris 

4 

Admitted 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/301 

Admitted 

10/3010909 

Admitted 

10/30109

JX-47 

JX-48C 

JX-49 

JX-50 

JX-51 

JX-52C 

JX-53 

JX-54C 

JX-55C 

JX-56C 







Aris 

MP1037 Datasheet, Rev. 0.4, Infiingement;Non- Flasck, Richard; U enten, 



Aris 

U.S. Patent No. 6,259,615 Validity; invalidity; Lin, Yung-Lin; Pfleger, Ed; 

(02ITC 018152-73) claim construction; Mercer, Ray 

ownership; Noninfringement; 

U.S. Patent No. 6,396,722 Validity; invalidity; Lin, Yung-Lin; Pfleger, Ed; 

(02ITC 018174-94) claim construction; Mercer, Ray 

ownership; Noninfringement; 

U.S. Patent No. 6,804,129 Validity; claim Lin, Yung-Lin; Pfleger, Ed; 

(02ITC 018223-42) construction; Mercer, Ray; Silzars, Aris 

ownership; 

invalidity; Non- 

Withdrawn 

02 Micro 2004 Annual Lin, Yung-Lin; Keim, James; 

Badgett, Adam; Mercer, Ray 

OZ962 High-Efficiency Lin, Yung-Lin; Keirn, James; 

Inverter Controller Datasheet Badgett, Adam; Mercer, 

02/1011998 Ray; Silzars, Aris; Campbel1, 

(02ITC 108571-80) Pamela; 02 Micro custodian 

of records 

Withdrawn 

02 Micro OZ960 Intelligent Domestic industry; Lin, Yung-Lin; Flasck, 

CCFL Controller Technical validity; Non- Richard; Campbell, Pamela; 

Infonnation, dated infringement Badgett, Adam; Keim, 

09/13/2000 James; 02 Micro custodian 

142700-142 of records 

5 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

JX-57C 

JX-58C 

Email Chain from E. Wang 

to R. Schiffer et a1. re 802 

Market Analysis Mar 152006, 

dated 03/15/2006 

143307-1433 

JX-59C Withdrawn 



JX-62C 

JX-65 

JX-66 

JX-67 

JX-68C 

JX-69C 

02 Micro OZ962 High 

Efficiency Inverter Controller 

Technical Information, dated 

03/1111998 

Withdrawn 

389851-3899 

390174-3901 




Domestic industry; 

remedy; bonding; 

Non-infringement 


validity; remedy; 

bonding; Non- 

Validity; Noninfringement 


validity; bonding; 


validity; bonding; 

6 

Schiffer, Richard; Lin, 

Yung-Lin; Keirn, James; 


Keirn, James; Lin, Yung-Lin; 

Mercer, Ray 

Lin, Yung-Lin; Mercer, Ray; 

Campbell, Pamela; Badgett, 

Adam; Keirn, James; 02 

Micro custodian of records 

Lin, Yung-Lin; Keirn, James; 










Admitted 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/30109

JX-80C 

JX-81C 

JX-82C 

JX-83C 

JX-84C 

JX-85C 

JX-86C 

JX-87C 

JX-88C 

JX-89C 




Settlement Agreement Domestic industry; Lin, Yung-Lin; Chang, Ivan; 

between 02 Micro validity; remedy; Keirn, James; Badgett, 

International Limited and bonding; Non- Adam; Flasck, Richard; 

Rohm Co., Ltd., March 27, infringement Mercer, Ray; Kuo, Perry 

2008 - Signed by Rohm 

422 

Withdrawn 

Memorandum of Agreement Domestic industry; Keirn, James; Lin, Yung-Lin; 

between 02 Micro and validity; remedy; Mercer, Ray; Kuo, Perry 

Samsung, 04/03/07 bonding; Non- 

License and Settlement Domestic industry; Keirn, James; Lin, Yung-Lin; 

Agreement between 02 validity; remedy; Mercer, Ray; Kuo Perry 

Micro International Limited bonding; Noninfringement 

List of 02 Micro Customers Domestic industry; Keirn, James; Lin, Yung-Lin; 

(02ITC 425125-161) validity; remedy; Mercer, Ray; Chang, Ivan 

bonding; Non- 

02 Micro Inverter Sales Domestic industry; Keirn, James; Lin, Yung-Lin; 

(02ITC 565703-733) validity; remedy; Mercer, Ray 

bonding; Non- 

License Agreement between Domestic industry; Keirn, James; Lin, Yung-Lin; 

02 Micro International validity; remedy; Mercer, Ray; Kuo, Perry 

Limited and Sanken Electric bonding; Non- 

Co., Ltd., May 22, 2008 infringement 

611 

Withdrawn 

02 Micro Investor Domestic industry; Keirn, James; Lin, Yung-Lin; 

Presentation, dated 08/2009 validity; remedy; Mercer, Ray; Abbott, Gary 

(02ITC 612327-612353) bonding; Non- 

DM_US:22881148_3 

8 

Keirn, James; Lin, Yung-Lin; 

Mercer, Ray; Koike, Dean; 

Richard 

Admitted 

10/22/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10122109 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/22/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/21109

JX-90 

JX-91 

JX-92C 

JX-93C 

JX-94C 

JX-95C 

JX-96 

JX-97C 




02 Micro 2008 Annual Domestic industry; Lin, Yung-Lin; Badget, 

Report validity; remedy; Adam; Mercer, Ray 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

2009-03-05 Microsemi Party Admission; Keirn, James; Lin, Yung-Lin; 

Responses to 02 Micro 1 st 

Interrogatories (Nos 1-72) (w 

Mercer, Ray 

Party Admission; Flasck, Richard; Mercer, Ray 

2009-03-18 Microsemi Party Admission; Lin, Yung-Lin; Badgett, 

Supplemental Response to Adam; Flasck, Richard; 

02 Micro 1 st Set of Mercer, Ray 

Interrogatories Nos. 

15,17,43,44,48,51,52,56,59, 

61 

2009-04-24 Complainants 02 Party Admission Party Admission 

Micro International and 02 

Micro's Objections to 

Respondent Asustek's First 

Set of Interrogatories to 

Complainants 02 Micro 

International and 02 Micro 


Micro International Ltd. 's and 

02 Micro Inc. 's Objections 

and Responses to Respondent 

Asustek Computer Inc.'s 

Second Set of Interrogatories 

29-3 

9 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10119/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09

lX-98C 2009-04-09 Complainants 02 

Micro International Ltd.'s and 

02 Micro Inc.'s Objections 


ASUSTEK Computer Inc. 's . 

First Set of Interrogatories to 

Complainants 02 Micro 

International Limited·and 02 

Micro Inc. .1-2 

lX-99C 2009-06-29 Microsemi 

Response to 02 Micro 2nd 

Set of Interrogatories . 

73 

lX-100C 


Further Supplemental 

Response to 02 Micro 2nd 

Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 

lX-102C 

lX-103C 


Response to ITC Staff 2nd 


1 




Party Admission Party Admission 







10 

Admitted 

10119109 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10119/09 

Admitted 

10119/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19109

lX-105C 2009-03-05 02 Micro 

International Ltd.'s and 02 

Micro Inc.'s Responses to 

Commission Investigative 

Staffs First Set of 

Interrogatories to 

Complainants, dated March 

2009 

JX-106C 2009-08-2402 Micro 

International, Ltd.'s and 02 

Micro Inc.'s Responses to 

Commission Investigative 

Staffs Second Set of 


lX-I07C 2009-03-05 Microsemi 

Responses to ITC Staff 1 st 


1-1 

lX-I08C 2009-03-27 ASUSTeK 1st 

Supplemental Response to 

ITC Staff 1 st Set of 

Interrogatories (Nos. 1-18) 

lX-109C 2009-03-05 ASUSTeK's 

Responses to ITC Staff 1 st 


1-1 

lX-110C 2009-08-24 ASUS Inti 

Response to ITC Staff 2nd 


lX-111C 

lX-112C 



November 3,2009 









11 

Admitted 

10/19109 

Admitted 

10/19109 

Admitted 

10119/09 

Admitted 

10/19109 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19109 

Admitted 

10119/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09

JX-113C 

JX-114C 

JX-118 

JX-119C 

JX-120C 

JX-121C 

JX-122C 




2009-08-24 MPS Response 

to ITC Staff 2nd Set of 

1 


LX1692B Application Note, 

Rev. 0.1, 3/7106 


Withdrawn 

SEMI 201405-41 

Infringement Party Admission 

Infringement Party Admission 

2009-03-05 ASUSTeK's Party Admission Flasck, Richard; Choi, 

Responses to 02 Micro 1 st Kevin; Holliday, Roger; 

Set of Interrogatories (Nos 1- Litchfield, Steven;. 

72) (w Verification) Robertson, Lance; Henry, 


Nguyen, Chien; Party 

Admission 

2009-03-05 BenQ Responses Party Admission Flasek, Richard; Choi, 

to 02 Micro 1 st Set of Kevin; Holliday, Roger; 

Interrogatories (Nos 1-72) Litchfield, Steven; 

Robertson, Lance; Henry, 


Nguyen, Chien; party 

Admission 

2009-03-05 LGD Party Admission Party Admission 

CONFIDENTIAL Responses 

to 02 Micro 1st Set of 



12 

Admitted 

10119/09 

Admitted 

10130/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10119/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09

JX-123C 

JX-124C 

JX-125C 

JX-126C 

JX-127C 

JX-128C 

JX-129C 

JX-130C 




2009-03-05 LGE Party Admission Party Admission 

CONFIDENTIAL Responses 

to 02 Micro 1st 


2009-03-05 LGE Responses Party Admission Party Admission 

to ITC Staff 1st Set of 

Interrogatories (Nos 1-18) 

(w Verification) 

2009-03-05 MPS Responses Party Admission Party Admission 

to 02 Micro 1 st Set of 


2009-03-05 Respondent Party Admission Party Admission 

Microsemi Corporation's 

Response to 02 Micro's First 

Set of Interrogatories (NOS. 

1 to All 

2009-03-18 Microsemi Party Admission Party Admission 

Supplemental Responses to 


2009-03-27 ASUSTek 1st Party Admission Party Admission 


02 Micro 1 st Set of 


2009-04-06 Complainant 02 Party Admission Party Admission 


Micro's Responses and 

Objections to Respondent 

MPS's First Set of Requests 

For Admission 1-333 


Micro International Ltd.'s and 



Microsemi Corporation's 

First Set of Interrogatories 

. 1-91 

DM_US:22881148_3 

13 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10119/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10119/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09

JX-131C 

JX-132 

JX-133 

JX-134C 

JX-135C 

JX-136C 




2009-04-28 First Party Admission Party Admission 

Supplemental Response and 

Objections of Respondent 

Monolithic Power Systems, 

Inc. to Complainants 02 

Micro International, LTD and 

02 Micro Inc.'s First set of 

Interrogatories (Nos. 1-72) to 

Respondents, dated 

04/28/2009 



Micro's Objections and 

Responses to Respondent LG 

Display's First Set of 

1-1 




Responses to Respondent LG 

Electronic's First Set of 

2009-05-04 MPS 1st Party Admission Party Admission 




2009-05-11 02 Micro Party Admission Party Admission 

International, Ltd. and 02 

Micro, Inc.'s Responses to 

Monolithic Power Systems, 

Inc.'s Third Set of 


Micro International Ltd. And 


and Responses to 

Respondents BenQ 

Corporation and BenQ 

America, Corp.'s First Set of 

14 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19109 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09

JX-137C 

JX-138C 

JX-139C 

JX-140C 

JX-141C 

JX-142C 

JX-143C 

JX-144C 

JX-145C 




2009-05-15 ASUStek 2nd Party Admission Party Admission 


02 Micro 1 st Set of 







to 02 Micro 1 st Set of 

Requests for Admission (Nos 

1- 

2009-07 -07 02 Micro Party Admission Party Admission 

International and 02 Micro's 

Objections and Responses to 

Respondent Asus's Second 




15 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10119/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10119/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10119/09 

Admitted 

10119/09

JX-146C 

JX-147C 

JX-148C 

JX-149C 

JX-lS0C 

JX-1S1 

JX-lS2C 

JX-1S3C 

2009-07-16 Asustek 4th 

Supplemental Objections & 

Responses to 02 Micro 

Interrogatory No. 02 (w 









2009-07-2302 Micro 

International Limited and 02 

Micro Inc. Objections and 

Responses to Respondent 

Asustek Computer Inc. 's 

Third Set of Interrogatories 

to 


2009-07-27 Asus Comp Inc. 

Response to 02 Micro 1 st 

Set of Requests for 

Admission (Nos. 1-408) (w 


2009-07-27 Asus Compo IntI Party Admission Party Admission 

Response to 02 Micro 1st 

Set of Requests for 


16 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10119109 

Admitted 

10119109 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09

JX-154C 

JX-155C 

JX-156C 

JX-157C 

JX-158C 

JX-159C 

JX-160C 

JX-161C 




2009-07-29 Asus Compo Inc. Party Admission Party Admission 

Supp Response to 02 Micro 

1st Set of Requests for 


2009-08-07 ASUS Computer Party Admission Party Admission 

Inti 1st Supplemental 


02 Micro 2nd Set of 



2009-08-14 Asustek Compo Party Admission Party Admission 

Inc. Objections and 

Responses to 02 Micros 4th 


91- 

2009-08-14 Asustek Party Admission Party Admission 

Computer Inc's Response to 

02 Micro 2nd Set of Request 

for Admission (Nos. 409- 


Micro International's and 02 



Microsemi's Second Set of 

92-11 

2009-08-14 MPS First Party Admission Party Admission 


02 Micro 2nd Set of 



to 02 Micros 2nd Set of 

Request for Admission (Nos. 

