Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 1 Filed: 03/08/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
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
______________________
2020-2008
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 2 Filed: 03/08/2022
2 BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC
______________________
Appeal from the United States International Trade
Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1119.
-----------------------------------------------------
RENESAS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION,
Appellant
v.
BROADCOM CORPORATION,
Cross-Appellant
______________________
2021-1260, 2021-1362
______________________
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-
01039.
---------------------------------------------------
BROADCOM CORPORATION,
Appellant
v.
RENESAS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION,
Appellee
______________________
2021-1511
______________________
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 3 Filed: 03/08/2022
BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC 3
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-
01041.
______________________
Decided: March 8, 2022
______________________
BRIAN JOHNSON, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington,
DC, argued for Broadcom Corporation in Appeal Nos. 2020-
2008 and 2021-1260. Also argued by THOMAS CRAIG
YEBEMETSKY in Appeal No. 2021-1511. Also represented by
JOHN CARACAPPA. Also represented by MATTHEW BATHON,
KATHERINE DOROTHY CAPPAERT, CHRISTOPHER ALAN
SUAREZ in Appeal Nos. 2020-2008 and 2021-1260.
LYNDE FAUN HERZBACH, Office of the General Counsel,
United States International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by DOMINIC
L. BIANCHI, WAYNE W. HERRINGTON, SIDNEY A.
ROSENZWEIG.
BRIAN ROBERT MATSUI, Morrison & Foerster LLP,
Washington, DC, argued for Renesas Electronics Corporation in Appeal Nos. 2020-2008 and 2021-1511, Renesas
Electronics America, Inc. and all intervenors. Renesas
Electronics America, Inc. also represented by GEORGE
BRIAN BUSEY, SETH W. LLOYD, DANIEL P. MUINO, FAHD H.
PATEL, MARY PRENDERGAST, MARK L. WHITAKER.
SETH W. LLOYD, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC, also argued for Renesas Electronics Corporation,
in Appeal No. 2021-1260. Also represented by JONATHAN
BOCKMAN in Appeal No. 21-1260; GEORGE BRIAN BUSEY,
MARK L. WHITAKER in Appeal Nos. 2020-2008; FAHD H.
PATEL, in Appeal Nos. 2020-2008, 2021-1260; MARY
PRENDERGAST, in Appeal Nos. 2020-2008, 2021-1511;
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 4 Filed: 03/08/2022
4 BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC
DANIEL P. MUINO.
LORA A. BRZEZYNSKI, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath
LLP, Washington, DC, for intervenors Pioneer Corporation, Pioneer Automotive Technologies, Inc. Also represented by NIKOLA COLIC, BRIANNA LYNN SILVERSTEIN, JOHN
GERARD SMITH.
AARON GABRIEL FOUNTAIN, DLA Piper LLP (US), Austin, TX, for intervenors 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. Also represented by MATTHEW D. SATCHWELL, PAUL RICHARD
STEADMAN, Chicago, IL.
______________________
Before LOURIE, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
Broadcom Corporation (“Broadcom”) filed a complaint
at the International Trade Commission (“the Commission”)
alleging a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”)
based on the importation of products by Renesas Electronics Corporation (“Renesas”) and other companies that are
asserted to infringe U.S. Patents 7,437,583 (the “’583 patent”) and 7,512,752 (the “’752 patent”). In a final initial
determination, the administrative law judge (“the ALJ”)
held that Broadcom failed to demonstrate a violation of
Section 337 with respect to the ’583 patent because it failed
to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 5 Filed: 03/08/2022
BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC 5
requirement and because there was no infringement of
claim 25. For the ’752 patent, the ALJ held that claim 5
would have been unpatentable as obvious over certain
prior art. The parties then filed petitions seeking Commission review, and the Commission affirmed the relevant portions of the final initial determination. Certain
Infotainment Sys., Components Thereof, and Auto. Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1119 (May 28, 2020) (Final) (“Decision I”).
