On June 14, 2017, the International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) issued the public version of its opinion in Certain Carbon Spine Board, Cervical Collar and Various Medical Training Manikin Devices, and Trademarks, Copyrights of Product Catalogues, Product Inserts and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-1008).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a March 21, 2016 complaint filed by Laerdal Medical Corp. and Laerdal Medical AS (collectively, “Complainants”) alleging violation of Section 337 by way of unlawful importation into the U.S., selling for importation, and/or selling within the U.S. after importation of certain carbon spine board, cervical collar, and various medical training manikin devices, and accompanying product catalogs, product inserts, literature, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,090,058 (“the ’058 patent”) and 6,170,486 (“the ’486 patent”) and/or certain copyrights, trade dress rights, and trademarks. However, the investigation was instituted with respect to only claim 1 of the ’058 patent and certain copyrights, mark, and trade dresses. See our March 21, 2016 and June 29, 2016 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively. On November 21, 2016, the ALJ issued an initial determination (“ID”) finding all respondents in default for failing to respond to the complaint and Notice of Investigation. The Commission declined to review the default ID and, assuming all factual allegations against the defaulted respondents as true, considered whether there was a Section 337 violation and the appropriate remedy. Complainants sought (and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations supported) a limited exclusion order against all respondents and a cease and desist order against one domestic defaulting respondent.

Read More

On May 5, 2017, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued its opinion vacating the Initial Determination (“ID”) granting a motion of summary determination of non-infringement in in Certain Access Control Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-1016) and remanding the case to ALJ Thomas B. Pender.

By way of background, this investigation is based on a July 5, 2016 complaint filed by The Chamberlain Group, Inc. of Elmhurst, Illinois alleging violation of Section 337 by way of unlawful importation into the U.S., selling for importation, and/or selling within the U.S. after importation certain access control systems and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,161,319; 7,196,611; and 7,339,336. See our July 5, 2016 and August 12, 2016 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Read More

On March 20, 2017, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice, opinion, and general exclusion order (“GEO”) in Certain Woven Textile Fabrics and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-976).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a complaint filed by AAVN alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain woven textile fabrics and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,131,790. AAVN also alleged in a second amended complaint violations of Section 337 based upon false advertising claims. See our October 5, 2015 and December 17, 2015 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Read More

On February 13, 2017, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued the public version of its opinion finding a violation of Section 337 in Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes and Chargers Therefor, and Kits Containing The Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-959).

By way of background, this investigation is based on an April 30, 2015 complaint filed by Pacific Bioscience Laboratories, Inc. (“PBL”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain electric skin care devices, brushes and chargers therefor, and kits containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,320,691; 7,386,906; and D523,809, in addition to infringing PBL's trade dress. See our May 11, 2015 and June 19, 2015 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Read More

On January 26, 2017, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued its opinion finding a violation of Section 337 in Certain Lithium Metal Oxide Cathode Materials, Lithium-Ion Batteries for Power Tool Products Containing Same, and Power Tool Products with Lithium-Ion Batteries Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-951).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a February 20, 2015 complaint filed by BASF Corp. (“BASF”) and UChicago Argonne LLC (“Argonne” or “ANL”) (collectively, “Complainants”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S., sale for importation, and/or sale within the U.S. after importation of certain lithium metal oxide cathode materials, lithium-ion batteries containing same, and products with lithium-ion batteries containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,677,082 (“the ’082 patent”) and 6,680,143 (“the ’143 patent”). See our February 23, 2015 and April 1, 2015 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively. On February 29,2016, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued his final Initial Determination (“ID”) finding a violation of Section 337 by Respondents Umicore N.V. and Umicore USA Inc. (collectively, “Umicore”) in connection with claims 1-4, 7, 13, and 14 of the ’082 patent and claims 1-4, 8, 9, and 17 of the ’143 patent. See our March 1, 2016 post for more details regarding the ID.

Read More

On February 1, 2017, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued its opinion finding a violation of Section 337 in Certain Table Saws Incorporating Active Injury Mitigation Technology and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-965).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a July 16, 2015 complaint filed by SawStop, LLC and SD3, LLC (collectively, “SawStop”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondents Robert Bosch Tool Corporation and Robert Bosch GmbH (collectively, “Bosch”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain table saws incorporating active injury mitigation technology and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,225,712 (“the ’712 patent”); 7,600,455 (“the ’455 patent”); 7,610,836 (“the ’836 patent”); 7,895,927 (“the ’927 patent”); 8,011,279 (“the ’279 patent”); and 8,191,450 (“the ’450 patent”). See our July 16, 2015 and August 28, 2015 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively. The Commission terminated the investigation with respect to the ’836 and ’450 patents based on SawStop’s withdrawal of its allegations concerning those patents.

Read More

On January 30, 2017, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued its opinion construing two terms of U.S. Patent No. 6,082,616 (“the ’616 patent”) in Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-972).

Read More

Further to our August 5, 2016 post, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued its opinion on August 16, 2016 reversing an initial determination (“ID”) suspending the investigation in Certain Carbon Alloy Steel Products (Inv. No. 337-TA-1002).

By way of background, this investigation was instituted based on a complaint filed by U.S. Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”) alleging a violation of section 337 by numerous Chinese steel producers and distributors—as well as certain Hong Kong and U.S. affiliates—by reason of: (1) a conspiracy to fix prices and control output and export volumes, the threat or effect of which is to restrain or monopolize trade and commerce in the U.S.; (2) misappropriation and use of trade secrets, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the U.S.; and (3) false designation of origin of manufacturer, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the U.S.

Read More

On July 26, 2016, the International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) issued the public version of its opinion in Certain Network Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-944).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a December 19, 2014 complaint filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) alleging that the respondent, Arista Networks, Inc. (“Arista”), unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, sells within the U.S. after importation, and/or uses within the U.S. after importation certain networking equipment and components and software thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,162,537 (the ’537 patent), 8,356,296 (later terminated from the investigation by Cisco), 7,290,164 (the ’164 patent), 7,340,597 (the ’597 patent), 6,741,592 (the ’592 patent), and 7,200,145 (the ’145 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”).  See our December 29, 2014 and February 5, 2015 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.

Read More

On July 6, 2016, the International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) issued the public version of its opinion in Certain Footwear Products (Inv. No. 337-TA-936).

By way of background, this investigation is based on an August 18, 2014 complaint filed by Converse Inc. (“Converse”) alleging that the respondents unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain footwear products that violate registered and common law trademarks used in connection with certain Converse shoes.  The complaint further alleged violations of section 337 based upon unfair competition/false designation of origin, common law trademark infringement and unfair competition, and trademark dilution.  See our October 15, 2014 and November 14, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.  Most of the named respondents were subsequently either found in default or terminated from the investigation based on good cause or settlement and/or consent order stipulation.

Read More