529 - 

DM_US:22881148_3 

17 

Admitted 

10119/09 

Admitted 

10/19109 

Admitted 

10119/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10119/09 

Admitted 

10119/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09

JX-162C 

JX-163C 

JX-l64 

JX-165C 

JX-166 

JX-167 

JX-168C 

JX-169 

JX-170C 

JX-l7lC 

JX-172C 

JX-173C 




2009-08-14 MPS Second Party Admission Party Admission 


02 Micro 1st Set of 


2009-08-14 02 Micro Party Admission Party Admission 



Respondent Asus's Third Set 

of Interrogatories (Nos. lO- 

II 

2009-08-2402 Micro Party Admission Party Admission 


First Supplemental 


Asustek's Third Set of 


2009-06-02 02 Objections to Party Admission Party Admission 

ASUS 1st 

Intentionally Left Blank 


OZ960 Datasheet Intelligent Domestic industry; Party Admission; Campbell, 

CCFL Controller 10/2312001 Non-infringement Pamela; Lin, Yung-Lin; 

Badgett, Adam; Keirn, 

James; 02 Micro custodian 

of records 

MP1011IMP101O Reference Validity; invalidity Lin, Yung-Lin; Mercer, Ray; 

Circuits, 10/98 -11-98 Silzars, Aris; Ueunten, Paul; 

(MONO-ITC 00111138 - Moyer, James; Shannon, 

MONO-ITC 00111141 John 

Deposition Designations of Joint Deposition Ballew, Ryan 

Ballew 

Blackmon, VVlritney 

Deposition Designations of Bu, Chi Teng 

Chi Bu 

Deposition Designations of Cantelmo, John 

John Cantelmo 

DM_US:22881148_3 

18 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/19/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/21109 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

JX-175C 

JX-176C 

JX-l77C 

JX-178C 

JX-179C 

JX-180C 

JX-181C 

JX-182C 

JX-183C 

JX-184C 

JX-185C 

JX-186C 

JX-187C 

JX-188C 

JX-189C 

JX-190C 

JX-191C 

JX-192C 

JX-193C 

Deposition Designations of 

Jone 06/30/2009 





Joint Deposition Chang, Jone 

Jone Chang, 08/0612009 and Designations 

08/07/2009 

Deposition Designations of Joint Deposition Chu, Julia 

Julia Chu 

Deposition Designations of Hardin, Frank 

Frank Hardin 

Deposition Designations of Hemiter, Marc 

Marc Herniter 

Deposition Designations of Kao, Leonard 

LeonardKao 

Deposition Designations of Lai, Ray 

Lai 

Lee, George 

Deposition Designations of Lee, YH 

YHLee 

Deposition Designations of Lin, Chris 

Chris Lin 

Deposition Designations of Litchfield, Steve 

Steven Litchfield 

Deposition Designations of Moyer, James 

James 07/15/2009 

Deposition Designations of Neely, Richard 

Richard 

Deposition Designations of Nguyen, Chien 

Chien 

Deposition Designations of Novitsky, Thomas 

ThomasN 

Deposition Designations of Pratt, Steve 

Steve Pratt 

Deposition Designations of Rao,Meera 

MeeraRao 

Deposition Designations of Robertson, lance 

Lance Robertson 

Deposition Designations of Shannon, John 

John Shannon 

Deposition Designations of Shiung, Phoebe 

Phoebe 

DM_US:2288 1148_3 

19 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

JX-195C 

JX-196C 

JX-197C 

JX-198C 

JX-199C 

JX-200C 

JX-201C 

JX-202C 

JX-203C 

JX-204C 

JX-205C 

JX-206C 

JX-207C 

JX-208C 

JX-209C 

JX-21OC 

JX-211C 

JX-212C 

JX-213C 


DukeW 07/03/02009 


DukeW 08/0512009 


David 


Xiao 


Godwin Y 06122/2009 





Strobel, Doug 

Wen, Duke 

Wen, Duke 

Wung, David 

Xiao, Deming 

Yan, Godwin 

Joint Deposition Yan, Godwin 

Godwin Yan. 07/3112009 and Designations 

09/02/2009 

Deposition Designations of Joint Deposition Yang, Erie 

ErieY 

Deposition Designations of ¥ ang, Tiffany 

Abbott, Gary 

Deposition Designations of j3adgett, Adam 

Adam 

Deposition Designations of Campbell, Pamela 

Pamela 

Deposition Designations of Chang, Freddy 

Deposition Designations of Chang, Ivan 

Ivan 

Deposition Designations of Chen, Simon 

SirnonChen 

Deposition Designations of Dela Cruz, Arnel 

Arnel Dela Cruz 

Deposition Designations of Densham, Bill 

Bill Densham 

Deposition Designations of Hao, James 

James Hao 

Deposition Designations of Keirn, James 

James Keirn. 06/18/2009 

DM_US:22881148_3 

20 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09





James 07123/2009 

JX-235C Asustek Computer Inc.'s 

Second Supplemental 


Complainant 02 Micro 

International Ltd. 's 

Nos. 74-75 


22 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

1, Mike purbin, hereby certify that copies of FINAL JOINT EXHIBIT LIST, 

were served this 3 rd day of November 2009, as follows: 

The Honorable Marilyn R.. Abbott 

Secretary to the CoinmissiQn 


500 E Street, SW 

WaShington, DC 20436 

The Honorable E. James Gildea 

Administrative Law Judge 


500 E Street, SW, Room 317 


David O. Lloyd 

Office of Unfair Import Investigations 


500 E Street, SW, Room 401 


On Behalf of Respondent Microsemi 

Corporation: 

. Joel D. Covelman 

THE YOCCA LAW FIRM, LLP 

19900 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 650 

Irvine, CA 92612 

Fred T. Grasso 

Louis J. Alfieri 

GRASSOPLLC 

1818 Library Street 

Suite 500 . 

Reston, vA 20190 

On Behalf of Respondents Monolithic 

Power Systems Inc. and ASUSTeK 

Computer Inc.,. and ASUS Computer 

International: 

One copy by electronic filing 

Two copies by hand 

One copy by hand 

One copy by email 

DaVid.Lloyd@usitc.gov 


microsemiitC@yocca.com 


microsemiitc@grassoip.com

Smith R. Brittingham IV 

FINNEGAN; HENDERSON, F ARABOW, 

GARREIT & DUNNER., LLP 

901 New York Avenue, Nw 


On Behalf of Respondent Monolithic Power 

Systems Inc.: 

Mark A.. Flagel 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

355 South Grand Avenue 

Los Angeles, California 90071-1560 


MPS-Asustek -337-TA-666@finnegan.com 


MPS-ITC@listsJw.com 

Mike Durbin




Before the Honorable E. James Gildea 



LAMP ("CCFL") INVERTER cm.cur.rS AND 

PRODUCTSCONTAnUNGSAME 

Investigation No. 337':'TA-666 

COMPLAINANTs ()2 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND 02 MICRO INC.'S 

FINAL EXHIBIT LIST

eX-9 

eX-I0 

eX-ll 

eX-12 

eX-13 

eX-14 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889518_2 


02 Micro's Final Exhibit List 


DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS 

Photographs of ASUSTeK F5RL-B2 notebook I Infringement; importation; 

PC remedy 

Infringement 

1 

Lin, Yung-Lin; Flasck, Richard 

Flasck, Richard; Ueunten, Paul; 

Sciammas, Maurice; Moyer, 

James 

Admitted 

10/21109 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-16 

CX-17 

CX-18 

CX-19 

CX-20 

CX·21 

CX-22 

CX-23 

I Test results from inverter circuit with 

I {02ITC 037813-14} 




I Infringement; importation; 

remedy 

I 

PhotOirraohs of Model 32LB9D television with Infringement; importation; 

remedy 

02ITC 037831-33 

LX1691 Datasheet. Rev. 1.0. 7/16/04 Infringement; importation; 

remedy 

Schematic of inverter circuit with LX1691 in Infringement; importation 

LG32LB9D 

(02ITC 0378849-50) 

I Test results from inverter circuit with LX1691 I Infringement; importation; 

in LG 32LB9D remedy 

03785 

I Receiot reflectinsz ourchase of ASUS F5RL- I Infringement; importation; 

remedy 

I {02ITC 037927-29} . 

RecelDt reflectml! ourchase ofLG 32BL9D I Infringement; importation; 

remedy 

DM_US:22889518_2 

2 

I Lin, Yung-Lin; Flasck, Richard I Admitted 

10/21/09 

Lin, Yung-Lin; Flasck, Richard Admitted 

10/30/09 

I Lin, Yung-Lin; Flasck, Richard; 

Hollidav. ROIzer: Litchfield. 

I Lin, Yung-Lin; Flasck, Richard; 

Holliday, Roger; Litchfield, 

I Admitted 

10/30/09 

I Admitted 

10/30/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09

CX-26 Withdrawn 

CX-27C Withdrawn 


CX-29C 

CX-30C 

CX-31 

CX-32 Intentionally Left Blank 





DM_US:;z2889518_2 




Claim construction; domestic I Flasck, Richard; Lin, Yung-Lin 

3 

Flasck, Richard; Lin, Yung-Lin 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09












CX-51 I Intentionally Left Blank 

DM..US:22889518_2 




4


CX-53 I Simulation Schematics, dated 02118/98 . 

(02ITC 206825-36) 













DM_US:22889518-.2 




Validity; domestic industry 

5 

Lin, Yung-Lin; Nagel, Patrick; 

Mercer, Ray; Flasck, Richard 

Admitted 

10/21109

CX-66C 

CX-67C 

CX-68C 

CX-69 

CX-70 

CX-71C 

CX-72C 

·CX-73C 

CX-74C 

CX-75C 

CX-76C 

CX-77C 

CX-78C 

CX-79C 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 



I November 3, 2009 

Form 20-F 02 Micro International LID - I Domestic industry; validity 

OHM, period December 31, 2008, dated May 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

MP1872 Datasheet, Rev. 0.9 03/24/06 I Infringement 

0001 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889518_2 

6 

Lin, Yung-Lin; Badgett, Adam; 

Keirn, James; Flasck, Richard; 

Mercer 

Flasck, Richard 

Admitted 

10/22/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-II0C 

CX-lIIC 

CX-1I2C 

CX-I13C 

CX-114 

CX-1I5 

CX-116 

CX-I17 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 




, ... 

Email from I. Signorino to S. McClure et al re Infringement; importation; 

02 Micro Competition in the Fidd dated remedy; bonding 

12/17/08 

(MICRO SEMI 176165-176166) 

Spreadsheet showing Microsemi sales Infringement; importation; 

information remedy; bonding 

(MICRO SEMI 14228-14272) 

Microsemi Products: CCFL inverter Module - Infringement; importation 

Single Lamp from website, dated 06/25/2009 

Microsemi Products: CCFL inverter Module - Infringement; importation 

Dual Lamp from website, dated 06/25/2009 

I Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889518_2 

10 

Battaglia, Fabian; Flasck, Richard; I Admitted 

Choi, Kevin; Holliday, Roger; 10/30109 

Litchfield, Steven; Robertson, 

Lance; Henry, George; Jin, 

Chien 


Choi, Kevin; Holliday, Roger; 10/22/09 



Chien 





Chien 


Choi, Kevin; Holliday, Roger; 10/30109 



Chien

CX-119 

CX-122C 

CX-123C 

CX-124 

CX-125C 

CX-126C 

CX-127C 

CX-128C 

CX-129C 

Withdrawn 

Email from R. Holliday to F. Battaglia re NB 

Update call (25-Jun-'07) dated 7/2/07 

(MICROSEMI 142587-588) 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889S18_2 




Infringement; importation 

11 

Battaglia, Fabian; Flasck, Richard; 

Choi, Kevin; Holliday, Roger; 



Chien 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-131C 

CX-132C 

CX-133C 

CX-134C 

CX-135C 

CX-136C 

CX-137C 

CX-138C 

CX-139C 

I 




Email chain from T. Liu to 1. Wang et aI ... re Infringement 

HPQ trip report, dated 08/27/2007 

(MICRO SEMI 173215-173217) 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Email chain from D. CrugnaIe tp F. Battaglia Infringement 

re ASM NBO Q2 Target Performance thru 

Feb08, dated 03/24/2008, Nbo Target List for 

Q2FY08 

(MICRO SEMI 174462-174479) 

I Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889518_2 

12 

Battaglia, Fabian; Flasck, Richard; 




Chien 

Battaglia, Fabian; Flasck, Richard; Admitted 




Xiaoping; Nguyen, Chien; Strobel, 

Doug;

CX-140C 

CX-141C 

CX-142C 

CX-143C 

CX-144 

I Quanta - Microsemi Notebook Business 

Summary, dated October 2008 

(MICRO SEMI 176053-176067) 



. November 3, 2009 

Infringement; importation 

Email chain from J. Cho to F. Battaglia et al... ' Infringement; importation 

re Fabian's customer visit schedule on 2/27, 

dated 02/25/2009 

(MICRO SEMI 176214) 

I Microsemi Notebook Tracking Report I Infringement; Bonding 

(MICROSEMI 176248-176256) 

Email from I Signorino to J. Cho re Compal Infringement 

Bidding dated 3/10/09 

(MICROSEMI 176247) 