Broadcom appeals (in the 20-2008 appeal) the Commission’s holding that there was no violation of Section 337
with respect to the ’583 patent, and that claim 5 of the ’752
patent would have been unpatentable as obvious at the
time of the alleged invention.
Renesas also petitioned for inter partes review of the
’583 and ’752 patents. In two decisions, the United States
Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal
Board (“the Board”) held that claims 25 and 26 of the ’583
patent and claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 of the ’752 patent would
have been obvious over the prior art 1 but that Renesas
failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence
that claims 17 and 18 and 20–24 of the ’583 patent would
have been obvious. 2 See Renesas Elecs. Corp. v. Broadcom
Corp., No. IPR2019-01039, 2020 WL 6380139 (P.T.A.B.
Oct. 30, 2020) (“Decision II”); Renesas Elecs. Corp. v.
1 Because the challenged claims of the ’583 and ’752
patents have an effective filing date before March 16, 2013,
we apply the version of 35 U.S.C. § 103 in effect before the
adoption of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
Pub. L.
No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011).
2 The Board and Commission decisions refer to what
“is” obvious. Because § 103 addresses what “would have
been” obvious, we recommend usage of the statutory language that looks back to the past in order to avoid the appearance of hindsight bias.
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 6 Filed: 03/08/2022
6 BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC
Broadcom Corp., No. IPR2019-01041, 2020 WL 6389949
(P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2020) (“Decision III”).
Renesas appeals (in the 21-1260 appeal) the Board’s
holding that it failed to demonstrate unpatentability of
claims 17 and 18 and 20–24 of the ’583 patent. Broadcom
cross-appeals the Board’s holding that claims 25 and 26 of
the ’583 patent would have been obvious. In addition,
Broadcom appeals (in the 21-1511 appeal) the Board’s holding that claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 of the ’752 patent would
have been obvious.
We have consolidated these appeals because of the
overlap in subject matter and legal arguments. For the
reasons detailed below, we affirm Decision II and Decision
III in their entirety, affirm the portion of Decision I holding
that there was no Section 337 violation because Broadcom
failed to show the existence of a domestic industry, and find
the remainder of Decision I moot in light of our affirmance
of the Commission’s holding of lack of a Section 337 violation and our affirmance of the Board’s determination of obviousness of claim 5 of the ’752 patent.
BACKGROUND
Broadcom owns the ’583 and ’752 patents. The ’583 patent is directed to reducing power consumption in computer
systems by “gating” clock signals with circuit elements to
turn the signals ON and OFF for downstream parts of the
circuit. The ’752 patent is directed to a memory access unit
that improves upon conventional methods of requesting
data located at different addresses within a shared
memory.
A chart showing the claims that the Board and Commission addressed in each decision is shown below.
Decision Source Patent Claim(s)
Decision I ITC ’583 17–18, 25–26
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 7 Filed: 03/08/2022
BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC 7
’752 1, 2, 5, 7, 8
17–18, 20–24,
Decision II PTAB ’583
25–26
Decision III PTAB ’752 1, 2, 5, 7, 8
In this consolidated opinion we will review the underlying decisions by patent and claim rather than by decision number.
I. The ’583 Patent
Claims 17 and 25 of the ’583 patent are the two independent claims in this patent at issue. Claims 18 and 20–
24 depend directly from claim 17, and claim 26 depends directly from claim 25. Claim 17 requires software control of
a clock gate. Claim 25 requires a hybrid of hardware and
software control in which the software overwrites the status of a gate set by the hardware. Claims 17 and 25 are
reproduced below.
17. A system for distributing clock signals within
an electronic device, the system comprising:
[a] at least one processor that determines a status
of at least one gate that controls flow of a clock signal to at least one device coupled to said at least
one gate; and
[b] said at least one processor controls said at least
one gate based on said determined status.
’583 patent at col. 7 l. 38–col. 8 l. 2.
