New 337 Complaints

Renesas And 511 Technologies File New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Digital Televisions Containing Integrated Circuit Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
15
On August 12, 2011, Renesas Electronics Corporation of Japan (“Renesas”) and 511 Technologies, Inc. of Marshall, Texas (“511 Technologies”) (collectively, the “Complainants”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Vizio, Inc. of Irvine, California (“Vizio”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain digital televisions containing integrated circuit devices and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,199,432 (the ‘432 patent) and 6,531,400 (the ‘400 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to semiconductor integrated circuit devices.  In particular, the ‘432 patent relates to a semiconductor device with inventively arranged dummy interconnections.  The ‘432 patent teaches actual interconnections formed in the principal surface of a substrate and additional dummy interconnections formed of the same material as the actual interconnections but not functioning as working elements.  The ‘400 patent relates to a process for manufacturing a semiconductor integrated circuit device using specialized anticorrosion techniques.  In particular, the ‘400 patent teaches using light shielding and specialized polishing, cleaning, and drying to prevent corrosion of metal wirings (e.g., copper wirings) formed by using the chemical mechanical polishing method. In the complaint, the Complainants state that Vizio imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically names the Vizio E3D320VX television as an infringing product. Regarding domestic industry, the Complainants state that Renesas has licensed the asserted patents to a large U.S. semiconductor manufacturer and that this licensee has made extensive use of the inventions claimed in the asserted patents by virtue of its design, manufacture, distribution, and/or sales in the U.S. of products covered by the asserted patents.  The Complainants further state on information and belief that Renesas’s licensee makes significant investments in plant and equipment in the U.S., employs significant labor and capital in the U.S., and makes substantial investments in engineering and research and development relating to devices manufactured pursuant to the license agreement and protected by the asserted patents.  Additionally, the Complainants state that 511 Technologies makes substantial investments in licensing and/or enforcing the asserted patents in the U.S. on behalf of Renesas.  As to related litigation, the Complainants state that Renesas and Vizio are currently parties to Inv. No. 337-TA-789, which is based on an ITC complaint filed by Vizio on June 16, 2011 and subsequent filings.  See our July 15, 2011 post for more details.  Additionally, the Complainants state that concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, Renesas will file a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas accusing Vizio of infringing the asserted patents.  Lastly, the complaint states that Renesas once asserted a patent related to the ‘432 patent against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. With respect to potential remedy, the Complainants request that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Vizio and others acting on its behalf.
Share

Read More

HTC Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices With Communication Capabilities

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
17
On August 16, 2011, HTC Corp. of Taiwan (“HTC”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain electronic devices with communication capabilities, components thereof, and related software that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,765,414 (the ‘414 patent), 7,417,944 (the ‘944 patent), and 7,672,219 (the ‘219 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to electronic devices with communication capabilities.  In particular, the ‘414 patent relates to systems and methods using a circuit or an integrated interface for integrating systems in a portable device, such as a smartphone or other portable electronic devices.  The circuit or integrated interface of the ‘414 patent allows multiple systems to communicate with each other such that, for example, one system can control certain operations of the other system.  The ‘944 and ‘219 patents relate to enhanced communications systems with improved network reliability and minimized interference or other degradation to the quality of service. In the complaint, HTC states that Apple imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically names the Apple Mac computer product line and the Apple iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch mobile product lines as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, HTC states that it makes extensive use of the inventions claimed in the asserted patents in numerous products including the HTC Thunderbolt, Evo 3D, Incredible 2, Holiday, Ruby, Vigor, and Evo Shift smartphones.  HTC further states that, through its subsidiaries, it has made significant investments in plant and equipment and labor and capital in the U.S. in connection with HTC products that practice the asserted patents.  HTC cites to ALJ Charles E. Bullock’s Initial Determination (“ID”) finding that HTC satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement in Inv. No. 337-TA-721 as additional support for HTC’s domestic industry allegations with respect to the ‘944 and ‘219 patents — both of which are allegedly practiced by the HTC products cited in the 721 investigation.  See our March 31, 2011 post for more details on the ID in the 721 investigation. As to related litigation, HTC states that the asserted patents are also being asserted against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. With respect to potential remedy, HTC requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Apple.
Share