I Microsemi Datasheet re LX1692 Full Bridge Infringement; importation 

Resonant CCFL Controller, Rev. 1.2, dated 

12120/2006 

DM_US:22889518_2 

13 





Chien 





Chien 





Xiaoping; Nguyen, Chien; 

Asaf 


Choi. Kevin: Hollidav. ROller: 10/22/09 


Xiao in ; N en, Chien 





Chien

X-171C I Withdrawn 

CX-172C I MPI872-Pegatron-2008-10-22.pdf 

(MONO-ITC 00244939-244943) 




Infringement; Importation 

Infringement 

CX-173C E-mail chain from C. Lin to D. Wen et al. re Infringement 

MPI872, dated 10/23/2008 (with certified 

translation) 

00244928-24493 

CX-174C 

CX-175C I Withdrawn 

E-mail chain from J. Bu to R. Wu et al. re Infringement 

MP1010B RFQ for Asus, dated 01116/2009 

00450159-450160 

CX-177C Chart Titled: Weekly Customer Visit Infringement 

CX-178C I E-mail from C. Lin to D. Wen et al. re I Infringement 

DM_US:22889518_2 

16 

Blackmon, Whitney; Flasck, 

Richard 

I Blackmon, Whitney; Flasck, 

Richard 

Bu, Chi Teng; Flasck, Richard; 

Ueunten, Paul; Moyer, James; 

Maurice 



Sciammas, Maurice 



Sciammas Maurice 



Sciammas, Maurice; Wang, Fiona 

I Bu, Chi Teng; Flasck, Richard; 


Maurice 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

I Admitted 

10/30/09 

I Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-179C 

CX-182C 

CX-185C 

CX-186C 

CX-187C 

CX-188 

Maoda International Ltd Purchase Order to 

MPS dated 1/9/09 

(MONO-ITC 00096301) 

Withdrawn 

00096293-963 

E-mail from J. Bu to D. Wen et al. re MPS 

CCFL Driver, dated 10102/2008 

-ITC 00936118-93611 

Spreadsheet of part numbers and order dates, 

dated,2006 

(MONO-ITC 00425062-425250) 

DM_US:22889518_2 

MPS product datasheet re MPI0I0B Cold 

Cathode Fluorescent Lamp Driver, dated 

09/24/2007 




Infringement; Bonding 

Infringement 

Infringement 


Infringement 

17 


Ueunten, Paul; Flasck, Richard; 

Sciammas, Maurice; Rao, Meera, 

Moyer, James; Neely, Richard 



Sciammas, Maurice. 



Maurice 

Cantelmo, John; Flasck, Richard; 

Ueunten, Paul; Flasck, Richard; 





Maurice 

Admitted 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/30109

CX-190C 

CX-191C 

CX-192C 

CX-193C 

CX-194C 

CX-195C 

Pages from MPS website re MPS product 

information, 

http://products.monolithicpower.com/products, 

dated 06/1112009 and product information for 

the CCFL inverter controllers listed 

I Email from A. Parikh to M. Hsing et al... re 

Q3 New Product Release Update, dated 

09/29/2008 

(MONO-ITC 00411758-411759) 

I Email chain from 1. Cantelmo to L. Kao re 

MPI0I0B for HP, dated 05/24/2007 

00450146-450151) 

I Commission Summary Sheet 

(MONO-ITC 00095291-95375) 

I Shipment Data 

(MONO-ITC 00281385-281393) 

I Shipping Report 

(MONO-ITC 00281394--281408) 

DM_US:22889518_2 

E-mail from W. Liu to R. Neely re attached 

Shipment Data and shipping report, dated 

10/12/2008 


02 Micro's FinalExhibit List 


Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement; Importation; 

Remedy; Bonding 

I· Infringement; Importation; 

I Remedy; Ronding 

I Infringement; Importation; 




18 




Cantelmo, John; Flasck, Richard; Admitted 

Ueunten, Paul; Moyer, James; 10/30/09 


Cantelmo, John; Flasck, Richard; Admitted 



Cantelmo, John; Flasck, Richard; 1 Admitted 

Ueunten, Paul; Flasck, Richard; 10/30/09 



1 Cantelmo, John; Flasck, Richard; 


Sciammas, Maurice; Neely, 

Jr. 

I Cantelmo, John; Flasck, Richard; 

Ueunten. Paul: Mover. James: 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-208C 

CX-209 

CX-210C 

CX-211C 

CX-213C 

CX-214 

CX-215 

Withdrawn 

Microsemi Datasheet re LX1697 High 

Performance CCFL Controller, rev. 1.1, dated 

05/05/2008 

122121-1221 

Withdrawn 

Microsemi Product Datasheet for LX1691, 

Rev. 1.0, dated 07/16/2004 

Microsemi Datasheet re LX1693 High 

Performance CCFL Controller w/ALS, rev. 

1.0, dated 06/1112007 

(MICRO SEMI 122078-122093) 

DM_US:22889518_2 




Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 

20 

Flasck, Richard; Choi, Kevin; 

Nguyen, Chien; Robertson, Lance; 

Holliday, Roger; Litchfield 



Steven; Robertson, Lance; Henry, 

George; Jin, Xiaoping; Nguyen, 

Chien 





Chien 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-216 I Microsemi Product Datasheet for LX1699, 

Rev. 1.0a, dated 02/05/2009 


CX-21BC Withdrawn 




CX-222C Microsemi Document Titled: MSC-AMSG 

Lighting Product by K. Choi Microsemi 

AMSG CCFL & Module Development Gr 

(MICRO SEMI 224049-224065) 





DM_US:22889518_2 

Investigation No. 337-TA-666 , 



I Infringement 

Infringement 

21 

I Flasck, Richard; Choi, Kevin; 

Holliday; Roger; Litchfield, 



Chien 

I 

I 

I Admitted 

10/30/09 

Flasck, Richard; Choi, Kevin; I Admitted 

Holliday, Roger; Litchfield, 10/30/09 



Chien

CX-227 

CX-228C 

CX-229 

CX-230C 

CX-231C 

CX-232C 

CX-233C 

CX-234C 

CX-235C 

I Microsemi Product Datasheet for LX1691, 

Rev. 1.1a, dated 09/13/2005 

(MICRO SEMI 195062-195076) 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 




Infringement 

Microsemi Datasheet re LX1696 Full Bridge Infringement 

Resonant CCFL Controller, rev. 1.0, dated 

02/27/2006 

(MICRO SEMI 122094-122108) 

Email chain from J. Chu to M. Sciammas re Infringement 

MPI038 Korean customer returns, dated 

05/07/2008 

00102640-102 

I July 2008 Progress Report-FA, 08/06/08 Infringement 

(MONO-ITC 00509311-509314) 

MPS Datasheet re MPI038 Full Bridge CCFL Infringement 

Controller, dated 12119/2005 

00080353-8 

I Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889518_2 

22 





David 





David 

Chu, Julia; Flasck, Richard; I Admitted 



Chu, Julia; Flasck, Richard; Admitted 


Sciammas Maurice 


Ueunten. Paul: Mover. James: 10/30/09

CX-241C 

CX-242C 

CX-245C 

CX-246C 

CX-247C 

CX-248C 

MPSfTDK presentation 

(MONO-ITC 00519394 -519404) 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

.thdrawn 





I 


ONO-ITC 00519391-519393 

Failure Analvsis Reauest form re MPI038EX- Infringement 

Email chain from S. Sheri to S. Dobbins et al... Infringement 

I (MONO-ITC 00507120} 

DM_US:22889S18_2 

MPS Failure Analysis Report: F A0652, dated Infringement 

06/08/2005 

23 

I Chu, Julia; Flasck, Richard; 


Maurice 

I Admitted 

10/30109 





Ueunten, Paul; Moyer, James; 10/30109 

Maurice 




I 



Maurice

CX-250C 

CX-251C 

CX-252C 

CX-253C 

CX-254C 

CX-255C 

CX-256C 

CX-257C 

CX-258C 

CX-259C 

MP1038 Inventory spreadsheet 

(MONO-ITC 00507668) 

E-mail fromC.ChangtoJ.Chuetal...re 

M01038 wip and stock, dated 01120/2006 

(MONO-ITC 00507667) 

IllINEC Qualification Transfer spreadsheet 

(MONO-ITC 00503048) 

Email chainfromD.XiaotoJ.Chuetal...re 

IllINEC transfer of meeting minutes, dated 

03/29/2007 

Withdr, 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

I Withdrawn 

. WIthdrawn 

DM_US:22889518_2 




Infringement; Remedy 

Infringement 

Infringement 

24 

Chu, Julia; Flasck, Richard; 


Maurice 

Chu, Julia; Xiao, Deming; Flasck, 

Richard; Ueunten, Paul; Moyer, 

James; Sciammas, Maurice 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-262C 

CX-263C 

CX-264C 

CX-265C 

CX-268C 

CX-269C 

CX-270C 

CX-271C 

CX-272C 

CX-273C 

CX-274C 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Greater China_Customer Shipment 

History_081118 

00449 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 




Infringement 

Email chain from R. Holliday to' 1. Graham re I Infringement 

Life Fitness samples dated 10128/2002 

071615-61 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889518_2 

25 

Wang, Fiona; Flasck, Richard Rejected 

10/26/09 

Holliday, Roger; Flasck, Richard I Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-275C 

CX-276C 

CX-277C 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 


02 Micro's Final Exhili»it List 


CX-278C Email chain from C. Isham to 1. Signorino et I Infringement 

a1. re A vnet Order dated 03117/2008 

153430-43 

CX-279C 


CX-281G Withdrawn 



I 

CX-284C Microsemi Lie:ht Price Reauest Form I Infringement 

CX-285C 


CX-287C MPI026 Datasheet Rev. 1.403/23/2005 Infringement 

TE 000010-14 

CX-288C 


DM_US:22889518_2 

26 

I Robertson, Lance; Battaglia, 

Fabian 

I Admitted 

10/30/09 

1 I 

I Strobel, Doug I Admitted 

10/30/09 

Blackmon, Whitney; Flasck, I Admitted 

Richard 10/30109








CX-3J3C Withdrawn 






,CX-319C Withdrawn 



DM_US:22889518_2 




I 

28






CX-343C MP1010B Operation Timing Sequence 

presentation 08/29/2008 

-ITC 00350668-671 

CX-344C 









DM_US:22889518_2 


1 . .,. 




30 

Lin, Yun Feng (Chris); Wen, 

Duke; Flasck, Richard 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-353C 

CX-354C 

CX-355C 

CX-356C 

CX-357C 

CX-358C 

CX-359C 

CX-360C 

CX-361C 

CX-362C 

CX-363C 

CX-364C 

CX-365C 

CX-366C 

CX-367C 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

MPlO091 - Nu-Pulse CCFL Inverter 

Controller Datasheet, Rev. 0.9 09/0212008 

-ITC 00433166-1 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889518_2 




Infringement 

31 

Lin, Yun Feng (Chris); Wen, 

Duke; Flasck, Richard . 

Admitted 

10/30/09






CX-373C MP1872 2Lamps Application Circuit 

CX-374C 



CX-377C. Withdrawn 




DM_US:22889S 1 8_2 




Infringement 

32 

Lin, Yun Feng (Chris); Flasck, 

Richard 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-396C 

CX-397 

CX-398C 

CX-399 

CX-400C 

CX-404C 

CX-405C 

Withdrawn 

MP1010B Datasheet Rev. 0.1, 01/01/2003 

(02ITC 208224-228) 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889518_2 




Validity 

Validity 

Infringement 

Infringement 

34 

Lin, Yung-Lin; Pfleger, Ed; 

Mercer, Ray 

Lin, Yung-Lin; Mercer, Ray 

Lin, Yung-Lin; Pfleger, Ed; 

Mercer, Ray 


Moyer, James; Sciammas, 

Maurice 



Maurice 

Admitted 

10/21109 

Admitted 

10/21109 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-413C· 

CX-414C 

CX-415C 

CX-416C 

CX-417C 

CX-418C 

CX-419C 

CX-420C 

CX-421C 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 




I MPlO15 Proposal, dated 11/27/00 I Infringement 

(MONO-ITC 00115499-501) 

Email from Jim Moyer to George Hall, Larry Infringement; Validity 

Sample, Michael Hsing, Maurice Sciammas, 

Paul Ueunten, Robert Chen, Simon Tsai, C.H. 

Yeam, Tim Rust, David Christy, Mike 

O'Malley, Tim Miller, Matt Gork, Joe Huijev 

re MPlO15, dated 12112/00 

00115502-5 

I Email from Jim Mover to Larrv Samoe. Infringement; Validity 

DM_US:228S9S1 S_2 

36 

I Flasck, Richard; Ueunten, Paul; I Admitted 


Maurice; Mercer 

10/30109 

Flasck, Richard; Ueunten, Paul; Admitted 


Maurice; Mercer, Ray 

10/30109 


Moyer, James; Sciammas, 10/30109 

Maurice; Mercer, Ray

CX-422C 

CX-423C 

CX-424C 

CX-425C 

CX-426C 

CX-428C 

Withdrawn 




Email chain from PH Wang to John Franz, I Infringement; Validity 

Maurie Sciammas, 

danielhmonolithicpower.com, 

johnfmonolithicpower.com, Max Yuan, Fiona 

Wang, Alric Chiu, Simon Tsai, Deming Xiao 

re :MP101B Datasheet. 

