PUBLIC VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable MaryJoan McNamara
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1413
`CERTAIN WIRELESS FRONT-END MODULES AND
`DEVICES CONTAINING THE SAME
`
`RESPONDENTS’ SUR-REPLY POST-HEARING BRIEF
`(RESPONSE TO STAFF’S REPLY BRIEF)
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1413 Respondents’ Sur-Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`L NON-INFRINGEMENT .
`II. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY TECHNICAL PRONG ..ot
`
`i
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1413 Respondents’ Sur-Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. v. Ultravision Techs., LLC, 2021 WL 3187439 (D. Del. July
`
`28, 202 ] ) ettt a e n e a e e a e e e e et e aeeneeneeeneenneeneeeneenseenteannenneenneeneas 8
`In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..o 8
`K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ......ooiiiieeeeeeeeeeeee e 4
`Inre Meza, 780 F. App'x 895 (Fed. Cir. 2019).....o i 3
`Nautilus Grp., Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 82 Fed. Appx. 691 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................ 3
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .....coiiieeieeeeeeeeeee e 4
`Shire Dev., LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 787 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ....ccoooiiiiieieeee 4
`Teashot LLC v. Green Mnt. Coffee Roasters, Inc., 2014 WL 485876 (D. Colo. Feb. 6,
`
`2014), aff'd, 595 F. App'x 983 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..o 4
`Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP Am. Inc., 717 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2013)......oooiiiiieieeee 3
`Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997) .ooeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 3
`Other Authorities
`OTAer N O. 55 ettt e e e e e e e e ae e e e e e ae e et e e ne e e s e e neeenneeneeenneenns 10
`OTAET INO. 56 .ttt et e e e s e e e e n e e s e e e e eneeen e ene e ene e ne e e e eneeneeneeene 1
`
`i
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1413 Respondents’ Sur-Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`KCT Respondent Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co.
`Ltd. together with GCL
`GCL Respondent Grand Chip Labs, Inc.
`Ruijie Respondent Ruijie Networks Co., Ltd.
`Skyworks Complainants Skyworks Solutions Inc., Skyworks Solutions
`Canada, Inc. and Skyworks Global Pte. Ltd.
`’101 Patent U.S. Patent No. 8,717,101 (JX-1)
`’563 Patent U.S. Patent No. 9,917,563 (JX-2)
`FEM Front end module
`PA Power amplifier
`RF Radio frequency
`KCT8539S KCT’s KCT8539S FEM product, the “Accused Product,” at times
`referred to as the “39S” or “8539”
`KCT8525C KCT’s KCT8525C FEM product, the “Legacy Product,” at times
`
`referred to as the “25C” or “8525”
`
`Skyworks’ FEM product
`’101 Asserted Claims Claims 1-2, 10-11, and 21-22 of the 101 Patent (JX-1)
`’563 Asserted Claims Claims 14 and 17 of the *563 Patent (JX-2)!
`CPBr Complainant’s Pre-Hearing Brief, EDIS ID 853080
`CIBr Complainant’s Initial Post-Hearing Brief, EDIS ID 858169
`CRBr Complainant’s Post-Hearing Reply Brief, EDIS ID 859521
`RPBr Respondents’ Pre-Hearing Brief, EDIS ID 853078
`RIBr Respondents’ Initial Post-Hearing Brief, EDIS ID 858170
`RRBr Respondents’ Post-Hearing Reply Brief, EDIS ID 859525
`SPBr Staff’s Pre-Hearing Brief, EDIS ID 854409
`SIBr Staff’s Initial Post-Hearing Brief, EDIS ID 858847
`SRBr Staff’s Post-Hearing Reply Brief, EDIS ID 860024
`
`! See CIB at 10 & n.1 (withdrawing additional claims post-trial).
`
`111
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1413 Respondents’ Sur-Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`ASSERTED INDEPENDENT CLAIMS?