Read More

TPL Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Digital Photo Frames And Image Display Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
26
On August 24, 2011, Technology Properties Limited, LLC of Cupertino, California (“TPL”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. 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 digital photo frames and image display devices and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,976,623 (the ‘623 patent), 7,162,549 (the ‘549 patent), 7,295,443 (the ‘443 patent), and 7,522,424 (the ‘424 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):

• Action Electronics Co., Ltd. of Taiwan • Aiptek International Inc. of Taiwan • Aluratek, Inc. of Tustin, California • Audiovox Corporation of Happauge, New York • CEIVA Logic, Inc. of Burbank, California • Circus World Displays Ltd. of Canada • Coby Electronics Corporation of Lake Success, New York • Curtis International, Ltd. of Canada • Digital Spectrum Solutions, Inc. of Irvine, California • Eastman Kodak Company of Rochester, New York • Mustek Systems, Inc. of Taiwan • Nextar Inc. of La Verne, California • Pandigital of Dublin, California • Royal Consumer Information Products, Inc. of Somerset, New Jersey • Sony Corporation of Japan • Sony Corporation of America of New York, New York • Transcend Information, Inc. of Taiwan • ViewSonic Corporation of Walnut, California • Win Accord Ltd. of Taiwan • WinAccord U.S.A., Inc. of San Jose, California

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to hardware used in a broad range of devices, including digital photo frames and other digital image display/viewing devices that incorporate flash memory card readers.  In particular, the ‘623 patent relates to a memory card reader having a number of interfaces to read at least two different types of memory cards, and to provide parallel read/write access to both cards to enable the transfer of data from one card to the other.  The ‘549 patent relates to a controller chip that interfaces with a flash memory card which may (or may not) have a controller for error correction.  The ‘443 patent relates to a multi-media memory port.  Lastly, the ‘424 patent relates to a single-slot flash memory card reader that has a number of sets of contact pins mounted in a single slot reader at locations adapted to interface with the electrical contacts of different types of flash memory cards. In the complaint, TPL states that the Proposed Respondents import and/or 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, TPL states that it has made substantial investments in the exploitation of the asserted patents through its significant licensing activities, which have resulted in numerous licensees whose products practice the inventions claimed in the asserted patents.  TPL states that it has employed a team of IP legal and R&D employees in Cupertino, California, who have worked to analyze and license its CORE Flash portfolio.  TPL further states that it has contacted several hundred potential licensees in furtherance of its licensing program, and that it has been successful in its licensing program.  According to the complaint, the fact that many TPL licensees make and sell products covered by the asserted patents demonstrates that there is a strong nexus between TPL’s substantial CORE Flash licensing program and the ‘623, ‘549, ‘443, and ‘424 patents. As to related litigation, TPL states that, concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it is filing a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas accusing the Proposed Respondents of infringing the asserted patents.  Additionally, TPL states that on February 8, 2008, ASUSTek Computer, Inc. (“ASUSTek”) filed a declaratory judgment action against TPL and others in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that included a declaratory judgment claim involving the ‘623 patent.  According to the complaint, that action was dismissed on February 23, 2009 pursuant to settlement.  TPL further states that, on April 25, 2008, TPL and another entity filed a complaint against ASUSTek in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of the ‘443 and ‘549 patents.  TPL states that this case was dismissed on February 12, 2009 pursuant to settlement.  Additionally, TPL states that on April 25, 2008, TPL and others filed a complaint against ASUSTek in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of, inter alia, the ‘623 patent.  TPL states that this case was dismissed on March 6, 2009 pursuant to settlement. With respect to potential remedy, TPL requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.