063 0 ,HLO, 

Email chain from John Franz to Maurice I Infringement; Validity 

Sciammas, PH Wang, 

danielhmonolithicpower.com, 

johnfmonolithicpower.com, Max Yuan, Fiona 

Wang, Alric Chiu, Simon Tsai, Deming Xiao 

re :MP 1 0 lOB datasheet. Attachment: 

:MPlOlOB Datasheet, Rev. 0.1, 1/10/03 

067526-5 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889518_2 

37 

Wang, Fiona; Xiao, Deming; 




Wang, Fiona; Xiao, Deming; 




Admitted 

10126/09 

Admitted 

10/26/09

CX-429C 

CX-430C 

CX-431C 

CX-432C 

CX-433 

CX-434C 

CX-435C 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 




Email Chain from C. Isham to S. Exell et at re Infringement 

Microsemi Inverter Line News!, dated 

04/20/2009 

(A VNET 000193-194) 

Chart Displaying the retention of registration Infringement; Domestic 

records for specific customers on Microsemi Industry 

CCFL products 

(A VNET 000088-96) 

I Withdrawn 

I Chart Titled: Microsemi IPG Design Infringement 

Registration Products 

(A VNET 000991-994) 

I Withdrawn 

DM_US:228895 1 8_2 

38 

Hardin, Frank; Choi, Kevin; I Admitted 




Chien 





Chien; Silberstein, Asaf; Battaglia, 

Fabian 

I 

Hardin, Frank; Choi, Kevin; Admitted 




Chien 

I

CX-436C 

CX-437C 

CX-438C 

CX-439C 




I Chart Displaying all Shipments A vnet did of Infringement; Importation 

Listed Microsemi Products between July 2007 

and July 2009 

(A VNET 001153-1282) 

Chart Displaying all Shipments of Micro semi Infringement; Importation 

Inverter Module Products through June of 

2009 

(A VNET 001093-1152) 

Communication from M. Sivetts to Valued Infringement; Importation; 

Customer re New 2009 Price Book for Bonding 

Microsemi Scottsdale and Lawrence Division 

Products, dated 10/27/2008 

(A VNET 000064) 

I Microsemi Chart Titled: Inverter Selector Infringement 

Guide 

(A VNET 000712) 

DM_US:22889S18_2 

39 






Fabian 






Fabian 






Fabian 





Chien

CX-442C 

CX-443C 

CX-444C 

CX-445C 

CX446C 




I Email Chain from A. Harper-Veith to L. Infringement 

Mitchell et al. re Urgent MSW Registration & 

Buy Request In House Buy GE Sensing, dated 

01109/2008 

VNET 000157-158 

Distributor Agreement between MPS and Infringement; Importation 

A VNET, Rev. 5/30/01, dated 01/00/2006 

Email Chain from S. Gereb to A VNET- Infringement 

DISPLAY-TEAM re New Marketing Tool 

Information, dated 04/09/2007 

(A VNET 000195-196) 

I Email Chain from J. Graham to Undisclosed- Infringement 

Recipients re NEW PRODUCT 

ANNOUNCEMENT - LXMG 1686-12-45, 

dated 02/22/2007 

VNET 000197-198) 

I Registration Part List with BC 091806 Infringement; Importation; 

(A VNET 000242-285) Remedy; Bonding 

DM_US:22889S18_2 

40 





Chien 

Hardin, Frank; Flasck, Richard; I Admitted 


Sciammas, Maurice; Rao, Meera; 

Richard 

Hardin, Frank;' Choi, Kevin; I Admitted 




Chien 





Chien 





Chien; Silberstein, Asaf; Battaglia,· 

Fabian

CX-450C 

CX-451C 

CX-452C 

CX-453C 

CX-454C 

I Email Chain from L. Boyd to G. Tammo re 

Flex Medical Quote # HE162064378- 

LXMGI617A-12-42 w. attached document re 

same, dated 12/2112007 

VNET 000406-413 

I Email from W. Wang to V. Dicristofaro et al. 

re A VNET SHIPMENT REPORT-Feb.2-6, 

dated 02/09/2009 

(A VNET 000525) 

I Email Chain from J. March to D. Ung re MSW 

New Single "A" Inverter Modules-Please 

Read- RMA# RMA007421; dba# P140- 

2002259 w/chart re Single A new Inverters, 

dated 01128/2009 

VNET 000595-604) 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889518_2 

Design Registration Summary 

(A VNET 000065-79) 

Investigation' No. 337-TA-666 



Infringement 





Bonding 

41 

Hardin, Frank; Choi, Kevin; 




Chien 






Fabian 






Fabian 






Fabian 

I Admitted 

10/30109 

I Admitted 

10/30109 

I Admitted 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/30109

CX-455C 

CX-458C 

CX-459C 

CX-460C 

CX-461C 




I Chart Tracking Registrations with Microsemi I Infringement; Importation; 

(A VNET 000103-111) Bonding 

Master Distributor Agreement between Infringement 

Microsemi Corporation and A VNET, Rev. 

6196, dated 1110111998 

Withdrawn 

Email Chain from J. March to PI50-SERVICE Infringement; Importation; 

re MSW Stock Rotation/inverters-A vnet; Remedy; Bonding 

ROT007020; dbt# P150-1003125 wI attached 

axapta report, dated 08/24/2007 

VNET 000695-699l 

I Email from S. Lindberg to G. Tammo re Infringement 

AMS-NewSingleCCFL Inverter_Resp 

Training Kit, dated 0111012008 

(A VNET 000159-174) 

A vnet Manufacturer Identification Chart re Infringement; Importation 

MPS Products 

(A VNET 000998-1018) 

DM_US:22&&951&_2 

42 

I Hardin, Frank; Choi, Kevin; 





Fabian 

I Admitted 

10/30/09 

Hardin, Frank; Flasck, Richard; Admitted 



Larice; Henry, George; Jin, 

Chien 





Chien 

Hardin, Frank; Flasck, Richard; I Admitted 




Chien 

Hardin, Frank; Flasck, Richard; Admitted 


CX-463C 

CX-464C 

CX-467 

CX-468C 

CX-470C 

CX-471C 

CX-472C 

CX-473 

CX-474C 

A vnet Sales Transaction Spreadsheet 

(AVl{ET 001019-1033) 

A vnet Manufacturer Identification Chart re 

Microsemi Products 

(A VNET 001034-1055) 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889518_2 




Infringement 

43 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-486C ·Withdrawn 






DM_US:22889518_2 




44

CX-492C 

CX-493C 

CX-494C 

CX-495C 

CX-500C 

CX-501C 

CX-502C 

CX-503C 

CX-504C 

Withdrawn 




Microsemi Integrated Products Dell Computer, I Infringement 

Portable Products and Light Detection, dated 

April 2004 

(M 024888-945) 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM.-US:22889518_2 

Q2-09 Week 7 Ending 02-15-09 

(MICRO SEMI 224319-224391) 


45 





Chien 




Xiaoping; Nguyen, Chien; 

Fabian 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-505C 

CX-506 

CX-507 

CX-508 

CX-509 

CX-510 

CX-511 

CX-512C 

Withdrawn 

Microsemi Datasheet re PanelMatch 

RangeMax LXMG 1811-05-6x, 5'v 6W CCFL 

Programmable Inverter Module, Rev. 1.0, 

dated 1112512008 




Infringement 

Microsemi Datasheet re PanelMatch A Series Infringement 

LXMG1618-05-2x, 5V 2W CCFL 

programmable Inverter Module, Rev. 1.0, 

dated 1113012007 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

I Microsemi Datasheet re PanelMatch Infringement 

VEasyLIT LCMG1813-12-6xS, 12V 6W 

CCFL Programmable Inverter Module, Rev. 

1.0, dated 11/14/2008 

I Withdrawn 

I Microsemi forecasting summary I Infringement 

(M 020005-15) 

DM_US:22889518-.2 

46 

Flasck, Richard; Choi, Kevin; Admitted 




Chien 





Chien 





Chien 

I 

I Strobel, Doug; Choi, Kevin; 




Chien 

I Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-516C 

CX-517C 

CX-519C 

CX-520C 

CX-521C 

CX-524C 

CX-525C 

CX-526C 

CX-527C 

Withdrawn 

Spreadsheet re LX1691 for Portable Program 


Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889518_2 




Infringement 

47 





Chien . 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-52SC Withdrawn 


CX-530C I Spreadsheet showing Microsemi weekly 

visiting plan 

(MICRO SEMI 142493-142571) 


CX-532C - Withdrawn 



CX-535C END CUSTOMER CROSS ReCOSOS08 

(MICRO SEMI 158732-158743) 

CX-536C -Withdrawn 



DM...:,US:22889518..2 




Infringement 


48 





Chien 






Fabian 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-540C 

CX-541C 

CX-542 

CX-543C 

CX-544C 

CX-545C 

CX-546C 

CX-547C 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Email chain from R. Holiday to S. Litchfield 

et al.. re LX6512 update with attached 

presentation, dated 01123/2008 attaching 

Microsemi LX6512, Rev X, Kevin Choi, 

Microsemi Analog Mixed Signal Group 

System Design Engineering 

174049-17408 

Email chain from 1. Gentile to M. Sivetts et 

al.. re LX1697, dated 03/03/2009 

(MICRO SEMI 176233-176236) 




Infringement 


Email chain from R. Holiday to 1. Signorino re I Infringement 

LX6511, dated 04/09/2009 

(MICRO SEMI 176299-176300) 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889S18_2 

49 





Chien 






Fabian 





Chien 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09



CX-552C I Microsemi Analog Mixed Signal Group, 

CCFL Backlighting, dated 02/28/2007 

(MICROSEMI 211892-211900) 




CX-560 _Withdrawn 




DM_US:22889518_2 





50 





Chien 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-577C 

CX-578C 

CX-579C 

CX-580C 

CX-581C 

CX-582C 

CX-583C 

CX-584C 

CX-585C 

Withdrawn 

Email from C. Su to L. Kao et al.. re 6 RFQ +4 Bonding 

Review Order for Approval-1217, dated 

12/17/2008 




I Email from J. Chuane: to V. Hsieh et aI .. re I Importation 

I MPS Reseller Agreement No. DA090711 T Importation 

(MPS-ITC 000306-317) 

I Email chain from L. Kao to M. Hsing et al.. re Infringement 

4 Month Plan, dated 06/16/2004 

105092-105 

I Withdrawn 

I Email from B. Hsieh to Boss (Sales Manager) Infringement; Domestic 

re Compal Notebook Inverter Solution, dated Industry 

0311012004 

096928) 

DM_US:22889S18_2 

52 

Kao, Leonard; Flasck, Richard; Admitted 



Richard 

I Kao, Leonard; Flasck, Richard; Admitted 

Sciammas, Maurice; Rao, Meera, 10/30/09 



Sciammas, Maurice; Rao, Meera, 10/30/09 

Moyer James; Neely, Richard 


Ueunten. Paul: Mover. James: 10/30109 



. Sciammas, Maurice; Rao, Meera; 

Neely, Richard

CX-587C 

CX-588C 

CX-589C 

CX-590C 

CX-591 

CX-592C 

CX-593C 

CX-594C 

CX-595C 

CX-596C 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Email fromL.KaotoM.Sciammas re 

Innolux, dated 06106/2008 

(MONO-ITC 00449904) 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889518_2 




Bonding; Domestic Industry; 

Remedy' . . 


53 

Kao, Leonard; Flasck, Richard; 



Kao, Leonard; Flasck, Richard; 



Richard 

Admitted 

10/30/09

eX-599 Withdrawn 

eX-600e Withdrawn 













DM_US:22889518_2 




54

CX-613 

CX-614 

CX-615 

CX-616 

CX-617 

CX-618 

CX-619 

CX-620 

CX-621 

CX-622 

CX-623 

CX-624 

CX-625 

CX-626 

CX-627 

CX-628 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

I Withdrawn 

I Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889S18_2 



Novemb.er 3, 2009 

I 

55


CX-63 0 Withdrawn 














DM_US:22889518_2 




56







DM_US:22889518_2 




57

CX-660C 

CX-661C 

CX-662C 

CX-663C 

CX-664C 

CX-665C 

CX-666C 

CX-667C 

CX-668C 

CX-669C 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

LOE Sales Spreadsheet 

(LOE 0000004-17) 




I Infringement; Remedy 

Email chain from C. Lin to Tony Du RE Infringement 

MPI0091, dated 02/25/2009 (with certified 

translation) 

00466970-4669 

Customer Service Request Form for MPlO091 I Infringement 

(MONO-ITC 00286469-286470) 

DM_US:22889518_2 

58 

Lee, Y oon Suk; Park, K wang Ill; 

Flasck, Richard; Sciammas, 

Maurice; Rao, Meera, Moyer, 

Richard 






Maurice 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-671C 

CX-672C 

CX-673C 

CX-674C 

CX-675 

CX-676 

CX-677 

CX-678C 

CX-679C 

Withdrawn 

Fax from Y. Lin to E. Pfleger, re modified 

figure 6, dated 04112/1999 

PRlV 000008-1 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889518_2 




Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 

59 








Maurice 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30109

CX-682C 

CX-683C 

CX-684C 

CX-685C 

CX-686C 

CX-687C 

CX-688C 

CX-689 

CX-690C 

CX-691C 

CX-692C 

Withdrawn 




Email chain from D. Brown to S. Litchfield re Infringement 

GM Meeting, dated 04116/2007 

(MICRO SEMI 141974-141976) 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn , 

Spreadsheet showing NB Tracking Report in Infringement 

Taiwan 

(MICRO SEMI 167835-167843) 

