11
May
By Eric Schweibenz
On May 10, 2011, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice determining to affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr.’s December 23, 2010 Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain MEMS Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-700).  The Commission further determined to terminate the investigation with a final determination of violation of Section 337, and to issue a limited exclusion order.

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Analog Devices, Inc.  The Respondents are Knowles Electronics LLC and Mouser Electronics, Inc. (collectively, the “Respondents”).  In the ID, ALJ Rogers determined that the Respondents had violated Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,364,942 (the ‘942 patent) but had not violated Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,220,614 (the ‘614 patent).  See our February 4, 2011 post for more details.

On March 7, 2011, the Commission determined to review certain findings in the ID and to request that the parties prepare written submissions responding to various questions concerning the issues under review.  The Commission also requested written submissions on remedy, the public interest, and bonding.  See our March 8, 2011 post for more details.

After examining the record of the investigation, including the ID and the parties’ written submissions, the Commission determined to affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part the ID’s findings under review.  In particular, the Commission determined to reverse ALJ Rogers’s finding that U.S. Patent No. 5,597,767 does not incorporate by reference U.S. Patent Nos. 5,331,454 and 5,512,374, but to affirm all of the other issues under review.  Accordingly, the Commission found a violation of Section 337 with respect to claims 2-6 and 8 of the ‘942 patent, and terminated the investigation.

The Commission additionally determined that the appropriate form of relief is a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of MEMS devices and products containing the same that infringe claims 2-6 and 8 of the ‘942 patent that are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf of, the Respondents or any of their affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other related business entities, or successors or assigns.

Lastly, the Commission determined that the public interest factors do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order and that no bond is required to permit temporary importation during the Presidential review period.
Share