On March 5, 2014, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of Order No. 28 (dated February 21, 2014) in Certain Cases for Portable Electronic Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-861/867).  In the Order, ALJ Pender granted Complainant Speculative Product Design, LLC’s (“Speck”) motion for summary determination that defaulting Respondents Hongkong Wexun Ltd., ROCON Digital Technology Corp., SW-Box.com, Trait Technology Co., Anbess Electronics Co., Ltd., and Global Digital Star Industry, Ltd. (collectively, the “Defaulting Respondents”) have violated Section 337.  The ALJ also recommended that the Commission issue a general exclusion order (“GEO”) and impose a bond of 100 percent on the Defaulting Respondents.

By way of background, this investigation is a consolidation of Inv. Nos. 337-TA-861 and 337-TA-867.  Speck filed a first complaint on September 26, 2012, which led to the institution of the 337-TA-861 investigation.  See our November 16, 2012 post for more details.  On December 26, 2012, Speck filed a second complaint, which led to the institution of the 337-TA-867 investigation and its consolidation with the 337-TA-861 investigation.  See our January 29, 2013 post for more details.  During the course of the consolidated investigation, a number of Respondents either were terminated or defaulted.  On September 10, 2013, ALJ Pender granted-in-part Speck’s motion for partial summary determination that it has satisfied the domestic industry requirement.  See our October 30, 2013 post for more details.  On November 15, 2013, Speck filed the instant motion for summary determination of violation and for entry of a GEO.

According to the Order, Speck argued that each of the Defaulting Respondents violated Section 337 by importing, selling for importation, and/or selling after importation certain cell-phone cases that infringe Speck’s U.S. Patent No. 8,204,561 (the ‘561 patent).  The Commission Investigative Staff filed a response in support of Speck’s motion.  According to the Order, no other responses were received.

After conducting an analysis of importation and infringement, ALJ Pender concluded that there are no genuine issues of material fact that each of the Defaulting Respondents has imported, sold for importation, and sold after importation into the U.S. products that infringe the asserted claims of the ‘561 patent.  In particular, ALJ Pender found that the declaration of Speck’s expert Dr. Osswald was persuasive on the infringement issue.  Moreover, as noted above, ALJ Pender had already found that Speck had satisfied the domestic industry requirement.  Accordingly, the ALJ granted Speck’s motion and issued an Initial Determination that the Defaulting Respondents have violated Section 337 through the importation, sale for importation, or sale in the U.S. after importation of certain cases for electronic devices that infringe at least one asserted claim of the ’561 patent.

In addition, ALJ Pender issued a Recommended Determination on remedy and bonding.  With respect to remedy, the ALJ found that a GEO would be well justified.  In particular, he found that market conditions for cell-phone cases invite counterfeiting and infringement, and that the low barriers to entry in the market and the ease with which foreign manufacturing operations can change their names and distribution patterns to avoid detection were particularly relevant.  The ALJ also found that there was a widespread pattern of violation of Section 337 by manufacturers that would be difficult to identify.  Accordingly, ALJ Pender found that a GEO would be well justified under both 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2)(A) and 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2)(B).

Lastly, ALJ Pender determined that a bonding rate of 100% would be appropriate during the Presidential Review Period.  Specifically, ALJ Pender found that the variety of pricing, coupled with the number of accused products, made it difficult to reliably compare the price of Speck’s domestic industry products to the prices of the infringing products.  The ALJ found that a bond value of 100% was therefore appropriate under Commission precedent.

On February 27, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 53 in Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities (Inv. No. 337-TA-884).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted the Respondents’ motion for summary determination that the sole claim of Complainant Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc.’s (“GPH”) U.S. Patent No. 5,717,881 (the ‘881 patent) is indefinite and therefore invalid as a matter of law.