I Withdrawn 

DM_US:22SS951 S_2 

60 


Holliday, Roger; Litchfield, 10/30109 



Chien 

Choi, Kevin; Holliday, Roger; Admitted 

Litchfield, Steven; Robertson, 10/30109 


Chien

CX-703C 

CX-704C 

CX-705C 

CX-706C 

CX-707C 

CX-708C 

I MP1008 Simolified Schematic. dated 

I MPS MP1872 Dual Lamo CCFL Controller 

00528309-52831 

I MP1038 Simplified Schematic, 11/25/04; 

MPlO07 Simplified Schematic, 4/2/04; 

MP1052 Simplified Schematic, 412/04; 

MP1041 Simplified Schematic,211105; 






Infringement 

MP1039 Simplified Schematic, 1112/05; Half 

Bridge Proposal, 12113/06 

00454961-968 

I MPS MP1039 Full Bridge CCFL Controller Infringement , 

Technical Information, dated 11107/2005 

(MONO-ITC 00111831-111841) 

I MPS MP1018 Flat Panel Monitor CCFL Infringement 

Driver Controller Technical InfofII.lation, dated 

12/05/2002 

036190-361 

I MP10091 Simolified Schematic. dated Infringement 

DM_US:22889518_2 

62 



Maurice 


Moyer, James; Sciammas, 10/30/09 

Maurice 



Maurice 

Flasck, Richard; Ueunten, Paul; I Admitted 


Maurice 



Maurice 



Maurice 



Maurice

CX-709C 

CX-710C 

CX-711C 

CX-712C 

CX-713C 

CX-714C 

CX-715C 

CX-716C 

CX-717C 

CX-718C 

CX-719C 

CX-720C 

Withdrawn 

EV0001B - MP1015 Datasheet, Rev. 1.1, 

09/24/03 

108841-108846 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

. Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889S18_2 

Irivestigation No. 337-TA-666 



Infringement 

MPS MP1010 Resonant Mode CCFL Inverter Infringement 

Application Note Technical Information, dated 

0112001 

S-ITC 118787-118 

Infringement 

009983-9988 

MPS MP1037 Full Brid2e CCFL Controller Infringement 

63 



Maurice 


Moyer, James; SCiammas, 10/30/09 

Maurice 



Maurice 



Maurice

CX-732C 

CX-733C 

CX-734C 

CX-735C 

CX-736C 

CX-737C 

CX-738C 

CX-739C 

CX-740C 

CX-741C 

CX-742C 

CX-743C 

CX-744C 

CX-745C 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 




MPS MPI008 - Half Bridge CCFL Controller I Infringement 

Preliminary Specifications, dated 05/19/2006 

00117203-11 

Validity; Remedy 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889518_2 

65 



Maurice 



Richard 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-761C 

CX-762 

CX-763 

CX-764C 

CX-767 

CX-768C 

CX-769C 

CX-770C 

CX-771C 

CX-772C 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Monolithic Power Systems Inc Form 10k 

Annual report, dated 02/27/2009 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889S18_2 

Microsemi Integrated Products RTP Team 

Presentation LX6512 - QFN High 

Performance CCFL Controller 

(MICRO SEMI 216924-216943) 





Infringement 

67 



Maurice; Neely, Richard; Rao, 

Meera 





Chien 

Admitted 

10/26/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-773C 

CX-774C 

CX-775C 

CX-777C 

CX-77SC 

CX-779C 

CX-7S0C 

CX-7S1C 

CX-782C 

CX-783C 

CX-784C 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 




Email chain from 1. Signorino to C. Nguyen et I Infringement 

a1. re RTP Status for FY09 Q1, dated 

11125/200S 

(MICROSEMI 222661-222665) 

Microsemi's CCFL Controllers: Target LCD I Infringement 

TV and LCD Monitor CCFL Backlighting 

System Application 

(MICRO SEMI 217564-217570) 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889S18_2 

68 

Nguyen, Chien; Flasck, Richard; I Admitted 







George; lin, Xiaoping; Nguyen, 

Chien

CX-785C 

CX-786C 

.CX-787C 

CX-788C 

CX-789C 

CX-790C 

CX-791C 

CX-792C 

CX-793C 

CX-794C 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 




Ep.dicott Research Group Summary of Answer I Infringement; Importation 

to Subpoena Requests 

(ERG 000003-4) 

Bill of Materials for the ERG G3582F Inverter I Infringement 

(ERG 000006-8) 

MPS MP1015 Controller Purchase I Infringement; Importation 

Spreadsheet 

(ERG 000010) 

ERG Purchasing Documents re A vnet I Infringement; Importation 

Purchases Orders 

(ERG 000011-14) 

DM_US:22889518_2 

69 

Novitsky, Thomas; Flasck, 


James; Sciammas, Maurice; Rao, 

Richard 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-805C 

CX-806C 

CX-807C 

CX-80SC 

CX-809C 

CX-SlOC 

CX-S11C 

CX-812C 

DM_US:22889518_2 

Lamp Voltage Feedbacks (OV1 and OV2) 

(MONO-ITC 00268849) 

Lamp Voltage Feedbacks (OV1 and OV2) 

(MONO-ITC 00268850-52) 

MP10091 Datasheet, Rev. 0.911111108 

(MONO-ITC 00268853-62) 

MP10091 Datasheet, Rev. 0.9 6113/08 

(MONO-ITC 00268863-73) 

Email chain from S. Pratt to Marcom with 

attachments RE 10091 0.9 rev specs, dated 

11112/200S 

00268S38-268 

MPlO09 New Product Release 

Announcement, 5/12/08 




Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 

71 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Pratt, Steve; Bu, Chi Teng; Flasck, I Admitted 

Richard; Ueunten, Paul; Moyer, 10/30/09 

Maurice 

Pratt, Steve; Bu, Chi Teng; Flasck, 


James: Sciammas. Maurice 

Pratt, Steve; Bu, Chi Teng; Flasck, 



Pratt, Steve; Flasck, Richard; 



Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-814C 

CX-815C 

CX-SI6C 

CX-SI7C 

CX-SlSC· 

CX-819C 

CX-S20C 

CX-S21C 



I • It 


I Email from S. Sun to S. Pratt re Heln to Create I Infringement 

I MPI0I0B-CI79 r2.2 YEC.ndf I Infringement 

MP101OB-CI79 _r2.2_YEC.pdf Infringement 

(MONO-ITC 00055597-55607) 

I Email Chain from C. Lee to G. Yao et all with Infringement 

attachments RE MPI0I0B enable signal, dated 

03/01l200S 

I (MONO-ITC 00055593-95) 

I MPS Product Release Form for Product # Infringement 

I Email from A Zhou to T Du et al re Please I Infringement 

I Email chain from T. Du to S. Sun et al RE I Infringement 

DM_US:22889518_2 

72 

Pratt, Steve; Flasck, Richard; 


Maurice 

I Pratt, Ste;e; Flasck, Richard; I Admitted 


Maurice 

I Pratt, Steve; Flasck, Richard; I Admitted 


Maurice 

Pratt, Steve; Flasck, Richard; Admitted 


Maurice 

Pratt, Steve; Flasck, Richard; I Admitted 



Pratt, Steve; Flasck, Richard; Admitted 


Maurice 

I Pratt, Steve; Flasck, Richard; I Admitted 



I Pratt, Steve; Flasck, Richard; Admitted 


Sciammas, Maurice

CX-822 

CX-823 

CX-824C 

CX-825C 

CX-826C 

CX-827C 

CX-828C 

CX-829C 

CX-830C 

CX-831C 

CX-832C 

I Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

MPS 30(b)(b) First Notice Non-Technical 

Topics Corporate Deposition Designee: Meera 

Rao 




Infringement, Importation 

I Spreadsheet re MPS PDG Shipment Infringement, Importation 

(MONO-ITC 00420782-420868) 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Email from T. Liu to S. McClure et a1. re 

Special PN: LX1697 for Quanta, dated 

10/29/2008 

(MICRO SEMI 162358-162361) 

I Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:228895 1 8_2 

Infringement 

, 73 

I 

Rao, Meera; Flasck, Richard; Admitted 



Richard 

Rao, Meera; Flasck, Richard; I Admitted 



Richard 





Chien

CX-833C 

CX-834C 

CX-835C 

CX-836C 

CX-837C 

CX-838C 

CX-839C 

CX-840C 

Withdrawn 




Microsemi Datasheet re LX1692A-12060 Full Infringement 

bridge Resonant CCFL Controller, rev. 1.0, 

dated 1110912006 

(MICRO SEMI 121996-2009) 

Microsemi Datasheet re LX1692B-13083 Full Infringement 

Bridge Resonant CCFL Controller, rev. 1.0, 

dated 10/16/2006 

(MICRO SEMI 122024-122036) 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Microsemi Datasheet re Full Bridge Resonant Infringement 

CCFL Controller, rev. 1.0, dated 05/09/2006 

(MICRO SEMI 122109-122120) 

I Presentation re Linfinity Microelectronics: Infringement 

Managing Light, Sound and Power for 

Computing, dated 03/2000 

(M 072820-72844) 

I Withdrawn 

DM_US:22SS9S1S_2 

74 





Chien 





Chien 


Holliday, Roger; Litchfield, 10130109 



Chien 





Chien 

I

CX-854C 

CX-855C 

CX-856C 

CX-858C 

CX-859C 

CX-860C 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Spreadsheet re Microsemi parts 

(MICRO SEMI 133524-133570) 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889S18_2 

Investigation No •. 337-TA-666 




76 


HollidaY,Roger; Litchfield, 




Fabian 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-870C 

CX-S71C 

CX-872C 

CX-873C 

CX-874C 

I Spreadsheet re System makers and their 

products 

(MICRO SEMI 1420S0-142121) 

I Withdrawn 

I Email from L. Robertson to 1. Cho et al. re 

LX1697 Rev 9 Status, dated 03/19/2008 

(MICRO SEMI 153660-153662) 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 




Infringement 

Infringement 

CX-875 Microsemi LXMGI617A-05-4x 5V 4W CCFL Infringement 

Programmable Inverter Module Production 

Datasheet 

CX-876 I Pages from Microsemi website re Backlight I Infringement 

Inverter Product List 

DM_US:22889S18_2 

78 . 




George; lin, Xitl:oping; Nguyen, 

Chien 

Flasck; Richard; Choi, Kevin; Admitted 




Chien 





Chien 





Chien 

I Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-878 

CX-879 

CX-880C 

CX-881C 

CX-882C 

CX-883C 

CX-884C 

CX-885C 

CX-886C 

CX.;.887 

CX-888C 

Pages from Microsemi website re Backlight 

Inverter Product 

I Microsemi Datasheet re LX1691 Enhanced 

Multi-Mode CCFL Controller, Rev. 1.0, 

07116/2004 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889S18_2 



- November 3, 2009 


I . I 

79 

. 





Chien 





Chien 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-889C 

CX-890C 

CX-891C 

CX-892C 

CX-893C 

CX-894C 

CX-895C 

CX-896C 

CX-897C 

. CX-898C 

CX-899C 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Taiwan Trip, dated 0311998 I Validity 

(MPS-ITC 007723-7744) 

I Mp 1 011 Refi:rence Circuit Schematic revision, I Validity 

dated 10/02/1998 

001151 

Withdrawn 

MPS Confidential business Plan, dated Validity 

December 1998 

(MPS-ITC 008811-8845) 

I MPS 1011 Preliminary Buildsheet Schematic y'alidity . 

(MPS-ITC 011492) 

I Ltr from P. Ueunten to"] Chang and H. Chan Validity 

re MPI0ll Reference Schematic and 

Engineering Module, dated 09/2411998 

010314-1 

DM_US:228895 1 8_2 


02 Micro's Final Exh.bit List . 


80 

I Shannon, John; Flasck, Richard; 


I Shannon, John; Flasck, Richard; 


I Admitted 

10/30/09 

I Admitted 

10/30/09 

Shannon, John; Flasck, Richard; I Admitted 



Shannon, John; FlaSck, Richard; Admitted 

Ueunten, Paul; Moyer, James;· 10/30/09 

Maurice 

Shannon, John; Flasck, Richard; Admitted 


Sciammas, Maurice

CX-927C 

CX-928C 

CX-929C 

CX-932 

CX-933C 

CX-934C 

Email chain from D. Brown to J. Want et at re 

RFQ request for Sumida 1 LX1697CLQ, dated 

07/14/2007 

Datasheet re Microsemi PanelMatch 

VEasyLIT LXMG1813-12-6xS, rev. 1.0, 

dated 11/14/2008 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889S 1 8_2 




Infringement, Importation, 

Bonding 

Infringement, Importation, 

Bonding 

83 

Flasck,. Richard; Holliday, Roger; 


Lance; Nguyen, Chien; 

Fabian 

Admitted 

10/22/09 

Flasck, Richard; Holliday, Roger; I Admitted 

Litchfield, Steven; Robertson, 10/30/09 

Lance; Nguyen, Chien; 

Fabian

CX';949 

CX-95 0 

CX-951 

CX-952 

CX-953 

CX-954C 

CX-955C 

CX-956 

CX-957C 

CX-958C 

CX-959C 

CX-960C 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889S18-.2 

Application for Subpoena Duces Tecum and 

Ad Testificandum to Navico, Inc. and 

dated 08/03/2009 





]nfringement; Intnnrtgtinn 



85 

Steensland, David;· Flasck, 

Richard 

Steensland, David; Flasck, 

Richard 


Richard 


Richard 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted

CX-962C 

CX-963C 

CX-964C 

CX-965C 

CX-971C 

CX-972C 

Mierosemi Datasheet re PanelMateh 

RangeMax LXMG1627-05-44 5V Dual4W 

Programmable Inverter Module, Rev. 1.0, 

dated 12/04/2008 

22 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889S18_2 

Investigation No. 337-TA-666 . 





