Enforcement Complaints

Richtek Files Enforcement Complaint In Certain DC-DC Controllers (337-TA-698)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
25
On July 21, 2011, Richtek Technology Corp. of Taiwan and Richtek USA, Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively, “Richtek”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-698) against uPI Semiconductor Corp. of Taiwan (“uPI”) and Sapphire Technology Limited of Hong Kong (“Sapphire”) (collectively, the “Proposed Enforcement Respondents”) for alleged violations of consent orders that had been issued by the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) on August 13, 2010. By way of background, the Commission instituted the underlying investigation on December 29, 2009 based on Richtek’s complaint of December 2, 2009 and subsequent filings.  See our December 30, 2009 post for more details.  According to the enforcement complaint, on July 20, 2010 — a week before the scheduled evidentiary hearing in the underlying investigation — the Proposed Enforcement Respondents unilaterally moved to terminate the investigation as to them on the basis of stipulated consent orders.  On July 21, 2010, Richtek opposed the Proposed Enforcement Respondents’ motion because the stipulated consent order failed to include customary language requiring not only uPI but also “their affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries or other related business entities, or their successors or assigns” as well as their “officers, directors, and agents” to abide by the consent order.  On July 21, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) granting the Proposed Enforcement Respondents’ motion.  On August 13, 2010, the Commission issued a notice determining not to review the ID, and issued consent orders to the Proposed Enforcement Respondents.  According to the enforcement complaint, uPI’s consent order requires it to “not import into the United States, sell for importation into the United States, or sell or offer for sale in the United States after importation, or knowingly aid, abet, encourage, participate in, or induce importation into the United States, the sale for importation into the United States, or the sale, offer for sale, or use in the United States after importation, without the consent or agreement of Richtek, any DC-DC controllers or products containing same which infringe claims 1-11, 26, or 27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,315,190 [], claims 29 or 34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,414,470 [], or claims 1-3 or 6-9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,132,717 [], or which are produced using or which contain Richtek’s asserted trade secrets.”  Sapphire’s consent order is substantially similar to uPI’s. In the enforcement complaint, Richtek alleges that uPi has violated its consent order by continuing to import, offer for sale, or sell for importation DC-DC controllers or products containing the same into the United States that use or contain Richtek’s trade secrets and infringe Richtek’s patents.  The enforcement complaint further alleges that uPI has violated the consent order by encouraging customers to purchase products that violate Richtek’s trade secrets and patents after the consent order was issued, by continuing to supply the accused DC-DC controllers, and by participating in the importation of products that violate Richtek’s trade secrets and infringe Richtek’s patents by the design-in of its DC-DC controllers.  The enforcement complaint also alleges that Sapphire has violated its consent order by continuing to approve and purchase uPI DC-DC controllers knowing that they use or contain Richtek’s trade secrets and infringe Richtek’s patents, and by continuing to import and sell products containing the accused DC-DC controllers in the United States.  In view of these alleged violations of the Commission’s consent orders, Richtek requests that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.75.  With respect to potential remedy, Richtek requests that the Commission revoke the consent orders and issue a permanent general exclusion order, issue a permanent limited exclusion order, or modify the consent orders so that the Proposed Enforcement Respondents’ affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, or other related business entities, or their successors or assigns as well as their officers, directors, and agents must abide by the consent orders.  Richtek further requests that the Commission impose civil penalties for violation of the consent orders, and if necessary, bring a civil action in an appropriate U.S. District Court requesting the imposition of such civil penalties or the issuance of such injunctions as the Commission deems necessary to enforce its orders and protect the public interest.  Richtek also requests that the Commission issue permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Enforcement Respondents, their affiliates, and others acting on their behalf.  Lastly, Richtek requests that the Commission impose other remedies and sanctions as are appropriate and within the Commission’s authority, including attorneys’ fees.
Share

