The International Trade Commission (ITC) and Federal District Courts are two primary forums for the majority of US patent suits. In general, patent holders may choose District Court as a litigation forum, as it can issue damage awards and its requirement is lower than the ITC. However, more and more patent holders seek ITC as a litigation forum as the ITC is a pro-patent holder forum with speedy proceedings and a strong remedy of exclusion order.
In order to have a full understanding of US patent litigation, this study analyzes cases from the head of upstream IC design firm, Mediatek, and the head of downstream electronic assembly firm, Foxconn, in District Court and the ITC. Examining from both cases demonstrates there are different situations for upstream and downstream firms. The upstream firms may easily involve clients in suits; while downstream firms are often involved in suits by infringing products from its suppliers or clients.

Despite the fact that a majority of Taiwanese high-tech firms were defendants in US patent litigation, both Foxconn and Mediatek cases demonstrate that if they could fight, they would never hesitate to engage in litigation or even proactively bring a lawsuit against infringers. This study reveals a transition from defendant to plaintiff in Taiwanese high-tech firms. In the end, this study provides the litigation strategies for patent holders in forum selection, and accused infringers in arguments and defenses based on the analysis derived from Foxconn and Mediatek cases.

Acknowledgements 3
List of Figures 8
List of Tables 9
Chapter1 Introduction 10
Chapter1 Introduction 10
1.1 Motivation of Study 10
1.2 Limitations of Study 11
1.3 Research Method 12
Chapter 2 Application of the ITC and Federal Court in Patent Litigation 14
2.1 Introduction to the US Patent Litigation 14
2.2 US Federal Court Litigation Procedure 16
2.2.1 Overall Legal Procedure 16
2.2.2 Requirement of Patent Litigation Forum 16
2.2.3 Discovery 17
2.2.4 Markman Hearing 19
2.2.5 Injunctive Relief 20
2.2.6 Motion for Summary Judgment 21
2.3 International Trade Commission Litigation Procedure 22
2.3.1 General Structure of the ITC 23
2.3.2 Legal Procedure of the ITC 24
2.3.3 Requirements for Engagement of the ITC 25
2.3.4 Speedy Proceeding of the ITC 26
2.3.5 Strong Effect of Exclusion Order 26
2.4 Comparison of US Federal Courts and the ITC 28
2.4.1 Legal Procedure Comparison 28
2.4.2 Advantages of the ITC for Patent Holders 30
2.4.3 Disadvantages of ITC for Patent Holders 32
2.5 Summary of Application of the ITC and Federal Court in Patent Litigation 33
Chapter 3 US Patent Litigation Cases of Foxconn International, Inc. 34
3.1 Introduction of Foxconn International, Inc. 34
3.2 US Patent Litigation History of the Foxconn International, Inc. 37
3.3 AMP, Inc. v. Foxconn International, Inc. 39
3.3.1 AMP v. Foxconn in the District Court 39
3.3.2 AMP v. Foxconn in the ITC 42
3.3.3 Comments on AMP v. Foxconn Case 45
3.4 Berg Technology, Inc. v. Foxconn International, Inc. 47
3.4.1 Berg v. Foxconn Case in the District Court 47
3.4.2 Comments on the Berg v. Foxconn Case 50
3.5 FCI USA, Inc. v. Hon Hai International, Inc. 51
3.5.1 FCI v. Hon Hai in the District Court 51
3.5.2 Comments on FCI v. Hon Hai Case 53
3.6 PSC Computer Products, Inc. v. Foxconn International, Inc. 55
3.6.1 PSC v. Foxconn in the Central District Court of California 55
3.6.2 Foxconn v. PSC in the Central District Court of California 57
3.6.3 Comments on PSC v. Foxconn Case 59
3.7 Summary of Foxconn Case 62