86 

Steensland, David; Flasek, 

Richard 


Richard 

Steensland, David; Flasek, 

Richard . 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

. Admitted 

·10/30/09

CX-IOO9C Withdrawn 

CX-lOlOC Withdrawn 

CX-IOUC Withdrawn 

CX-I012 Withdrawn 

CX-lOl3 Withdrawn 

CX-IOI4C Withdrawn 

CX-IOISC Withdrawn 




CX-IOI9C Withdrawn 


DM_US:22889S 1 8_2 




91

CX-I021C 

CX-I022C 

CX-I023 

CX-I024C 

CX-I025C 

CX-I026C 

CX-1027C 

CX-1028C 

CX-I029C 

CX-I030C 

CX .. I03IC 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

MPS Datasheet re MPlO09 Nu-Pulse CCFL 

Inverter Controller; Rev. 0:9, dated 

10117/2008 

00000164-1 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889S 1 8-.2 



November 3, 2009 . 

Infringement 

92 



Maurice 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-I043C 

CX-I044C 

CX-I045C 

CX-1046C 

CX-I047C 

CX-I048 

CX-I049C 

CX-I050C 

CX-I051C 

CX-I052C 

Withdrawn 

. Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889S18_2 

Technical Diagram of an 

Inverter, Document H13VV 

Q»EGA-ITC 00564228) 

Spreadsheet in Chinese Re BOM 60- 

2n60403168, T12 Inverter Board 

(pEGA-ITC 00027309-27310) 




Importation; Remedy; 

Bonding . 

Importation; Remedy; 

Bonding 



94 

Wang, Fiona; Flasck, Richard; 


Moyer, Jam.es; Neely, Richard 

Wang, Fiona; Flasck, Richard; 


Richard 

Wen, Duke; Flasck, Richard; 



. Richard 

Admitted 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/30109

CX-I054C 

CX-1055C 

CX-I056C 

CX-I057C 

CX-1058C 

CX-1059C 

DM_US:22889518_2 

Spreadsheet in Foreign Language RE Panel, 

Project 

(PEGA-ITC 00077083-77090) 



November 3, ·2009 


Asustek Computer Inc. Inverter Schematic: I Infringement; Importation 

A3E 

(pEGA-ITC 00991568) 

ASUSTEK Technical Diagram of an Inverter, I Infringement; Importation 

Document A3F (A6J)PWM 

(pEGA-ITC 00113566) 

Asustek Computer Inc. Inverter Schematic: I Infringement; Importation 

A3F (A6J)PWM 

(PEGA-ITC 00991569) 

Asustek Computer Inc. Inverter Schematic A4, I Infringement; Importation 

Rev. 1.0 

(ASUS-ITC 00009330) 

95 




Richard 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/30109

CX-I061C 

CX-I062C 

CX-I063C 

CX-I064C 

CX-I065C 

CX-I066C 

Asustek Computer Inc. Inverter Schematic: A4 

(pEGA-ITC 00991570) 




I ASUSTEK Technical Diagram of an Inverter Infringement; Importation 

DocumentA5 

(pEGA-ITC 00991573) 

Asustek Computer Inc. Inverter Schematic: A6 Infringement; Importation 

(pEGA-ITC 00991572) 

Spreadsheet RE ASUS Inverter Board Circuit Infringement; Impprtation 

(ASUS-ITC 00009277) 

Asustek Computer Inc. Inverter Schematic: Infringement; Importation 

A6NE 

(pEGA-ITC 00991574) 

I Asustek Schematics including ASUS-ITC lnfringement; Importation 

00009316 - Asustek Computer Inc. Inverter 

Schematic A7J, Rev. 1.2, 08/16/01 

US-ITC 0000931 

I Asustek Computer Inc. Inverter Schematic: lnfringement; Importation 

A7K-DA (A7J) 

(pEGA-ITC 00991577) 

DM.-US:22889S18_2 

96 


Neel· ,Richard . 

Wen, Duke; Flasck, Richard; Admitted 

Ueunten. Paul: Mover. James: 10/30/09 

Neely, Richard 




Neely, Richard 




Neely,_ Richard 



Neel Richard. 

Wen, Duke; Flasek,· Richard; Admitted 




CX-1068C 

CX-1069C 

'CX-1070C 

CX-I071C 

CX-1072C 

.CX-I073C 

CX-I074C 

Asustek Computer Inc. Inverter Schematic: 

B80A 

(pEGA-ITC 00991578) 



Novem·ber 3, 2009 

PEGATRON Technical Diagram of an I Infringement; Importation 

Inverter with hand notations, Document G60J 

(pEGA-ITC 00000663) 

PEGATRON Technical Diagram of an I Infringement; Importation 

Inverter with hand notations, Document 

N50Vm 

Infringement; Importation . 

I PEGATRON Technical Diagram of an I Infringement; Importation 

Inverter, Document N50TP 

(pEGA-ITC 00564234) 

I Email Chain in Chinese from A. Fanchiang to Infringement; Importation 

J. Liu et all, dated 02/1212009 

(PEGA-ITC 00459872-459879) 

I Email chain in Chinese from D. Wen to A. Infringement; Importation 

Liu, dated 07/17/2008 

(pEGA-ITC 00484043-484046) 

I Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889S18_2 

97 

I Wen, Duke; Flasck, Richard; 


Neel ,Richard 



Neel ,Richard 



Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

I Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-I104C 

CX-II09C 

CX-ll10C 

CX-llllC 

CX-1112C 

CX-I113C 

Proforma Invoice.for shipping to Transource . 

Services Crop. 

(ASUS-ITC 00555081-91) 

Inventory Report from Ecommerce System 

(ASUS-ITC 03520770) 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

. DM_US:22889S 1 8_2 

Asus Net Sales Qty & Net Sales Amt - 2004 to 

2009 

(ASUS-ITC 00352408-352707) 





Remedy 




101 

Yan, Godwin; Flasck, Richard; 

Ueunten, Paul;: Moyer, James; 

Sciam.ni.as, Maurice; Rao, Meera; 

Richard 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

AdInitted 

10/30/09 . 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-1126C 

CX-1127C 

CX-1131C 

CX-1132C 

CX-I133C 

CX-1134C 

CX-1135C 

CX-1136C 

CX-1137C 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Witness Notes: Godwin Yan, ACI Corporate 

Deposition Designee re ACI 30(b)(6) - First 

Notice '" 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn" 

DM_US:22889S18_2 




"I " 

nftingement; Importation 

103 

Yan, Godwin; Flasck, Richard; 



Richard 

Admitted 

10/30/09




CX-1141C . Withdrawn 

CX-1142C Withdrawn . 









DM_US:22889518_2 




104


. eX-1157 

eX-1158 

eX-1159 

eX-1160 

eX-1161 



CX-1164 . Withdrawn 


CX-1166 I Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889S18..2 






105 



. Richard 

Admitted 

10/26/09 

Admitted 

10/26/09

CX-ll71C 

CX-ll72C 

CX-1l73 

CX-1174C 

CX-1l79C 

CX-1180C 

CX-1l8lC 

CX-1182C 

CX-1l83 

CX-1184C 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889S18_2 

02 Micro Form 20-F for fiscal year ended 

Dec. 31,2001 

u ... "yrrr" 209424-500 




Infringement; Validity; 

Infiingement; Validity;. 

Importation; Remedy . 

Validity 

Lin, Yung-Lin; Keim, James; 

Badget, Adam; Mercer, Ray 10/22/09 

Lin, Yung-Lin; Nagel, Laurence I Admitted 

10/21/09 

, Domestic Industry I Keirn, James; Lin, Yung-Lin Admitted 

10/22/09 

106



CX-1I87 Withdrawn 

CX-1I88 Withdrawn 


CX-1I90C Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889S 1 8_2 




107

DM_US:22889S18_2 




Infringement 

Infringement 

108 

Lin, Yung-Lin; Flasck, Richard; 


Steven; Choi, Kevin; Henry, 

Lin, Yung-Lin; Flasck, Richard; 


Steven; Choi, Kevin; Henry, 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

ex.:. 1233 Withdrawn 


DM_US:22889S18_2 


02 Micro's Final Exhibit List . 


109

DM_US:22889518-.2 




110



CX-132OC Withdrawn 









DM_US:22889S 1 8....2 

· Investigation No. 337-TA-666 



112







CX-1337C· Withdrawn 









DM_US:22889S 1 8_2 




113




DM..US:22889S18_2 

· Investigation No. 337-TA-666 



Infringement 

115 



James 

Admitted 

10/30/09





.' 









DM_US:22889S18_2 




118






DM_US:22889S18_2 



November 3. 2009 

120

CX-1451C 

CX-1452C 

CX-1453C Withdr, 









CX-1462 C Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889S 1 8_2 




121

- 

CX-1465C 



CX-1468. I Withdrawn 


CX-1470 C I Withdrawn 



Withdrawn 

Withdrawn 

DM_US:22889518-.2 

Investigation No; 337-TA-666 



122

· - - 

DM_US:22889518_2 




Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 

123 



James 



James 

Flasck, Richard; Wen, Duke 


Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

-- - 

CX-15.o1C 

CX-15.o2C Asustek Comouter Inc. Inverter Schematic: 

- - 

PEGA-ITC .0.0.0.04288 

CX-1S.o3C Asustek Comouter Inc. Inverter Schematic: 

CX-1S.o4C I Asustek Comouter Inc. Inverter Schematic: 

CX-lS.oSC I Asustek Comouter Inc. Inverter Schematic: 




Infringement 

Infringement 



CX-15.o6C I Asustek Comouter Inc. Inverter Schematic: F8 I Infringement 

Infringement 

EGA-ITC .0.0.0.06987 

CX-1S.o9C Asustek Comouter Inc. Inverter Schematic: Infringement 

EGA-ITC .0.0.0.0819.0 

CX-1SI.oC Asustek Comouter Inc. Inverter Schematic: a5 Infringement 

DM_US:22889518_2 

124 

Flasck, Richard; Wen, Duke Admitted 

1.0/3.0/.09 . 


1.0/3.0/.09 

I Flasck, Richard; Wen, Duke . I Admitted 

1.0/3.0/.09 

I Flasck, Richard; Wen, Duke I Admitted 

1.0/3.0/.09 


1.0/3.0/.09 

. I Flasck, Richard; Wen, Duke I Admitted 

1.0/3.0/09 


1.0/3.0/.09 

Flasck, Richard; Wen, Duke Admitted· 

1.0/3.0/.09

· - 



November 3, 2009 .

- - - 

CX-1532C I C90S Inverter Board. Customer Asus. 

- - 

EGA-ITC 00043576-581 

CX-1533C F6S Inverter Board. Pellatron Part No. 60- 

EGA-ITC 00046085-090 

CX-1534C Asustek Comouter mc. Inverter Schematic: 

PEGA-ITC 00046149 

CX-1535C F80S Inverter Board. Customer Asus. 

CX-1536C I Asustek Comouter Inc. Inverter Schematic: 


(PEGA-ITC 00(48289) 

CX-1538C Pegatron Schematic: G70G 

(pEGA-ITC 00048684) . 

CX-1539C Asustek Computer Inc. Inverter Schematic: 

0700 INVERTER CIRCUIT 

(PEGA-ITC 00048753) 

CX-1540C 070S0 Inverter Board. Customer Asus. 

DM_US:22889518_2 





Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 



Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 

127 

I Flasck, Richard; Wen, Duke 









I Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30109 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

I Admitted 

10/30109 

I Admitted 

10/30/09 . 

I 

I Admitted 

10/30/09

- 1&. _ 

CX-1552C I Asustek Computer Inc. Inverter Schematic: 

CX-1553C· I Asustek Computer Inc. Inverter Schematic: 






I Infringement . 

I InfrinEement 

Infringement 



CX-1557C I BOM. 60-N7VINI000-AOl. A2 Inverter BD I Infringement 

CX-1558C I Asustek Computer Inc. Inverter Schematic: I Infringement 

PEGA-ITC 00107682 

CX-1559C Asustek Computer Inc. Inverter Schematic: Infringement 

EGA-ITC 00107683 

CX-1560C Asustek Computer Inc. Inverter Schematic: Infringement 

. DM_US:22889518_2 

129 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 

I Fblsck, Richard; Wen, Duke I Admitted 

10/30/09 


10/30/09 

I Flasck, Richard; Wen, Duke I A-dmitted 

10/30/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 

Flasck,'Richard; Wen, Duke Admitted 

10/30/09 

I

DM_US:22889518_2 




130




CX-1626C I Asustek Comouter· Inc. Inverter Schematic: 

CX-1627C I AsustekComouter Inc. Inverter Schematic: 



, , 

EGA-ITC 00991611 

CX-1630C Asustek Com outer Inc. Inverter Schematic: 


DM.-US:22889S 1 8_2 











Infringement 


136 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09


A 

EGA-ITC 00991618 

CX-1634C Asustek Comouter Inc. Inverter Schematic: 

EGA-ITC 00991619 

CX-1635C Asustek C'omouter Inc. Inverter Schematic: 







DM_US:22889S 1 8_2 





Infringement 

Infringement 







137 


10/30/09 


10130/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 

I



PEGA-ITC 00991630 

CX-1645C Asustek Comouter Inc. Inverter Schematic: 




CX-1649 I LX1691 Datasheet. Rev. 1.0.07/16/04 



DM_US:22889S18_2 

Investigation No. 337-TA.-666 





Infringement 







138 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 


"10/30/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 . 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09

CX-1653C 


CX-1655C 










CX-1665C 


DM_US:22889S18_2 




139




CX-1671C' Withdrawn 












DM_US:22889S18_2 




140

CX-.1683C Withdrawn 
















DM_US:22889S18_2 


02 Micro's Filial Exhibit List 


I 

141




1702C Withdrawn 






70SC· Withdrawn 



CX-17UC Withdrawn 


CX-17l3C Withdrawn 


DM_US:22889S18..2 




142

DM_US:22889S 1 8_2 

Dr. Mercer Schematics & Waveforms - I Validity 

MP1010-A Open Lamp Regulation and 

Shutdown Circuit, 8/20/09 

Mercer Rebuttal Report (Silzars), Ex. 10 

Rebuts RX-IC-3C, 34C, 46C, 70C, 84C-86C, 

91C, 133C-137C, 258C, 259C, 262C, 263C, 

412C, 470C, 471C, 478C, 484C, 506C-508C, 

522C, 534C-544C, 569C, 571C-576C, 584C- 

589C, 674C, 675C,679C, 701C, 726C,750C, 

751C. 983C. 984C 




147 . 

