By Eric Schweibenz and Alex Englehart
|
Aug
25
On August 15, 2017, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued its opinion in the consolidated enforcement and rescission proceeding stemming from the underlying investigation in Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-929). In the opinion, the Commission determined to (i) reverse the finding in ALJ Theodore R. Essex’s enforcement initial determination (“EID”) that the remedial orders in the underlying investigation cannot be enforced due to a lack of domestic industry; (ii) find that the complainants had failed to show that the respondents possessed the intent necessary to violate the remedial orders; (iii) decline to rescind the remedial orders; and (iv) terminate the consolidated enforcement and rescission proceeding.

By way of background, the underlying investigation is based on an August 4, 2014 complaint filed by Adrian Rivera and Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, “ARM”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain beverage brewing capsules, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,720,320 (the ’320 patent). See our August 6, 2014 and September 11, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively. On March 17, 2016, the Commission issued its final determination in the underlying investigation and issued a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and cease-and-desist orders (“CDOs”) directed at Eko Brands, LLC and other respondents based on their infringement of claims 8 and 19 of the ’320 patent.
Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
24
On August 22, 2017, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 3 in Certain Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-1065).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a July 7, 2017 complaint filed by Qualcomm Inc. of San Diego, California 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 of certain mobile electronic devices and radio frequency and processing components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,633,936; 8,698,558; 8,487,658; 8,838,949; 9,535,490; and 9,608,675. See our July 7, 2017 and August 9, 2017 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.
Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
23
On August 22, 2017, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued a press release announcing their vote to institute an investigation of Certain Road Milling Machines and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-1067).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a July 19, 2017 complaint filed by Wirtgen America, Inc. of Antioch, Tennessee 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 of certain road milling machines and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,644,340; 9,624,628; 9,656,530; 7,530,641; and 7,828,309. See our July 26, 2017 post for more details on the complaint.
Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
22
On August 22, 2017, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 68 in Certain Audio Processing Hardware and Software, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-1026).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a September 19, 2016 complaint filed by Andrea Electronics Corporation alleging violation by Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. 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 audio processing hardware, software, and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,049,607; 6,363,345; and 6,377,607. See our September 21, 2016 and October 21, 2016 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.
Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz and John Presper
|
Aug
21
On August 3, 2017, the International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) issued its opinion in Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-989).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a complaint filed by Nautilus Hyosung, Inc. and Nautilus Hyosung America Inc. (collectively, “Nautilus”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondents Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. and Diebold Self-Service Systems (collectively, “Diebold”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,891,551 (“the ’551 patent”); 7,950,655 (“the ’655 patent”); 8,152,165 (“the ’165 patent”); and 8,523,235 (“the ’235 patent”). See our February 9, 2016 and March 10, 2016 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively. The ALJ previously granted motions by Nautilus to terminate the investigation as to all asserted claims of the ’551, ’165, and ’655 patents. After holding an evidentiary hearing in November 2016, the ALJ issued a final initial determination (“ID”) on March 13, 2017 finding a violation of Section 337 by Diebold in connection with the ’235 patent. Specifically, the ID found that the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over the accused products, and in personam jurisdiction over Diebold. The ID also found that Nautilus satisfied the importation requirement, that the accused products directly infringed claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 9 of the ’235 patent, and that Diebold contributorily infringed such claims. The ID further found that Diebold failed to establish that the asserted claims of the ’235 patent are invalid for indefiniteness, anticipation, or obviousness. Finally, the ID found that Nautilus established the existence of a domestic industry that practices the ’235 patent. Accordingly, the ALJ recommended issuance of a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) prohibiting the importation of Diebold's automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe the asserted claims of the ’235 patent. The ALJ also recommended issuance of cease-and-desist orders based on the presence of Diebold’s commercially significant inventory in the U.S.
Share

Read More