 

Share

Read More

Openwave Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Devices For Mobile Data Communication

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
01

On August 31, 2011, Openwave Systems Inc. of Redwood City, California (“Openwave”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) and Research In Motion Ltd. of Canada and Research In Motion Corp. of Irving, Texas (the latter two parties, collectively, “RIM”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain devices for mobile data communication that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,233,608 (the ‘608 patent), 6,289,212 (the ‘212 patent), 6,405,037 (the ‘037 patent), 6,430,409 (the ‘409 patent), and 6,625,447 (the ‘447 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to mobile data communication technology.  In particular, the ‘608 patent relates to a method and system for securely interacting with managed data from multiple devices.  The ‘212 patent relates to a method and apparatus for providing electronic mail services during network unavailability.  The ‘037, ‘409, and ‘447 patents relate to a method and architecture for an interactive two-way data communication network.  In the complaint, Openwave states that Apple and RIM import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically names the Apple iPhone 3G, 3GS, and 4, iPod Touch, and iPad 1 and 2 and the RIM Blackberry Curve 9330 and Blackberry PlayBook as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Openwave states that its Richmail 4.0 and Amplicity products are covered by the asserted patents.  As to the economic prong, Openwave states that it has made and continues to make substantial investments in the U.S. in the exploitation of the asserted patents, including domestic engineering and research and development relating to articles protected by the asserted patents.  Openwave further states that it has engaged in substantial licensing activities relating to the asserted patents. As to related litigation, Openwave states that on July 31, 2009, it filed a complaint for patent infringement against 724 Solutions (US) Inc. and 724 Solutions Software Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting infringement of the ‘409 patent and others.  Openwave states that the parties entered into a settlement and license agreement and that the district court dismissed all claims with prejudice on October 18, 2010.  Additionally, Openwave states that, concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Apple and RIM infringe the asserted patents.  With respect to potential remedy, Openwave requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Apple, RIM, their affiliates, and others acting on their behalf.
Share

Read More

VIA Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Computing Devices With Associated Instruction Sets And Software

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
23
On September 22, 2011, VIA Technologies, Inc. of Taiwan (“VIA Technologies”), IP-First, LLC of Fremont, California, and Centaur Technology, Inc. of Austin, Texas (“Centaur”) (collectively, “VIA”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Apple Inc. a/k/a Apple Computer, Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain computing devices with associated instruction sets and software that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,253,312 (the ‘312 patent), 6,253,311 (the ‘311 patent), and 6,754,810 (the ‘810 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to the efficient loading, conversion, and transfer of data in the microprocessors of electronic devices.  In particular, the ‘312 patent relates to improvements in loading data in a microprocessor.  The ‘311 patent relates to improvements in the conversion and transfer of data in a microprocessor.  The ‘810 patent is related to the ‘311 patent and concerns improvements in the conversion and transfer of data within a microprocessor.   In the complaint, VIA states that Apple imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically names the Apple iPad, iPad 2, iPhone 4, iPhone 4 CDMA, iPod Touch 4th generation, and Apple TV 2nd generation—and software designed for those devices—as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, VIA states that it makes extensive use of the inventions claimed in the asserted patents in numerous products.  In particular, VIA states that its VIA Nano microprocessors practice at least one claim of the ‘311 and ‘810 patents and that certain products currently in development at Centaur (a subsidiary of VIA Technologies) practice at least one claim of the ‘312 patent.  VIA further states that, through its subsidiaries and licensees, it has made significant investments in labor and capital with respect to VIA products that practice the asserted patents.  According to the complaint, those significant investments in labor and capital are dedicated to research, development, design, engineering, and product support services for VIA products that practice the asserted patents. As to related litigation, VIA states that the asserted patents are also the subject of an action for patent infringement that it filed against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.  Additionally, VIA states that the ‘311 patent was involved in prior litigation against Intel Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, but that that case settled before trial. With respect to potential remedy, VIA requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Apple.
Share

Read More

S3G Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices With Graphics Data Processing Systems