Read More

Align Files Enforcement Complaint In Certain Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment Appliances (337-TA-562)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
05
On March 1, 2012, Align Technology, Inc. of San Jose, California (“Align”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment Appliances and Methods of Producing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-562) against ClearCorrect Operating, LLC of Houston, Texas (“ClearCorrect USA”), ClearCorrect Pakistan (Private), Ltd. of Pakistan (“ClearCorrect Pakistan”), Mr. Mudassar Rathore c/o ClearCorrect Pakistan, Mr. Waqas Wahab c/o ClearCorrect Pakistan, Mr. Nadeem Arif c/o ClearCorrect Pakistan, and Dr. Asim Waheed c/o ClearCorrect Pakistan (collectively, the “Proposed Enforcement Respondents”) for alleged violations of a consent order that was filed on October 13, 2006 and granted by the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) on October 27, 2006. By way of background, the Commission instituted the underlying investigation on February 9, 2006 based on Align’s complaint of January 11, 2006.  The underlying complaint named OrthoClear, Inc., OrthoClear Holdings, Inc., and OrthoClear Pakistan Pvt, Ltd. (collectively, “OrthoClear”) as Respondents.  According to the enforcement complaint, on October 27, 2006, ALJ Robert L. Barton, Jr. issued an Initial Determination granting the parties’ joint motion to terminate the investigation and entered a consent order, which the Commission elected not to review on November 13, 2006. According to the enforcement complaint, the consent order requires OrthoClear and its “officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, successors, and assigns, and all persons, firms, or corporations acting or claiming to act on its behalf or under its direction or authority” to refrain from selling for importation, importing into the U.S., or selling in the U.S. after importation the articles of record in the underlying investigation and “any other articles manufactured in violation of” any of the claims of the asserted patents and/or Align’s trade secrets.  The consent order further prohibits aiding, abetting, encouraging, participating in, or inducing the importation into the U.S. or sale in the U.S. after importation of any of the articles at issue. According to the enforcement complaint, the Proposed Enforcement Respondents are the successors to the various OrthoClear entities, and/or former “officers, directors, agents, servants, [or] employees” of the various OrthoClear entities.  In the enforcement complaint, Align alleges that “[a]lthough the Proposed Enforcement Respondents are therefore bound by the Consent Order and have full knowledge thereof, they refuse to abide by its terms or to conform their conduct to the directives of the Commission.”  Specifically, Align alleges that the Proposed Enforcement Respondents have violated the consent order by way of their:  (i) sale for importation, importation, or sale after importation of the relevant digital data sets; and/or (ii) their manufacturing of dental positioning adjustment appliances using the digital data sets by way of the processes, systems and techniques recited in one or more claims of the asserted patents; and/or (iii) the aiding, abetting, encouraging, participating in, or inducing the foregoing. In view of these alleged violations of the Commission’s consent order, Align requests that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.75.  Align further states that, concurrently with the filing of the instant enforcement complaint, it is also filing a new ITC complaint naming ClearCorrect USA and ClearCorrect Pakistan as Proposed Respondents.  See our March 2, 2012 post for more details. With respect to potential remedy, Align requests that the Commission issue a permanent cease and desist order prohibiting the Proposed Enforcement Respondents and parties acting in concert with them from engaging in illegal activities.  Align further requests that the Commission modify the consent order in any manner that would assist in the prevention of the unfair practices that were originally the basis for issuing such orders or assist in the detection of violations of such orders.  Additionally, Align requests that the Commission impose any available civil penalties for violation of the consent order, and if necessary, bring a civil action in an appropriate U.S. district court pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.75(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1337(f) requesting the imposition of such civil penalties or the issuance of such injunctions as the Commission deems necessary to enforce its orders and protect the public interest.  Lastly, Align requests that the Commission impose such other remedies and sanctions as are appropriate and within the Commission’s authority.
Share