According to the Order, Respondents argued that the claim terms “instruction decode means” and “instruction issue means” in the sole claim of the ‘881 patent are means-plus-function terms that lack sufficient corresponding structure in the ‘881 specification.  In particular, Respondents argued that the only structure disclosed in the ‘881 specification consisted of empty boxes in one figure in the specification, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art could only guess at what further structure could correspond to the claimed decode and issue functions.  Respondents also represented that the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) supported a finding that the claim at issue is invalid as indefinite based on, inter alia, OUII”s prior Markman briefing.

GPH opposed Respondents’ motion.  In particular, GPH argued that genuine issues of material fact remained such that the issue of indefiniteness needed to be reserved for the evidentiary hearing.  Moreover, GPH argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to identify the corresponding structure in the ‘881 specification for both the claimed instruction decode and instruction issue means terms.  According to the Order, in making its arguments, GPH relied in part on claim construction opinions and evidence not raised at the Markman hearing.

After considering the arguments, ALJ Gildea determined to grant Respondents’ motion.  The ALJ noted that indefiniteness is a matter of claim construction, which is a legal question.  This meant that “the majority (if not all) of Complainant’s attempts to inject material issues of disputed fact into the claim construction discussion … are misplaced.”  ALJ Gildea then examined the ‘881 specification and found insufficient structure corresponding to the two means-plus-function terms in dispute.  He also found that nothing in the prosecution history provided any insight into corresponding structure.  Moreover, he found that nothing in the extrinsic record showed that a person of ordinary skill in the art could have determined the corresponding structure. 

In reviewing the extrinsic evidence, ALJ Gildea noted that the parties had already had the opportunity to present evidence and arguments on claim construction at the December 18, 2013 Markman hearing.  Moreover, indefiniteness is a legal issue of claim construction.  Thus, GPH’s argument that a conflict in expert opinion on the indefiniteness issue precluded summary determination was not well taken because extrinsic evidence on the issue (e.g., expert testimony) should have been fully presented and vetted at the Markman hearing, and could not be revisited at the evidentiary hearing.

Accordingly, ALJ Gildea found that the “instruction decode means” and “instruction issue means” are not amenable to construction, and that the sole claim of the ‘881 patent is therefore invalid as indefinite.  The ALJ thus issued an Initial Determination granting Respondents’ motion for summary determination of indefiniteness.

On February 26, 2014, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued the public version of its opinion in Certain Rubber Resins and Processes for Manufacturing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-849).  Due to the size of the opinion, we have divided it into part 1 and part 2.

By way of background, this Investigation is based on a May 21, 2012 complaint filed on behalf of SI Group, Inc. (“SI”) alleging violation of Section 337 by a number of Respondents in the importation into the United States, sale for importation, or sale after importation of certain rubber resins by reason of misappropriation of trade secrets.  See our May 22, 2012 and June 22, 2012 posts for more details on SI’s complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.  On June 17, 2013, ALJ Rogers issued his initial determination (“ID”) finding a violation of Section 337, determining that valid trade secrets were misappropriated and that SI demonstrated a valid domestic industry that was injured as a result of the misappropriation.  See our June 28, 2013 post for more details on the notice of ID issued by ALJ Rogers. 

As explained in our September 12, 2013 post, the Commission determined to review the ID in its entirety.  In its January 15, 2014 notice, the Commission explained that it was determining to affirm in part and reverse in part the ID and terminating the investigation.  See our January 16, 2014 post.  We now provide details of the opinion, although most of the substance of the opinion has been redacted. 

Trade Secret Misappropriation

The Commission provided a brief overview of the law of trade secrets, noting that the elements of misappropriation require (1) the existence of a process that is protectable as a trade secret (i.e., that is of economic value, not generally known or readily ascertainable, and has been kept secret); (2) that the complainant owns the trade secrets; (3) that the complainant disclosed the trade secret to respondent while in a confidential relationship or respondent wrongfully acquired the trade secret; and (4) that the respondent has used the trade secret, causing injury to the complainant. 