. Mercer 

Nagel 

Silzars 

Admitted 

10/30/09

DM_US:22889S18-.2 




Validity 

150 

Mercer 

Silzars 

Lin, Yung-Lin 

Mercer 

Silzars 

Moyer 

Ueunten 

Admitted. 

10/21109 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-1857C I 4/28/04 T. Ward email.re LX1691A short-t.erm I Validity 

demand 


Rebuts RX-1C-3C, 34C, 46C, 70C, 72-105C, 

133C-137C, 258C, 259C, 262C, 263C, 412C, 

470C, 471C, 478C, 484C, 506C-508C, 522C, 

534C-544C, 569C, 571C-576C, 584C-589C, 

674C, 675C, 679C, 701C, 726C,750C, 751C, 

983C.984C 

DM_US:22889518_2 




151 

Mercer 

Chapman 

Admitted 

10/22/09

DM_US:22889S 1 8_2 



November 3, 2009 t 

152

DM_US:22889S18-.2 

MPS Designing CCFL Inverters with the I Validity 

MP1010 version.f1, dated 05/1999 

(MPS-ITC 002769) 

Rebuts RX-1C-3C, 34C, 46C, 70C, 84C-86C, 

91C, 133C-137C, 258C, 259C, 262C, 263C, 

412C, 470C, 471C, 478C, 484C, 506C-508C, 

522C, 534C-544C, 569C, 571C-576C, 584C- 

589C, 674C,-675C, 679C, 701C, 726C, 750C, 

751C. 983C. 984C 

InveStigation No. 337-TA-666 



Infringement; Domestic 

Industry 

Infringement 

153 

Flasck 

Silzars 

Yung-Lin Lin 

Mercer 

Silzars 

Moyer 

Ueunten 

Shannon 

Flasck 

Ueunten 

Silzars 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-1926C MPS Test Schematic, dated 1/17/98 

(MONO-ITC 00111142-308) 

DM_US:22889S 1 8":'2 


02 Micro's Final Exhibit LiSt 


Infringement 

154 

Flasck 

Silzars 

Ueunten 

Moyer 

Shannon 

Admitted 

10/30/09

DM_US:22889S18_2 

. Investigation No. 337-TA-666 



156

DM_US:22889S18..2 

Schematics re CCFL in file folder labeled 

CCFL Drivers 

(MPS-ITC 006904-7226) 

Hand drawing of schematics and simplified 

schematics 

(MPS-ITC 083095) 




Infringement 

157' 

Ueunten 

Moyer 

Shannon 

Flasek 

Silzars 

Ueunten 

Moyer 

Shannon 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-2034C I 2008-AUG USA SALES FCST 

(MONO-ITC-00093957 - 4067) 

CX-2035C I ASUS Schematic 

\.-ITC 00991568) 





CX-2040C I AsUs Schematic 



DM_US:22889S18_2 




I Importation Remedy Bonding I Rao 

Infringement Sciammas 

Flasck 

Infringement Flasck, Richard 


I Infringement I Flasck, Richard 

I Infrinaement I Flasck, Richard 





158 

I Admitted' 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

I Admitted 

10/30/09 

I Admitted 

10/30/09 

I Admitted 

10/30/09 . 

I Admitted 

10/30/09 

I Admitted 

10/30/09 . 

I Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-2058C ASUS Schematic 

(pEGA-ITC 00991591) 



(PEGA-ITC 00991593) 


. (PEGA-ITC 00991594) 


(PEGA-ITC 00991595) 

CX-2063C. ASUS Schematic 

(pEGA-ITC 00991596) 





CX-2068C 1 ASUS Schematic 


(pEGA-ITC 00991602) 

CX-2070C ASUS Schematic . 

DM_US:22889518_2 




Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 




1 Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 

.. 

160 





I Flasck, Richard 


Flasck Richard 


10/30 

Admitted 

I 'Flasck, Richard 

10/30/09 

. I Admitted 


10/30/09 

I Admitted. 

10/30/09 

1 Flasck, Richard .1 Admitted 


10/30/09 

I Admitted 

I Flasck, Richard



(PEGA-ITC 009916061 


(pEGA-ITC 00991607) 


(pEGA-ITC 00991608) 


(PEGA-ITC 00991609) 

CX-2077C ASUS Schematic . 

(pEGA-ITC 00991610) 

CX-2078C Asus Schematic 







DM_US:22889S18_2 





Infringement 

Infringement 

. Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 



I infrineement 




161 

1 Flasck, Richard 

I· Flasck, Richard 







1 Flasck, Richard 


.1 Flasck, Richard 



1 Admitted 

10/30/09 

1 Admitted 

110/30/09 

1 Admitted 

10/30/09 

I Admitted 

10/30/09 

1 Admitted 

10/30/09 

I Admitted 

10/30/09 

1 Admitted 

10/30/09 

I Admitted 

10/30/09 

I Admitted 

10/30/09

CX-2112C 

CX-2113C 

CX-2114C 

CX-2115C 

CX-2116C 

CX-2117C 

CX-211SC 

I Lifefitness invoices and receipts 

(LF 51-64) 




Infringement; importation; .. 

remedy 

Infringement; importation; 

remedy 

I Lifefitness invoices, packing slips, third party Infringement; importation; 

billing and receipts remedy 

65-1 

I Microsemi AnalolZ Mixed SilZnal GrouD I Infringement; importation; 

remedy 

I Lifefitness Vendor Item ReDort. dated I Infringement; importation; 

remedy 

I (LF 154} I 

Email from M. Sciammas to P. Ueunten & J. Validity 

I OZ960 Preliminarv Datasheet. OZ960-DS-0.9. lV,alidity. 

DM_US:22889S18_2 

164 


Litchfield, Steven; Henry, George; 

Nguyen, Chien 

Flasck; Richard; Choi, Kevin; Admjtted 

Litchfield, Steven; Henry, George; 10/26/09 

Nguyen, Chien 


Litchfield. Steven: Henrv. GeorlZe: 10/26/09 

Flasck, Richard Admitted 

10/26/09 


10/26/09 

Sciammas, Maurice Admitted 

1"0/26/09 

I Sciammas, Maurice I Admitted 

10/26/09

CDX-44 I ASUSTEK Accused Products 

CDX-4S I ASUSTek LCD Display Products ' 

Analyzed 

CDX-46 I Infringing Microsemi Inverter 

Controllers 

CDX-47 I Infringing Microsemi Inverter 

Modules 

CDX-48 Withdrawn 

CDX-49 I Timers - The IC Timer Cookbook 

CDX-SO I Withdrawn 

CDX-Sl I Timers'- The 2240 Type Block 

Diagram 

DM_ US:22889S 18_2 





Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 

Infringement 

168 

I 




' Flasck, Richard 


Flasck, Richard, 

I Admitted 

10/3,0/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/3'0/09

COX-52 I Withdrawn 

COX-53 I LX1692 OVer Programmed Voltage I Infringement 

Protection 

COX-54 





COX-59 I LX1692-C BST Infringement 

DM_US:22889S 1 8_2 

Inve$tigation No. 337-TA-666 

02 Micro's Fin"al Exhibit List 


169 



Admitted 

10/30/09 

10/30/09

CDX-61 I LX1692 - C .)3ST 

CDX-62 LXI692-CBST 

CDX-63 I LX1692-C_BST 

CDX-64 I Withdrawn 




1 Infringement I" Flasck, Richard 


1 Infringement 1 Flasck, Richard 

I 

1 Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

1 Admitted 

10/30/09 

I



November 3, 2009

CDX-92C I LX1692 Infringement Claim Chart 

CDX-93C I LX1693 Claim Chart 


, 02 Micro's Final Exhibit List 




CDX-94C I LXMGI617A-03-02X Claim Chart I Infringement 

CDX-95C I LXMGI627-05-44 Claim Chart I Infringement 

CDX-96C I LXMGI813-12-6x Claim Chart I Infringement 

CDX-97C I Preliminary Claim Chart re I Infringement 

Infringement of '382 (Asus 

Computer with WI0 lOB) 

CDX-98 I Drawing by Richard Flasck Infringement 

CDX-99 I Timer v. Clock slide Infringement 

DM_US:22889S18_2 

174 

I Flasck, Richard I Admitted 

10/30/09 


10/30/09 

I 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 

I Flasck, Richard I Admitted,' 

10/30/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 


10/30/09 

I

CDX-108 I Claim Construction: Timer Circuit I Validity 

Limitation 

CDX-l09 I Withdrawn 


CDX-lll I "when said first voltage signal I Validity 

exceeds a predetermined threshold 

for said predetermined duration." 


CDX-113 I MPlOl0 (RX-85) Validity 

DM_US:22889S18_2 




176 

Mercer 

Mercer 

Mercer· 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CDX-1l5 I Differences BetweenRCTime 

Constant and "Predetermined 

Duration" 



. CDX-118 I MPIOIO AN-Ol (RX-584) 

CDX-1l9 MPlOI0 Simulation, p.l (CX-1S03) 

CDX-120 MPIOIO Simulation, p.2 (CX-lS03) 

CDX-121 MPlOI0 Simulation, p.3 (CX-1803) 

DM_US:22889S18_2 

Validity 

I Validity 

Validity 

Validity 

Validity 



November 3,·2009 

177 

Mercer· 

I Mercer 

I· 

Mercer 

Mercer 

Mercer 

Admitted· 

10/30/09 

I Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/3Q/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

I


. CDX-123 I No Shutdown at 700V and 900V 

(CX-1803) 

CDX-124 I MPI0I0 Simulation, p.5 (CX-IS03) 

Validity 

Validity 

CDX-125 I MP10I0 Simulation, p.6 (CX-1803) 1 Validity 

CDX-126 I MPI010 Simulation, p.7 (CX-1803) 1 Validity 

CDX-127 I MPI010 Simulation, p.8 (eX-1803) 1 Validity 

CDX-128 I Shutdown at 2000V and 1000V I Validity 

CDX-129 I (RX-410C) 1 Validity 

DM_US:22889518-.2 




178 

Mercer Admitte4 

10/30/09 

Mercer' Admitted 

10/30/09 

1 Mercer 1 Admitted 

10/30/09 


10/30/09 

1 Mercer .1 Admitted 

10/30/09 

1 Mercer 

. 1 Admitted 

10/30/09 


10/30/09 

I

CDX-137 I Kawabata Teaches Away from 

Capacitor Divider (RX-78) 

138 I Kawabata Does Not Disclose a 

Timer Circuit 

CDX-139 I No Motivation for Current Feedback 

Control System (RX-78) 



142 I ML4878 Datasheet (RX-96) 

CDX-143 I ML4878 Cannot Support 

Obviousness (RX-96) 

CDX-144 I VSNS Signal Required for Multiple 

Purposes (RX-96) 

DM_US:22889S 1 8,;..2 

Validity 

Validity 

Validity 

I Validity 

Validity 

Validity 




180 

Mercer 

Mercer 

Mercer 

I Mercer 

Mercer 

Mercer 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

I Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09

CDX-14S 1 Zener Diode Used for Power 

Regulation (RX-96) 

CDX-146 1 Allegedly Obvious Modification 

Incompativle with Purpose of 

Monitoring of Zener Diodes (RX- . 

CDX-147 1 Allegedly Obvious Modification 

Incompativle with the Uses of Zero 

Crossing Detector (RX-96) 

CDX-148 1 Withdrawn 

Validity 

Validity 

Validity 

CDX-149 ·1 ML4878 Designers Concerned I Validity 

About Secondary Side Capacitance 

(RX-9S) . 

CDX-lS0 I Withdrawn 

CDX-ISI 1 Withdrawn 

CDX-lS2 1 No Obviousness in View ofNalbant I Validity 

Patent 

CDX-1S3 1 Nalbant-No Secondary Side I Validity 

Capacitor Divider (RX-93) 

DM_US:22889518_2 



November 3, 2009. 