Read More

Apple Files Enforcement Complaint And Requests Temporary Emergency Action In Certain Personal Data And Mobile Communications Devices (337-TA-710)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
06
On June 4, 2012, Apple Inc., f/k/a  Apple Computer, Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software(Inv. No. 337-TA-710).  In the enforcement complaint, Apple alleges that High Tech Computer Corp. a/k/a HTC Corp. of Taiwan and HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington (collectively, “HTC”) have violated the Commission’s December 19, 2011 limited exclusion order (“LEO”) in the underlying investigation. By way of background, the Commission instituted the underlying investigation on March 31, 2010 based on Apple’s complaint of March 2, 2010.  See our April 1, 2010 post for more details.  On July 15, 2011, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) finding, inter alia, that HTC violated Section 337 through its importation, use, and sale of personal data and mobile communications devices that infringe valid claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 (the ‘647 patent).  See our September 2, 2011 post for more details.  On December 19, 2011, the Commission issued an opinion modifying ALJ Charneski’s ID but upholding the finding of a violation of Section 337 based on HTC’s infringement of claims 1 and 8 of the ‘647 patent.  See our January 11, 2012 post for more details.  On the same day, the Commission issued an LEO identifying HTC by name.  The LEO went into effect on April 19, 2012. According to the enforcement complaint, the LEO prohibits from “entry for consumption into the United States, entry for consumption from a foreign trade zone, or withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption” “[p]ersonal data and mobile communication devices and related software covered by claims 1 or 8 of the ‘647 patent.”  Apple states that this includes HTC’s line of Android-based smartphones and tablets, which are manufactured abroad and imported into the U.S. for sale. In the enforcement complaint, Apple alleges that while HTC is expressly bound by the LEO and has full knowledge thereof, HTC has refused to abide by the LEO’s provisions or to conform its conduct to the Commission’s directives.  In particular, Apple alleges that HTC is importing for consumption into the U.S., importing for consumption from a foreign trade zone, and/or withdrawing from a warehouse for consumption personal data and mobile communications devices that infringe claims 1 or 8 of the ‘647 patent in violation of the LEO.  Apple specifically refers to Android-based HTC smartphones—such as the HTC One X, HTC One S, and HTC EVO 4G LTE—and Android-based HTC tablets as infringing products. In view of these alleged violations of the LEO, Apple requests that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.75 and impose sanctions against HTC.  Apple also requests that the Commission take temporary emergency action pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.77 in order to remedy the substantial harm caused by HTC’s continued violations of the LEO.  In particular, Apple requests that the Commission immediately modify the LEO to make express that all of HTC’s Android-based smartphones and tablets are excluded from entry for consumption into the U.S., entry for consumption from a foreign trade zone, or withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption pending resolution of the enforcement proceeding.  Apple further requests that the Commission impose a cease and desist order (“CDO”) barring HTC from importing, offering for sale, selling, advertising, or distributing in the U.S. all HTC Android-based smartphones and tablets during the pendency of the enforcement proceeding.  As an alternative to the CDO and excluding all HTC Android-based smartphones and tablets, Apple requests that the Commission modify the LEO to impose a bond equivalent to 100% of the domestic value of each imported HTC device during the pendency of the enforcement proceeding.  Lastly, Apple states that if the Commission declines to impose a 100% bond, it should at least modify the LEO to impose a bond, based on the price differential, equal to $290 for each imported HTC Android-based smartphone or tablet. With respect to potential remedy in the enforcement proceeding, Apple requests that the Commission modify the LEO and issue a permanent CDO directed at HTC and parties acting in concert with HTC.  Additionally, Apple requests that the Commission impose any available civil penalties for violation of the LEO, and if necessary, bring a civil action in an appropriate U.S. district court pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.75(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1337(f) requesting the imposition of such civil penalties or the issuance of such injunctions as the Commission deems necessary to enforce its orders and protect the public interest.  Apple also requests that the Commission order the forfeiture to Apple in the full amount of any bonds posted by HTC or any importers of HTC Android-based smartphones or tablets during the pendency of the enforcement proceeding.  Lastly, Apple requests that the Commission impose such other remedies and sanctions as are appropriate and within the Commission’s authority.
Share

Read More

Isola Files Enforcement Complaint In Certain Prepregs, Laminates, And Finished Circuit Boards (337-TA-659)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
22
On August 17, 2012, Isola USA Corp. of Chandler, Arizona (“Isola”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Prepregs, Laminates, and Finished Circuit Boards (Inv. No. 337-TA-659).  The enforcement complaint alleges that Taiwan Union Technology Corp. of Taiwan (“TUC”) violated a consent order that had been entered in the underlying investigation. By way of background, the Commission instituted the underlying investigation on November 12, 2008 based on Isola’s complaint of October 6, 2008.  The underlying complaint named multiple entities—including TUC—as Respondents.  According to the enforcement complaint, on March 12, 2009, ALJ Charles E. Bullock entered a consent order between Isola and TUC, which the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) elected not to review on April 10, 2009. According to the enforcement complaint, the consent order requires that “TUC shall not import, sell for importation, or sell after importation into the United States, or knowingly aid, abet, encourage, participate in, or induce the importation into the United States of prepregs and laminates that are the subject of this Investigation, or otherwise infringe, or induce, and/or contribute to the infringement of claims 1-3, 5 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,187,852 [(the ‘852 patent)], and claims 1, 2, 4, and 7-9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,322,885 [(the ‘885 patent)] (collectively, the Asserted Claims) except under consent or license from Isola, its successors, or assigns.” In the enforcement complaint, Isola alleges that TUC and/or parties acting in concert with TUC have violated the consent order by manufacturing abroad, selling for importation into the U.S., importing into the U.S., using, and/or selling with the U.S. after importation certain prepregs and laminates that are covered by at least one claim of the ‘852 patent and at least one claim of the ‘885 patent.  In view of these alleged violations of the consent order, Isola requests that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.75. As to related litigation, Isola states that on July 25, 2012, it sued TUC for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on two patents directed to related technology. With respect to potential remedy, Isola requests that the Commission issue a permanent cease and desist order prohibiting TUC and parties acting in concert with it from engaging in illegal activities.  Isola further requests that the Commission modify the consent order in any manner that would assist in the prevention of the unfair practices that were originally the basis for issuing the consent order.  Additionally, Isola requests that the Commission impose civil penalties pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(f), and if necessary, bring a civil action in an appropriate U.S. district court to recover such civil penalties.  Lastly, Isola requests that the Commission impose such other remedies and sanctions as are appropriate and within the Commission’s authority.
Share