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
26
On September 22, 2011, S3 Graphics Co., Ltd. of the Grand Cayman Islands and S3 Graphics, Inc. of Fremont, California (collectively, “S3G”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Apple Inc. a/k/a Apple Computer, Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain electronic devices with graphics data processing systems, components thereof, and associated software that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,945,997 (the ‘997 patent) and 5,581,279 (the ‘279 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to apparatuses and methods for graphical data processing, including retrieval, manipulation, and storage of graphical data.  In particular, the ‘997 patent relates to methods and systems for tile based pixel data processing.  The ‘279 patent relates to controller methods and systems for selectively moving and converting digital video data into analog video signals.  In the complaint, S3G states that Apple imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically names the Apple iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, and Apple desktop and notebook computers—in combination with associated software—as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, S3G states that S3 Graphics, Inc. employs a work force in the U.S. that conducts research, development, engineering, product design, support, and repair for S3 Graphics, Inc.’s products that practice the asserted patents, including at least the Chrome series of graphics products.  According to the complaint, S3 Graphics, Inc. makes significant investments in plant, equipment, labor, engineering, and research and development in the U.S. in connection with its research, development, design, technical support, and repair of products that practice the asserted patents.  As additional support for S3G’s domestic industry allegations in the instant complaint, S3G cites to ALJ E. James Gildea’s finding in Inv. No. 337-TA-724 that S3G had satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement in that investigation.  See our April 7, 2011 post for more details on the domestic industry determination in the 724 investigation. As to related litigation, S3G states that the asserted patents are also the subject of an action for patent infringement that it filed against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. 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.
Share

Read More

Furuno Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Navigation Products

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
03
On September 30, 2011, Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. of Japan and Furuno U.S.A., Inc. of Camas, Washington (collectively, “Furuno”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Honeywell International Inc. of Morristown, New Jersey and its subsidiary Skyforce Avionics Ltd. of the United Kingdom (collectively, “Honeywell”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain navigation products, components thereof, and related software, including GPS devices, avionics navigation and display systems, weather radar systems, navigational aids, mapping systems, and avionics computers that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,084,565 (the ‘565 patent), 7,095,367 (the ‘367 patent), 7,089,094 (the ‘094 patent), and 7,161,561 (the ‘561 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to navigation technology.  In particular, the ‘565 patent relates to an image monitoring system capable of displaying a plurality of windows on a single screen and presenting part of an image shown on one window on another window.  The ‘367 patent relates to a system of equipment on board a vehicle, with detecting or positioning devices contained in a “core device” unit, which is connected to a display via a network.  The ‘094 patent relates to a vehicle information system that is capable of simultaneously displaying multiple pieces of information regarding different vehicles on a display with the ability to determine and prioritize the information based on importance.  The ‘561 patent relates to a digital display system with multiple displays that allow users to selectively present one or more images from different measuring devices on each display. In the complaint, Furuno states that Honeywell imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically names the AV8OR Horizon 3D, the Primus Epic, the Sentinel, and the Observer as infringing products.  Regarding domestic industry, Furuno states that it has made substantial U.S. investments in the exploitation of the asserted patents, including with respect to design, research and development, and engineering.  Furuno further states that it has made significant U.S. investments in plant and equipment, and has employed substantial labor and capital in the U.S. in connection with articles protected by the asserted patents, including with respect to testing, customization, training, quality control, packaging, compliance, service, warranty and non-warranty repair, distribution, advertising, sales, and marketing.  Additionally, Furuno cites to the activities of its technical and non-technical personnel located in the U.S., including at its facilities in the states of Washington and Maryland.  As to the technical prong, Furuno states that its NavNet 3D product practices at least one independent claim of each of the ‘565, ‘367, and ‘561 patents and that its FAR-2807 Series ARPA Radar practices at least one independent claim of the ‘094 patent.  As to related litigation, Furuno states that contemporaneously with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, Furuno has filed a complaint against Honeywell in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon alleging infringement of the asserted patents. With respect to potential remedy, Furuno requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Honeywell entities and their subsidiaries, related companies, and agents.
Share

