The complaint alleges that LG Electronics, Inc. of South Korea and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (collectively, “LGE”) have sold for importation, imported, and/or sold within the U.S. after importation certain flat panel digital televisions and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,511,096, 5,621,761, 5,703,887, 5,745,522, 5,511,082, 5,396,518, and 5,233,629 (collectively, “the Asserted Patents).

According to the complaint, the “general technology at issue in this case involves the transmission and reception of digital television (‘TV’) signals via cable delivery systems.  More specifically, all of the Asserted Patents relate to the decoding and demodulation of digital TV signals transmitted via digital cable TV delivery system to a TV receiver.”

In the complaint, Vizio alleges that LGE’s digital television products are manufactured, assembled, and/or packaged and tested overseas, at least in Mexico.

Regarding related litigation, Vizio lists in its complaint a number of U.S. district court cases involving the asserted patents, including a pending litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against LGE, filed on June 5, 2009.

With respect to domestic industry, Vizio asserts that an industry exists in the U.S. relating to its digital televisions.  Specifically, Vizio alleges that its digital televisions practice at least one claim of each of the Asserted Patents.  In addition, Vizio asserts that its significant employment of labor and capital, and its substantial investment in exploitation of the Asserted Patents, constitute a domestic industry under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1337(a)(3)(B) and (C).

With respect to potential remedy, Vizio requests that the ITC issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease-and-desist orders directed to LGE.

Also on July 16, the Commission issued its first notice of receipt of a complaint.  As we explained in our July 13, 2010 post, the Commission will now issue these notices upon receipt of a Section 337 complaint to solicit comments from the complainant, proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public on any public interest issues raised by the complaints.  According to the July 16 notice, the Commission is interested in comments that (i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the orders are used in the U.S., (ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the U.S. relating to the potential orders, (iii) indicate the extent to which like or directly competitive articles are produced in the U.S. or are otherwise available in the U.S., with respect to the articles potentially subject to the orders, and (iv) indicate whether Complainant, its licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to an exclusion order and a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time.  The July 16 notice further indicates that written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, five business days after the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register.

The complaint alleges that California Exotic Novelties, Inc. (“Cal Exotic”) of Chino, California, Direct Advantage Values Enterprise, Inc. (“DAVE”) of San Francisco, California, Nanma Manufacturing Co., Limited (“NMC”) of Hong Kong, Shenzhen Shaki Industrial Co., Ltd. (“SSI”) of China, Pipedream Products, Inc. (“Pipedream”) of Chatsworth, California, Tenga Co., Ltd. of Japan, Vast Resources, Inc. d/b/a Topco Sales (“Topco”) of Chatsworth, California, Convergence Inc. of Los Angeles, California, E.T.C., Inc. d/b/a Eldorado Trading Company, Inc. of Broomfield, Colorado, Gigglesworld Corporation of Wappingers Falls, New York, Honey’s Place, Inc. of San Fernando, California, Joe Enterprises, Inc. of Phoenix, Arizona, Liberator, Inc. of Carson City, Nevada, Nalpac Enterprises, Ltd. d/b/a Nalpac, Ltd. of Ferndale, Michigan, Satistec, LLC of Las Vegas, Nevada, Universal Distributor of Santa Clarita, California, Williams Trading Co., Inc. of Pennsauken, New Jersey, W.T.F.N. Inc. d/b/a Holiday Products of Chatsworth, California, Barnaby Ltd, LLC of San Francisco, California, L.F.P., Inc. of Beverly Hills, California, LFP Internet Group, LLC of Beverly Hills, California, PHE, Inc. of Hillsborough, North Carolina, Polydigitech Inc. of Schaumburg, Illinois, Sawhorse Enterprises, Inc. of San Bruno, California, TEG, L.L.C. of Plano, Texas, and Web Merchants Inc. of Jamesburg, New Jersey (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) have sold for importation, imported, and/or sold within the U.S. after importation certain devices having elastomeric gel and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,782,818 (the ‘818 patent) and 5,807,360 (the ‘360 patent) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents).