`
`101 Patent
`
`1. [1pre] A power amplifier system comprising:
`
`[1A] a power amplifier configured to amplify a radio frequency (RF) signal; and
`
`[1B] a bias block for biasing the power amplifier,
`
`[1C] the bias block including a time-dependent signal generator configured to shape
`an enable signal of the power amplifier to generate a control current,
`
`[1D] a current amplifier configured to amplify the control current to generate a
`correction current, and
`
`[1E] a primary biasing circuit configured to generate a bias current for the power
`amplifier based at least partly on the correction current,
`
`[1F] the bias current configured to correct for a variation in gain of the power
`amplifier when the power amplifier is enabled,
`
`[1G] the current amplifier including a current mirror
`
`[21PRE] A bias circuit for biasing a power amplifier, the bias circuit comprising:
`
`[21A] a time-dependent signal generator configured to shape an enable signal of the
`power amplifier to generate a control current,
`
`[21B] a current amplifier configured to amplify the control current to generate a
`correction current
`
`[21C] the current amplifier including a current mirror; and
`
`[21D] a primary biasing block configured to generate a bias current for the power
`amplifier based at least partly on the correction current,
`
`[21E] the bias current configured to correct for a variation in gain of the power
`amplifier when the power amplifier is enabled.
`
`’563 Patent
`
`14. [14pre] A packaged module comprising:
`
`[14A] a package substrate; and
`
`[14B] an integrated circuit attached to the package substrate and including a power
`amplifier configured to provide amplification to a radio frequency signal and
`
`[14C] a bias circuit configured to receive a power amplifier enable signal and to
`generate a bias signal that biases the power amplifier,
`
`[14D] the bias circuit including a gain correction circuit configured to generate a
`control current in response to activation of the power amplifier enable signal,
`
`2 This limitation numbering is used in KCT’s NI and DI arguments and follows Skyworks’ for
`convenience (without accepting that each numbered element represents a single limitation).
`
`v
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1413 Respondents’ Sur-Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`and
`
`[14E] to mirror the control current to generate a correction current, and
`
`[14F] a primary biasing circuit configured to generate the bias signal based on the
`correction current and the power amplifier enable signal.
`
`ASSERTED DEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`’101 Patent
`
`2. The power amplifier system of claim 1 wherein the time-dependent signal
`generator includes a resistor-capacitor (RC) network.
`
`10. The power amplifier system of claim 1 wherein the power amplifier includes
`a bipolar transistor having an emitter, a base and a collector, the base
`configured to receive the RF signal and the bias current.
`
`22. The bias circuit of claim 21 wherein the time-dependent signal generator
`includes a resistor-capacitor (RC) network.
`
`’563 Patent
`
`17. The packaged module of claim 14 wherein the gain correction circuit includes
`
`a current mirror configured to generate the correction current by mirroring the
`control current, the current mirror configured to receive the power amplifier
`enable signal.
`
`A\
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1413 Respondents’ Sur-Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Pursuant to Order No. 56, Respondents KCT and Ruijie respectfully submit the following
`sur-reply post-hearing brief, addressing arguments made by Staff. The Staff correctly concludes
`that there 1s no violation of Section 337 for many of the reasons cited by Respondents — and more.
`
`I NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`Staff is correct that the predecessor product, KCT8525C (“25C”), demonstrates that claim
`elements [14D] and [14E] are not satisfied in the accused product, KCT8539S (“39S”). Staff
`makes two points. SRBr at 16-24 and 33-36. Each is case-ending.
`
`First, Staff correctly notes that as a factual matter, the 25C proves that “the alleged ‘gain
`
`correction circuit’ and the ‘correction current’ do not correct power amplifier gain.” SRBr at 16.
`
`The circuitry that Skyworks accuses of being a “gain correction circuit”_
`B: 1o s85:8-592:3 (Wentzloft) ([ EGN: ces: = 2324 (I EEGN
`-). The failure of the alleged “gain correction circuit” to_
`
`3 Staff dispatches Skyworks 11®-hour attempt to flee its own earlier assertions of sameness. Staff
`
`recounts
`
`id. at 21-22:; ¢f. RRBr at 42-43. Sta
`
`1
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1413 Respondents’ Sur-Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`I
`
`_ RDX-0004.3 at top-right corner; Tr. 869:5-8 -
`
`_ On this ground alone, Skyworks’ infringement theory fails.
`Second, Staff makes a more targeted version of _
`
`problem in the prior art. JX-2.12 at 4:46-47 (“absent compensation the current of a primary biasing
`circuit can come up slow due to thermal effects.”) (emphasis added). Staff correctly notes that.