Read More

Leviton Files Enforcement Complaint In Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters (337-TA-739)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
04
On August 29, 2012, Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. of Melville, New York (“Leviton”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-739).  The enforcement complaint alleges that Menard, Inc. of Eau Claire, Wisconsin (“Menard”), Shanghai ELE Manufacturing Corp. of China (“Shanghai ELE”), Shanghai Jia AO Electrical Co., Ltd. of China (“Shanghai Jia AO”), Westside Wholesale Electric & Lighting, Inc., Westside Electric Wholesale, Inc., and Westside Wholesale, Inc.—all of Los Angeles, California and/or Bell, California—(collectively, “Westside”), American Ace Supply Inc. of San Francisco, California (“American Ace”), and American Electric Depot Inc. of Fresh Meadows, New York (“AED”) have violated cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) and/or a general exclusion order (“GEO”) that had been entered in the underlying investigation. By way of background, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) instituted the underlying investigation on October 5, 2010 based on Leviton’s complaint of September 3, 2010.  See our October 7, 2010 post for more details.  The underlying complaint named multiple entities—including Menard, Shanghai ELE, Shanghai Jia AO, AED, Westside, and American Ace—as proposed Respondents.  On December 22, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) finding Menard, Westside, and American Ace in default.  The Commission determined not to review the ID.  On December 20, 2011, ALJ Bullock issued an ID finding no violation of Section 337 by, inter alia, Shanghai ELE, Shanghai Jia AO, and AED.  The Commission determined to review the ID and, on April 27, 2012, the Commission issued a notice finding a violation of Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,737,809 (the ‘809 patent).  The Commission entered CDOs against certain defaulting Respondents including Menard, Westside, and American Ace, as well as a GEO.  See our May 3, 2012 post for more details. In the enforcement complaint, Leviton alleges that Menard, Westside, and American Ace have violated the CDOs entered against them.  In particular, Leviton accuses Menard of continuing to sell products that infringe the ‘809 patent and of selling products that infringe the ‘809 patent during the Presidential Review Period without posting a bond.  Leviton further accuses Menard of submitting an inaccurate report to the Commission falsely stating that it had ceased selling ground fault circuit interrupters (“GFCIs”) that infringe the ‘809 patent.  Leviton also accuses Westside and American Ace of continuing to sell infringing GFCIs (and of selling infringing GFCIs during the Presidential Review Period without posting a bond). Leviton also alleges in the enforcement complaint that Shanghai ELE, Shanghai Jia AO, and AED have violated the GEO.  In particular, Leviton alleges that these entities have continued to import products that infringe the ‘809 patent after entry of the GEO and have not posted a bond in accordance with the GEO. In view of these alleged violations of the CDOs and GEO, Leviton requests that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.75.  With respect to potential remedy, Leviton requests that the Commission modify the CDOs in any manner that would assist in the prevention of the unfair practices that were originally the basis for issuing the orders or assist in the detection of violations of the orders.  Leviton further requests that the Commission impose civil penalties for violation of the CDOs, and if necessary, bring a civil action in an appropriate U.S. district court pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.75(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1337(f) requesting the imposition of such civil penalties or the issuance of such injunctions as the Commission deems necessary to enforce its orders and protect the public interest.  Leviton also requests that the Commission refer Menard to the U.S. Department of Justice based on its false and/or inaccurate Compliance Report as a possible criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.  Lastly, Leviton requests that the Commission impose such other remedies and sanctions as are appropriate and within the Commission’s authority.
Share

