TCL Tells ITC It Committed No Section 337 Violation Over AMD Patents
TCL denies Advanced Micro Devices allegations it violated Section 337 of the 1930 Tariff Act by importing smart TVs to the U.S. with graphics processing unit chips that infringe five AMD patents on GPU circuitry architecture, said TCL's filing Thursday in docket 337-TA-1318 at the International Trade Commission.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The ITC opened a Section 337 investigation June 1 into the AMD allegations, naming TCL and 13 of its subsidiaries, plus TCL’s GPU supplier Realtek, as respondents (see 2206060040). Realtek previously denied the allegations. AMD’s May 5 complaint seeks cease and desist and limited exclusion orders against the allegedly infringing TCL TVs and Realtek GPU chips. Thursday’s filing was TCL’s first official reply to the AMD complaint and the ITC notice of investigation.
AMD and its affiliated ATI Technologies aren't “entitled to any relief in this proceeding,” because TCL “specifically denies” that its accused products “infringe on any valid or enforceable asserted claim” of the five AMD patents, said TCL: “TCL has not had sufficient time and opportunity to collect and review all of the information that may be relevant and necessary to respond to the allegations raised.” The investigation is in “its early stages,” and the discovery phase of the probe “has just commenced,” it said. “TCL does not know the full extent of their defenses to AMD’s allegations.”
Though TCL “does not bear the burden of proof” of non-infringement, TCL “has not directly infringed, indirectly infringed, contributed to, or induced infringement of any valid or enforceable claim” of the asserted AMD patents, “either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,” said the TV vendor. All the asserted AMD claims “are invalid for failure to meet one or more of the requirements” in Title 35 of the U.S. code, it said. “TCL currently identifies as prior art for each of the asserted patents against Realtek the prior art references listed on the face of each asserted patent.”
AMD’s claim of patent infringement “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” said TCL. AMD’s patents also are “invalid and unenforceable” because AMD and ATI “committed inequitable conduct during their prosecution” at the Patent and Trademark Office, it said. The import ban and cease and desist order that AMD seeks “would be contrary to the public interest,” said TCL, citing the “detrimental effect such relief would have upon the public health and welfare.” AMD’s requested remedies would cause “competitive conditions” to deteriorate in the U.S. economy, harming American consumers, it said.
The TCL TVs accused of infringement have “substantial uses that do not infringe and do not contribute to the alleged infringement of any asserted claim” of the AMD patents, said TCL. Though TCL “does not bear the burden of proof on this issue, AMD cannot prove the existence of a domestic industry, or that such a domestic industry is in the process of being established,” in connection with the asserted patents, as is required under Section 337. AMD didn’t comment Friday.