25. A system for distributing clock signals within
an electronic device, the system comprising:
[a] a clock tree having a plurality of gates;
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 8 Filed: 03/08/2022
8 BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC
[b] a hardware control logic block coupled to said
clock tree that controls at least a portion of said
plurality of gates;
[c] at least one register that is controlled by a clock
tree driver; and
[d] at least one processor that overwrites a status
of at least a portion of said plurality of gates which
is controlled by said hardware control logic block.
Id. at col. 8 ll. 27–37.
At the Commission, Broadcom alleged a violation of
Section 337 based on the importation of products by
Renesas and other companies that it asserts infringe
claims 17 and 18 and 25 and 26. Each of the accused infringers was a respondent in the Commission investigation
and most have intervened in support of the Commission in
this appeal.
In the final initial determination, the ALJ held that
Broadcom failed to demonstrate that its system-on-a-chip
(“SoC”) satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement in Section 337 because the SoC did not include a “clock tree driver,” which is a limitation of the
asserted claims. J.A. 46. The ALJ also held that Broadcom
failed to demonstrate infringement of claims 25 and 26 because it “could not identify any specific source code in the
accused product where [the claimed] sequence of events ‘actually happened.’” J.A. 96. The Commission affirmed both
holdings.
At the Board, Renesas alleged (1) that claims 17 and 18
and 20–24 would have been obvious over Kiuchi, 3 and Van
3 Kiuchi et al., J.P. Patent Pub. H8-255034.
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 9 Filed: 03/08/2022
BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC 9
Hook; 4 and (2) that claims 25 and 26 would have been obvious over Alben, 5 Fallah, 6 and Benini. 7
Kiuchi describes a system that controls clock gates and
discloses a device with multiple clock gate circuits used to
control the flow of clock signals. Van Hook is directed to a
high-performance, low-cost video game system and discloses a system with a main processor that halts a signal
processor via a status register. Alben discloses a technique
for hardware-controlled clock gating and includes hardware logic capable of turning clock gates ON and OFF. Fallah is a textbook chapter that discusses system-level
distributed power management, which relates to high-level
workload prediction algorithms, and circuit-level power
management, such as clock gating that can be used to manage individual devices. Lastly, Benini is a scientific article
that teaches system-level power management and hardware-controlled clock gating.
The Board found that Kiuchi discloses all structural elements of claim 17 and that Van Hook discloses a main
processor that halts a signal processor. However, because
Van Hook does not teach conditionally controlling clock
gates, the Board held that claims 17 and 18 and 20–24
would not have been obvious. The Board then found claims
25 and 26 obvious over the combination of Alben and Fallah. It stated that Alben could be modified, in view of Fallah’s teaching, to use software to directly control a gate to
override the power management decisions made by a control unit. This would directly overwrite a status of OFF or
4 Van Hook et al., U.S. Patent 6,593,929.
5 Alben et al., U.S. Patent 6,938,176.
6 Fallah et al., Chapter 13: Circuit and System Level
Power Management, Kluwer Academic Publishers (2002).
7 Benini et al., A Survey of Design Techniques for
System-Level Dynamic Power Management, 8 IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration Systems 3 (2000).
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 10 Filed: 03/08/2022
10 BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC
ON that was previously written by the control unit. The
Board added that Benini provides a motivation to combine
the references by discussing the advantages in power management from migrating the power manager software.
Broadcom appealed the Commission’s decision to this
court. Renesas appealed and Broadcom cross-appealed the
Board’s decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(4)(A) and 1295(a)(6).
II. The ’752 Patent
Independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2, 5, 7, and
8 of the ’752 patent, are at issue in these appeals. Claims
1, 2, and 5 are reproduced below.
1. A memory access unit for accessing data for a
module, said memory access unit comprising:
an output port for providing access requests for
lists of addresses in a memory over a link to a
memory controller; and
a queue for queuing the access requests for the lists
of addresses.
’752 patent at col. 8 ll. 61–67.
2. The memory access unit of claim 1, further comprising:
an input port for receiving requests for blocks of
pixels from a motion prediction processing unit;
and
logic for generating the lists of addresses from the
requests for blocks of pixels, wherein the lists of addresses correspond to addresses in a memory that
store pixels in the blocks of pixels.