`_ On this ground, too, the case should end.
`Skyworks’ response to Staff’s articulation of these problems is to contend that Staff is
`engaging in untimely claim construction. CRBr at 23 (“Staff [improperly] argued that . . . claim
`14 should be interpreted as requiring the ‘gain correction circuit’ to correct for ‘a variation in
`
`239
`
`gain.’”). Not so. Claim 14 requires a “gain correction circuit,” not merely a circuit. See [14D].
`
`Claim 14 requires a “correction current,” not just a current. See [14E]. Staff 1s applying these
`
`2
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1413 Respondents’ Sur-Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`express claim limitations to the facts. In the process, Staffis using the plain meaning that Skyworks
`agreed to: “Plain meaning, which is “a circuit for gain correction of the power amplifier configured
`
`to . . . generate a correction current.” RX-1139 at 5 ([14D] & [14E] agreed construction) (emphasis
`
`- (SRBr at 17), and 1s therefore not a “gain correction” circuit. /d. at 21 _
`
`_). Staff likewise concludes that a current that does not
`
`correct anything (id. at 17) 1s not a “correction” current. /d. at 21.
`
`It 1s Skyworks — not Staff — who 1s engaging in a desperate, untimely, and improper claim
`construction by trying to read the words “gain correction” and “correction” out of elements [14D]
`and [14E] respectively. Skyworks i1s apparently now trying (for the first time, post-trial) to
`eliminate the adjectival modifier, “gain correction,” in [14D] order to broaden the claim to cover
`
`_ Skyworks is likewise trying to eliminate the
`
`adjectival modifier, “correction,” in [14E] in order to broaden the claim to cover -
`_ The effort 1s at best untimely per G.R.
`1.14.1 and 1n any event waived/estopped by Skyworks own submission of RX-1139. A party may
`not later “collaterally attack™ a “claim construction it has agreed to.” Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP
`Am. Inc., 717 F.3d 1255, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`It 1s also wrong as a matter of law. Each word in the claim is presumed to have meaning.
`Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 29 (1997). The Federal Circuit has
`repeatedly struck down claim constructions that render words as surplusage. See, e.g., In re Meza,
`780 F. App'x 895 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (rejecting an interpretation that “would effectively read out”
`language from a claim); Nautilus Grp., Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 82 Fed. Appx. 691, 694
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003) (finding error in a claim construction that rendered certain terms as “surplusage.”);
`
`3
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1413 Respondents’ Sur-Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`see also, e.g., Teashot LLC v. Green Mnt. Coffee Roasters, Inc., 2014 WL 485876, at 4-5 (D. Colo.
`Feb. 6,2014), aff'd, 595 F. App'x 983 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claim requiring “water-permeable material”
`could not be infringed by an impermeable material because such a reading would render the term
`“essentially [] meaningless.”). The adjectival modifiers, “gain correction” and “correction,” define
`the subset of claimed circuits and currents respectively.’ Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“To take a simple example, the claim in this case refers to ‘steel baffles,’
`which strongly implies that the term ‘baffles’” does not inherently mean objects made of steel.”).
`Like the “baffles” in Philips, not all circuits are “gain correction” circuits, nor are all currents
`“correction” currents. /d.; see also, e.g., Shire Dev., LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 787 F.3d 1359,
`1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (““lipophilic’ is an adjective that modifies matrix. . . . Thus, the matrix—not
`just an excipient within the matrix—must exhibit the stipulated-to lipophilic characteristic.”). The
`
`ALJ should decline Skyworks’ 11®-hour invitation to read words out of the claims.
`
`Staff offers another compelling point, that_
`notes that pre-litigation testing show that_
`
`> Staff characterizes these adjectival modifiers as “functional” limitations. See SRBr at 16 n.4 and
`24 n.6. To the extent Skyworks attempts to make mischief with the label, the law is clear:
`limitations may not be read out. See, e.g., K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A4., 191 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
`Cir. 1999) (“functional language is, of course, an additional limitation in the claim.”). Here, “the
`functional language tells us something about the structural requirements.” 7d.
