By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
27
On May 26, 2011, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice determining to review in part an Initial Determination (“ID”) issued by ALJ E. James Gildea on March 25, 2011 finding no violation of Section 337 in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, and Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-701).

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc (collectively, “Nokia”) and the Respondent is Apple Inc. (“Apple”).  In the ID, ALJ Gildea determined that no violation of Section 337 had occurred by Apple in the importation into the U.S., sale for importation, or sale within the U.S. after importation of certain electronic devices, including mobile phones, portable music players, or computers by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,518,957 (the ‘957 patent), 6,714,091 (the ‘091 patent), 6,834,181 (the ‘181 patent), 6,895,256 (the ‘256 patent), or 6,924,789 (the ‘789 patent).  See our May 11, 2011 post for more details.


Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
27
On May 25, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 12C (dated April 19, 2011) in Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, and Modules, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-741/749).

According to the Order, Complainants Thomson Licensing SAS and Thomson Licensing LLC (collectively, “Thomson”) filed a motion to compel Respondents Chimei Innolux Corp., Innolux Corp., and Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc. (collectively, “CMI”) and Respondent AU Optronics Corp. (“AUO”) to provide counsel for Thomson and its technical experts access to the manufacturing facilities of CMI and AUO for the purposes of conducting videotaped and photographed inspections of CMI and AUO’s manufacturing processes.


Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
27
On May 25, 2011, Otter Products, LLC of Fort Collins, Colorado (“Otter”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that the following entities (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain protective cases and components thereof that infringe various claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,933,122 (the ‘122 patent), one or more of U.S. Design Patent Nos. D600,908, D617,784, D615,536, D617,785, D634,741, and D636,386 (collectively, the “asserted design patents”), and one or more of U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 3,788,534, 3,788,535, 3,623,789, and 3,795,187 (collectively, the “asserted trademarks”):

  • A.G. Findings and Mfg. Co., Inc. d/b/a Ballistic of Sunrise, Florida

  • AFC Trident Inc. of Chino, California

  • Alibaba.com Hong Kong Ltd. of China

  • Anbess Electronics Co. Ltd. of China

  • Cellairis Franchise, Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia

  • Cellet Products of Santa Fe Springs, California

  • DHgate.com of China

  • Griffin Technology, Inc. of Nashville, Tennessee

  • Guangzhou Evotech Industry Co., Ltd. of China

  • Hardcandy Cases LLC of Sacramento, California

  • Hoffco Brands, Inc. of Wheat Ridge, Colorado

  • Hong Kong Better Technology Group Ltd. of China

  • Hong Kong HJJ Co. Ltd. of China

  • Hypercel Corporation of Valencia, California

  • InMotion Entertainment of Jacksonville, Florida

  • MegaWatts Computers, LLC of Tulsa, Oklahoma

  • National Cellular of Brooklyn, New York

  • OEMBargain.com of Wantagh, New York

  • One Step Up Ltd. of New York, New York

  • Papaya Holdings Ltd. of Hong Kong

  • Quanyun Electronics Co., Ltd. of China

  • ShenZhen Star & Way Trade Co., Ltd. of China

  • Sinatech Industrial Co., Ltd. of China

  • SmileCase of Windsor Mill, Maryland

  • Suntel Global Investment Ltd. of China

  • TheCaseInPoint.com of Titusville, Florida

  • TheCaseSpace of Fort Collins, Colorado

  • Topter Technology Co. Ltd. of China

  • Trait Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. of China


According to the complaint, the ‘122 patent is directed to a multi-layer enclosure that protects various types of electronic devices from moisture, dust, dirt, and other contaminants, and also provides shock protection against drops and bumps.  The asserted design patents are directed to the ornamental features of Otter’s protective case designs for handheld electronic devices, including smart phones, tablet computers, and other mobile devices.  The asserted trademarks are directed to “OtterBox®,” “Otter Box®,” “Defender Series®,” and “Impact Series®.”


Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
26
On May 25, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public versions of Order No. 13 and Order No. 14 (both dated May 11, 2011) in Certain Wind and Solar-Powered Light Posts and Street Lamps (Inv. No. 337-TA-736).  Order No. 13 denied Respondents Gus Power Incorporated (“Gus Power”), Efston Science, Inc., The StressCrete Group (“StressCrete”), and King Luminaire, Inc.’s (collectively, “Respondents”) motions for summary determination of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. D610,732S (“the ‘732 patent”) and for sanctions against Complainants Duggal Dimensions LLC, Duggal Energy Solutions, LLC, and Duggal Visual Solutions, Inc. (collectively, “Duggal”).  Order No. 14 granted in part Respondents’ motion to compel Duggal to provide complete answers to interrogatories and produce documents identified on its privilege log.

Order No. 13


Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
25
Further to our April 21, 2011 and May 3, 2011 posts, on May 24, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 6: Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Video Game Systems and Wireless Controllers, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-770).

By way of background, the Complainants in this matter are Creative Kingdoms, LLC of Wakefield, Rhode Island and New Kingdoms, LLC of Nehalem, Oregon.  The Respondents are Nintendo Co., Ltd. of Japan and Nintendo of America, Inc. of Redmond, Washington.


Read More