On July 26, 2011, InterDigital Communications, LLC of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, InterDigital Technology Corp. of Wilmington, Delaware, and IPR Licensing, Inc. of Wilmington, Delaware (collectively “InterDigital”) 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 wireless devices with 3G capabilities and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,349,540 (the ‘540 patent), 7,502,406 (the ‘406 patent), 7,536,013 (the ‘013 patent), 7,616,970 (the ‘970 patent), 7,706,332 (the ‘332 patent), 7,706,830 (the ‘830 patent), and 7,970,127 (the ‘127 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):
- Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. of China
- FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) of Plano, Texas
- Nokia Corp. of Finland
- Nokia Inc. of White Plains, New York
- ZTE Corp. of China
- ZTE (USA) Inc. of Richardson, Texas
According to the complaint, the products and technology at issue concern wireless devices with 3G capabilities, and components thereof, for use in at least 3rd Generation or “3G” cellular systems. In particular, the ‘540 patent “generally presents an improvement to the manner by which user equipment (e.g., mobile handsets and other devices) are able to accurately receive transmissions.” The ‘406 patent is generally directed to improved automatic power control for a Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) system. The ‘013 and ’127 patents “generally present[ ] an improvement to the manner by which user equipment are able to accurately receive transmissions.” The ‘970 patent “generally concerns a technique for communication between user equipment and one or more wireless networks, e.g., a wireless local area network and a cellular network.” The ‘332 patent “provides improvements to the way subscriber units and base stations communicate to control the power level of transmissions from the base station to a subscriber unit within a cellular CDMA system, thereby increasing the performance of the system.” The ‘830 patent “is generally directed to improvements to the way a subscriber unit gains access to a cellular CDMA system.”
In the complaint, InterDigital asserts that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically identifies a number of allegedly infringing wireless devices with CDMA wireless capabilities associated with the various Proposed Respondents.
Regarding domestic industry, InterDigital argues that its activities in the United States that exploit the asserted patents by reason of InterDigital’s substantial investment in licensing of the technology protected by the patents, and including past and present research and development, engineering, and testing of the technology protected by the patents are sufficient to meet the requirement. Specifically, InterDigital argues that its licensing efforts include the asserted patents and such efforts have been previously considered by the Commission in Investigation Nos. 337-TA-601 and 337-TA-613. See our July 29, 2009 post for more details. According to the complaint, in both of these investigations the ALJ found, on summary determination, the existence of a domestic industry based on InterDigital’s patent licensing activities relating to its wireless communications technology. InterDigital further notes that in each case the Commission determined not to review the Initial Determination granting summary determination, which thus became the Commission’s determination.
As to related litigation, InterDigital asserts that concurrently with the filing of its ITC complaint it also filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Proposed Respondents infringe the asserted patents. InterDigital also identifies several proceedings involving one or more patents that are related to one or more of the asserted patents.
With respect to potential remedy, InterDigital requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents.