The complaint alleges that Motorola Mobility, Inc. and Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “Motorola”)—both of Libertyville, Illinois—unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain mobile electronic devices incorporating haptic feedback technology (“haptics”), including cellular phones and smartphones that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,429,846 (the ‘846 patent), 7,592,999 (the ‘999 patent), 7,969,288 (the ‘288 patent), 7,982,720 (the ‘720 patent), 8,031,181 (the ‘181 patent), and 8,059,105 (the ‘105 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”).

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to haptics technology.  The complaint states that, broadly speaking, haptics provides touch or tactile sensations to users of electronic devices.  In particular, the ‘846 patent relates to outputting a haptic feedback effect to a user contacting a touch input device, which includes a touchscreen, based on the position of the user’s contact.  The ‘999 patent relates to outputting a haptic feedback effect to a user when the user selects or touches one of the menu items from a menu displayed on a touchscreen.  The ‘288 patent relates to systems and methods for enabling haptics on electronic devices with a multi-tasking environment, where multiple application programs can simultaneously run.  The ‘720 patent relates to, among other things, producing haptic effects associated with graphical items in an active state and an inactive state.  The ‘181 patent relates to a haptic feedback device comprising a touchscreen with at least two regions:  a first region associated with cursor positioning and a second region associated with control functionality different from cursor positioning.  The ‘105 patent relates to haptic feedback in response to both user input (e.g., pressing a key) and user-independent events (e.g., receipt of a phone call). 

In the complaint, Immersion states that Motorola imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically names the Motorola Droid Razr, Droid 3, Droid Bionic, Photon, Droid X2, Atrix, Atrix 2, Admiral, Xprt, and other Motorola mobile electronic devices incorporating haptics as infringing products.

Regarding domestic industry, the complaint states that Immersion has invested substantial resources to research, develop, design, engineer, test, and commercialize advanced software products that practice the asserted patents when run on a mobile electronic device.  Further, the complaint states that Immersion offers customers several services and other products designed to help manufacturers integrate haptics into electronic devices with touchscreen interfaces.  Immersion specifically refers to its 32,881 square-foot facility in San Jose, California, where it employs many engineers who work on the technologies disclosed in the asserted patents.  Immersion states that its TouchSense software products are designed to implement haptics in electronic devices using the patented inventions.  According to the complaint, Immersion has licensed its TouchSense software products to several cellular phone, smartphone, and handheld computer manufacturers, including Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”).  By way of example, the complaint states that Samsung’s Galaxy S II incorporates Immersion’s TouchSense 3000 software and practices the inventions claimed in the asserted patents.

With respect to potential remedy, Immersion requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Motorola.

The complaint alleges that T-Tech Tattoo Device Inc. of Canada (“T-Tech”), Yiwu Beyond Tattoo Equipments Co., Ltd. of China (“Yiwu”), and Guangzhou Pengcheng Cosmetology Firm of China (“Guangzhou”) (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, sell within the U.S. after importation, and/or offer for sale within the U.S. after importation certain ink application devices and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,345,553 (the ‘553 patent) and 6,505,530 (the ‘530 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”).

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to ink application devices for tattooing, applying permanent makeup, scar concealment, and areola reconstruction and methods of using these devices.  More specifically, the asserted patents relate to ink application devices that use disposable cartridges designed to reduce or eliminate health risks associated with tattooing and the application of permanent makeup.

In the complaint, the Complainants state that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically names T-Tech’s EZ Needle Cartridges and certain Yiwu and Guangzhou needle cartridges as infringing products.

Regarding domestic industry, the complaint states that MT.Derm has made a substantial investment in the exploitation of the asserted patents in the U.S. through the design, manufacturing, assembly, marketing, and sale of its PMU medical devices, handsets, and disposable cartridges.  The complaint states that MT.Derm’s PMU and tattoo devices and disposable needle cartridges embody all of the features claimed in certain claims of the asserted patents.  Additionally, the complaint refers to the Complainants’ investment in U.S. labor, training and education, customer support, research and development, and commercial property all in further exploitation of the asserted patents.