Id. at col. 9 ll. 1–7.
5. The memory access unit of claim 2, wherein the
logic generates the access requests based on the list
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 11 Filed: 03/08/2022
BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC 11
of addresses and based on sizes of each of the requests for blocks of pixels from the motion prediction processing unit.
Id. at col. 9 ll. 17–20.
At the Commission, Broadcom alleged a violation of
Section 337 based on the importation of products by
Renesas and other companies that, in relevant part, infringed claim 5. Respondents contended that claim 5 was
either anticipated by Foster 8 or would have been obvious
over Foster and Sih. 9
Foster describes a system for maximizing memory access efficiency. Foster’s system receives requests for
memory access from various system components, determines where the corresponding data are located, and processes and reorders the requests efficiently. Sih is directed
to a memory access unit’s controller suited for video applications. The controller receives access commands for specifying blocks of video data and may copy at least one block
of video data from the video memory.
In the final initial determination, the ALJ held that
claim 5 was unpatentable as obvious over Sih in combination with Foster. Specifically, the ALJ held that Sih’s disclosure of video block width and length in combination with
Foster’s disclosure of a memory access unit that receives
requests from a motion prediction processing unit rendered
the claim obvious. The Commission affirmed the final initial determination.
At the Board, Renesas alleged, in relevant part, that
claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 would have been obvious based on
Foster alone, or in combination with Sih.
8 Foster et al., U.S. Patent 6,240,492.
9 Sih et al., U.S. Patent Pub. 2003/0106053 A1.
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 12 Filed: 03/08/2022
12 BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC
Regarding claim 1, the Board found that Foster disclosed an output port and a queue as part of a memory access unit. The Board went on to find that these two
elements could be combined to render claim 1 obvious.
For claim 2, the parties’ arguments largely focused on
the requirement for “an input port for receiving requests
for blocks of pixels.” The Board found that Foster disclosed
a memory interface that received requests for “blocks of
data” that a motion compensation unit needed. Decision
III at *7. It then found that a block of data was equivalent
to a block of pixels. In the alternative, the Board found that
Foster disclosed an input port for receiving requests for
blocks of pixels based on its disclosure of requesting multiple lines of pixel data. The Board concluded that combining
Foster’s disclosures rendered claim 2 obvious.
Finally, the Board found claim 5 obvious over Foster
alone. The Board found that Foster disclosed claim 5’s
functional limitation that logic within the access unit “generates the access requests based on the list of addresses
and based on sizes of each of the requests for blocks of pixels.” The Board next found claim 5 obvious over Foster in
combination with Sih. It found that Sih disclosed a
memory access unit that received commands requesting
blocks of pixels and that those commands included a set of
block parameters including video block width and length.
The Board then found that a person of ordinary skill would
have been motivated to combine Foster and Sih because
both disclosures relate to memory access for a motion compensation function required for video encoding and decoding.
Broadcom appealed both decisions to this court. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(4)(A)
and 1295(a)(6).
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 13 Filed: 03/08/2022
BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC 13
DISCUSSION
Broadcom asserts that the Commission erred in finding
no domestic industry for the ’583 patent, in holding no infringement of claim 25 of the ’583 patent, and in holding
that claim 5 of the ’752 patent would have been obvious.
Renesas asserts that the Board erred in holding that claims
17 and 18 and 20–24 of the ’583 patent would not have been
obvious. Broadcom asserts, in its cross-appeal, that the
Board erred in holding that claims 25 and 26 of the ’583
patent would have been obvious. Lastly, Broadcom asserts
that the Board erred in holding that claims 1, 2, and 5 of
the ’752 patent would have been obvious. Claims 7 and 8
are not addressed. We address the parties’ arguments in
turn.
Commission final determinations are reviewed under
the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. § 706. The
Commission’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial
evidence, and legal determinations are reviewed de novo.
Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITC,
341 F.3d 1332, 1338 (Fed. Cir.
2003). “Substantial evidence has been defined as more
than a mere scintilla and as such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The
court “must affirm a Commission determination if it is reasonable and supported by the record as a whole, even if
some evidence detracts from the Commission’s conclusion.”
Spansion, Inc. v. ITC,
629 F.3d 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo, In
re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and the
Board’s factual findings underlying those determinations
for substantial evidence, In re Gartside,
203 F.3d 1305,
1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Obviousness is a question of law that
“lends itself to several basic factual inquiries,” including
the scope and content of the prior art, the level of ordinary
skill in the art, and differences between the prior art and
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 14 Filed: 03/08/2022
14 BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC
the claimed invention. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S.
1, 17–18 (1966).
I. Broadcom’s and Renesas’s Appeals Concerning the ’583
Patent
A. The Commission Decision
The Commission determined that there was no Section 337 violation because Broadcom failed to satisfy the
technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. On
appeal, Broadcom asserts error in the Commission’s findings of fact. Reviewing these findings for substantial evidence, we affirm the Commission’s decision.
To establish a violation of Section 337 a complainant
must show both infringement and that an industry “relating to the articles protected by the patent . . . exists or is in
the process of being established” in the United States. 19
U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2), (3). Under Commission precedent, the
domestic industry requirement consists of an “economic
prong” and a “technical prong.” See, e.g., Alloc, Inc. v. ITC,
342 F.3d 1361, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). To meet the technical
prong, the complainant must establish that it practices at
least one claim of the asserted patent. This requires a complainant to identify “actual ‘articles protected by the patent.’” Microsoft Corp. v. ITC,
731 F.3d 1354, 1361–62
(Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing
19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2)–(a)(3)). To
meet the economic prong, the complainant must demonstrate that its investment in the protected article is “significant” or “substantial.”
19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3). The
economic prong is not at issue in this appeal.
The ALJ determined that Broadcom identified only its
SoC as a domestic industry article. However, the ALJ
found, and Broadcom did not dispute, that the SoC did not
contain the “clock tree driver” that is required by claim 25;
it found that the driver must be stored on an external
memory, separate from the SoC. But Broadcom instead argued that it satisfies the technical prong of the domestic
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 15 Filed: 03/08/2022
BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC 15
industry requirement because it collaborates with its customers to integrate its SoC with external memory to enable
retrieval and execution of the “clock tree driver” firmware.
However, the ALJ faulted Broadcom for failing to identify
any specific external memory that contained the “clock tree
driver,” and noted that an actual article protected by the
patent is needed to meet the industry requirement.
The Commission similarly found that Broadcom failed
to identify any specific integration of the purported domestic industry SoC and the “clock tree driver” firmware, or a
specific location where the firmware was stored. The Commission reasoned that without identifying an actual integration of the SoC and “clock tree driver,” Broadcom
posited only a hypothetical device that did not meet
claim 25’s limitations and therefore did not satisfy the
technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. The
Commission added that Broadcom’s new argument, i.e.,
that it manufactured and tested a “system” that included
an SoC and firmware that contained the clock tree driver,
was waived because Broadcom did not raise this theory in
the ALJ proceedings.
We agree with the Commission that Broadcom failed to
satisfy the technical requirement. We have previously
found that, in order to meet the technical requirement of
Section 337, a complainant must “show that there is a domestic industry product that actually practices” at least
one claim of the asserted patent. Microsoft, 731 F.3d at
1361. In Microsoft, the patentee Microsoft supplied a mobile operating system to its customers.
Id. at 1358, 1361.
Microsoft’s asserted patent dealt with server-client communications, in which the client application was run on a
mobile phone manufactured by Microsoft’s customers.
Id.
at 1360–61. Microsoft failed to show, however, that any
such client applications were actually implemented on any
third-party mobile device.
Id. We therefore found that Microsoft did not satisfy the domestic industry requirement.