According to the complaint, the devices at issue include, masturbators, sex toys, and novelty items that have an insert formed from an elastomeric gel with an opening to accommodate a human male sex organ.  In addition, both the ‘818 patent and the ‘360 patent generally relate to devices for discreet collection of sperm from human males.

Complainants allege that each of the Proposed Respondents designs, manufactures, sells for importation, imports, and/or sells after importation infringing devices having elastomeric gel, including masturbators, sex toys, and novelty items.

As to related litigation, Complainants assert that on June 30, 2010, ILF filed an infringement suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas alleging that Cal Exotic, DAVE, NMC, SSI, Pipedream, Tenga, and Topco infringe the Asserted Patents.

Regarding domestic industry, Complainants assert that an industry exists in the U.S. relating to ILF’s devices at issue.  In addition, ILF states that it has made at least significant investment in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor and capital and/or substantial investment in engineering and research and development with respect to the Asserted Patents.  Complainants also point to their manufacturing and production factory in Austin, Texas as evidence of significant investment in the U.S. in plant and equipment to manufacture products practicing the Asserted Patents.  Further, ILF states it has made significant investments in employment of labor and capital associated with products practicing the Asserted Patents, including the employment of over 130 people.  Finally, Complainants assert they have made substantial investment in the exploitation of products that practice the Asserted Patents, including ongoing engineering and research and development of devices protected by the Asserted Patents.

With respect to potential remedy, Complainants request that the ITC issue a general exclusion order (or, in the alternative, a limited exclusion order), a permanent exclusion order, and a permanent cease-and-desist order directed to each Proposed Respondent.

Canon alleges infringement of certain claims of two of its U.S. patents, 5,903,803 and 6,128,454 which both relate to a projection on photosensitive toner cartridge drums that allow users, rather than technicians, to remove and replace the drum.  In the complaint, Canon separates the Respondents into two categories. The first group is the so-called “Ninestar Respondents” (Ninestar Image-China, Ninestar Tech-China, Ninestar Mgt., Zhuhai Seine, Seine Image, Ninestar Image-Hong Kong, Ziprint, Nano Pacific, Ninestar-LA and Town Sky) which, according to Canon, are all under common ownership and control.  The Ninestar Group is alleged to infringe by manufacturing toner cartridges and importing them into the United States.  The second group – the “Retailer Respondents” (ACM Technologies, Inc., LD Products, Inc., Printer Essentials.com, Inc., XSE Group, Inc. d/b/a Image Star, Copy Technologies, Inc. d/b/a ITM Corporation, Red Powers, Inc. d/b/a LaptopTraveller.com, Direct Billing International, Inc. d/b/a OfficeSupplyOutfitters.com, Compu-Imaging, Inc., EIS Office Solutions, Inc., and 123 Refills, Inc.) – allegedly infringe through sales of the toner cartridges manufactured by the Ninestar Respondents.

According to the complaint, Canon satisfies the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement in view of (1) Canon Virginia’s manufacture of millions of toner cartridges each year which are covered by the patents-in-suit, (2) employment of a significant number of employees in the United States, (3) Canon Virginia’s product and manufacturing engineering activities, and (4) Canon Virginia’s plans to manufacture additional toner cartridges covered by the patents-in-suit.  Further, the technical prong is satisfied because Canon Virginia produces, or will produce, toner cartridges covered by at least one claim of each of the patents-in-suit.

Regarding related litigation, Canon asserts that it simultaneously filed a district court action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  With respect to potential remedy, Canon seeks a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed to the proposed respondents.

The complaint alleges that Mipo International Ltd. of Hong Kong; Mextec Group Inc. d/b/a Mipo America Ltd. of Miami, Florida; Shanghai Angel Printer Supplies Co. Ltd. of China; Shenzhen Print Media Co., Ltd. of China; Zhuhai National Resources & Jingjie Imaging Products Co., Ltd. of China; Tatrix International of China; and Ourway Image Co., Ltd. of China (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) have engaged in violations of Section 337 through unlicensed importation into the U.S., sale for importation, and/or sale within the U.S. after importation of certain inkjet ink supplies and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,959,985 (the ‘985 patent) and 7,104,630 (the ‘630 patent).