The Commission provided a detailed analysis of whether or not the asserted trade secrets could be protectable as trade secrets.  The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s findings of no trade secret where the information was disclosed in the literature, generally known, proven to be readily ascertainable via reverse engineering, or did not provide economic value.   However, numerous aspects of SI’s process were determined to be trade secrets by the ALJ, and most of these findings were affirmed by the Commission.  In particular, the Commission agreed with the ALJ that particular combinations of steps or elements and the overall process were protectable as trade secrets, even if particular steps or elements within the combination were known.  That being said, the Commission reversed the ALJ’s findings as to what constituted a trade secret in several instances. 

The Commission affirmed and adopted all the ALJ’s findings with respect to Respondents’ access to the trade secrets through two high-level employees who signed confidentiality and noncompetition agreements but left to work for Respondents, and thus Respondents wrongfully took SI’s trade secrets by unfair means.  This conclusion was supported by strong evidence of copying in one of the employee’s notebooks that was “exact to the thousandth decimal point.”

In light of the Commission’s modified determination as to what information constituted a trade secret, the Commission analyzed the technical proofs of misappropriation for each alleged trade secret and reversed the findings of misappropriation in situations where the information was no longer determined to be a protectable trade secret.  However, Respondents were determined to have misappropriated numerous individual trade secrets, as well as the trade secret of the overall process.

Domestic Industry

According to the opinion, in order to find a Section 337 violation based on trade secret misappropriation, SI must show actual substantial injury (or threat thereof) to a domestic industry from the misappropriation.  The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s findings as to the existence of a domestic industry based on SI’s resin manufacturing facility and substantial investment in research and development.  The Commission also agreed with the ALJ that Respondents have substantially injured the rubber resin industry in the U.S. based on sales information reflecting Respondents’ penetration into the market.  In addition to actual injury, the Commission also determined that there is substantial threat to injure or destroy SI’s domestic industry.

One particular product, SL-7015, was determined by the ALJ not to result “in any injury or threat to injury to the domestic industry” as the record was devoid of evidence regarding misappropriation of trade secrets related to this product.  Although SI argued that it consistently accused this product, the Commission agreed with the ALJ that SI failed to identify any trade secrets for this product or accuse Respondents of misappropriating any specific process.  As such, the Commission determined there was no Section 337 violation with respect to this product.

Remedy and Bond

The Commission determined that Sino Legend ZJG, SLHG Ltd., Sino Legend Marshall Islands, PMI, Red Avenue Hong Kong, Sino Legend HGL, Shanghai Lunsai, and Red Avenue BVI were in violation of Section 337 and subject to a ten year limited exclusion order.  The Commission explained that issuance of an exclusion order would not affect the public interest, since it would not have a detrimental impact on domestic production of these products.   The Commission also affirmed the ALJ’s recommendation that a bond be entered at 19% of the stated value ($0.22 per pound of imported resin).

On March 5, 2014, FMC Corp. of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (“FMC”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that Beijing Nutrichem Science and Technology Stock Co., Ltd. of China, Summit Agro USA, LLC of Cary, North Carolina, Summit Agro North America Holding Corp. of New York, New York, and Jiangxi Heyi Chemicals Co. Ltd. of China (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain sulfentrazone active ingredient and formulated sulfentrazone compositions made by a process that infringes one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,169,952 (the ‘952 patent).

According to the complaint, the ‘952 patent relates to a process for making sulfentrazone by reacting an aniline with a sulfonating agent in the presence of dimethylformamide at a temperature range of about 120° C to about 160° C for about 3 to about 7 hours.

In the complaint, FMC states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the ‘952 patent.  The complaint specifically refers to sulfentrazone products labeled as Blanket 4F, SFZ-4SC, and/or SAUSX-01 as infringing products.

