By Eric Schweibenz and Alex Englehart
|
Aug
19
On August 18, 2014, RevoLaze, LLC and TechnoLines, LLC (collectively, "RevoLaze")—both of Westlake, Ohio—filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that the following entities (collectively, the "Proposed Respondents") unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain laser abraded denim garments that are manufactured by methods that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,990,444 (the '444 patent), 6,140,602 (the '602 patent), 6,252,196 (the '196 patent), 6,664,505 (the '505 patent), 6,819,972 (the '972 patent), and 6,858,815 (the '815 patent) (collectively, the "asserted patents"):
Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz and Tom Yebernetsky
|
Aug
18
On August 14, 2014, the International Trade Commission ("the Commission") issued a notice determining to review ALJ Theodore R. Essex's Initial Determination ("ID") finding no violation of Section 337 in Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. 337-TA-868).

By way of background, the investigation in this matter is based on a January 2, 2013 complaint filed by InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital Holdings, Inc. (collectively, "InterDigital") alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless devices with 3G and/or 4G capabilities and components thereof.  See our January 3, 2013 and February 1, 2013 posts for more details on the Complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively. ALJ Essex issued his final ID on June 13, 2014, finding no violation of Section 337 as to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,190,966 (the '966 patent) and 7,286,847 (the '847 patent) (collectively, the "Power Ramp-Up Patents"), and U.S. Patent No. 7,941 ,151 (the '151 patent). InterDigital asserted claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9 of the '966 patent, claims 3 and 5 of the '847 patent, and independent claims 1 and 16 and dependent claims 2–6, 8–9, 17–21 and 23–24 of the '151 patent.
Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
18
On August 14, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 8 in Certain Integrated Circuits and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-920).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a May 12, 2014 complaint filed by Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain integrated circuits and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,962,926; 7,158,432; 7,230,505; 7,518,947; 7,626,276; and 7,746,716.  See our May 14, 2014 and July 1, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.
Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
18
On August 15, 2014, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued a press release announcing their vote to institute an investigation of Certain Communications Or Computing Devices And Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-924).

The investigation is based on a July 16, 2014 complaint and July 30, 2014 and August 7, 2014 letters supplementing the complaint filed by Enterprise Systems Technologies S.a.r.l. of Luxembourg alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain communications or computing devices and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,454,201; 6,594,366; 6,691,302; and 5,870,610. See our July 17, 2014 post for more details on the complaint.
Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz and Christopher Ricciuti
|
Aug
15
On August 11, 2014, the U.S. International Trade Commission (the "Commission") issued the public version of an advisory opinion ("AO") adopting-in-part and reversing-in-part ALJ Gildea's Initial Advisory Opinion ("IAO") in Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-879). The Commission also reversed the ALJ's determination to place the burden of proof in this Advisory Opinion Proceeding ("AOP") on the patent owner in view of Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 134 S. Ct. 843 (2014), and instead placed the burden on Respondents Apex Medical Corp. and Apex Medical USA Corp. (collectively, "Apex").

By way of background, this AOP was initiated by Apex.  Apex sought an advisory opinion in order to confirm that their redesigned sleep-disordered breathing treatment systems are not covered by the consent order previously entered into by Apex. See our December 16, 2013 post for more details on the ITC's decision to institute this advisory opinion proceeding.  Complainants ResMed Corp. of San Diego, California, ResMed Inc. of San Diego, California, and ResMed Ltd. of Australia (collectively, "ResMed") and the Commission Investigative Staff participated in the AOP.
Share

Read More