Read More

Andrzej Bobel And Neptun File Enforcement Complaint In Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps (337-TA-830)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
22
On February 19, 2013, Andrzej Bobel and Neptun Light, Inc. (“Neptun”) (collectively, “Complainants”)—both of Lake Forest, Illinois—filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-830).  The enforcement complaint alleges that Maxlite, Inc. f/k/a SK America, Inc. of West Caldwell, New Jersey (“Maxlite”) has violated a consent order entered in the underlying investigation. By way of background, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) instituted the underlying investigation on February 22, 2012 based on the Complainants’ complaint of January 23, 2012 and subsequent filings.  See our February 23, 2012 post for more details.  On June 15, 2012, Maxlite moved to terminate the investigation as to itself and for entry of a proposed consent order.  ALJ Thomas B. Pender granted Maxlite’s motion, terminated the investigation as to Maxlite, and entered the consent order on July 11, 2012.  See our July 16, 2012 post for more details.  In the consent order, Maxlite agreed that it would not import or sell dimmable compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) that infringe claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 5,434,480 (the ‘480 patent). In the enforcement complaint, the Complainants allege that Maxlite has violated the consent order by resuming the manufacture, importation, and sale after importation of dimmable CFLs that infringe claim 9 of the ‘480 patent.  The enforcement complaint specifically refers to a Model No. MLS20GUDWW dimmable CFL as an infringing product. In view of this alleged violation of the consent order, the Complainants request that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.75.  With respect to potential remedy, the Complainants request that the Commission issue a permanent cease and desist order prohibiting Maxlite and parties acting in concert with it from engaging in illegal activities.  The Complainants further request that the Commission modify ALJ Pender’s consent order in any manner that would assist in the prevention of the unfair practices that were originally the basis for the consent order.  The Complainants also request that the Commission impose civil penalties pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(f), and if necessary, bring an appropriate civil action in a U.S. district court to recover such civil penalties.  Lastly, the Complainants request that the Commission impose such other remedies and sanctions as are appropriate and within the Commission’s authority.
Share

Read More

BriarTek Files Enforcement Complaint In Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices (337-TA-854)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
11
On April 10, 2013, BriarTek IP, Inc. of Alexandria, Virginia (“BriarTek”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-854).  The enforcement complaint alleges that DeLorme Publishing Co., Inc. and DeLorme InReach LLC d/b/a InReach LLC (collectively, “DeLorme”)—both of Yarmouth, Maine—have violated a consent order entered in the underlying investigation. By way of background, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) instituted the underlying investigation on September 18, 2012 based on BriarTek’s complaint of August 17, 2012 and subsequent filings.  See our September 19, 2012 post for more details.  On March 7, 2013, DeLorme moved to terminate the investigation and for entry of a proposed consent order.  ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. granted DeLorme’s motion on March 15, 2013.  See our March 19, 2013 post for more details.  In the consent order, DeLorme agreed that it would not import or sell two-way global satellite communication devices, systems, or components thereof that infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,991,380 (the ‘380 patent) after April 1, 2013. In the enforcement complaint, BriarTek alleges that DeLorme has been infringing and inducing others to infringe the ‘380 patent since April 2, 2013.  The enforcement complaint specifically refers to InReach 1.0, 1.5, and SE devices, and Iridium 9602 and 9603 satellite modems, as infringing products. In view of these alleged violations of the consent order, BriarTek requests that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.75.  With respect to potential remedy, BriarTek requests that the Commission issue a permanent cease and desist order prohibiting DeLorme and parties acting in concert with it from engaging in illegal activities.  BriarTek further requests that the Commission modify ALJ Rogers’s consent order in any manner that would assist in the prevention of the unfair practices that were originally the basis for the consent order, or in the detection of any further violations.  BriarTek also requests that the Commission impose civil penalties pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(f), and if necessary, bring an appropriate civil action in a U.S. district court to recover such civil penalties.  Lastly, BriarTek requests that the Commission impose such other remedies and sanctions as are appropriate and within the Commission’s authority.
Share

Read More

Navico Files Enforcement Complaint In Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan And Sidescan Devices (337-TA-921)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
16
On February 16, 2016, Navico, Inc. of Tulsa, Oklahoma and Navico Holding AS of Norway (collectively, “Navico”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan and Sidescan Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-921).  The enforcement complaint alleges that Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. (collectively, “Garmin”)—both of Olathe, Kansas—have violated cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) issued in the underlying investigation.

