Commission Opinions
By author; ?>
|
Aug
31
On August 11, 2017, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued an opinion in Certain UV Curable Coatings for Optical Fibers, Coated Optical Fibers, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-1031). In the opinion, the Commission determined to review ALJ MaryJoan McNamara’s initial determination (“ID”) finding certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,706,659 (the ’659 patent) invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, and, on review, to reverse and vacate the ID.
Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Aug
25
On August 15, 2017, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued its opinion in the consolidated enforcement and rescission proceeding stemming from the underlying investigation in Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-929). In the opinion, the Commission determined to (i) reverse the finding in ALJ Theodore R. Essex’s enforcement initial determination (“EID”) that the remedial orders in the underlying investigation cannot be enforced due to a lack of domestic industry; (ii) find that the complainants had failed to show that the respondents possessed the intent necessary to violate the remedial orders; (iii) decline to rescind the remedial orders; and (iv) terminate the consolidated enforcement and rescission proceeding.

By way of background, the underlying investigation is based on an August 4, 2014 complaint filed by Adrian Rivera and Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, “ARM”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain beverage brewing capsules, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,720,320 (the ’320 patent). See our August 6, 2014 and September 11, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively. On March 17, 2016, the Commission issued its final determination in the underlying investigation and issued a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and cease-and-desist orders (“CDOs”) directed at Eko Brands, LLC and other respondents based on their infringement of claims 8 and 19 of the ’320 patent.
Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Aug
21
On August 3, 2017, the International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) issued its opinion in Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-989).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a complaint filed by Nautilus Hyosung, Inc. and Nautilus Hyosung America Inc. (collectively, “Nautilus”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondents Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. and Diebold Self-Service Systems (collectively, “Diebold”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,891,551 (“the ’551 patent”); 7,950,655 (“the ’655 patent”); 8,152,165 (“the ’165 patent”); and 8,523,235 (“the ’235 patent”). See our February 9, 2016 and March 10, 2016 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively. The ALJ previously granted motions by Nautilus to terminate the investigation as to all asserted claims of the ’551, ’165, and ’655 patents. After holding an evidentiary hearing in November 2016, the ALJ issued a final initial determination (“ID”) on March 13, 2017 finding a violation of Section 337 by Diebold in connection with the ’235 patent. Specifically, the ID found that the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over the accused products, and in personam jurisdiction over Diebold. The ID also found that Nautilus satisfied the importation requirement, that the accused products directly infringed claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 9 of the ’235 patent, and that Diebold contributorily infringed such claims. The ID further found that Diebold failed to establish that the asserted claims of the ’235 patent are invalid for indefiniteness, anticipation, or obviousness. Finally, the ID found that Nautilus established the existence of a domestic industry that practices the ’235 patent. Accordingly, the ALJ recommended issuance of a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) prohibiting the importation of Diebold's automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe the asserted claims of the ’235 patent. The ALJ also recommended issuance of cease-and-desist orders based on the presence of Diebold’s commercially significant inventory in the U.S.
Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Jun
23
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.
Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
May
10
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.
Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Mar
27
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.
Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Feb
20
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.
Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Feb
08
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.
Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Feb
03
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.
Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Feb
01
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).
Share

Read More

Next Page