Read More

Westinghouse Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Integrated Solar Power Systems

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
06
On October 4, 2011, Westinghouse Solar, Inc. (“Westinghouse Solar”) and its subsidiary Andalay Solar, Inc. (“Andalay”) (collectively, “Westinghouse”)—both of Campbell, California—filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Zep Solar, Inc. of San Rafael, California (“Zep”), Canadian Solar Inc. of Canada, and Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. of San Ramon, California (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain integrated solar power systems and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,406,800 (the ‘800 patent) and 7,987,641 (the ‘641 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to a solar panel with integrated racking and grounding.  In particular, the asserted patents are directed to an integrated solar module frame and racking system for a solar panel.  According to the complaint, splices couple the solar modules together into a larger rooftop array structure composed of multiple modules.  The racking system allows the solar modules to connect to a roof through use of brackets.  The integrated solar module frame and racking system allows for rapid installation of the solar panel on a roof with a minimal number of parts required for assembly.  Individual solar modules may be easily added and connected to existing modules as desired. In the complaint, Westinghouse states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically names the “Zep System”—and solar power systems that incorporate and/or are compatible with the Zep System—as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Westinghouse states that its Andalay System practices one or more claims of each of the asserted patents.  According to the complaint, Westinghouse employs over 36 employees in the U.S., whose work can be categorized within four core functions—research and development, operations, sales and marketing, and general/administrative.  The complaint states that Westinghouse markets and sells its Andalay System and related products to a network of authorized dealers across the country, including Lowe’s Home Improvement Stores, Lennar Homes, Icon Solar Power, LLC, Econ Solar Group, Real Goods Solar, and REC Solar. Additionally, Westinghouse specifically refers to its headquarters in Campbell, California and to a warehouse facility in San Jose, California.  Westinghouse further states that, for calendar years 2009-2010, the total costs that it has incurred in the U.S. that are attributable to the design, manufacture, marketing, sale, and distribution of its Andalay System are at least $37,247,005. As to related litigation, Westinghouse states that Akeena Solar, Inc. (the entity now known as Westinghouse Solar) and Andalay initiated a lawsuit against Zep and several of Zep’s distributors in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on October 22, 2009, alleging infringement of the ‘800 patent and seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of one of Zep’s patents.  Zep then sought reexamination of the ‘800 patent, and the district court stayed the litigation pending the reexamination.  At the conclusion of the reexamination, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cancelled nine of the twelve claims of the ‘800 patent.  Zep then submitted a second request for reexamination targeting the three remaining claims of the ‘800 patent, and this second reexamination is still ongoing (and the district court case remains stayed).  Additionally, Westinghouse states that Zep and two if its licensees initiated a lawsuit against Westinghouse and Akeena Solar, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on August 2, 2011, seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the ‘641 patent.  Lastly, Westinghouse states that Zep has filed a request for reexamination of the ‘641 patent, and that this reexamination proceeding is ongoing. With respect to potential remedy, Westinghouse requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

Compound Photonics Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Projectors With Controlled-Angle Retarders