Regarding domestic industry, FMC states that its sulfentrazone business is dedicated to exploiting the technology covered by the ‘952 patent.  FMC states that products under its Authority, Spartan, Zeus, BroadAxe, Blindside, Echelon, Dismiss, and Solitare brands exploit the process of the ‘952 patent.  FMC further states that although it manufactures sulfentrazone abroad, its activities in the U.S., including research and development of the process of the ‘952 patent, research and development regarding additional products containing sulfentrazone manufactured by the process of the ‘952 patent, and formulation, packaging, and sale of products containing sulfentrazone constitute a domestic industry for purposes of Section 337.

As to related litigation, FMC states that on January 16, 2014, it filed a complaint relating to the ‘952 patent in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

With respect to potential remedy, FMC requests that the Commission issue a temporary exclusion order, a temporary cease and desist order, a permanent exclusion order, and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents and their agents, distributors, and majority owned business entities, or anyone acting in concert with them.

On February 25, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 21 (dated February 20, 2014) in Certain Crawler Cranes and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-887).

According to the Order, Respondents Sany Heavy Industry Co., Ltd. and Sany America, Inc. (collectively, “Sany”) filed a motion for “summary determination that Complainant’s list of alleged trade secrets are not subject to trade secret protection or that Respondents have not misappropriated them.”  Sany argued that many of Complainant Manitowoc Cranes, LLC’s (“Manitowoc”) alleged trade secrets do not qualify for trade secret protection.  Additionally, Sany asserted that many of Manitowoc’s alleged trade secrets were not secrets.  Lastly, Sany argued that Manitowoc failed to provide evidence that Sany misappropriated the alleged trade secrets.

ALJ Shaw determined that there are genuine issues of material fact remaining as to all of Sany’s arguments.  ALJ Shaw held that Manitowoc’s December 26, 2013 amended interrogatory responses and the testimony of Larry Weyers raised genuine issue of material fact as to whether the purported trade secrets are protectable as trade secrets.  Regarding Sany’s assertion that several of Manitowoc’s alleged trade secrets were not secrets, ALJ Shaw held that Manitowoc presented evidence sufficient to raise genuine issues of material fact.  ALJ Shaw also determined that Manitowoc produced testimony and accompanying exhibits sufficient to raise a factual issue about whether Sany misappropriated the alleged trade secrets.  Accordingly, ALJ Shaw denied Sany’s Motion for Summary Determination.

On February 25, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 57 in Certain Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-873).

According to the Order, Non-party Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Inc. (“Verizon”) filed a motion to present the testimony of its witness, Anthony Dennis, by videoconference at the evidentiary hearing.  Verizon argued that Mr. Dennis’s schedule would make it very difficult for him to testify in person.  Verizon asserted that it was willing to test the videoconferencing equipment in advance of Mr. Dennis’s testimony to ensure that it was functioning properly.

In opposition, Complainant Tela Innovations, Inc. (“Tela”) argued that Verizon’s inconveniences and hardships were of its own doing.  Furthermore, Tela asserted that Verizon’s motion shifted the burden and prejudice to Tela.

ALJ Gildea determined that it would be reasonable to allow Mr. Dennis to testify via videoconference.  Additionally, ALJ Gildea found Tela’s objections speculative.  Accordingly, ALJ Gildea granted Verizon’s Motion.

On February 28, 2014, Baxter International Inc. of Deerfield, Illinois, Baxter Healthcare Corp. of Deerfield, Illinois, and Baxter Healthcare SA of Switzerland (collectively, “Baxter”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that Johnson & Johnson Inc. of Brunswick, New Jersey, Ethicon, Inc. of Somerville, New Jersey, Ferrosan Medical Devices A/S of Denmark, and Packaging Coordinators, Inc. of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain hemostatic products and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,303,981 (the ‘981 patent), 8,512,729 (the ‘729 patent), 6,066,325 (the ‘325 patent), 8,357,378 (the ‘378 patent), and 8,603,511 (the ‘511 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”).