According to the complaint, both the ‘985 patent and the ‘630 patent generally relate to printing-fluid containers, such as ink cartridges.

Complainants allege that each of the Proposed Respondents manufactures or purchases black and/or color ink cartridges compatible with the “HP 02” product line in China and sells such cartridges for importation into the U.S.  According to the complaint, the accused “HP 02” compatible cartridges infringe several claims of both the ‘985 and ‘630 patents.

Regarding domestic industry, Complainants name several inkjet ink supply products from the “HP 02” product line which they allege are protected by the ‘985 and ‘630 patents.  In addition, Complainants state that HP’s domestic industry activities include HP’s significant investment in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor and capital, and substantial investment in the exploitation of the ‘985 and ‘630 patents.  Complainants add that although HP does not presently manufacture its ink cartridges in the U.S., HP has conducted and continues to conduct many activities in the U.S. relating to its ink supply cartridges that practice the ‘985 and ‘630 patents.

As to related litigation, Complainants assert that on September 23, 2009, HP filed a complaint against the Proposed Respondents relating to the ‘985 and ‘630 patents in the Central District of California, which was later voluntarily dismissed on March 18, 2010.  In addition, according to the complaint, on September 23, 2009, HP filed a complaint in the ITC against the Proposed Respondents relating to the ‘985 and ‘630 patents, as well as two additional patents.  Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and Components Thereof, 337-TA-691.  On June 3, 2010, at the request of HP, however, ALJ Essex terminated the investigation with respect to the ‘985 and ‘630 patents.

With respect to potential remedy, Complainants request that the ITC issue a permanent general exclusion order (or, in the alternative, a permanent limited exclusion order) and a permanent cease-and-desist order directed to each of the Proposed Respondents.

The complaint alleges that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited of Taiwan (“TSMC”) and Samsung Electronics Company Limited of South Korea (“Samsung”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain semiconductor products made by advanced lithography techniques and products containing the same that infringe STC’s U.S. Patent No. 6,042,998 (the ‘998 patent).

According to the complaint, the ‘998 patent generally relates to lithographic methods known as “double patterning” that are used for manufacturing small feature sizes during semiconductor fabrication.  In particular, the patented invention uses two layers of “photoresist” to form features in the same device layer.  The complaint alleges that the combination of spatial frequencies obtained from each layer of developed photoresist layers achieves high spatial frequencies that are not possible with only one layer of resist material.  The high spatial frequencies that are obtained correlate to smaller device features and spaces, in particular to features and spaces smaller than 38nm in dimension.

In the complaint, STC alleges that TSMC and Samsung import and sell semiconductor chips that practice the asserted claims of the ‘998 patent.  In particular, the complaint alleges that TSMC has imported and sold 28nm prototype semiconductor chips to Altera Corporation (“Altera”) and Xilinx, Inc. (“Xilinx”) and that “[b]ecause the prototype and test chips are below 38nm in dimension, the 28nm devices that Altera and Xilinx received in the United States from TSMC necessarily infringe the ‘998 patent.”  The complaint further alleges that Samsung has sold for importation 34nm semiconductor devices, including at least a 34nm NAND flash memory chip found in Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) iPad.  The complaint states that “[b]ecause the [Samsung] chips are below 38nm in dimension, the Samsung NAND flash devices in the Apple iPad necessarily infringe the ‘998 patent.”

Regarding domestic industry, STC states that the ‘998 patent “is a significant part of STC’s overall intellectual property portfolio,” and that STC “negotiates approximately 28 technology transfer contracts per year.”  STC further states that it has 12 employees “devoted to the licensing of technology on behalf of [the University of New Mexico], including the ‘998 patent.”

Moreover, as to related litigation, STC notes that it brought a patent infringement suit against Toshiba Corporation (“Toshiba”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in March 2009 but that STC dismissed its case against Toshiba in October 2009 after Toshiba licensed the ‘998 patent from STC.  In the complaint, STC claims that the Toshiba litigation was “part of its licensing efforts” and cites the litigation as additional support for its having satisfied the domestic industry requirement.

With respect to potential remedy, STC requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease-and-desist orders directed at TSMC and Samsung.