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 16 Filed: 03/08/2022
16 BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC
Broadcom suffers from substantially the same failure
of proof here. As in Microsoft, Broadcom failed to identify
any specific integration of the domestic industry SoC and
the “clock tree driver” firmware, or a specific location where
the firmware was stored. Broadcom does not challenge this
finding, and instead introduces new theories that the Commission properly deemed waived. Because Broadcom failed
to identify an actual article that practices claim 25, the
Commission’s finding that Broadcom failed to satisfy the
domestic industry requirement of Section 337 was supported by substantial evidence.
In light of our affirmance of the Commission’s finding
of no domestic industry, the portion of the Commission’s
decision addressing infringement of claim 25 is moot. We
thus do not address Broadcom’s appeal from that portion of
the Commission’s decision.
B. The Board Decision
1. Claim 17
Renesas argues that the Board improperly relied on
Broadcom’s expert’s opinion regarding whether software
instructions halt a processor when it was undisputed that
Van Hook describes using hardware registers to halt a processor. Renesas adds that Kiuchi discloses all the structural limitations of claim 17—a system with a processor
that controls clock gates connected to devices. Further,
Van Hook discloses conditionally halting a circuit component by conditionally gating its clock signal. Renesas
claims that a skilled artisan would have applied Van Hook
to implement the functionality in Kiuchi to render claim 17
obvious.
In addition, Renesas argues that the Board improperly
truncated its obviousness analysis solely because it found
a difference between claim 17 and Van Hook. It asserts
that an obviousness analysis, unlike an anticipation
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 17 Filed: 03/08/2022
BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC 17
analysis, recognizes that there may be differences between
the claims and prior art.
Broadcom responds that the Board correctly found that
the combined teachings of Kiuchi and Van Hook would not
have rendered obvious a “processor that determines a status of at least one [clock] gate.” In addition, Broadcom argues that the Board did not truncate its obviousness
analysis and properly rejected Van Hook as non-analogous
prior art because it is unrelated to clock gating and power
management in hardware devices.
We agree with Broadcom. Neither party disputes that
Kiuchi does not teach a “processor that determines a status
of at least one [clock] gate.” For this claim limitation, the
parties agreed that the term “determines a status of at
least one gate” should be construed as “determines for at
least one gate whether said gate is ON or OFF.” J.A. 70.
Because this limitation is not taught by Kiuchi, it must be
taught by Van Hook or the combination of Kiuchi and Van
Hook for there to be obviousness.
The Board began its analysis by determining that a
skilled artisan’s field of endeavor is “power management
and processor clock control.” Decision II at *2–3. When the
Board analyzed Van Hook, it found that the halting discussed in this reference did not mean stopping the clock
gate as required by claim 17. Instead, halting had to do
with checking or setting a processor’s operational status.
We agree with the Board’s reasoning that Van Hook does
not disclose stopping a clock gate. Moreover, even if Van
Hook did disclose this limitation, Van Hook relates to processor performance, not power management and processor
clock control, so a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine Van Hook and Kiuchi. Because the
Board properly analyzed Van Hook, we do not find that it
improperly truncated its obviousness analysis and affirm
its holding of nonobviousness of claim 17 and its dependent
claims.
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 18 Filed: 03/08/2022
18 BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC
2. Claims 25 and 26
Broadcom argues that the Board found claim 25 and 26
obvious based on impermissible hindsight. Specifically, it
asserts that the Board improperly reconstructed claim limitation 25[d] by modifying Alben to achieve a specific, undisclosed clock-gating feature based on a generic
motivation to combine software power management disclosed in Fallah and Benini. Broadcom adds that the Board
never addressed why a skilled artisan would have reasonably expected to succeed in combining Alben and Fallah.
Broadcom also asserts that the Board abused its discretion
in analyzing Renesas’s waived argument that claim 26
would have been obvious in view of Alben.