Chapter 4 Noted US Patent Litigation Cases of Mediatek, Inc. 64
4.1 Introduction of Mediatek, Inc. 64
4.2 US Patent Litigation History of the Mediatek, Inc. 67
4.3 Oak Technology, Inc. v. Mediatek, Inc. 69
4.3.1 Oak Technology, Inc. v. Mediatek, Inc. in the ITC 69
4.3.2 Oak Technology, Inc. v Mediatek, Inc. in the CAFC 76
4.3.3 Comments on Oak Technology, Inc. v. Mediatek, Inc. Case 77
4.4 Zoran Co. v. Mediatek, Inc. 78
4.4.1 Zoran v. Mediatek in the ITC 78
4.4.2 Zoran v. Mediatek in the District Court 82
4.4.3 Mediatek v. Zoran in the ITC 85
4.4.4 Comments on Mediatek v. Zoran Case 90
4.5 Sanyo Electric, Co., Ltd v. Mediatek Inc. 93
4.5.1 Sanyo v. Mediatek in the District Court 93
4.5.2 Comments on Sanyo Electronics Co. v. Mediatek, Inc. 95
4.6 Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd v. Mediatek Inc. Brief 97
4.6.1 Matsushita v. Mediatek in the District Court 97
4.7 Summary of the Mediatek Case 100
Chapter 5 Patent Litigation Strategy of the ITC and Federal Courts 102
5.1 Patent Holder Position 102
5.1.1 Selection between ITC and District Court 102
5.1.2 Mutual Application of the ITC and District Court 103
5.1.3 Forum Shopping of a Favorable District Court 106
5.1.4 General Litigation Strategies for Patent Holders 110
5.2 Defendant Position 113
5.2.1 Crisis of Small Firms 113
5.2.2 General Defense Strategies Analysis 114
5.2.3 Initiation of a New Litigation 119
5.2.4 Re-examination in the USPTO 120
5.2.5 Indemnification Clause in OEM and Suppliers’ Contract 121
5.2.6 When to Fight and When to Settle 121
5.3 Utilization of M&A in Patent Litigation 125
5.3.1 Overview the M&A of Foxconn and Mediatek 125
5.3 Utilization of M&A in Patent Litigation 126
5.3.1 Overview of M&A for Foxconn and Mediatek 126
5.3.2 Overview the M&A in Patent Holder’s Perspective 127
5.3.3 Overview of the M&A in Accused Infringer’s Perspective 127
5.4 Patent Litigation Observations of Taiwanese High-tech Firms 129
5.4.1 Different Situation of Upstream and Downstream Industries 129
5.4.2 Transition from Defendant to Plaintiff 130
5.4.3 Importance of Patent Quality 131
5.5 Summary of the patent litigation strategy of the ITC and Federal Courts 132
Chapter 6 Conclusion 134
Appendix A: Interviewing Questions 136
A-1 Douglas Weinstein, Managing Director at Finnegan Taiwan Office 136
A-2 Foxconn Attorney A 140
A-3 US Attorney A 143
A-4 Other Assorted Attorneys 146
Appendix B: Taiwanese high-tech firms involving with section 337 in the USITC 147
A. Pending Cases (2006 January ~2008 May) 147
B. Completed Cases (2005 June ~2007 January) 155
Cases 158
Reference 159

Cases
Part1. Foxconn International Incorporated
1. AMP Inc. v. Foxconn Intern., Inc.,1994 WL 315889,(C.D.Cal.,1994)
2. AMP Inc v. Foxconn International In ,337-TA-374 (1996)
3. Berg Technology Inc v. Foxconn International Inc, 185 F.3d 884, (C.A.Fed.(Cal) 1999)
4. FCI USA Inc v. Hon Hai Precision International,185 F.3d 884,(N.D.Cal,1999)
5. PSC Computer Products Inc v. Foxconn International Inc, 355 F.3d 1353, (C.A.Fed.(Cal) 1999)
6. Hon Hai Precision Industry Co v. PSC Computer Products Inc, Case No: CV 03-0093-SVW, CV 03-0094-SVW (C.D. Cal. 2004)
Part2. Mediatek Incorporated
1. Oak Technology Inc v. Mediatek Inc, 337-TA-409 (1999), aff’d, 248 F.3d 1316,(C.A. Fed 2001)
2. Zoran Corporation v. Mediatek Inc, 337-TA-506 (2005)
3. Mediatek Inc v. Zoran Corporation, 337-TA-523 (2006)
4. Mediatek Inc. v. Sanyo Electric Co Ltd, 2006 WL 463871 (E.D.Tex.,2006) (order denying motion to transfer)
5. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co Ltd v. Mediatek Inc, 2007 WL 963975 (N.D.Cal.)(order denying motion to reconsideration and motion for stay)
Part 3 Other Cases
1. Gertrude Neumark Rothschild v. AVAGO Technologies, 337-TA-640 (filed March. 25, 2008)
2. US Phillips Corporation v. Princo Corporation, 337-TA-474 (2003), rev’d, 424 F.3d 1179 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
3. 3com Corporation v. Realtek Semiconductor Corporation, 2008 WL 783383 (N.D.Cal. 2008)
4. United Microelectronics Corporation v. Silicon Integrated Systems Corp, 337-TA-450 (2002)
5. Bio-Technology General Corp v. Genentech Inc, 80 F.3d 1553 (1996)
6. KSR v. Teleflex,127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007)

Reference
B. Book (Use Family Name to arrange)
1. Barry L. Grossman & Gary M Hoffman, Patent Litigation Strategy Handbook, ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law. (2000)
2. Kimber A. Moore & Paul R. Michel & Raphael V. Lupo, Patent Litigation And Strategy, American Casebook Series. (2003)
3. Charles S. Barquest & G. Brian Busy & John L Kolaowski, An introduction to international trade commission litigation, 2007 November 26.
4. Dan-Wen Chang, Tiger and Fox: Terry Guo’s international competition strategy, Culture of the World ( Jan. 27, 2005). (張殿文，虎與狐：郭台銘的全球競爭策略，天下文化).
5. Cheng-shou Wang, Ying-mao Deng, US Patent Litigation Strategies Application, Yuan-Zhao Corporation (Nov. 11, 2004). (王承守 & 鄧穎懋, 美國專利訴訟－攻防策略運用"，元照出版有限公司).
C. Articles
Part 1 English Journal
1. G. Brian Busey, Morrison & Foerster LLP, An Introduction To Section 337 And The U.S. International Trade Commission. (page??)
2. Nathaniel Bruno, “Assessing Personal Jurisdiction In Patent Litigation Actions, Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal.
3. Allan M. Soobert, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Discovery Issues In Patent Litigation, Patent Litigation 2005.
4. Jeanne M. Gills, Foley & Lardner LLP, Discovery Issues In Patent Litigation, Patent Litigation 2005.
5. Roderick R. McKelvie, Forum Selection In Patent Litigation: A Traffic Report, Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal.
6. Virginia L. Carron, Intellectual Property Litigation At The U.S. International Trade Commission, Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, and Literary Property Course Handbook Series, September 2007.
7. David M. Hashmall, Goodwin Procter LLP, Key Issues In Patent Litigation, Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, and Literary Property Course Handbook Series.
8. John N. Zarian, Stoel Rives LLP,“Patent Litigation In The U.S. District Of Idaho”, Feature Article.
9. Robert A. Caplen, Esq., Recent Trends Underscoring International Trade Commission Review Of Initial Determinations And Federal Circuit Appeals From Final Commission Determinations Under Section 337 Of The Tariff Act Of 1930, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, Winter 2007.
10. Marc J. Pensabene, Thomas S. Gabriel, To Sue Or Not To Sue: Risks Of Unlocking Value Through Patent Litigation, Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, September, 2007.
11. Dr. Marta E. Delsignore, Louis S. Sorell, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Selected Aspects Of The Impact Of Patent Prosecution On Patent Litigation Issues, Fundamentals of Patent Prosecution 2006: A Boot Camp for Claim Drafting & Amendment Writing.
12. Matthew D. Henry, John L. Turner, “The Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit's Impact On Patent Litigation” Journal of Legal Studies, January, 2006.