The complaint alleges that Promethean Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia and Promethean Technology Shenzhen Ltd. of China (collectively, “Promethean”) unlawfully import into the U.S. and sell within the U.S. after importation certain collaborative system products and components thereof that infringe eInstruction’s U.S. Patent No. 6,930,673 B2 (the ‘673 patent).

According to the complaint, the ‘673 patent generally relates to a teaching system for use in school classrooms.  In particular, the patent is directed to a collaborative input system comprising a host computer, an associated display, and a plurality of electronic tablets or pads that are wirelessly connected to the host computer.  Each tablet or pad can receive input via a pen whose activity is detectable by the surface of the tablet or pad, and this input is presented on the host computer’s display.  The software running on the host computer manages and prioritizes the input from the plurality of tablets or pads.

In the complaint, eInstruction alleges that Promethean imports and sells wireless tablets under the designations “ActivSlate” and “ActivSlate 50” and that these tablets indirectly infringe all of the claims of the ‘673 patent when used according to Promethean’s instructions.  eInstruction further alleges that Promethean has tested and demonstrated the use of its “ActivSlate” and “ActivSlate 50” tablets in a teaching system that directly infringes the claims of the ‘673 patent.

Regarding domestic industry, eInstruction states that its “INTERWRITE MOBI” and “INTERWRITE PAD” products practice the claims of the ‘673 patent in the U.S.  According to the complaint, eInstruction designs, develops, and engineers the  “INTERWRITE MOBI” and “INTERWRITE PAD” products at an Arizona facility.  Software is added to the products and sales are coordinated out of eInstruction’s Texas facilities.

As to related litigation, eInstruction notes that the ‘673 patent was the subject of an earlier ITC investigation, Inv. No. 337-TA-682, and that that investigation settled.  See our December 4, 2009 post for more details about the termination of the 682 investigation.

With respect to potential remedy, eInstruction requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order — or in the alternative a permanent limited exclusion order — and a permanent cease-and-desist order directed at Promethean.

The complaint alleges that Vivax-Metrotech Corp. of Santa Clara, California, SebaKMT of Germany, and Leidi Utility Supply Ltd. of China (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain underground cable and pipe locators that infringe Radiodetection’s U.S. Patent No. 6,268,731 (the ‘731 patent).

According to the complaint, the ‘731 patent generally relates to a device for locating an electrically conductive object.  In particular, the patent is directed to a method and apparatus for measuring the position and orientation of a buried underground object such as a cable or pipe using the electromagnetic field generated by a current in the object.

In the complaint, Radiodetection alleges that the Proposed Respondents import and sell handheld cable and pipe locators under the designation “vLocPro,” and that the vLocPro directly infringes and/or induces infringement of various claims of the ‘731 patent.

Regarding domestic industry, Radiodetection states that its “RD8000” product is representative of its line of locator products that practice the claims of the ‘731 patent in the U.S.  According to the complaint, Radiodetection maintains distribution and repair facilities in Illinois and Maine and employs a significant number of personnel at those facilities.  Additionally, Radiodetection states that it expends substantial resources on marketing in the U.S. and that it has participated in numerous trade shows and conferences in the U.S.

As to related litigation, Radiodetection states that “[o]n the date of this Complaint, or immediately thereafter, Radiodetection will be filing an action against all [Proposed] Respondents identified herein, alleging infringement of at least the ‘731 patent in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.”

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

The Complaint alleges that Ataudes Aguilares, S. de R.L. de C.V. of Mexico (“Ataudes Aguilares”) unlawfully imports, sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain caskets that infringe Batesville’s U.S. Patent Nos. 5,611,124 (the ‘124 patent), 5,727,291 (the ‘291 patent), 6,836,936 (the ‘936 patent), 6,976,294 (the ‘294 patent), and 7,340,810 (the ‘810 patent) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”).

According to the Complaint, the ‘124, ‘291, ‘936, and ‘294 patents relate to caskets having a memorabilia compartment, which is a designated compartment or receptacle specifically for mementos, as an integral part of the casket.  The ’810 patent relates to an attachment mechanism permitting the quick and efficient installation and removal of ornamental corner pieces.

