17
Mar
By John Presper
On March 16, 2021, ALJ Cameron Elliot issued a notice of initial determination (“ID”) in Certain Mobile Devices With Multifunction Emulators (Inv. No. 337-TA-1170). According to the notice, the ALJ found no violation of section 337.

By way of background, this investigation was instituted on August 12, 2019 based on a complaint filed by Dynamics Inc. of Cheswick, Pennsylvania (“Dynamics”) alleging violation of section 337 by Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of South Korea and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey (collectively, “Samsung”) through the importation and/or sale of certain mobile devices with multifunction emulators that infringement one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,827,153 (“the ’153 patent”); 10,032,100 (“the ’100 patent”); 10,223,631 (“the ’631 patent”); and 10,255,545 (“the ’545 patent”).

According to the notice, ALJ Elliot determined there is no violation of section 337 based on the following conclusions of law:

  • Dynamics has not been shown to practice any claims of the ’153 patent.

  • Dynamics has been shown to practice claim 1 of the ’100 patent, but not claims 6 or 8.

  • Dynamics has not been shown to practice any claims of the ’631 patent.

  • Dynamics has not been shown to practice any claims of the ’545 patent but has shown practice is “in the process of being established.”

  • The domestic industry requirement is not satisfied with respect to the ’153 patent.

  • The domestic industry requirement is satisfied with respect to the ’100 patent.

  • The domestic industry requirement is not satisfied with respect to the ’631 patent.

  • The domestic industry requirement is not satisfied with respect to the ’545 patent.

  • Samsung directly infringes claims 1 and 7 of the ’153 patent.

  • Samsung directly infringes claims 1, 12, and 18 of the ’100 patent.

  • Samsung directly infringes claims 1, 4, 6, and 22 of the ’631 patent.

  • Samsung directly infringes claims 1, 3, and 5 of the ’545 patent.

  • Claims 1 and 7 of the ’153 patent have not been shown to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

  • Claims 1, 8, 12, and 18 of the ’100 patent have been shown to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 due to anticipation, but not claim 4. Claims 1, 6, and 12 have been shown to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103, but not claim 4. No claims of the ’100 patent have been shown to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(f), 112, or 116.

  • Claim 1 of the ’631 patent has been shown to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 due to anticipation, but not claim 4. Claims 1, 4, 6, and 22 have been shown to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103. No claims of the ’631 patent have been shown to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(f), 112, or 116.

  • Claims 1, 3, and 5 of the ’545 patent have been shown to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 due to anticipation. No claims have been shown to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(f) or 116.

  • There is no violation of section 337 with respect to the ’153 patent.

  • There is no violation of section 337 with respect to the ’100 patent.

  • There is no violation of section 337 with respect to the ’631 patent.

  • There is no violation of section 337 with respect to the ’545 patent.

A public version of the ID containing more detailed information will issue after all parties have submitted their proposed redactions to the ALJ.

UPDATE:  On April 1, 2021, ALJ Elliot issued the pubic version of the ID (see Part I, Part II, Part III).
Share