Renesas counters that the Board was thorough in its
analysis of a motivation to combine Alben and Fallah and
that claims 25 and 26 were properly found not to be patentable. It adds that the Board properly found that Fallah
used software to control clock gates directly and discussed
the tradeoffs between using a power management algorithm in software versus a power management system in
hardware. Renesas contends that it did argue that there
would be a reasonable expectation of success in combining
the prior art, and, because Broadcom never contested that,
the Board did not address that issue. In response to Broadcom’s claim 26 waiver argument, Renesas points out that
it asserted that claim 26 would have been obvious in view
of Alben in its petition and that this argument was never
abandoned.
We agree with Renesas. The Board found that Alben
discloses a system for distributing clock signals that includes a “clock tree,” a “hardware control logic block” connected to the clock tree for controlling clock gates, and a
“register” controlled by a clock tree driver. Decision II at
*8–11. Regarding whether Alben combined with Fallah
discloses programming a processor with software to “overwrite[] a status of OFF or ON” for a previously hardware-
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 19 Filed: 03/08/2022
BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC 19
controlled clock gate, the Board found, and substantial evidence showed that: (1) Alben discloses a hybrid approach
to power management in which a hardware control unit directly controls clock gates and software running on a processor and at least indirectly overwrites clock gates’ status
to OFF or ON; (2) Fallah teaches that it was well known
that hardware and software could directly control power
management, including through clock gating, and describes well-known tradeoffs of hardware and software approaches; and (3) Fallah and Benini confirm that persons
of ordinary skill would have seen multiple benefits to adding direct software control of clock gates to Alben’s hybrid
system. Id. at *14. The Board’s findings are supported by
the plain text of these references which discuss clock gating
for power management and each of the elements of claims
25 and 26. We therefore find that these findings were supported by substantial evidence.
Alben and Fallah are directed to the same field of art,
and a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these references. Furthermore, with Fallah discussing the tradeoffs in power management between software
and hardware, a skilled artisan would have had additional
motivation in combining the references. Benini further
teaches “several reasons for migrating [a] power manager
to software.” Decision II at *12 (quoting J.A. 826).
Although Broadcom now argues that the Board erred
in not discussing a reasonable expectation of success,
Broadcom never raised that issue before the Board. Given
Broadcom’s silence, it cannot show that the Board erred on
that issue. The Board’s scheduling order specifically informed Broadcom that “any arguments not raised in the
response may be deemed waived,” referring to Broadcom’s
post-institution response. J.A. 203. Furthermore, as we
do, the Board relies on parties to identify disputed issues
and treats other issues as undisputed. See, e.g., Affinity
Lab’ys of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264
n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 20 Filed: 03/08/2022
20 BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC
We also find that the Board did not abuse its discretion
in addressing Renesas’s argument that claim 26 would
have been obvious in view of Alben. Renesas made that
argument in its petition, and there is no indication in subsequent filings that it later abandoned that argument.
For these reasons, we affirm the Board’s holding that
claims 25 and 26 would have been obvious over the references.
II. Broadcom’s Appeals Regarding the ’752 Patent
Turning to the ’752 patent, the Board held that all of
the challenged claims would have been obvious based on
Foster alone and that claim 5 was additionally unpatentable as obvious based on Foster and Sih. The Commission
similarly held that claim 5 was unpatentable as obvious
based on Foster and Sih. We affirm the Board’s holdings.
In light of that affirmance, the portion of the Commission’s
decision addressing invalidity is moot. We thus do not address Broadcom’s appeal from this portion of the Commission’s decision.
Broadcom argues that for claim 1, the Board improperly combined Foster’s embodiments and also wrongly applied a combination of obviousness and anticipation legal
standards instead of conducting a proper obviousness analysis. Regarding claim 2, Broadcom argues that the claim
requires a one-to-one ratio of requests to blocks of pixels
and that Foster instead discloses a combination of eight requests for lines of pixels that add up to a single request for
a block of pixels. For claim 5, Broadcom argues that the
Board conflated Foster’s input and output requests. It contends that the Board referred to Foster’s disclosing a request as being an output request to the destination
memory instead of an input request as described by the
claim.
