Further to our November 20, 2009 post, on March 8, 2010, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No, 2009-1081.  In the decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s final determination in Certain Feed Products (Inv. No. 337-TA-571) that (1) U.S. Patent Nos. 5,827,698 (the ’698 patent) and 6,040,160 (the ‘160 patent) are invalid for violating the best mode requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and (2) the ‘698 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

By way of background, the ‘698 and ‘160 patents relate to processes for manufacturing lysine.  Lysine is an essential amino acid that livestock must obtain from their food sources.  Since naturally occurring lysine may be inadequate, feed manufacturers and farmers regularly add lysine as a dietary supplement to grass feed for livestock.   The industry uses microorganisms such as Eschericia coli (E. coli) to synthesize lysine from a carbon source.  The methods that are the subject of the ‘698 and ‘160 patents improve the processes through which  genetically engineered E. coli can synthesize lysine, thus allowing for the production of greater quantities of lysine than from naturally occurring E. coli strains. 


Read More

Further to our January 9, 2010 post, on March 2, 2010, the ITC issued the public version of its opinion finding that there has been no violation of Section 337 in Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-641).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is General Electric Co. (“GE”) and the Respondents are Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc. (“MHIA”), and Mitsubishi Power System, Inc. (“MPSA”) (collectively, “MHI”).  On August 7, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the Initial Determination (“ID”) finding that a violation of Section 337 had occurred by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and MPSA with respect to claim 121 of the asserted ‘039 patent, and claim 15 of the asserted ‘985 patent.  ALJ Charneski further determined in the ID that there was no violation with respect to these claims by MHIA.  Additionally, ALJ Charneski determined in the ID that there was no violation of Section 337 by any party with respect to claims 5, 7, and 8 of the asserted ‘221 patent.  See our October 29, 2009 post for more details.  On October 8, 2009, the Commission issued a notice determining to review the ID, except the issue of importation and the intent finding underlying the ALJ’s inequitable conduct determination.  See our October 8, 2009 post for more details.  The imported products are variable speed wind turbines and the specialized power circuits that allow them to safely adapt to modern power grids.  The patents-in-suit each deal with problems encountered with attaching the turbines to the power grids.


Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
05
On March 26, 2010, The University of Baltimore School of Law’s Intellectual Property Law Journal, Intellectual Property Law Society, and International Law Society are hosting an Intellectual Property symposium.  The theme of this year’s symposium is:  “The Domestic Impact of Intellectual Property in a Global Economy” and will address issues and trends related to intellectual property litigation in the United States stemming from international markets for goods, services, and IP.  The symposium will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. in the Business Center Auditorium & Atrium of the University and there is no cost to attend.

Further information about the event can be found here.


By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
04
On March 2, 2010, Apple Inc. (formerly known as Apple Computer, Inc.) of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) and NeXT Software, Inc. (formerly known as NeXT Computer, Inc.) of Cupertino, California (collectively, “Complainants”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that High Tech Computer Corp. of Taiwan, HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington, and Exedea, Inc. of Houston, Texas (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the United States, sell for importation, and sell within the United States after importation “certain mobile communication devices and components thereof” that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,481,721 (the ‘721 patent), 5,519,867 (the ‘867 patent), 5,566,337 (the ‘337 patent), 5,929,852 (the ‘852 patent), 5,946,647 (the ‘647 patent), 5,969,705 (the ‘705 patent), 6,275,983 (the ‘983 patent), 6,343,263 (the ‘263 patent), 5,915,131 (the ‘131 patent), and RE 39,486 (the RE ‘486 patent) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).


Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
04
On March 2, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 4:  Setting Target Date in Certain Notebook Computer Products and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-705).

According to the Order, ALJ Rogers set June 23, 2011 as the target date (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Rogers further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation is due on February 23, 2011.