`
`4
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1413 Respondents’ Sur-Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`_. See SRBr at 25-27. Specifically, as Staff notes:
`
`See SRBr 26-27
`
`See SRBr 26
`
`See generally Tr. 1194:2-5 (Ricketts) _
`-). 1178:5-23 (same). At trial, Skyworks ignored nearly all of this. For example, it never
`I (' 15¢:14-24 (Rickets)
`I RDOX-0003C.177; Tr. 1194:14-24 (Ricketts). Staff
`correctly concludes that_
`R
`
`SRBr at 25, JX-6C.28 RDX-0003C.176 (left side), Tr. 1196:6-10 (Ricketts).
`
`7 Staff’s analysis is on top of, and distinct from, Sk
`
`SRBr at 44 (citing Wentzloft,
`testimony as to
`
`See JX-6C.14, 22, 28, 40. Cf. RRBr 55-58 (the
`
`5
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1413 Respondents’ Sur-Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`At trial, when confronted with_
`I
`_ SRBr at 27 (citing Tr. 634:10-20 (Wentzloff)). (Moments later, he flipped again
`1193:22-23 (Ricketts). There is no evidence that _
`(agreeing, for domestic industry product, _
`U
`
`Staff exposes another fundamental flaw i Skyworks’ infringement theory, further
`_ SRBr at 36-44. Skyworks alleges that_
`
`36-37 (citing CIBr at 39, 41; Tr. 336:1-337:4 (Wentzloff)). But as Staff correctly points out, that
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1413 Respondents’ Sur-Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`As Staff correctly notes, during cross-examination Dr. Wentzloff admitted that-
`9 (Wentzloff)). Dr. Ricketts explained the implication of this admission: _
`I s:b: ot 44 (citing Tr. 1181:21-1182:8 (Ricketts)), 40-42
`
`In response, Skyworks resorts to misdirection: attacking a simplified simulation that Dr.
`
`_ (emphasis added), i1s thus demonstrably false.
`11 As Respondents have noted, see RRBr at 70-71, Dr. Wentzloff had to posit
`
`7
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1413 Respondents’ Sur-Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Ricketts used in his expert report to illustrate a different point _
`
`-) and that he did not rely upon at trial in light of Dr. Wentzloff’s admission -
`_). SRBr at 42 (not used). As Staff points out, Skyworks’
`misunderstanding of the accused circuit 1s evident from the pre-litigation data and Wentzloff’s own
`admissions, not from any simulation performed by Dr. Ricketts. /d. at 42-43.
`
`Staff makes another strong point. In addition to demonstrating no actual gain correction,
`Staff also observes the accused circuit is not designed to correct PA gain and is therefore not
`“configured to” do so. See In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (plain meaning
`of “configured to” is: designed to accomplish a goal) (cited in SRBr at 16, 36 n.9); Acuity Brands
`Lighting, Inc. v. Ultravision Techs., LLC, 2021 WL 3187439, at *7 (D. Del. July 28, 2021) (citing
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012); ““configured
`
`to’ [has] a narrower definition than ‘having the capacity to” or ‘capable of.”). Staff correctly
`
`II. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY TECHNICAL PRONG
`Staff correctly notes that the alleged bias signal in the _ does not reach,
`
`touch, or bias_ — a point fatal to Skyworks’ case. SRBr at 47-51. Staff
`
`notes the same, universal, undisputed testimony of the fact and expert witnesses, on both sides,
`
`that Respondents’ identified, i.e. that “biasing” means applying a voltage and/or current (as
`appropriate) to the terminals of the transistor being biased. SRBr at 47-48; Tr. 167:29-34
`(Chyurlia) (applying the correct voltages and current to a transistor); id. at 1522:16-1523:3
`
`(Wentzloff) (same); see also RRBr 104-105. But Staff adds more, namely Dr. Li’s testimony that
`
`8
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1413 Respondents’ Sur-Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`per Staff’s analysis, all three of Skyworks technical witnesses agree as to what “biasing” means.
`Dr. Wentzloff cleanly conceded that- does not meet that plain meaning, i.e. it does not reach
`the attenuator’s transistors. Tr. 545:4-8 (Wentzloff); cf. id. 1239:5-12 (Ricketts) (agreeing).'?
`Limitation [14C] is not met.
