By Eric SchweibenzOn November 12, 2009, Knowles Electronics LLC of Itasca, Illinois (“Knowles”) filed a motion for temporary relief seeking a temporary exclusion order and temporary cease and desist order against Analog Devices Inc. of Norwood, Massachusetts (“ADI”). As we explained in our November 13 post, Knowles also filed on November 12 a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337 concerning certain silicon microphone packages and products containing the same.
According to the motion, ADI “neither sought nor received authorization from Knowles to use the proprietary technology disclosed and claimed in Knowles’ Patents” and “[i]f importation of the Accused Products is not promptly barred by the Commission, especially in view of the importation, testing and use of the infringing microphones in devices being planned and designed for the 2010 holiday sales season, Knowles will suffer irreparable harm including lost sales and growth opportunities, lost goodwill and price erosion.” Knowles further alleges in the motion that the “Commission, in recent litigation against another Respondent, has already ruled on claim construction supporting infringement of the ADI products, found the Knowles Patents not invalid, and found the existence of a domestic industry, all on claims that mirror the present circumstances.”
In support of its motion, Knowles argues that it is entitled to the “extraordinary relief of a temporary exclusion order excluding the Accused Products from importation into the United States during the pendency of this proceeding.” Specifically, Knowles argues that it has demonstrated (1) reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm; (3) balance of hardships tipping in Knowles’ favor; and (4) the impact of the injunction on the public interest favors temporary relief.
Regarding bond, Knowles argues in its motion that it should not be required to post a bond since the “demonstrably high likelihood of success shown by Knowles weighs against imposition of a bond in this case.” Knowles further asserts “[i]f the Commission does determine to require a bond, the amount of such a bond should be minimal.” With respect to whether ADI should post bond, Knowles argues in its motion that “no monetary amount will be sufficient to cure the irreparable harm that would result from the continuation of Respondent’s conduct” and “a temporary exclusion order and temporary cease and desist order are the only adequate remedies and cannot be replaced by a bond.” Finally, Knowles asserts that “[i]f the Commission does determine to allow a bond in lieu of temporary relief, such a bond should be at least equal to the full value of the imports of the Respondent’s goods during the relevant period.”