13. S. Jay Plager, “The United States Courts Of Appeals, The Federal Circuit, And The Non-Regional Subject Matter Concept: Reflections On The Search For A Model”, American University Law Review, Summer 1990.
14. Neil Edward L. Santos, III, Dennis S. Fernandez, and Nilesh D. Patel, What IP Holders Ought To Know About The ITC And The District Courts, Journal of High Technology Law, 2007.

Part 2 Chinese Journal Reports
1. Yan-peng Zhou, Xiao-mei Gu, Yan-ting Peng, Li-han Zhang, Pu-quin Huang, Shu-xian Li, Impact of US Patent Litigation on Taiwanese Semiconductor Industries, Developing technology background with cross field personnel program, MMOT, page 75, 2006 (周延鵬,古筱玫,彭彥婷,張荔涵,黃浦青,李書賢, 美國專利侵權訴訟對台灣半導體產業營運的影響, 培訓科技背景跨領域高級人計畫，95年海外培訓成果發表會，MMOT)
2. Wen-tan Su, Berg-ki Huang, Ga-yin Wu, Zung-te, Chen, Ga-We Chung, Pa-lin Wu, Customer relationship during patent litigation-take 3Com Corporation infringed anti-competition act for example, Developing technology background with cross field personnel program, MMOT, 2006 (宿文堂, 黃伯器, 吳佳穎,陳宗德, 張家維, 吳佩玲, 專利訴訟中顧客關係之研究-以美商3Com Corporation 違反公平交易法個案為例，培訓科技背景跨領域高級人計畫，95年海外培訓成果發表會，MMOT)
Part 3 Chinese News Reports
1. Ga-Ma Li, For the truth or for the business, Foxconn sued AMP patent infringed, IP Navigator, 20 Nov, 2001 (李嘉孟，為真理？為商機？鴻海控告AMP侵權，智慧財產領航員), at: http://www.ipnavigator.com.tw/news/news_view.asp?NewsID=20011120090139.
2. Zhao-Wei Hu, Terry Guo use patent landmine to dominate the market, Business Week, 900(胡釗維，郭台銘用「專利地雷網」獨霸市場，商業周刊第 900 期), 2005-02-21
3. Zeng-Chi Lin, Foxconn settled with FCI and opened the opportunity for cooperation, Liberty Times, 2004 March 27 (林正智，鴻海與FCI和解 開啟合作契機，自由新聞網) http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2004/new/mar/27/today-stock8.htm (last visit : 2008 June 30)
4. Jian-zhong Zhang, Mediatek and Sanyo came to an agreement over their lawsuits, Central Club, 2007 June 5(張建中 ,聯發科與Sanyo互控案雙方達成和解協議 ,中央社) http://tw.stock.yahoo.com/news_content/url/d/a/070606/1/g5ak.html　（last visit 2007/9/3）
5. Zeng-fen Tsau, Matsushita’s calculator - receiving licensing fee, economic report, 2005August 5 (曹正芬，松下算盤─收權利金，經濟日報)
D. Database
1. Westlaw Database: www.westalaw.com
2. Lexis Database: www.lexisnexis.com
3. USPTO Database: www.uspto.gov
4. USITC Database: www.usitc.gov
5 US code collection of Cornell Law School: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
6 Federal Court filings: http://dockets.justia.com/
E. Others
1. Douglas Weinstein, Finnegan Law firm, US IP Litigation Class Materials, 2008.
2. Matthew R. Sheldon, Strategies for Winning U.S. Patent Litigation, ReedSmith LLP, April 2007.
3. Matthew R. Sheldon, The future of US Patent Litigation Strategies to win, ReedSmith LLP, October 2007.
4. Juan Carlos A. Marquez, The impact of claim quality on patent infringement, ReedSmith LLP, April 2007.
5. Brain Busey, ESq. Morrison & Foerster LLP, Update on Patent Litigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission and Litigation Strategy, November 26, 2007, National Tsing-Hua University.