18
Dec
By Eric Schweibenz
On December 18, 2017, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued a notice regarding its final determination in Certain L-Tryptophan, L-Tryptophan Products, and Their Methods of Production (Inv. No. 337-TA-1005).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a May 10, 2016 complaint filed by Ajinomoto Co., Inc. and Ajinomoto Heartland Inc. alleging violation of Section 337 by way of unlawful importation into the U.S., selling for importation, and/or selling within the U.S. after importation certain L-tryptophan and L-tryptophan products that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,666,655 and 6,180,373. See our May 10, 2016 and June 13, 2016 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

According to the notice, the Commission determined to:
(1) reverse the [ID’s] finding that the accused products do not infringe claim 10 of the '373 patent;
(2) reverse the [ID’s] finding that the domestic industry requirement is not satisfied for the '373 patent;
(3) reverse the [ID’s] finding that claim 10 of the '373 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for indefiniteness;
(4) reverse the [ID’s] finding that claim 10 of the '373 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description;
(5) affirm the [ID’s] finding that claim 10 of the '373 patent is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of enablement;
(6) affirm the [ID’s] finding that claim 10 of the ' 373 patent is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness;
(7) affirm in part and reverse in part the [ID’s] finding that the accused products do not infringe claim 20 of the '655 patent;
(8) reverse the [ID’s] finding that the domestic industry requirement is not satisfied for the '655 patent;
(9) affirm the [ID’s] finding that claim 20 of the '655 patent is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for indefiniteness;
(10) reverse the [ID’s] finding that claim 20 of the '655 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description; and
(11) affirm all other findings in the [ID] that are not inconsistent with the Commission's determination.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that there is a violation of section 337 with respect to both asserted patents. The Commission has determined the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order against Respondents’ accused products, and a cease and desist order against Respondent CJ America. The Commission has also determined that the public interest factors enumerated in subsections 337(d)(l) and (f)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(l), (f)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order and cease and desist order. The Commission has further determined to set a bond at zero (0) percent of entered value during the Presidential review period (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)).
Share



Copyright © 2020 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P.