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to hemostatic products that are used by medical providers to control bleeding during surgery.  In particular, the ‘325 patent relates to biocompatible polymeric compositions and methods of using such compositions to control bleeding while allowing for delivery of drugs and/or other biologically active agents as the composition degrades.  The ‘981 patent relates to methods for preparing and delivering biocompatible polymeric compositions, thereby allowing surgeons to quickly and efficiently prepare the composition and apply it to a target site in a patient’s body while reducing contamination risk.  The ‘729 patent relates to methods for delivering biocompatible polymeric compositions to various treatment sites to treat patients.  Lastly, the ‘378 and ‘511 patents relate to a medical delivery device for the delivery, to a target site in a patient’s body, of biocompatible polymeric compositions having properties that are beneficial for localized drug delivery.

In the complaint, Baxter states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to the SURGIFLO product family as infringing products.

Regarding domestic industry, Baxter states that it makes extensive use of the inventions claimed in the asserted patents in its FLOSEAL products, and that it has made and continues to make significant domestic investments in those products.  By way of example, Baxter states that it manufactures and sells its FLOSEAL Hemostatic Matrix products in the U.S.  Baxter further states that its FLOSEAL sales have exceeded $140 million annually since 2010.

As to related litigation, Baxter states that it is currently engaged in litigation against the Proposed Respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where Baxter is alleging infringement of the asserted patents.  Baxter also refers to two cases in Germany involving unfair competition allegations with respect to Baxter’s FLOSEAL products.

With respect to potential remedy, Baxter requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents and others acting on their behalf.

On February 26, 2014, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a Notice determining to review in part an Enforcement Initial Determination (“EID”) issued by ALJ Thomas B. Pender on January 10, 2014 finding a violation of a consent order in Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-830).

By way of background, the Commission instituted an investigation based on a complaint filed by the Complainants in this investigation, Andrzej Bobel and Neptun Light, Inc. (collectively, “Neptun”), alleging the importation into the U.S., sale for importation, and sale within the U.S. after importation of certain dimmable compact fluorescent lamps (“CFLs”) that infringe claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 5,434,480 (the ‘480 patent).  The complaint named numerous respondents, including MaxLite, Inc. (“MaxLite”).  On July 25, 2012, the Commission terminated the investigation with respect to MaxLite and entered a consent order preventing MaxLite from importing dimmable CFLs that infringe claim 9 of the ‘480 patent.  MaxLite petitioned the Commission for a modification of the consent order based on a district court proceeding regarding a covenant not to sue.  Additionally, Neptun filed a complaint requesting that the Commission institute a formal proceeding to investigate a violation of the consent order.  The Commission instituted a consolidated formal enforcement and modification proceeding to determine whether MaxLite was in violation of the consent order.  In the EID, ALJ Pender found that MaxLite’s accused CFL bulbs infringed claim 9 of the ‘480 patent, but that Neptun had not demonstrated infringement by MaxLite’s “dimmable CFL Faux Cans” (“Faux Cans”).  See our January 14, 2014 post for more details on this investigation.

According to the Notice, Neptun filed a petition for review of the ALJ’s determination regarding claim construction and noninfringement by the Faux Cans.  After examining the record of the investigation, including the EID and parties’ submissions, the Commission determined to review the EID in part.  In particular, the Commission determined to review ALJ’s construction of the “resonant boosting circuit” limitation and ALJ Pender’s findings that Neptun did not demonstrate infringement by the Faux Cans because Neptun failed to adequately show that (i) there is resonance between the accused boosting capacitor and boosting inducer, and (ii) “the boosting capacitor stores and releases energy to improve the power factor.” 

The Notice also states that the parties are requested to provide further briefing regarding the issues under review.  Additionally, the Notice provides that the Commission is particularly interested in responses to the questions listed in the Notice.  Written submissions are due by March 10, 2014 and reply submissions are due by March 17, 2014.

