08
Feb
By Elissa Sanford
On February 1, 2021, the ITC issued a Notice of Investigation in Certain Batteries and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-1244). This investigation is based on a December 30, 2020 complaint (Part A, Part B, Part C) filed by One World Technologies, Inc., of Anderson, South Carolina (“One World”) and Techtronic Power Tools Technology Ltd. of the British Virgin Islands (“Techtronic”) (collectively, “Complainants”). According to the notice, the Commission has identified the following parties as Respondents in this investigation: Darui Development Limited of China; Dongguan Xinjitong Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., of China; Shenzhen Laipaili Electronics Co., Ltd., of China; Shenzhen Liancheng Weiye Industrial Co., Ltd., of China; Shenzhen MingYang Creation Electronic Co., Ltd., of China; Shenzhen Ollop Technology Co. Ltd., of China; Shenzhen Rich Hao Yuan Energy Technology Co., Ltd., of China; Shenzhen Runsensheng Trading Co., Ltd., of China; Shenzhen Saen Trading Co., Ltd., of China; Shenzhen Shengruixiang E-Commerce Co., Ltd., of China; Shenzhen Tuo Yu Technology Co., Ltd., of China; Shenzhen Uni-Sun Electronics Co., Ltd., of China; and Shenzhen Vmartego Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd., of China. (collectively, “Respondents”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will participate as a party in the investigation. Lastly, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice indicating that ALJ MaryJoan McNamara will preside in the investigation.

Complainants allege that Respondents unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain batteries that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Design Patent Nos. D579,868, D580,353, and D593,944 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). According to the complaint, the Asserted Patents claim an ornamental design for a rechargeable battery intended for use with Complainants’ integrated suite of over 100 power tool products called the RYOBI™ ONE+ SYSTEM®. The complaint states that the accused products are rechargeable batteries intended for use with battery-powered products such as the RYOBI™ ONE+ SYSTEM® and are intended to serve as low-cost substitutes for RYOBI™ ONE+ batteries. Specifically, the complaint references the sale and importation of cordless, 18-volt, lithium-ion rechargeable batteries under brands including Topbatt®, energup®, Powilling®, Boetpcr®, Reoben®, Biswaye®, Lasica®, jolege®, Enegitech®, SUN POWER, FUZADEL®, Fhybat® , and Enermall®.

Regarding domestic industry, Complainants allege that a domestic industry exists by virtue of their significant investment in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor or capital, and substantial investment in the exploitation of the Asserted Patents through activities in the U.S. directed to battery packs which practice the Asserted Patents. Specifically, Complainants assert that nearly all of their activities related to the domestic industry products take place at their corporate headquarters located in Anderson, South Carolina. Such activities include battery pack design and engineering, the fabrication of battery pack components for development and testing, battery pack testing, customer service and technical support, the creation of battery pack user manuals and other customer-facing documents, and the marketing and advertising of battery packs.

With respect to related litigation, Complainants state that One World and Techtronic, along with Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp., Techtronic Industries Company Limited, and A&M Industries S.A.R.L., filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin asserting infringement of the Asserted Patents by Audiovox Corp., Audiovox Accessories Corporation, Technuity, Inc., Batteries.com, LLC, and FineDragon Technology Limited. The case was terminated on December 18, 2012, by consent judgment.

As for potential remedies, the Complainants request a permanent general exclusion order (“GEO”) barring from entry into the U.S. all infringing batteries and products containing the same, regardless of source. Complainants cite the near-total lack of identifying information available through primary sales channels for the infringing batteries as a basis for why a GEO is necessary to prevent the circumvention of a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) directed to the named Respondents. The Complainants also state that there is a large number of entities manufacturing and selling infringing batteries under a wide variety of names and aliases via online storefronts, and thus LEOs would be impractical. In the alternative, Complainants request a permanent LEO and cease-and-desist order directed to Respondents and their related entities.