BROADCOM CORPORATION, Appellant v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee RENESAS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., PIONEER CORPORATION, PIONEER AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING, INDIANA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING KENTUCKY, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING, MISSISSIPPI, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING TEXAS, INC., PANASONIC CORPORATION, PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, DENSO TEN LIMITED, DENSO TEN AMERICA LIMITED, DENSO CORPORATION, DENSO INTERNATIONAL AMERICA, INC., DENSO MANUFACTURING TENNESSEE, INC., DENSO WIRELESS SYSTEMS AMERICA, INC., Intervenors;RENESAS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Appellant v. BROADCOM CORPORATION, Cross-Appellant;BROADCOM CORPORATION, Appellant v. RENESAS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Appellee, 28 F.4th 240

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-Where a plaintiff filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission alleging violation of 19 U.S.C.S. § 337 from defendant's importation of certain products involving computer systems, and where the Commission held that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a statutory violation as to one patent and that the other claim would have been unpatentable as obvious, substantial evidence supported the Commission's determinations; [2]-In particular, as to one patent, there was no § 337 violation because plaintiff failed to identify an actual article that practiced this particular claim, and thus, plaintiff failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement; [3]-As to another claim, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board properly found that certain combined teachings would have rendered the claimed invention obvious.