As to related litigation, the Complainants state that on April 4, 2004, MT.Derm’s predecessor filed a civil action against Le Belle International, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging infringement of the ‘553 patent.  According to the complaint, this case was dismissed without prejudice based on a settlement agreement.  Additionally, the Complainants state that on July 6, 2009, MT.Derm filed a civil action against Stacey Diorio (an individual doing business as “Natural Profile”) in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging infringement of the ‘553 and ‘530 patents.  According to the complaint, this case was also dismissed without prejudice based on a settlement agreement.

With respect to potential remedy, the Complainants request that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents, their affiliates, subsidiaries, divisions, licensees, agents, contractors, and other related entities.  The Complainants state that a general exclusion order is warranted because a widespread pattern of infringement exists, the source of infringing products is difficult to identify, and a limited exclusion order is likely to be circumvented.

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 dimmable compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,434,480 (“the ‘480 patent”) and 8,035,318 (“the ‘318 patent”):

• SK America, Inc. d/b/a/ Maxlite of Fairfield, New Jersey
• U Lighting America Inc. of San Jose, California
• Golden U Lighting Manufacturing (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. of China
• Feit Electric Company, Inc. of Pico Rivera, California
• General Electric Company of Fairfield, Connecticut
• Xiamen Topstar Lighting Co. Ltd. of China
• Technical Consumer Products, Inc. of Aurora, Ohio
• TCP China of China
• TCP (Shanghai) Tiancanbao Lighting Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. of China
• Shanghai Jensing Electron Electrical Equipment Co., Ltd. of China
• Shanghai Qiangling Electronics Co. Ltd. of China
• Zhejiang Qiang Ling Electronic Co. Ltd. of China

According to the complaint, the ‘480 patent is directed to “circuitry for electronic ballasts that power dimmable CFLs with the ballasts providing a high power factor and low harmonic distortion” which allows for improved dimmable CFL performance.  The ‘318 patent is directed to “an electronic ballast for enabling a full range of dimming of a CFL.”  Both patents address deficiencies in ballast circuitry that cause visible flicker during the dimming operation in dimmable CFLs.

The complaint identifies Mr. Bobel as the inventor of the ‘480 and ‘318 patents and the founder, CEO and chief engineer of Neptun, a “manufacturer of energy conservation lighting products such as LED, induction and compact fluorescent, including dimmable CFLs … designed for residential, commercial, outdoor and other infrastructure lighting applications.”  The complaint defines SK America, Inc. d/b/a/ Maxlite, U Lighting America, Inc., Feit Electric Company, Inc., General Electric Company, and Technical Consumer Products, Inc. as importers, distributors and/or sellers of infringing dimmable CFLs manufactured abroad, namely in China.  The complaint also defines Golden U Lighting Manufacturing (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Xiamen Topstar Lighting Co. Ltd., TCP-China, TCP (Shanghai) Tiancanbao Lighting Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd., Shanghai Jensing Electron Electrical Equipment Co., Ltd., Shanghai Qiangling Electronics Co. Ltd., and Zhejiang Qiang Ling Electronic Co. Ltd. as manufacturers of infringing dimmable CFLs in China.

Regarding the technical prong of domestic industry requirement, Neptun asserts that it is in the business of developing, designing and manufacturing in the U.S. dimmable CFLs which practice the ‘480 and ‘318 patents, such as Neptun’s dimmable CFL R30 product.  With respect to the economic prong, Neptun points to substantial investments in labor, capital, research and development, and marketing for over 15 different models of dimmable CFLs that it currently sells in the United States.  Neptune also adds that not only is it is a licensee of the ‘480 patent, but the ‘480 patent has been licensed to another dimmable CFL manufacturer.

With respect to potential remedy, the complaint asks the Commission to issue permanent cease and desist orders and a permanent limited exclusion order forbidding entry into the U.S. of all infringing dimmable CFLs that are manufactured, imported or sold for importation by or on behalf of the Proposed Respondents.