In the Complaint, Batesville alleges that Ataudes Aguilares imports into the U.S., sells for importation into the U.S., and/or sells within the U.S. after importation caskets with a memorabilia compartment and innovative attachment mechanism that infringe certain claims of the patents-in-suit.

Regarding domestic industry, Batesville alleges that it has significant investment in manufacturing plants and equipment and significant employment of labor and capital.  Namely, Batesville asserts that it currently employs approximately 3,300 employees in the U.S. and manufactures and assembles its patented caskets in its production facilities in Indiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee.

As to related litigation, Batesville asserts that in November 2009, Batesville filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico naming Luquillo Funeral Home and Mr. Alejandro Sanchez, J.G. Perez Memorial and Mr. Johnny Galiano, and Naranjito Memorial and Messrs. Luis Matos and Glen Matos as defendants.  Batesville asserts that several of these defendants have admitted to infringement of the patents-in-suit and have admitted under oath that Ataudes Aguilares is the supplier of the infringing caskets.  According to the Complaint, all defendants in this related litigation have executed a Consent Judgment in Batesville’s favor.

With respect to potential remedy, Batesville requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease-and-desist order directed to Ataudes Aguilares.

The complaint alleges that Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and sells within the U.S. after importation certain electronic devices with image processing systems, components thereof, and associated software (collectively, the “accused products”) that infringe S3G’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,043,087, 6,775,417, 6,683,978, and 6,658,146 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The complaint asserts that the accused products include, but are not limited to multimedia devices, smart phones, personal computers, and software for use with such devices.  The complaint specifically identifies the Apple iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad, Apple computers such as the MacBook used in conjunction with an Apple software development kit (“SDK”), and other application software.

According to the complaint, the Asserted Patents generally relate to aspects of an image processing system for encoding and decoding, including compressing image data files into a more compact form, a format for storing the compressed data, and a system for decompressing that data for display as an image.  In particular, the Asserted Patents disclose an image compression technology including an image decomposer, an encoder for computing image data values and generating codeword reference values, and a construction module for creating indices that map each image data value to a set of colors generated from the codewords.  The Asserted Patents also disclose a format for storage of encoding or compressing image data that includes a portion for storage of multiple codewords from which a set of colors can be computed and a portion for storage of indices for mapping pixel color to computed color.  Finally, the Asserted Patents disclose an image decoding or decompressing technology that includes a decomposer for processing the encoded image data stream into a header and a plurality of encoded image blocks, a header converted for generating an output image header, one or more block data decoders for generating from the codewords and indices pixel image attributes such as color for mapping those attributes to pixels, and an image composer that reassembles data blocks for a display device and/or a data file.

In the complaint, S3G alleges that Apple sells a variety of imported products, including but not limited to the Apple iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad, Apple computers such as the MacBook, certain applications for those products, and associated software that incorporate the image data compression, decompression, and/or data format disclosed and claimed in the Asserted Patents.  The complaint further alleges that Apple provides an SDK specifically adapted for use with Apple computers to compress and decompress image data files using the technology disclosed and claimed in the Asserted Patents, and that Apple’s SDK and computers generate encoded image files in the format disclosed and claimed in the Asserted Patents.

Regarding domestic industry, S3G states that it employs a work force in the U.S. that conducts research, development, engineering, product design, support, and repair in the U.S. for S3G’s products that practice the Asserted Patents, including at least the S3 Graphics, Inc. Chrome series of graphics products.  S3G further states that it operates a licensing business in the U.S. that licenses S3G’s patent portfolio (including the Asserted Patents) and that its licensees practice the Asserted Patents in the U.S.

With respect to potential remedy, S3G requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a permanent cease-and-desist order directed at Apple.

