2013
By author; ?>
|
Dec
31
On December 20, 2013, Prospera Corporation of Pleasanton, California filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.  The complaint alleges that the following unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain electronic pulse massagers and components thereof that infringe U.S. Patent No. D666161:

  • Sanjay Gupta d/b/a Santa Medical of Tustin, California

  • BeautyKo LLC of Great Neck, New York

  • Bia Health Technologies, Ltd. d/b/a Mapleleaf

  • Sunpentown International, Inc. (SPT) of City of Industry, California

  • TruCore Distributors, Inc. of Farmingville, New York

  • SIM Trading Corporation of Halladale, Florida

  • K.S. Choi, Corp. of Los Angeles, California 


Additionally, on December 23, 2013, Tela Innovations, Inc. of Los Gatos, California filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.  The complaint alleges that the following unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain standard cell libraries, products containing or made using the same, integrated circuits made using the same, and products containing such integrated circuits that infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,490,043:

  • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. of Taiwan

  • TSMC North America of San Jose, California


Further, on December 24, 2013, Springfree Trampoline, Inc., Springfree Trampoline USA Inc., and Springfree Limited Partnership – all of Canada – filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.  The complaint alleges that Vuly Trampolines Pty Ltd. of Australia unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain soft-edged trampolines and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,319,174.  

Lastly, on December 27, 2013, Macronix International Co., Ltd of China and Macronix America, Inc. of Milpitas, California filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.  The complaint alleges that the following unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain non-volatile memory devices and products that contain the same that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,552,360; 6,100,557; and 6,002,630: 

  • Spansion Inc. of Sunnyvale, California

  • Spansion LLC of Sunnyvale, California

  • Spansion (Thailand) Ltd. of Thailand

  • Beats Electronics LLC of Santa Monica, California

  • Delphi Automotive PLC of the United Kingdom

  • Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC of Troy, Michigan

  • Harman International Industries, Inc. of Stamford, Connecticut

  • Harman Becker Automotive Systems Inc. of Farmington Hills, Michigan

  • Harman Becker Automotive Systems GmbH of Germany

  • Ruckus Wireless Inc. of Sunnyvale, California

  • Tellabs Inc. of Naperville, Illinois




Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Dec
30
On December 23, 2013, Magna Electronics Inc. (“Magna”) of Auburn Hills, Michigan filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that TRW Automotive U.S. LLC of Livonia, Michigan (“TRW”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain vision-based driver assistance system cameras that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,116,929 (the ‘929 patent) and 8,593,521 (the ‘521 patent).


Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Dec
27
Further to our November 8, 2013 post, on December 19, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 4 in Certain Vision-Based Driver Assistance System Cameras and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-899).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set the procedural schedule for the investigation.  The ALJ determined that the Markman hearing shall take place on February 19, 2014, the evidentiary hearing will commence on July 28, 2014, any final initial determination will issue no later than November 14, 2014, and the target date for completion of the investigation is March 16, 2015.


Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Dec
26
Further to our November 25, 2013 post, on December 23, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 4 in Certain Windshield Wipers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-902).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex set February 26, 2015 as the target date for completion of the investigation (which is approximately 15 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Essex further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on October 26, 2014 and that the evidentiary hearing will commence on June 23, 2014.


Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Dec
24
On December 23, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 23 in Certain Tires and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-894).

According to the Order, ALJ Bullock granted Complainants Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd.; Toyo Tire Holdings of Americas Inc.; Toyo Tire U.S.A. Corp.; Nitto Tire U.S.A. Inc.; and Toyo Tire North America Manufacturing Inc.’s motion to terminate the investigation as to Respondent Unicorn Tire Corp. based on a settlement agreement entered into between the parties.


Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Dec
24
On December 16, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Motorola Mobility, LLC v. ITC (2012-1535).  This was an appeal from the International Trade Commission’s (“the Commission”) final determination finding a violation of Section 337 of one of the asserted patents in Certain Mobile Devices, and Related Software Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-744).  See our June 18, 2012 and December 21, 2011 posts for more details on this investigation.

By way of background, the Complainant in this case is Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) and the Respondent is Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“Motorola”).  The technology at issue spans several patents, including a number of functionalities and features that are implemented on desktop computers and mobile devices.  On December 20, 2011, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the initial determination in this investigation finding a violation of Section 337 with respect to certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 (the ‘566 patent) and finding no violation with respect to certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,758,352; 6,826,762; 6,909,910; 7,644,376; 5,664,133; and 6,578,054.  Upon review, the Commission affirmed ALJ Essex’s finding that Motorola violated Section 337 with respect to the ‘566 patent.  Motorola appealed the ITC’s final determination. 


Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Dec
24
On December 18, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 11 in Certain Crawler Cranes and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-887).  In the Order, ALJ Shaw denied Complainant Manitowoc Cranes, LLC’s (“Manitowoc Cranes”) motion to prevent disclosure of its confidential business information to Mr. Thomas K. Becker.

According to the Order, Manitowoc Cranes argued that Respondents had identified Mr. Becker as an expert on Respondents’ behalf in the investigation, and that Mr. Becker had been previously employed by Manitowoc Cranes’ parent company for 25 years.  Manitowoc Cranes objected to Mr. Becker’s proposed role as an expert for three reasons.  First, Manitowoc Cranes argued that there was significant risk that Mr. Becker would disclose confidential information to which he had been exposed during his previous employment with the parent company.  Second, Manitowoc Cranes argued that Mr. Becker’s recent employment with a crane manufacturer that competes with Manitowoc Cranes should preclude him from receiving confidential information in the investigation.  Third, Manitowoc Cranes argued that Respondents appeared to be deliberately using Mr. Becker for his knowledge of confidential information from his previous employment with the parent company.  Respondents and the Commission Investigative Staff opposed the motion.


Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Dec
23
On December 16, 2013, the Federal Circuit issued its non-precedential opinion in Cognex Corp. v. ITC (2011-1098).  This was an appeal by Cognex Corporation and Cognex Technology & Investment Corporation (collectively, “Cognex”) from the International Trade Commission’s (the “Commission”) final determination in Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, And Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-680).

In the opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s final determination of no violation of Section 337 by MVTec Software GmbH and MVTec, LLC (collectively, “MVTec”) with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,016,539 (the ‘539 patent) and 7,065,262 (the ‘262 patent).  In particular, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s determination of non-infringement of the asserted claims of the ‘539 patent.  The asserted claims included one independent claim (claim 1), from which the remaining claims were all directly or indirectly dependent.


Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Dec
23
On December 16, 2013, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission") issued a notice determining to review in part the Initial Determination (“ID”) issued by ALJ Theodore R. Essex in Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-850).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Flashpoint Technology, Inc. (“Flashpoint”) alleging a violation of Section 337 in the importation and sale of certain electronic imaging devices that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,504,575 (the ‘575 patent), 6,222,538 (the ‘538 patent), 6,400,471 (the ‘471 patent), and 6,223,190 (the ‘190 patent).  See our May 25, 2012 post for more details on the complaint and our June 27, 2012 post for more information about the Notice of Investigation.  The ITC instituted an investigation on June 25, 2012.  The ‘575 patent was later terminated from the investigation.  The remaining respondents as of the time of the ID were HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA), ZTE Corporation, and ZTE (USA) Inc.


Share

Read More

Next Page