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 toner cartridges and components thereof, including but not limited to photosensitive drums, that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,903,803 (the ‘803 patent) and 6,128,454 (the ‘454 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):

• Clover Holdings, Inc. of Hoffman Estates, Illinois
• Clover Technologies Group, LLC d/b/a Depot International f/k/a Depot America f/k/a Image1 Products of Ottawa, Illinois
• Clover Vietnam Co., Ltd. of Vietnam
• Dataproducts USA, LLC of Thousand Oaks, California
• Dataproducts Imaging Solutions S.A. de C.V. of Mexico
• CAU, Inc. d/b/a Cartridges Are Us of Ithaca, Michigan
• Shanghai Orink Infotech International Co., Ltd. of China
• Orink Infotech International Co., Ltd. of Hong Kong
• Zhuhai Rich Imaging Technology Co., Ltd. of China
• Standard Image Co., Ltd. a/k/a Shanghai Orink Co., Ltd. of China
• Zhuhai National Resources & Jingjie Imaging Products Co., Ltd. d/b/a Huebon Co., Ltd. d/b/a Ink-Tank of China
• Standard Image USA, Inc. d/b/a Imaging Standard Inc. of Santa Ana, California
• Printronic Corporation d/b/a Printronic.com d/b/a InkSmile.com of Santa Ana, California
• Nukote, Inc. of Plano, Texas
• Nukote International de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. of Mexico
• Acecom, Inc. – San Antonio d/b/a InkSell.com of San Antonio, Texas
• Atman, Inc. s/b/a pcRUSH.com of El Segundo, California
• Dexxxon Digital Storage, Inc. of Lewis Center, Ohio
• Discount Office Items, Inc. of Columbus, Wisconsin
• Deal Express LLC d/b/a Discount Office Items of Columbus, Wisconsin
• Do It Wiser LLC d/b/a Image Toner of Marietta, Georgia
• E-Max Group, Inc. d/b/a Databazaar.com of Miramar, Florida
• Green Project, Inc. of Hacienda Heights, California
• GreenLine Paper Company, Inc. of York, Pennsylvania
• IJSS Inc. d/b/a TonerZone.com d/b/a InkJetSuperstore.com of Los Angeles, California
• Imaging Resources, LLC of Chatsworth, California
• Ink Technologies Printer Supplies, LLC of Dayton, Ohio
• Myriad Greeyn LLC of Virginia Beach, Virginia
• Office World, Inc. of Eugene, Oregon
• OfficeWorld.com, Inc. of Eugene, Oregon
• OnlineTechStores.com, Inc. d/b/a SuppliesOutlet.com of Reno, Nevada
• SupplyBuy.com, Inc. of Nashville, Tennessee
• Virtual Imaging Products Inc. of Canada
• Zinyaw LLC d/b/a TonerPirate.com of Houston, Texas

According to the complaint, the asserted patents both disclose the same subject matter.  In particular, the complaint states that the asserted patents are directed, in part, to a novel and advantageous projection on a photosensitive drum that is configured to couple with and receive a rotational force from a hole in a laser beam printer (“LBP”), so that the drum may be rotated.  The novel structure of the projection enables a process cartridge which contains the drum to be easily inserted and removed from a LBP by a user and at the same time enables the drum to be rotated in a smooth and stable fashion, thereby ensuring a high quality of the resultant printing.

In the complaint, Canon states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically identifies a number of infringing products associated with the various Proposed Respondents.

Regarding domestic industry, Canon states that CVI currently manufactures, inspects, packages, engineers, and recycles millions of toner cartridges and photosensitive drums in the U.S. that utilize technology protected by each of the asserted patents.  According to the complaint, CVI manufactures certain toner cartridges that it sells to Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) for distribution throughout the U.S. under the HP brand name.  Canon states that CVI’s main campus is located in Newport News, Virginia, and that this campus includes three primary facilities: (1) a Main Plant, (2) an Advanced Cartridge Manufacturing (“ACM”) Plant, and (3) a Toner Plant.  The complaint includes a photograph of former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine officiating a ribbon cutting ceremony in celebration of the completion of CVI’s ACM Plant. 