`
`Staff rightly dismisses Skyworks’ argument that _
`_ SRBr 50-51. The phrase — a litigation-inspired invention — was not said by a single
`witness at trial. Even if Skyworks tried to recharacterize witness testimony in support of this
`made-up notion (it cannot), any arguments that _ are, at best,
`DOE arguments by another name, arguments that have been unambiguously waived. See RRBr at
`
`104, n.30 (waiver of DOE at trial and in in briefing).
`
`Separately — independent of the case-ending failure of _ — Staff
`also correctly concludes that the_ 1s not a “power amplifier” biased
`
`as claimed. Staff approaches the “power amplifier” dispute from the perspective of -
`
`at 52. Staff correctly concludes that it would not. The pre-litigation evidence (e.g. _
`
`More generally, Staff’s “entire box™ analysis is correct. As Staff notes, the _
`
`12 Staff also notes
`
`another nail 1n the coffin for Skyworks’ case. SRBr at 50-51.
`
`9
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1413 Respondents’ Sur-Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`¢f- RRBr at 83-91, 113, n.33 (accord). _
`_. E.g. Tr. 528:6-10 (Wentzloff) _). To nonetheless
`suggest that these things are each and/or all collectively _is
`nonsensical. The same is true for_
`_. The claimed PA 1is one “biased” by a “bias signal.” See [14C] (“a
`
`bias circuit configured to ...generate a bias signal that biases the power amplifier”), [1E] (“a bias
`current for the power amplifier”), [21D] (same) (emphases added). The thing biased by the “bias
`
`signal” — terminals touched — must itself be a PA, per the claims. /d. Staff is right; the -
`
`1324:22-1325:1 (Ricketts); cf- RRBr at 87-88 (attenuation is opposite of amplification). Skyworks
`
`never shows otherwise. Neither Dr. Wentzloff nor Dr. Chyurlia _is* itself,
`
`a PA. Neither of the two patents Skyworks points to (U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,056,874 and 9,614,480)
`go so far as _ a PA either. Putting aside the fact that each patent distinguishes
`
`98-99, each of the patents concern systems with PAs as well as various ancillary components. The
`fact that the patents may label the broader system a PA does not mean that _
`-are, by themselves, considered PAs. See e.g. CX-1583 Fig. 3; CX-1650 Fig. 5. Thus,
`
`neither patent contradicts Dr. Ricketts’ testimony _ is not a “power
`
`amplifier.”® See also RRBr 91-104. Accordingly, Staff is correct that [14B] is not met.
`
`13 Per Order 55, the 480 patent is admitted only “for impeachment purposes only.” Order 55 at 6.
`Per the above, nothing in the ‘480 patent contradicts Dr. Ricketts testimony_
`— a power amplifier. It deserves no weight. Cf. SRBr at 54.
`
`10
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1413 Respondents’ Sur-Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Dated: September 5, 2025 Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Timothy R. Shannon
`Timothy Shannon
`
`Seth Coburn
`
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`
`100 High Street, Suite 2400
`Boston, MA 02110
`Telephone: 857.488.4200
`Facsimile: 857.488.4201
`DM KCT ITC 1413@duanemorris.com
`trshannon(@duanemorris.com
`sscoburn@duanemorris.com
`
`Brianna Vinci
`
`Richard Hughes
`
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`30 South 17% Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Telephone: 215.979.1000
`Facsimile: 215.979.1020
`bvinci@duanemorris.com
`rhughes(@duanemorris.com
`
`John M. Baird
`
`Christopher P. Tyson
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`901 New York Avenue N.W.
`Suite 700 East
`
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`
`ymbaird@duanemorris.com
`
`cjtyson(@duanemorris.com
`
`Diana M. Sangalli
`
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`1300 Post Oak Boulevard
`Suite 1500
`
`Houston, TX 77056
`dmsangalli@duanemorris.com
`
`Sajid Saleem
`
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`
`1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1700
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`ssaleem(@duanemorris.com
`
`Zheng L1
`
`11
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1413 Respondents’ Sur-Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`DUANE MORRIS & SELVAM LLP
`GuoHua Life Financial Tower, Room 303B
`No. 1501 Century Ave
`
`Pudong District
`
`Shanghai, China
`
`Telephone: 86.21.5068.3315
`
`Facsimile: 86.21.5868.3141
`ZHLi(@duanemorrisselvam.com
`
`Barbara A. Murphy
`
`Matthew Duescher
`
`FOSTER, MURPHY,
`
`ALTMAN, & NICKEL, P.C.