On February 25, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 58 denying Complainant’s motion for summary determination that the asserted claim terms are valid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶¶ 1 and 2 in Certain Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-873).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Complainant Tela Innovations, Inc. (“Tela”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain integrated circuit devices and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,264,049; 8,264,044; 8,258,550; 8,258,547; 8,217,428; 8,258,552; and/or 8,030,689.  See our February 11, 2013 and March 14, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and the Notice of Investigation, respectively.

According to the Order, Tela filed a motion for summary determination that the claims of the asserted patents are valid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶¶ 1 and 2 because (1) the specifications of the asserted patents provide sufficient written description to set forth the scope of the invention, and (2) the claim terms are amenable to construction and also set forth the scope of the invention such that they are not indefinite.  Respondents opposed the motion.  Tela later filed a notice of partial withdrawal of its motion for summary determination indicating that it only sought summary determination that the asserted claims are definite with respect to the use of relative terms, such as “about” and “substantially,” and a wherein claim term beginning with “wherein either a) the N transistors are transistors of a first transistor type and the P transistors are transistors of a second transistor type, such that the first, second, third, and fourth N transistors are first, second, third and fourth transistors of the first transistor type . . .” (the “Wherein Clause”).

Regarding the terms “about” and “substantially,” Tela argued that the use of the terms in the asserted patents does not render the claims insolubly ambiguous as the Federal Circuit has confirmed that relative terms do not render patent claims so unclear that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not ascertain the scope of the claims.  With respect to the Wherein Clause, Tela argued that the term does not represent a “tautology,” as argued by Respondents and instead, in view of the surrounding claim language and specification, “transistor type” refers to both n- or p- transistors and allows for either to be selected as the first type with the other being defined as the second type. 

With respect to the limitation “about” and the limitation “substantially equal,” Respondents argued that the term of degree for the limitations was not defined in the intrinsic record and that a person of ordinary skill would be unable to determine the amount of deviation that would be considered “immaterial” to meet the claims.  Regarding the term “substantially co-aligned,” Respondents argued that a person of ordinary skill would not have understood the metes and bounds of the claims to the extent the term was defined to mean something other than “aligned such that the common line of extent passes through each gate electrode.”  Additionally, Respondents argued that the term “substantially linear” is indefinite if not defined to incorporate the definitions of the separate terms “substantially” and “linear” contained in the provisional application for the ‘049 patent.  With respect to the Wherein Clause, Respondents argued that the term does not present alternative claiming and that the intrinsic evidence does not contain guidance on how to construe the clause or the term “transistor type.”

In the Order, ALJ Gildea found that, with respect to the terms “about” and “substantially,” Tela had misapplied Federal Circuit precedent and that while the Federal Circuit has held that using words of degree does not automatically render a claim indefinite and invalid, the Federal Circuit has not said that the use of these terms is never indefinite.  ALJ Gildea further noted that Tela provided no support for its position that summary determination of definiteness was appropriate with respect to these terms of degree.  Regarding the Wherein Clause, ALJ Gildea found that Tela’s arguments and evidence were insufficient to support granting summary determination as Tela did not identify the claim language and portions of the specification that supported its position.  ALJ Gildea further noted that Tela was requesting a premature claim construction ruling and that an evidentiary hearing and further briefing on the issues would be beneficial.  Accordingly, ALJ Gildea denied the motion for summary determination.

On February 25, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 23 in Certain Portable Electronic Communications Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-885).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a May 23, 2013 complaint filed by Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain portable electronic communications devices, including mobile phones and components thereof that infringe one more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,035,189; 6,373,345; 6,711,211; 7,187,945; 8,140,650; and 8,363,824.  The Respondents in this investigation are HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) and Google, Inc.  See our June 24, 2013 and July 19, 2013 posts for more details on this investigation.

In the Order, ALJ Lord granted a joint motion filed by Nokia and HTC to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on a settlement agreement.  According to the Order, Respondent Google did not oppose the joint motion.