As to related litigation, Canon states that, concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it is also filing a civil action against the Proposed Respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging infringement of the asserted patents.  Additionally, Canon states that on June 28, 2010, it filed an ITC complaint relating to the asserted patents.  The ITC instituted an investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-731) based on this complaint.  See our July 28, 2010 post for more details.  Canon states that the 731 investigation was terminated on May 5, 2011, when the Commission issued a consent order prohibiting all 20 Respondents in that investigation from importing into the U.S., selling for importation, and selling or offering for sale in the U.S. after importation the accused toner cartridges and components thereof.  Canon further states that, concurrently with the filing of the complaint in the 731 investigation, it also filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the same Respondents.  Canon states that this action was terminated on May 24, 2011 in view of a stipulation, consent judgment, and permanent injunction.  Canon also states that the asserted patents have undergone ex parte reexaminations, and that the USPTO has issued reexamination certificates for each of the asserted patents.  Lastly, Canon refers to various foreign proceedings involving a Korean counterpart to the asserted patents. 

With respect to potential remedy, Canon requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order—or, alternatively, a limited exclusion order—and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.  Canon states that a general exclusion order is warranted in view of the numerous sources abroad of infringing toner cartridges and components thereof and the available channels of distribution.

The complaint alleges that Chimei Innolux Corporation of Taiwan and Innolux Corporation of Austin, Texas (collectively, “Innolux”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain video displays and products containing and using same such as computer monitors and televisions that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,247,090 (the ‘090 patent) and 7,089,342 (the ‘342 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”).

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to what is commonly known as “Plug-and-Play” technology.  In particular, the ‘090 patent relates to storing and communicating display unit information to a video source using a bi-directional communications channel.  The video source can then use the display unit information to generate compatible signals for the video display unit.  Additionally, the ‘090 patent describes using the communication channel to send control instructions from a computer to the video display in order to adjust the displayed image.  The ‘342 patent relates to storing and communicating display unit information to a video source using a bi-directional communications channel, wherein the display unit information includes an identification number for identifying the display unit together with other information.

In the complaint, Mondis states that Innolux imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint alleges that a number of computer monitors and televisions manufactured by Innolux infringe the asserted patents, and specifically names the Lenovo Thinkvision L2251X computer monitor (manufactured by Innolux) as an infringing product.

Regarding domestic industry, Mondis states that its activities relating to the licensing and enforcement of the asserted patents in the U.S. constitute a significant domestic investment in the exploitation of the asserted patents.  In particular, Mondis states that, since acquiring the asserted patents in 2007 from original patentee Hitachi Ltd. (“Hitachi”), Mondis has engaged in an extensive licensing program relating to the asserted patents.  Mondis states that it has employed counsel and other professionals in connection with its licensing program.  According to the complaint, these professionals have analyzed the asserted patents, met with potential licensees during license negotiations, and prepared and litigated patent infringement litigation.  Mondis states that, to date, it has entered into five licenses encompassing the asserted patents in its own right.  Further, Mondis states that Hitachi entered into a number of additional licenses for the asserted patents before Mondis acquired the patents from Hitachi in 2007.  In addition to its own—and Hitachi’s—licensing activities, Mondis relies on the domestic activities of these licensees to further support its domestic industry allegations.

As to related litigation, Mondis states that Hitachi filed four patent infringement suits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California between 2003 and 2005, alleging infringement of the asserted patents.  According to the complaint, all four of these cases were settled and licenses were taken by each of the defendants.  Mondis further states that, on December 31, 2007, it filed an action against Innolux and others in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of, inter alia, the asserted patents.  Mondis states that all of the defendants in that action other than Innolux settled and took licenses to the asserted patents.  As to Innolux, Mondis states that a jury trial was held in June 2011, and that the jury found that the asserted patents are valid, that Innolux infringes, and that Innolux’s infringement was willful.  On August 30, 2011, the Court entered final judgment and awarded damages in the amount of $15,560,847.00 to Mondis.  Mondis states that an appeal of the district court’s decision is currently pending before the Federal Circuit.  In the complaint, Mondis argues that “[t]he infringement, validity, and enforceability issues normally part of investigations before the Commission have been fully and finally litigated against Innolux in the Eastern District of Texas and accordingly should form no part of this investigation.”  Mondis also refers to an ex parte reexamination of the ‘090 patent and an inter partes reexamination of the ‘342 patent, both filed by Innolux.  According to the complaint, the ex parte reexamination terminated with a confirmation of the patentability of all original claims as well as certain new claims.  The inter partes reexamination is still pending.

With respect to potential remedy, Mondis requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Innolux.

The complaint alleges that Apple, Inc. of Cupertino, California, High Tech Computer Corp. a/k/a HTC Corp. of Taiwan, HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington, and Exedea, Inc. of Houston, Texas (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain electronic devices for capturing and transmitting images and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,210,161 (the ‘161 patent), 7,742,084 (the ‘084 patent), 7,453,605 (the ‘605 patent), 7,936,391 (the ‘391 patent), and 6,292,218 (the ’218 patent).

According to the complaint, the ‘161, ‘084, ‘605, and ‘391 patents are directed to technology allowing a user to “easily share images with friends, relatives, or publishing services from their digital cameras–as opposed to first downloading the images to their personal computers–using an improved, highly efficient user interface.”  The ‘218 patent is directed to “the first effective color preview for a digital camera,” referring to the display that allows a user to preview a scene and subsequently view a captured image on a digital camera.

The complaint alleges that Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) infringes the ‘161, ‘084, ‘605, and ‘391 patents “by importing and/or selling after importation devices that directly infringe, contribute to infringement, and induce infringement either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.”  Kodak points to the iPad 2, iPod touch, iPhone 4, and iPhone 4S as representative infringing devices.  The complaint similarly accuses HTC Corp., HTC America, Inc., and Exedea, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) of infringing the ‘161, ‘084, ‘605, and ‘391 patents based on representative devices HTC EVO View 4g, Flyer, and Jetstream.  HTC is further alleged to infringe the ‘218 patent based in particular on Kodak’s analysis of the HTC Vivid camera phone and the EVO View 4G handheld tablet. 

As to related litigation, the complaint describes a patent infringement case in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York accusing different defendants of infringing the ‘218 patent and patents related to the ‘161, ‘084, ‘391, and 605 patents.  This suit was settled with a license bearing royalties to Kodak, and dismissed with prejudice.  The ‘218 patent (among others) has also been asserted against different defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and again in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York with identical results.  Kodak filed a complaint for violation of Section 337 against various respondents (different from the present complaint) in relation to the ‘218 patent (among others), and this case has been settled favorably for Kodak and terminated (Investigation No. 337-TA-663, see our March 12, 2010 post for more details).  Kodak filed another Section 337 case against various respondents, including Apple, based on the ‘218 patent and other patents which has been remanded and is currently under investigation (Investigation No. 337-TA-703, see our August 8, 2011 post for more details on the original initial determination).  RIM Ltd. and RIM Corp. filed a declaratory judgment action against Kodak in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas seeking a determination that they did not infringe the ‘218 patent, among others, and that these patents were invalid and unenforceable.  This case remains pending.  Kodak filed a case against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York alleging infringement of the ‘218 patent, among others.  This case is stayed.  The complaint describes that two ex parte reexamination requests were filed against the ‘218 patent.  These requests were merged and a Rexamination Certificate was issued confirming all claims as patentable without amendment.  Concurrent with the filing of this complaint, Kodak filed suit against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York alleging infringement of the ‘161, ‘084, ‘605 and ‘391 patents and filed a separate suit in the same court against HTC alleging infringement of the ‘161, ‘084, ‘605, ‘391, and ‘218 patents.

Kodak asserts that it meets both the economic and technical prongs of the domestic industry requirement, arguing that it has “made substantial investments in the United States in continuously developing advanced technologies that incorporate the inventions claimed in the [asserted patents].”  The complaint also alleges that Kodak has made substantial investments in licensing its digital imaging portfolio which includes several of the asserted patents.  Last, Kodak points out that domestic industry was previously considered by the Commission in relation to the ‘218 patent and it was found that Kodak satisfies the domestic industry requirement. 

With respect to potential remedy, the complaint requests the Commission to issue a permanent limited exclusion order barring entry into the U.S. of Proposed Respondents’ devices or components thereof that infringe the ‘161, ‘084, ‘605, ‘391, and/or ‘218 patents.  Kodak also requests permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents, directing each domestic Proposed Respondent to cease and desist from importing, marketing, selling, etc. imported devices or components that infringe the ‘161, ‘084, ‘605, ‘391, and/or ‘218 patents.