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
24
On October 21, 2011, Compound Photonics Ltd. of the United Kingdom and Compound Photonics U.S. Corporation of Phoenix, Arizona (“Compound Photonics U.S.”) (collectively, “Compound Photonics”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Sony Corporation of Japan, Sony Corporation of America of New York, New York, and Sony Electronics Inc. of San Diego, California (collectively, “Sony”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain controlled-angle retarders, components thereof (including “light engines” or “optical engines”), and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,829,027 (the ‘027 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘027 patent generally relates to methods of fabricating a liquid crystal display (“LCD”) device with a “controlled-angle retarder,” comprising a liquid crystal cell and an adjustable retarder.  The complaint states that the invention of the ‘027 patent makes it possible to adjust the combined retardance of this liquid crystal system in order to optimize properties of the LCD device. In the complaint, Compound Photonics states that Sony imports and sells products that infringe the ‘027 patent.  The complaint specifically names the Sony BRAVIA 3D home cinema 2K and other projectors that use SXRD technology as infringing products.  The complaint further specifically refers to Sony’s 4K projectors as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Compound Photonics states that Compound Photonics U.S. has a research, development, and production facility in Phoenix, Arizona and also maintains an office in Vancouver, Washington.  The complaint states that the Phoenix facility has over 270,000 square feet of commercial space, including a 35,000 square-foot clean room suitable for development and manufacturing.  According to the complaint, all of Compound Photonics U.S.’s research, development, design, engineering, and other activities are directed to developing and commercializing technologies that use, incorporate, or rely upon the invention of the ‘027 patent.  In particular, the complaint states that Compound Photonics U.S. is incorporating the invention of the ‘027 patent into its next-generation display products, including the optically addressed spatial light modulator, the pico projector, and the three-path liquid crystal on silicon projector. As to related litigation, Compound Photonics states that it filed a complaint against Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on October 20, 2011, alleging infringement of the ‘027 patent. With respect to potential remedy, Compound Photonics requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Sony entities, their affiliates, and any others acting on their behalf.
Share

Read More

Beacon Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Automotive GPS Navigation Systems

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
25
On October 21, 2011, Beacon Navigation GmbH of Switzerland (“Beacon”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. 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 automotive GPS navigation systems, components thereof, and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,374,180 (the ‘180 patent), 6,178,380 (the ‘380 patent), 6,029,111 (the ‘111 patent), and 5,862,511 (the ‘511 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):
  • Audi AG of Germany
  • Audi of America, Inc. of Auburn Hills, Michigan
  • Audi of America, LLC of Herndon, Virginia
  • Bayerische Motoren Werke AG of Germany
  • BMW of North America, LLC of Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey
  • BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC of Greer, South Carolina
  • Chrysler Group LLC of Auburn Hills, Michigan
  • Ford Motor Company of Dearborn, Michigan
  • General Motors Company of Detroit, Michigan
  • Honda Motor Co., Ltd. of Japan
  • Honda North America, Inc. of Torrance, California
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. of Torrance, California
  • Honda Manufacturing of Alabama, LLC of Lincoln, Alabama
  • Honda Manufacturing of Indiana, LLC of Greensburg, Indiana
  • Honda of America Mfg., Inc. of Marysville, Ohio
  • Hyundai Motor Company of South Korea
  • Hyundai Motor America of Fountain Valley, California
  • Huyndai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC of Montgomery, Alabama
  • Kia Motors Corp. of South Korea
  • Kia Motors America, Inc. of Irvine, California
  • Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Inc. of West Point, Georgia
  • Mazda Motor Corporation of Japan
  • Mazda Motor of America, Inc. of Irvine, California
  • Daimler AG of Germany
  • Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC of Montvale, New Jersey
  • Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. of Vance, Alabama
  • Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. of Japan
  • Nissan North America, Inc. of Franklin, Tennessee
  • Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG of Germany
  • Porsche Cars North America, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia
  • Saab Automobile AB of Sweden
  • Saab Cars North America, Inc. of Royal Oak, Michigan
  • Suzuki Motor Corporation of Japan
  • American Suzuki Motor Corporation of Brea, California
  • Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC of Mahwah, New Jersey
  • Jaguar Cars Limited of the United Kingdom
  • Land Rover of the United Kingdom
  • Toyota Motor Corporation of Japan
  • Toyota Motor North America, inc. of Torrance, California
  • Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. of Torrance, California
  • Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. of Erlanger, Kentucky
  • Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc. of Princeton, Indiana
  • Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. of Georgetown, Kentucky
  • Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Mississippi, Inc. of Blue Springs, Mississippi
  • Volkswagen AG of Germany
  • Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. of Herndon, Virginia
  • Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC of Herndon, Virginia
  • Volvo Car Corporation of Sweden
  • Volvo Cars of North America, LLC
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to apparatuses and methods for navigation systems.  In particular, the ‘180 patent relates to an invention which enables a user to search for identifiable locations, also known as points of interests, across categories.  The ‘380 patent relates to an invention for displaying a current road segment name in a designated location.  Lastly, the ‘111 and ‘511 patents relate to aspects of dead reckoning position determination based on GPS velocity information. In the complaint, Beacon 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, Beacon states that a domestic industry exists by virtue of a significant investment in plant and equipment, a significant investment in labor and capital, and a substantial investment in the exploitation of the asserted patents, including engineering and research and development.  According to the complaint, Beacon has licensed the asserted patents to an entity that maintains a domestic industry relating to the asserted patents; however, the licensee’s identity and the extent of its domestic activities have been redacted from the public version of the complaint. As to related litigation, Beacon states that on October 11, 2011, it filed a number of complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the asserted patents, including separate complaints against each of the automotive groups making up the Proposed Respondents listed in the instant ITC complaint, as well as a complaint against Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd., Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc. and Subaru of America, Inc. (collectively, “Subaru”).  Beacon additionally states that, also on October 11, 2011, it filed another set of complaints against each of the automotive groups making up the Proposed Respondents listed in the instant ITC complaint, and Subaru, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of four other patents owned by Beacon. With respect to potential remedy, Beacon requests that the Commission issue limited exclusion orders and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