Renesas counters that for claim 1, the Board expressly
analyzed obviousness, and that even if the Board did apply
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 21 Filed: 03/08/2022
BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC 21
a more rigorous anticipation standard, that did not undermine its obviousness holding. With respect to claim 2,
Renesas argues that Broadcom fails to challenge the
Board’s primary finding that Foster discloses requests for
blocks of data including pixels. Regarding claim 5, Renesas
argues that the Board did not confuse input and output requests.
We agree with Renesas. With respect to claim 1,
Broadcom does not challenge the Board’s finding that Foster discloses “an output port” and “a queue” as part of a
memory access unit. Instead Broadcom argues that the
Board improperly combined Foster’s embodiments disclosing an external memory controller with those disclosing an
internal memory controller. However, the Board stated
that Foster’s disclosure of “an output port” and “a queue”
are directed to the same invention. Decision III at *5–6.
We agree with the Board that Foster’s disclosures contained in Figures 2, 4, and the corresponding text relate to
a single invention. Id. The Board therefore did not improperly combine embodiments as Broadcom claims.
In addition, the Board expressly analyzed obviousness
with respect to claim 1 and did not apply an improper analysis combining obviousness and anticipation as Broadcom
asserts. Satisfying a more stringent standard does not undermine satisfaction of a lesser standard. The Board discussed the proper obviousness standard and determined
the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, the scope and
content of the prior art, and any differences between the
prior art and the claims. See id. at *2–6. We therefore affirm the Board’s holding with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the Board found that Foster discloses a memory access unit with an input port that receives requests from a motion prediction processing unit
and that “the requests are for ‘blocks of data.’” See id. at
*7. It further found that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would know that a “block of data” in Foster refers to a
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 22 Filed: 03/08/2022
22 BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC
block of pixels. These findings were supported by substantial evidence, and Broadcom does not dispute that. Foster
expressly states that its motion compensation unit “may be
generating requests for a block of data it is processing,” J.A.
694, and multiple experts stated that a person of ordinary
skill would understand that a block of data in Foster refers
to a block of pixels. Broadcom instead attacks the Board’s
alternative finding stating that “even if Foster discloses requests for lines of data . . . there would simply be multiple
requests for a block of data,” which would still render claim
2 obvious. Decision III at *7. Because we find that the
Board’s primary factual findings were supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the Board’s holding and do not
address its alternative finding.
Regarding claim 5, the Board’s finding that Foster discloses a memory access system that reorders and optimizes
received requests based on characteristics of the requests,
including the requested data size, was supported by substantial evidence. Foster describes a system for receiving
requests for data and sorting and optimizing those requests based on certain characteristics, including size, as
explained by Renesas’s expert’s unrebutted testimony. In
addition, the Board did not confuse Foster’s input and output requests. The Board found that “Foster discloses generating access requests based on the sizes of the requests
for blocks of pixels.” Id. at *9. There is no dispute that
“requests for blocks of pixels” means input requests because these requests are received at the input port. Id. at
*6–7, *8–9. Because we find that the Board’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the
Board’s holding.
Because of our affirmance of the Board’s holding that
claim 5 would have been obvious, the portion of the Commission’s decision addressing claim 5 is moot. We thus do
not address that portion of Broadcom’s appeal.
Case: 20-2008 Document: 93 Page: 23 Filed: 03/08/2022
BROADCOM CORPORATION v. ITC 23
CONCLUSION
We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
but find them unpersuasive. In sum, with respect to the
’583 patent, we affirm the entirety of the Board’s holding
(Appeal No. 21-1260), affirm the Commission’s holding of
lack of Section 337 violation because there was no domestic
industry (Appeal No. 20-2008), and do not address the infringement portion of the Commission opinion as it is moot
in light of our domestic industry affirmance. With respect
to the ’752 patent, we affirm the entirety of the Board’s
holding (Appeal No. 21-1511) and do not address the portion of the Commission’s opinion addressing claim 5, as it
is moot in light of our affirmance of the Board’s determination of obviousness of claim 5 of the ’752 patent.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
