The following content is an excerpt from Vizio, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 605 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2010):

Before MAYER, CLEVENGER, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge DYK. Opinion dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge CLEVENGER.

DYK, Circuit Judge.

Vizio, Inc. and Amtran Technology Company, Ltd. (collectively, “Vizio”), and TPV Technology, Ltd., TPV International, Inc., Top Victory Electronics Company, Ltd., and Envision Peripherals, Inc. (collectively, “TPV”) appeal from the final determination of the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) that the importation and sale of certain digital television products violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337. The Commission issued a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order. In the Matter of Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same, Inv. No. 337-TA617 (U.S.I.T.C. Apr. 10, 2009) (“ Final Determination ”). The Commission's action was based on its finding that the accused products infringed claims 1, 5, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 6,115,074 (the “′074 patent”), and that the ′074 patent was not invalid.

We affirm the Commission's construction of the term “channel map information,” as well as the Commission's determination that the ′074 patent is not invalid as anticipated or obvious. Furthermore, we affirm the Commission's construction of the term “identifying channel map information ... and assembling said identified information” in claims 1 and 23 as not precluding use of the Moving Picture Experts Group (“MPEG”) Program Map Table (“PMT”) and its determination that the ′074 patent is infringed by the “legacy products.” However, we find the Commission erred in its conclusion that the claims do not require that the channel map information be capable of being used, see In the Matter of Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-617, slip op. at 49 (U.S.I.T.C. Nov. 17, 2008) (“Initial Determination”), and we accordingly reverse the Commission's determination that the “work-around products” infringe.

…

We now turn to the validity of the asserted claims, which the Commission found to be not invalid as anticipated by the A/55 standard nor obvious in view of the A/55 standard combined with U.S. Patent No. 5,982,411 (the “Eyer patent”). Initial Determination, slip op. at 68-70. Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual inquiries, and thus we review the Commission's ultimate determination de novo and factual determinations for substantial evidence. See Crocs Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Whether a prior art reference anticipates a patent claim is a question of fact, which we review for substantial evidence. Linear Tech. Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 566 F.3d 1049, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Please answer the following questions.

(1) What is the patent at dispute? (Please also write down the patent number.) (3 points)

(2) What are the legal issues related to patentability which the court adjudicated? (5 points)

(3) What are the cited prior art documents used to challenge the patentability of the patent at dispute? (5 points)

(4) What is the name of the court that decided this case? (12 points)

Answer:

(1) U.S. Patent No. 6,115,074.

(2) Anticipation (or novelty) and obviousness.

(3) A/55 standard and U.S. Patent No. 5,982,411.

(4) United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

**這題一點都不難. 如果你有看過CAFC的判決, 就會答. 這件判決事實上和一家中資台灣公司有關.**