Bosch Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Wiper Blades

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
27
On October 26, 2011, Robert Bosch LLC of Farmington Hills, Michigan (“Bosch”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. 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 “flat” or “beam-type” wiper blade devices that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,523,218 (the ‘218 patent), 6,553,607 (the ‘607 patent), 6,611,988 (the ‘988 patent), 6,675,434 (the ‘434 patent), 6,836,926 (the ‘926 patent), 6,944,905 (the ‘905 patent), 6,973,698 (the ‘698 patent), 7,293,321 (the ‘321 patent), and 7,523,520 (the ‘520 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):
  • ADM21 Co., Ltd. of South Korea
  • ADM21 Co. (North America) Ltd. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
  • Alberee Products, Inc. of Baltimore, Maryland
  • API Korea Co., Ltd. of South Korea
  • Cequent Consumer Products, Inc. of Solon, Ohio
  • Corea Autoparts Producing Corporation of South Korea (“CAP”)
  • Danyang UPC Auto Parts Co., Ltd. of China
  • Fu-Gang Co., Ltd. of Taiwan
  • PIAA Corporation USA of Portland, Oregon
  • Pylon Manufacturing Corp. of Deerfield Beech, Florida
  • RainEater, LLC of Erie, Pennsylvania
  • Scan Top Enterprise Co., Ltd. of Taiwan
  • Winplus North America Inc. of Ontario, California
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to various aspects of wiper blades.  In particular, the ‘905 patent relates to a wind deflection strip (spoiler) of a particular construction to counteract the airflow-induced tendency of the wiper blade to lift up from the window at high driving speeds.  The ‘434 patent relates to a termination part (end cap) which covers each end of the beam-type wiper blade to prevent injuries to persons handling the beam blade from the sharp ends of the support element.  The ‘698 patent relates to a support element structure in beam-type wiper blades that creates a non-uniform pressure distribution along the length of the wiper blade.  The ‘926 patent relates to a support element for a beam-type wiper blade.  The ‘218 patent relates to an aerodynamic beam-type wiper blade having a spoiler and at least one retainer.  The ‘321 patent and ‘520 patents relate to a beam blade having sections of a spoiler on each side of a coupling part.  The ‘607 patent relates to a low profile, secure connection between a wiper blade and an associated wiper arm.  Lastly, the ‘988 patent relates to a wiper blade having a low profile and secure connection to an associated wiper arm. In the complaint, Bosch states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically identifies the RainEater Elements and RainEater Premium beam-type wiper blades, Invisible Glass Best beam wiper blades, Goodyear Assurance wiper blades, CAP beam-type wiper blades, Michelin Stealth and DuPont Beam Blade products, Valvoline Aquablade, ClearPlus Beam Blade, Pronto Tech Select Beam, and Silblade Flex wiper blades as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Bosch states that at least one claim of each of the asserted patents is practiced by Bosch original equipment beam wiper blades, Bosch aftermarket beam wiper blades, and/or Bosch beam blade wiper systems.  As to the economic prong, Bosch states that while its wiper blades and wiper systems are manufactured outside the U.S., Bosch does have several facilities in the U.S. at which it conducts significant domestic industry activities relating to wiper blades and wiper systems that practice the asserted patents.  According to the complaint, Bosch engages in significant and substantial design, development, engineering, testing, administration of warranty, customer service, distribution, marketing, and sales activities in the U.S. with respect to products that practice the asserted patents.  Bosch specifically refers to facilities in Michigan, Illinois, Georgia, California, and South Carolina.  According to the complaint, Bosch employs more than 6,500 people throughout the U.S., about 90 percent of whom work in the Automotive Technology group, the Bosch business sector responsible for wiper blades and wiper systems. As to related litigation, Bosch states that the asserted patents have been involved in two district court cases in the District of Delaware, eight district court cases in the District of Nevada, one district court case in the Eastern District of Michigan, and two district court cases in the Northern District of Illinois.  Additionally, the European counterpart to the ‘905 patent has been involved in actions in France and Germany. With respect to potential remedy, Bosch requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents, their affiliates, others acting on behalf of the Proposed Respondents, and others who are in active concert or participation with the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