By way of background, the underling investigation is based on a June 9, 2014 complaint filed by Navico alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain marine sonar imaging devices, including downscan and sidescan devices, products containing the same, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,305,840 (the ‘840 patent), 8,300,499 (the ‘499 patent), and 8,605,550 (the ‘550 patent).  See our July 11, 2014 post for more details on the underlying investigation.  On December 1, 2015, the Commission issued its final determination finding a violation of Section 337 by Garmin and others based on infringement of certain claims of the ‘840 and ‘550 patents.  The Commission issued a limited exclusion order and CDOs directed at Garmin.
Share

Read More

ARM Files Enforcement Complaint In Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules (337-TA-929)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
06
On June 1, 2016, Adrian Rivera of Whittier, California and Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. of La Mirada, California (collectively, “ARM”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-929).  The enforcement complaint alleges that Eko Brands, LLC of Woodinville, Washington (“Eko”) and Espresso Supply, Inc. of Seattle, Washington (“Espresso Supply”) have violated a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) issued in the underlying investigation.

By way of background, the underlying investigation is based on an August 4, 2014 complaint filed by 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.  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 and issued an LEO and CDOs directed at Eko and others after finding these entities in default.  According to the enforcement complaint, Espresso Supply recently purchased Eko.
Share

Read More

Cisco Systems Files Enforcement Complaint In Certain Network Devices (337-TA-944)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
01
On August 26, 2016, Cisco Systems, Inc. of San Jose, California (“Cisco”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (I) (Inv. No. 337-TA-944).  The enforcement complaint alleges that Arista Networks, Inc. of Santa Clara, California (“Arista”) has violated a cease and desist order (“CDO”) issued in the underlying investigation.

By way of background, the underlying investigation is based on a December 19, 2014 complaint filed by Cisco alleging that 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 network devices, related software, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of, inter alia, U.S. Patent No. 7,162,537 (the ’537 patent).  See our December 29, 2014 and February 5, 2015 posts for more details on the underlying investigation.  On June 23, 2016, the Commission issued its final determination finding a violation of Section 337 by Arista based on, inter alia, infringement of certain claims of the ’537 patent.  The Commission issued a limited exclusion order and a CDO directed at Arista.  See our August 16, 2016 post for more details on the Commission’s opinion.
Share

Read More

Navico Files Enforcement Complaint In Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan And Sidescan Devices (337-TA-921)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
02
On August 31, 2016, Navico, Inc. of Tulsa, Oklahoma and Navico Holding AS of Norway (collectively, “Navico”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan and Sidescan Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-921).  The enforcement complaint alleges that Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. (collectively, “Garmin”)—both of Olathe, Kansas—have violated cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) issued in the underlying investigation.

By way of background, the underlying investigation is based on a June 9, 2014 complaint filed by Navico alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain marine sonar imaging devices, including downscan and sidescan devices, products containing the same, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,305,840 (the ’840 patent), 8,300,499 (the ’499 patent), and 8,605,550 (the ‘550 patent).  See our July 11, 2014 post for more details on the underlying investigation.  On December 1, 2015, the Commission issued its final determination finding a violation of Section 337 by Garmin and others based on infringement of certain claims of the ‘840 and ‘550 patents, and issued a limited exclusion order and CDOs directed at Garmin.  On August 18, 2016, the Commission issued a modified limited exclusion order clarifying that certain components being imported by Garmin are covered by the original limited exclusion order.
Share

Read More

Nautilus Hyosung Files Enforcement Complaint In Certain Automated Teller Machines (337-TA-989)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
06
On November 17, 2017, Nautilus Hyosung Inc. of South Korea and Nautilus Hyosung America Inc. of Irving, Texas (collectively, “Nautilus Hyosung”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-989). The enforcement complaint alleges that Diebold Nixdorf Inc. and Diebold Self-Service Systems (collectively, “Diebold”)—both of North Canton, Ohio—have violated a cease and desist order (“CDO”) issued in the underlying investigation.
Share

Read More