By Barry Herman
|
Mar
30
On April 3, 2009, the Federal Circuit is scheduled to hear oral argument in Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH v. ITC.

Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH (“Erbe”) filed a complaint with the ITC against Canady Technology, LLC et al. (“Canady”) on April 10, 2006 alleging violation of Section 337 by Canady’s importation and sale of certain endoscopic probes for use in argon plasma coagulation (“APC”) systems that coagulate bleeding tissue during electrosurgery.  After the Commission instituted an investigation (337-TA-569) and an evidentiary hearing was held, ALJ Bullock issued an initial determination (“ID”) on January 16, 2008 in which he construed the claim terms “predetermined minimum safety distance,” “working channel” and “sidewardly” of the patent-in-suit and concluded that Erbe failed to establish that (1) there was a domestic industry, (2) the asserted claims were directly infringed, and (3) Canady had induced or contributed to infringement even if the asserted claims were directly infringed.  On January 28, 2008, Erbe filed a petition for review of the ID which the Commission granted in part, but the ID was upheld on March 17, 2008.  Erbe filed its Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit on May 14, 2008.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
30
According to a March 27, 2009 letter sent to the ITC, Microsoft has sought to formally withdraw its February 25, 2009 complaint against TomTom.

As we explained in our February 27, 2009 post, Microsoft’s complaint alleges, among other things, that TomTom N.V. of the Netherlands and TomTom, Inc. of Concord, Massachusetts (collectively, “TomTom”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain portable navigation computing devices and associated computer software that infringe certain claims of five Microsoft U.S. Patents.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
27
On March 25, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission voted to institute an investigation of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (337-TA-673).  The investigation is based on a February 23, 2009 complaint filed by Saxon Innovations, LLC of Tyler, Texas.

As explained in our February 24 post, the complaint alleges that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd of Korea, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLP of Richardson, Texas (collectively, “Samsung”) imports into the U.S. (in addition to sale for importation into the U.S. and/or sale within the U.S. after importation) certain electronic devices including handheld, wireless communications devices that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,235,635; 5,530,597, and 5,608,873.


Share
By Barry Herman
|
Mar
27
On March 25, 2009, SPH America, LLC of Vienna, Virginia filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to section 337.

The complaint alleges that Kyocera Corp. of Japan;  Kyocera Wireless Corp. of San Diego, California;  Kyocera Sanyo Telecom, Inc. of Woodland Hills, California;  MetroPCS Communications, Inc. of Richardson, Texas;  MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. of Dallas, Texas;  and Sprint Nextel Corporation of Overland Park, Kansas unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain wireless communications devices and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. RE 40,385 and U.S. Patent No. 5,960,029.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
26
On March 25, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission voted to institute an investigation of Certain Electronic Devices Having Image Capture Or Display Functionality And Components Thereof (337-TA-672).

The investigation is based on a March 10, 2009 complaint filed by LG Electronics, Inc. of Korea.  As explained in our February 24 post, the complaint alleges that Eastman Kodak Company imports into the U.S. (in addition to sale for importation into the U.S. and/or sale within the U.S. after importation) electronic devices having image capture or display functionality that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,995,767, 5,774,131, and 6,281,895.  According to the complaint, the ‘767 patent discloses “a method and apparatus for automatic focus controlling of a camera,” the ‘131 patent discloses “a sound generation and display control apparatus,” and the ‘895 patent discloses “an apparatus and method for implementing an on-screen display (OSD) menu for an image display device.”


Share

Read More