The complaint alleges that Shenzhen Reliap Industrial Co., Ltd. of China (“Reliap”), Yue Qiu Sheng, a.k.a. Jason Yue of China (“Yue”), and Whalen Furniture Manufacturing Inc. of San Diego, California (“Whalen”) (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in connection with the importation into the U.S., sale for importation, and/or sale within the U.S. after importation of certain electric fireplaces, components thereof, manuals for same, and products containing same and in relation to certain processes for manufacturing or relating to same.  According to the complaint, the unfair methods of competition and unfair acts at issue include the Proposed Respondents’ misappropriation of Twin-Star’s trade secrets, the Proposed Respondents’ infringement of Twin-Star’s registered copyrights, Yue’s breach of contract, and Reliap’s and Whalen’s tortious interference with Twin-Star’s contractual relations.

According to the complaint, the technology at issue relates to electric fireplaces.  In particular, the complaint states that “[a]n electric fireplace is a kinetic sculpture approximating the size and look of a real, wood burning fireplace.”  The complaint further states that an electric fireplace “replicates the moving flames, burning embers, and charred wood of a real wood-burning fireplace” and that the electric fireplace “may incorporate an electric heater to simulate heat radiated by a real wood-burning fireplace.” 

The complaint refers to Twin-Star’s trade secrets, Twin-Star’s component supplier list, Twin-Star’s customer list, the Twin-Star manufacturing process, the development of the Twin-Star technology, Twin-Star’s manufacturing specifications, hardware and software for a “Twin-Star Prototype 3 LED Functional Indicator Display,” and certain Twin-Star registered copyrights – including the “E1 MANUAL,” “E22 MANUAL,” “KINETIC SCULPTURE 1,” and “KINETIC SCULPTURE 2” – as the intellectual property at issue.

In the complaint, Twin-Star alleges that the Proposed Respondents import and sell Reliap Electric Fireplaces and user manuals therefor and that the Proposed Respondents wrongfully entered into the electric fireplace products industry through the misappropriation of Twin-Star’s trade secrets.  According to the complaint, Yue was formerly employed by Twin-Star and, since the termination of his employment, Yue has misappropriated Twin-Star’s trade secrets in connection with the formation of his own new company Reliap.  The complaint also accuses the Proposed Respondents of infringing Twin-Star’s registered copyrights.  The complaint further states that Yue has breached his Stockholder Agreement with Twin-Star through his wrongful solicitation of customers, wrongful use and/or disclosure of confidential information, and unfair competition through the breach of non-competition provisions.  Lastly, the complaint alleges that Reliap and Whalen have engaged in unfair competition through their tortious interference with Yue’s contractual relations with Twin-Star.

Regarding domestic industry, Twin-Star states that a domestic industry exists “because of market realities,” including:  (a) Twin-Star’s design and distribution of electric fireplace products and their related technology in the U.S.; (b) Twin-Star’s manufacturing-related and other activities relating to its electric fireplace technology in the U.S.; (c) Twin-Star’s substantial investment in exploitation, including engineering and research and development of its electric fireplace technology in the U.S.; (d) Twin-Star’s significant employment of labor and capital relating to its electric fireplace technology in the U.S.; and (e) Twin-Star’s significant investment in facilities and equipment relating to its electric fireplace technology in the U.S.

As to related litigation, Twin-Star refers to ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-791, where Twin-Star is alleging that Reliap and Yue have violated Section 337 in connection with their sale and importation of certain electric fireplaces, components thereof, manuals for same, and products containing same and in relation to certain processes for manufacturing or relating to same.  See our July 15, 2011 post for more details.  Twin-Star also refers to district court cases in the Southern District of California and the District of Delaware.

With respect to potential remedy, Twin-Star requests that the Commission issue an exclusion order, a cease and desist order, and an order instructing the Proposed Respondents to immediately and verifiably turn over to Twin-Star all documents and things in their possession, custody, or control that contain or embody one or more of Twin-Star’s trade secrets or any information derived from or based on one or more of Twin-Star’s trade secrets.