`1150 18™ Street NW, Suite 775
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`Telephone: 202-822-4100
`FM-KCT-1413@fostermurphy.com
`
`Counsel for Respondents Kangxi
`Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
`And Grand Chip Labs, Inc.
`
`/s/ Mark Tung
`S. Alex Lasher
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`
`1300 I Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Tel: (202) 538-8000
`
`Fax: (202) 538-8100
`
`Xiao Liu
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`
`Unit 1301, 13® Floor, Central Park Plaza
`10 Chaoyang Park South Road,
`Chaoyang District
`
`Beijing 100026
`
`China
`
`Tel: +86 10 53350105
`
`Mark Tung
`
`Darice Xue
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`
`12
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1413 Respondents’ Sur-Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5 Floor
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Tel: (650) 801-5000
`
`Fax: (650) 801-5100
`
`Chunmeng Yang
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`
`1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
`
`Seattle, WA 98101
`
`Tel: (206) 905-7000
`
`Fax: (206) 905-7100
`
`Shengling Zhu
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`
`Unit 502-503, 5® Floor, Nordic House
`3 Fenyang Road, Xuhui District
`Shanghai 200031
`
`China
`
`Tel: +86 21 34018600
`
`Counsel for Respondent Ruijie Networks Co., Ltd.
`
`13
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1413 Respondents’ Sur-Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`CERTAIN WIRELESS FRONT-END
`MODULES AND DEVICES CONTAINING
`THE SAME
`
`337-TA-1413
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, D.B. “Brandy” Swanson, hereby certify that on September 26, 2025,
`RESPONDENTS’ SUR-REPLY POST-HEARING BRIEF (RESPONSE TO
`STAFF’S REPLY BRIEF) (PUBLIC VERSION) was served upon the following
`
`parties as indicated:
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton (] Via hand delivery
`Secretary [] Via courier (FedEx)
`U.S. International Trade Commission [ ] Via facsimile
`
`500 E Street, SW [] Via first class mail
`Washington, DC 20436 X Via EDIS
`
`The Honorable MaryJoan McNamara [ ] Via hand delivery
`Administrative Law Judge [] Via courier (FedEx)
`U.S. International Trade Commission [ ] Via facsimile
`
`500 E Street, SW
`Washington, DC 20436
`Email: McNamara337@usitc.gov
`
`[ ] Via first class mail
`[X] Via electronic mail
`
`Linda Chang, Esq. [] Via hand delivery
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations [] Via courier (FedEx)
`U.S. International Trade Commission [ ] Via facsimile
`
`500 E Street, S.W. [ ] Via first class mail
`Washington, DC 20436 X Via electronic mail
`Email: Linda.Chang(@usitc.gov X Via Box
`
`Counsel for Complainants
`
`Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`
`Skyworks Solutions Canada, Inc., and
`
`Skyworks Global Pte. Ltd.
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING [ ] Via hand delivery
`HALE AND DORR LLP [] Via courier (FedEx)
`James M. Dowd (Lead for Service) [] Via facsimile
`
`350 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2400
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`
`Email: WHSkyworks-
`KCT1413servicelist@wilmerhale.com
`
`[] Via first class mail
`X] Via electronic mail
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`CERTAIN WIRELESS FRONT-END 337-TA-1413
`MODULES AND DEVICES CONTAINING
`
`THE SAME
`
`Counsel for Respondent [ ] Via hand delivery
`
`Ruijie Networks Co., Ltd. [ ] Via courier (FedEx)
`
`S. Alex Lasher (Lead for Service) ] Via facsimile
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & [] Via first class mail
`
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`
`1300 I Street NW, Suite 900
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Email to : alexlasher@gquinnemanuel.com
`And
`
`geruijie(@quinnemanuel.com
`
`X Via electronic mail
`
`/s/ D.B. “Brandy” Swanson
`D.B. “Brandy” Swanson, CP, RP
`Certified Paralegal
`Foster, Murphy, Altman & Nickel, PC
`1150 18th Street NW, Suite 775
`Washington DC 20036
`Direct Phone: 603.759.4690
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`