By Eric SchweibenzOn January 23, 2013, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice and remand order in Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-796). In the notice, the Commission determined to review ALJ Thomas B. Pender’s October 24, 2012 initial determination (“ID”) which found a violation of Section 337. Further, the Commission issued an order remanding the investigation back to ALJ Pender.
By way of background, ALJ Pender determined that a violation of Section 337 had occurred in this investigation by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) by reason of infringement of certain valid claims of U.S. Patent Nos. D618,678, 7,479,949, RE 41,922 (the ‘922 patent), and 7,912,501 (the ‘501 patent). See our October 26, 2012 and January 22, 2013 posts for more details on the initial determination (“ID”) in this investigation.
According to the January 23, 2013 notice, the Commission has determined to review the “final ID in its entirety” and remand the investigation to the ALJ to consider certain issues related to the ‘922 patent and the ‘501 patent. The Commission did not seek further briefing. Rather, the Commission stated that briefing “if any, on remanded and reviewed issues…will follow Commission consideration of the remand ID.”
According to the remand order, the ALJ is to make findings regarding infringement of dependent claims 34 and 35 of the ‘922 patent based on apparent inconsistencies in portions of the ID. Specifically, the order describes that “[t]he ID states (at page 261) that ‘dependent claims 34 and 35 are not infringed’ because ‘claim 33 is not infringed.’ The ALJ, however, found that ‘Samsung infringes claim 33 of the ‘922 patent.’” Therefore, the infringement arguments for claims 34 and 35 must be considered.
The investigation is also remanded to the ALJ to make findings regarding infringement of claim 3 of the ‘501 patent in relation to the accused products represented by the Transform SPH-M920, as the ALJ “did not consider and make appropriate findings regarding infringement of claim 3” in relation to this line of products.