. LSI 

. Mercer 

Mercer 

Mercer 

Mercer 

Mercer 

Mercer 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted· 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10/30/09 

Admitted 

10130109


CDX-156 I Kawabata Figures 11 & 12 (RX-78) I Validity 

DM_US:22889S18_2 




PHYSICAL EXHIBITS 

182 

Mercer Admitted 

10/30/09

Inv. No. 337-TA.668 

Respondents' Combined Final Direct exhibit List 

(Amended January 5,2010) 

ExblbltNo. Deseiintlon Bates Ranme 

E-mail from M Spenea to A Liu, V. Gheorghiu, and r. Peng re: 

RX-363C OZ960BXAI HBM Failure Analysis, 07/1712001 (OlITC 415130-136) 02ITC 415130-136 . 

IrsneneA 13l 

02 Micro Failure Analysis Report Form-006 Rev.O I OZ960S-B I, 

RX-364C 

02ITC 533789-791 

0212412006 l02ITC 533789-791) (Snenea 14) . 

Failure Analysis Report FOl'Jll-006 Rev.Ol for OZ960S April 2002 version, 

RX-365C 

02ITC 415185-86 . 

0512012002 lO2ITC 415185-186) (Snenea 15) 

02 Micro Failure Analysis Report Form-006 Rev.02 for OZ960SN-Bi-O, 

RX-366C 

02ITC 500754-758 

0112012006 (02ITC 500754-758) (Soenea 16' 

02 Micro Failure Analysis Report·Form-006 Rev.02 for OZ960SN-BI-O, 

Rx-367C 

02ITC 501012-016 

0112312006 (Soenea lil (021TC 501012-016) 

02 Micro Final Failure Analysis Report Form·006 Rev.02 for OZ964ISN·C· 

RX-368C 

02ITC 388046-048 

o 05/0612008 (02ITC 388046-048)-(Snenea 18) lUdrea 19) 

02 Micro Preliminary Failure Analysis Report form-096 Rev.02 for 

RX-369C 

02ITC 388049-050 

OZ964ISN-C·0 0510512008 (021TC 388049-050) (Soenea 19) 

02 Micro Final Failure Analysis RcpoJ:t Form-006 Rev.02, 1211012007 

RX-370C 

02ITC 469465-468 

OlITC 469465-468) (Snenea 20) 

Purnose 

Noninfringement 

Noninfringemcpt 


Noninfringement . 




Noninfringemcnt 

Snonlorintr Witness 

Marian Spenea 

Marian Spenea 

Marian Spenea 

Marian Spenea 

. Marian Spenea 

Marian Spenea 

Marian Spenea 

Marian Spenca 

Statu. 

Admitted 

(10130/09) 

Admitted 

10/30/09) 

Admitted 

10130/09) 

Admitted 

10/30/09) 

Admitted 

10/30/09) 

Admitted 

1'10/301

Inv. No. 337·TA-666 

Respondents' Combined Final Direct Exhibit List 

November 3,2009 (Amended Jallluary 6, 2010) 

Exhibit No. Description Bates Ranere Purno.e 

RX-44SC 

E-mail from Tony Chen to Richard Schiffer re: Weekly Report - Sept II-IS, 

2006 (Tony), dated 09/1812006 (02ITC 491367-369) (SchifferExh 17) 02ITC 491367-369 

.. 


(Kuo. P 31)" . 

RX-446C 

. E-mail from Richard Schiffer to Chuck Cheng re: China PDVD-DPF, dated' 

02ITC 150178-188 

03126/2007 (02ITC 150178-188) (Schiffer Exh 18) 

E-mail from Gary Wu to Richard Schiffer re: meeting minutes of 


RX-447C Ziv/Ampower - Aug, 13, dated 0811412007 (02lTC 472815-817)(Schiffer 02ITC47281S-817 

Exh 19) 

E-mail from Yung Lin to Richard Schiffer and JeffYu re: My daily report on 

Noninfiingement 

RX-448C 8/26 Ampower's proposal, dated 0812612008 (02ITC 458952-954) (Schiffer 02ITC 458952-954 

iExh20) . .' . 


RX-449C 

E-mailitom Richard Schiffer to Takafuml Fuljita re: OMI CSMC Plan, 

dated 1012212008 (02ITe 456406-411) (Schiffer Exh 21)· 

02ITC 456406-411 Noninfringement 

RX-450C WITHDRAWN 

RX-451 WITHDRAWN 

RX·4S2 WITHDRAWN 

RX-4S3C WITHDRAWN 

RX-4S4C 

02 Micro OZ96S High-Efficiency Inverters Controller (Keim, N.D. 7) 

(02lTC 108610-616) 

02ITe 108610·616 Noninfiingement 

RX-4SS WITHDRAWN 


RX.4S7C WITHDRAWN 


RX-4S9 WITHDRAWN 

RX-460 WITIIDRAWN 

RX·461 

RX-462 

RX-463 

WITHDRAWN 

WITHDRAWN 

WITHDRAWN 

.. 

" 


RX-46SC WITHDRAWN 

RX-466C 

RX-467C 

WITHDRAWN 

WITHDRAWN 

.. 


RX·469C WITHDRAWN 




RX.473C WITHDRAWN 


RX·47SC WITHDRAWN 


18 

Soonlorlnll' Witness Statui 

Richard Schiffer, Pe1'l'Y: Kuo 

Admitted 

(10130/09) 

Richard Schiffer 




James KcHm 

Admitted 

10130/09) 

Admitted. 

(10/30109) 

Admitted 

(10(30/09) 

Admitted 

10/30/09) 

Admitted 

10121109)

Exhibit No. Description 





RX-481C . wmmRAWN 


RX-483C WlrHDRAWN 


RX·48SC WITHDRAWN 










RX-49SC WITHDRAWN . 


RX·497C Wl1lIDRAWN 

RX-498C WITIIDRAWN 


RX·SOOC WITHDRAWN 

RX·SOIC WITHDRAWN 

RX·S02C WITHDRAWN 

RX-S03C WITHDRAWN 


RX·SOSC WITIJDRAWN 

RX·S.06C WITHDRAWN 




RX·SI0C WITHDRAWN. 

RX·SllC WITHDRAWN 


RX-S13C WI1HDRAWN 


RX-SlSC WITHDRAWN 


RX-S17C WITHDRAWN -- 

Inv. No. 337-TA-666 


November 3, 2009 (Amended January 5, 2010) 

. Bates Range Purnose 

- 

19 

SpoD.orine: Witness Status 

- 

-_._-

Inv. No. 337-TA-666 

Reapondents' Combined Final Dlfllct exhibit List . 

November 3,2009 (Amended January 6,2010) 

ExbibltNo. DeseriDtion Bates Raul!e pumose SDoulOriUI! Witness Status 




RX-641 WI1HDRAWN 




./ . 

. 

RX-64S WI1'HDRAWN 






RX-6St WITHDRAWN 

RX-6S2 WI1HDRAWN 



RX-6SS 

RX-6S6 

WIl'HDRAWN 

WI1HDRAWN I 

RX·6S7 WITHDRAWN 


RX.6S9 WITIIDRAWN 






RX-66S WITHDRAWN 






RX-671. WITHDRAWN 



RX-674C WlTIIDRAWN 


.. 



RX-678 WITHDRAWN -- ---- 

23

Inv. No. 337-TA-6BB 


November 3,2008 (Amended January 5,2010) 

Exhibit No. DescriDtion 

Bates Rantre Purnon 


RX-796C 

Sch.ematlcs -Ix1692_wr_vlrB, subchip_xB, Lamp ignition/timeout &. short . MICROSEMI22973B . 

DETection. Cell-Idet ax Undated 0711512005 . 


RX·797C WItHDRAWN 

RX-79BC WITHDRAWN 


RX-BOOC WITHDRAWN 



RX-a03C WITHDRAWN 


RX-aOSC WITHDRAWN 


RX-a07C WITHDRAWN 

RX-80BC WITHDRAWN 



RX-8UC . WITHDRAWN 

.. 

RX-812C 

RX-813C 

RX-814C 

WITHDRAWN 

WITHDRAWN 

WITHDRAWN , . . 



RX-aI7C 

RX-81ac 

WITHDRAWN 

WITHDRAWN - 

RX-BI9C WITHDRAWN 

RX-B20C WITHDRAWN 

RX-821C 

RX-822C 

WITHDRAWN 

WJTHDRAWN .. 




RX-826C WInIDRAWN 


: 



RX-830C 

Schematics -Ix1693:"vlr9, Ix1693.:.vlr9 SUBCHIP, Cell- 

1x1693 YN VIR9 Last ChaDl!ed 1210412007 

MICROSEMI229779 NoninfringenieIlt 



RX-833C WITHDRAWN : 

27 

Snonlorin2 Witne .. Status 

KevinChol 

Kevin Choi, George Henry 

Admitted 

1(10/30/09) 

Admitted 

(10130/09)

Exhibit No. Desc:riodon 

RX-I046C WITHDRAWN 


RX-t04BC WITHDRAWN 

RX-t049C WITHDRAWN 

RX-JOSOC WITHDRAWN 

RX-IOSt Intentionally Left Blank 

RX-JOS2C WITHDRAWN 

RX-IOS3C WITHDRAWN 

RX-lOS4C WITHDRAWN 

RX-IOSSC WITHDRAWN 



RX-lOSBC WITHDRAWN 



RX-J061C . WITHDRAWN 

RX·I062C WITHDRAWN 


RRX·IC WITHDRAWN 

RRX·2C wmmRAWN 

RRX-3C WITHDRAWN 


RRX-SC WI'nIDRAWN 



RRX-BC WITHDRAWN 

RRX·9C WITHDRAWN 

RRX·lOC WITHDRAWN 

RRX-llC WITHDRAWN 

RRX·12C WITlIDRA WN . 



IWC-lSC WITHDRAWN 

RRX·16C WITHDRAWN 

RRX·J7C WITHDRAWN 

RRX·IBC WITHDRAWN 

RRX-19C WI1HDRAWN 

RRX-20C· WITHDRAWN 




.. 

Inv. No. 337·TA-6S& 

Respondents' Combined Final Dlract Exhibit List 

November 3,2009 (Amended January 5, 2010) 

Bates RaDl!e Pumose 

- 

35 

SponlorburWitness Status

In the Matter' of 


, 


' 

Before E. James Gildea 


CER1,'AIN COLD CATHODE FLUORESCENT 


PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME 

COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF'S 

FINAL EXHIBIT LIST (pUBLIC) 

Inv. No. 337-TA-666 

Pursuant to Ground Rule 6 in this investigation, the Commission Investigative Staff 

("Staff') respectfully submits its finaJ. exhibit list: 

Exhibit Description ,Purpose Sponsoring Status 

No., Witness 

SX-1 Excerpts from the IEEE ' Background, Expert Admitted, 

Standard Dictionary of Electrical Claim witness 10128/09 

and Electronics Terms (6 th ed. Construction 

1996) 

SX-2 Excerpts from the McGraw-Hill Background, Expert Admitted, 

Dictionary of Scientific and Claim witness 10/28/09 

Technical Terms (5 th ed. 1994) Construction




Before E. James Glldea 




PRODUCTSCONTAll«NGSAME 

. COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF'S 

FINAL EXHIBIT LIST(CONFIDENTIAL) 

Inv. No. 337-TA-666 

Pursuant to Ground Rule 6 in this ·investigation, the Commission Investigative Staff 

("Staff') respectfully submits its final exhibit list: 

ExhIoit 

. - 

Description· Purpose Sponsoring Status 

No. Witness 

SX-5C Confidential Exhibit I to Importation, nla Admitted, 

Response to Notice of Remedy 10/19/09 

Investigation and the Complaint 

of Respondent Monolithic 

Power Systems, Inc. 

SX-6C Confidential Exhibit I to Importation,. nla Admitted, 

Microsemi's Response to the Remedy 10/19/09 

Complaint and Notice of 

Investigation 

SX-7C Confidential Exhibit 1 to Importation, nla Admitted, 

Response to Notice of Remedy 10/19/09 

In,vestigation and the Complaint 

of Respondents ASUSTeK 

Computer, Inc. and ASUSTeK 

Computer International America

IN THE MATTER OF CERTAIN COLD CATHODE 

("CCFL") INVERTER CIRCIDTS AND PRODUCTS 

CONTAINING SAME 

PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Inv. No. 337-TA-666 

I, Marilyn R. Abbott, hereby certify that the attached FINAL INITIAL DETERMINATION 

has been served by hand upon, the Commission Investigative Attorney, David O. Lloyd, Esq." 

and the following parties as indicated on May 10, 2010. 

MarilynR. 

U.S. Intern lOnal Trade Commission 

500 E Street, SW, Room 112A 

Washington, D.C. 20436 

COMPLAINANTS 02 MIRCO INTERNATIONAL LTD AND 02 MICRO INC.: 

Margaret D. Macdonald, Esq. 

HOWREY,LLP 

1299 Pennsylvania Ave NW 


P-202-783-0800 

FOR RESPONDENTS MONOLITIDC POWER SYSTEMS INC: 

Mark A. Flagel, Esq. 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

355 South Grand Avenue 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 

P-213-485-1234 

( ) Via Hand Delivery 

(X) Via Overnight Mail 

( ) Via First Class Mail 

( ) Other: ___ _ 


()() Via Overnight Mail 

( ) Via First Class Mail 

( ) Other: ___ _

IN THE MATTER OF CERTAIN COLD CATHODE 

("CCFL") INVERTER CIRCUITS AND PRODUCTS 

CONTAINING SAME 

PUBLIC MAILING LIST 

Heather Hall 

LEXIS - NEXIS 

9443 Springboro Pike 

Miamisburg, OH 45342 

Kenneth Clair 

THOMSON WEST 

1100 13th Street, NW, Suite 200 

Washington, D.C. 20005 


()

Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?