The complaint alleges that MicroJet Technology Co., Ltd. of Taiwan (“MicroJet”), Asia Pacific Microsystems, Inc. of Taiwan (“APM”), Mipo Technology Limited of Hong Kong, Mipo Science & Technology Co., Ltd. of China, Mextec d/b/a Mipo America Ltd. of Miami, Florida, SinoTime Technologies, Inc. d/b/a All Colors of Miami, Florida, and PTC Holdings Limited of Hong Kong (“PTC”) (collectively “proposed respondents”), have engaged in violations of Section 337 through the unlicensed importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and/or the sale within the United States after importation of the accused products that infringe one or more claims of United States Patent Nos. 6,234,598 (”the ‘598 patent”), 6,309,053 (”the ‘053 patent”), 6,398,347 (”the ‘347 patent”), 6,412,917 (”the ‘917 patent”), 6,481,817 (”the ‘817 patent”), and 6,402,279 (”the ‘279 patent”) (collectively, the “HP Patents”).

According to the complaint, the “technology and products at issue generally relate to thermal inkjet printing devices, and more particularly to inkjet ink cartridges that include a component portion, known as a printhead.”  Specifically, (1) the ‘598 patent “primarily relates to an inkjet printhead, having a large number of ink ejectors, that reduces the number of interconnections needed to energize heater resistors (that power the ink ejectors) by using shared electrical ground returns,” (2) the ‘053 patent “primarily relates to inkjet printheads that include heater resistors that fire an ink drop when selected,” (3) the ‘347 patent “relates to uniformly energized heater resistors in an inkjet printhead,” (4) the ‘917 patent “relates to a narrow inkjet printhead having efficient FET drive circuits that are configured to compensate for parasitic resistances of power traces,” and (5) the ‘817 and ‘279 patents “relate[ ] to the transfer of drop generator activation information from a printer to a print cartridge to eject ink onto a print medium based on the image to be printed.”

In the complaint, HP alleges that MicroJet and/or APM manufacture infringing ink cartridges, and the remaining proposed respondents import those products into the United States, sell them for importation into the United States, and/or sell them after they have been imported into the United States.  HP further alleges that at least MicroJet and/or APM are contributory infringers of the HP Patents because their products are not staple articles or commodities, but rather are known to be particularly adapted for use in practicing the inventions of the HP Patents.  The complaint specifically identifies the following as infringing products:  Mipo’s HP 57-compatible color ink cartridge (product code MP 57 – C6657A) and HP 28-compatible color ink cartridge (product code MP 28 – C8728A); PTC’s HP 21-compatible black ink cartridge (product codes HC 21; HC 21XL – C9351) and HP 22-compatible color ink cartridges (product codes HC 22XL – C9352).

As to the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, the complaint asserts that ink cartridges from the following HP product families practice the asserted claims of the HP Patents:  HP 21, HP 22, HP 27, HP 28, HP 54, HP 56, HP 57, HP 58, and HP 59.  Examples of specific ink cartridges from these product families include: (i) the C6657A, C8728A, C9352A, C9352C, C9352D, and CB278A color ink cartridges; (ii) the C6656A, C8727A, C9351A, C9351C, C9351D, and CB334A black ink cartridges and (iii) the C9359A, and CC6658A photo print cartridges.

With respect to the economic prong of the domestic industry, the complaint alleges that HP has conducted and continues to conduct activities with respect to the design and development, manufacturing administration and control, sourcing, packaging, distribution, warranty and returns, and sales and marketing activities relating to the domestic industry products.  The complaint further alleges that HP has made and/or continues to make significant U.S. investments in the facilities, labor, equipment and/or capital to support these activities, as well as significant investments in the exploitation of the HP Patents.

Regarding related litigation, HP asserts in the complaint that on May 20, 2010, HP and HPDC filed a complaint against proposed respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California relating to the same HP Patents in Case No. CV-10-2175-HRL.  The complaint also identifies that on March 5, 2010, HP filed a complaint with the ITC against the several of the same proposed respondents, and that HP moved to terminate the Investigation based on a withdrawal of the March 5, 2010 complaint.  See our March 8, 2010 post.  HP also identified that it filed on March 5, 2010, and then voluntarily dismissed on May 20, 2010, a complaint against several of the same proposed respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California relating to the same HP Patents in Case No. CV-I0-00965-EMC.

As to potential remedy, HP requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order (or, in the alternative, a permanent limited exclusion order), and permanent cease and desist orders directed to the proposed respondents.