The complaint alleges that Analog Devices Inc. of Norwood, Massachusetts (“ADI”), Amkor Technology, Inc. of Chandler, Arizona (“Amkor”), and Avnet, Inc. of Phoenix, Arizona (“Avnet”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain silicon microphone packages and products containing the same that infringe, or that are made by a process that infringes, one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,439,616 (the ‘616 patent) and 8,018,049 (the ‘049 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”).

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to silicon microphone package technology.  In particular, the ‘616 patent relates to a package that contains a silicon microphone die.  The ‘049 patent relates to a package that contains a silicon microphone die and a method for manufacturing the package.

In the complaint, Knowles states that ADI, Amkor, and Avnet import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically names a number of ADI silicon microphones and evaluation boards containing silicon microphones as infringing products.  According to the complaint, Amkor manufactures these ADI products pursuant to ADI’s specifications and requirements and provides them to ADI and Avnet, among others.

Regarding domestic industry, Knowles states that it practices the asserted patents in the U.S. through its manufacture, research and development, and application support for its SiSonic MEMS silicon microphone packages.  According to the complaint, Knowles’s domestic facility includes salaried research and design engineers, salaried administrative employees, tens of millions of dollars’ worth of equipment, and other assets allowing for the research, development, production, and sales of its acoustic products.

As to related litigation, Knowles states that on November 14, 2006, it filed a complaint against various entities and individuals in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging misappropriation of trade secrets related to silicon microphones.  Knowles states that the resulting action was settled by the parties and dismissed with prejudice.  Additionally, Knowles states that on December 13, 2006, it filed a complaint against Akustica, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,781,231 (the ‘231 patent).  Knowles states that this action was settled by the parties and dismissed without prejudice.  Knowles further states that on October 6, 2009, it filed a complaint against ADI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging infringement of the ‘231 patent and U.S. Patent No. 7,242,089 (the ‘089 patent).  Knowles states that this action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on October 5, 2011.  However, Knowles states that on September 27, 2011, it filed another complaint against ADI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,537,964 and the ‘049 patent.  Knowles also refers to Inv. No. 337-TA-629 at the ITC, where it accused MEMS Technology Berhad (“MemsTech”) of violating Section 337 through its alleged infringement of the ‘231 and ‘089 patents.  See our October 31, 2011 post for more details.  Please note that Oblon Spivak represents MemsTech in the 629 investigation.  Knowles further refers to Inv. No. 337-TA-695, where it accused ADI of violating Section 337 through its alleged infringement of the ‘231 and ‘089 patents.  See our January 3, 2011 post for more details.  Lastly, Knowles refers to various inter partes and ex parte reexaminations of the ‘231, ‘089, and ‘616 patents.

With respect to potential remedy, Knowles requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at ADI, Amkor, Avnet, and related companies.

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 portable communication devices that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,926,636 (the ‘636 patent), 5,929,655 (the ‘655 patent), 6,208,879 (the ‘879 patent), and 6,456,841 (the ‘841 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):

• Research In Motion Ltd. of Canada
• Research In Motion Corp. of Irving, Texas
• HTC Corporation of Taiwan
• HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington
• LG Electronics, Inc. of South Korea
• LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
• LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. of San Diego, California
• Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. of Libertyville, Illinois
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of South Korea
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey
• Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC of Richardson, Texas
• Sony Corporation of Japan
• Sony Corporation of America of New York, New York
• Sony Electronics, Inc. of San Diego, California
• Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB of Sweden
• Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. of Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
• Amazon.com, Inc. of Seattle, Washington
• Nokia Corporation of Finland
• Nokia Inc. of Irving, Texas

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to portable communication technology.  In particular, the ‘636 patent relates to a remote procedural call component management method for a heterogeneous computer network.  The ‘655 patent relates to methods and apparatuses for providing dual-purpose I/O circuits, wherein each of the dual-purpose I/O circuits can be configured to support either one, or both, single-ended and differential I/O signaling modes.  The ‘879 patent relates to a mobile information terminal that has more than one mode, such as a telephone mode and an information terminal mode.  Lastly, the ‘841 patent relates to a mobile communication apparatus capable of notifying a user of the presence of unopened message information, such as a text message or voice mail.

In the complaint, Digitude states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically identifies a number of allegedly infringing products associated with the various Proposed Respondents.

Regarding domestic industry, Digitude states that it maintains a domestic industry through the activities of a domestic licensee.  According to the complaint, the domestic licensee practices at least one claim of each of the asserted patents in the U.S.  The details of the domestic licensee’s activities are provided in Confidential Exhibits and are not discussed in the body of the complaint.

With respect to potential remedy, Digitude requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents.

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 Blu-ray disc players, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,263,505 (the ‘505 patent):

• D&M Holdings, Inc. of Japan
• D&M Holdings US, Inc. of Mahwah, New Jersey
• Denon Electronics (USA) LLC of Mahwah, New Jersey
• Funai Electric Co., Ltd. of Japan
• Funai Corp., Inc. of Rutherford, New Jersey
• Haier Group Corp. of China
• Haier America Trading, LLC of New York, New York
• Harman International Industries, Inc. of Stamford, Connecticut
• Inkel Corp. of South Korea
• LG Electronics, Inc. of South Korea
• LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
• Marantz America LLC of Mahwah, New Jersey
• Onkyo Sound & Vision Corp. of Japan
• Onkyo USA Corp. of Upper Saddle River, New Jersey
• Orion America, Inc. of Princeton, Indiana
• Orion Electric Co., Ltd. of Japan
• Panasonic Corp. of Japan
• Panasonic Corp. of North America of Seacaucus, New Jersey
• P&F USA, Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia
• Philips Electronics North America Corp. of Andover, Massachusetts
• Pioneer Corp. of Japan
• Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. of Long Beach, California
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of South Korea
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey
• Sharp Corp. of Japan
• Sharp Electronics Corp. of Mahwah, New Jersey
• Sherwood America, Inc. of La Mirada, California
• Sony Corp. of Japan
• Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. of Japan
• Sony Corp. of America of New York, New York
• Sony Electronics, Inc. of San Diego, California
• Sony Computer Entertainment of Foster City, California
• Toshiba Corp. of Japan
• Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. of Irvine, California
• VIZIO, Inc. of Irvine, California
• Yamaha Corp. of Japan
• Yamaha Corp. of America of Buena Park, California
• Yamaha Electronics Corp., USA of Buena Park, California

According to the complaint, the ‘505 patent is directed to technology that “allows someone who is watching a movie on Blu-ray disc to access ‘fun facts’ about an actor or a scene without pausing the movie to do a search on the Internet.”  Supplemental information requested by the user is delivered and synchronized with the movie as it continues to play without the need for any additional computers or Internet browsers.

The complaint describes the infringing activities of the Proposed Respondents by dividing the Proposed Respondents into groups based on each Respondent and its subsidiaries, resulting in seventeen groups.  The complaint specifically identifies a number of allegedly infringing products associated with the various Proposed Respondents.

As to related litigation, the complaint describes that two ex parte reexamination requests have been filed against the ‘505 patent (one granted, and one deemed moot based on the other), and the reexamination process is ongoing.  The complaint states that Walker Digital filed a civil action on April 11, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware accusing Proposed Respondents of infringing the ‘505 patent, and several defendants have requested a stay pending outcome of the reexamination proceedings.  The complaint also states that Walker Digital filed a civil action on April 22, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware accusing six different defendants of infringing the ‘505 patent, although that case has been terminated. 

Walker Digital asserts that it meets both the economic and technical prongs of the domestic industry requirement, arguing that it has “made substantial investment in the exploitation of the ‘505 patent through licensing activities.”  Specifically, Walker Digital licensed the ‘505 patent to California-based electronics maker Oppo Digital Inc., a company that designs and sells digital electronics products, including Blu-ray disc players that practice the ‘505 patent.  The complaint also alleges that Walker Digital has licenses with other entities listed in a confidential filing. 

With respect to potential remedy, the complaint requests the Commission to issue a permanent limited exclusion order barring entry into the U.S. of Proposed Respondents’ Blu-ray disc players and components that infringe the ‘505 patent.  Walker Digital also requests permanent cease and desist orders directed against the Proposed Respondents, directing each domestic Proposed Respondent to cease and desist from importing, marketing, or selling Blu-ray disc players or components that infringe the ‘505 patent.