ChriMar Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Communication Equipment

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
03
On November 1, 2011, ChriMar Systems, Inc. d/b/a CMS Technologies of Farmington Hills, Michigan (“ChriMar”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. 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 communication equipment, components thereof, and products containing same, including power over Ethernet telephones, switches, wireless access points, routers and other devices used in WLANs, and cameras that are compliant with the IEEE 802.3af and/or IEEE 802.3at amendments to the IEEE 802.3 standard and that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,457,250 (the ‘250 patent):
  • Cisco Systems, Inc. of San Jose, California
  • Cisco Consumer Products LLC of Irvine, California
  • Cisco Systems International B.V. of the Netherlands
  • Cisco-Linksys LLC of Irvine, California
  • Hewlett-Packard Co. of Palo Alto, California
  • 3Com Corporation of Marlborough, Massachusetts
  • Avaya Inc. of Basking Ridge, New Jersey
  • Extreme Networks, Inc. of Santa Clara, California
According to the complaint, the ‘250 patent generally relates to a system for detecting, at a central module, a remote piece of Ethernet equipment that connects to an Ethernet network.  The complaint states that this information is conveyed over the same Ethernet cable used to carry normal network information. In the complaint, ChriMar states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the ‘250 patent.  The complaint specifically identifies a number of allegedly infringing products associated with the various Proposed Respondents. Regarding domestic industry, ChriMar states that it has made significant investments in plant and equipment in the U.S. with respect to articles protected by the ‘250 patent.  According to the complaint, these articles include the Etherlock II and related products, such as the Etherlock ID, PC Key, and Watcher.  ChriMar also states that it has engaged in significant employment of labor and capital in the U.S. and has conducted engineering and research and development in the U.S. with respect to articles protected by the ‘250 patent.  ChriMar specifically refers to its facilities in Farmington Hills, Michigan, in support of its domestic industry allegations.  Additionally, ChriMar cites to its licensing activities in the U.S. and to the domestic activities of its licensee Hubbell, Inc. As to related litigation, ChriMar states that it has previously asserted the ‘250 patent in four district court cases in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  In the first of these cases, defendant Waters Network Systems LLC consented to the entry of judgment against it and took a license to the ‘250 patent.  In the second case, defendant Dampex Corporation consented to the entry of judgment against it.  In the third case, one of the defendants, Neteon Technologies, Inc., consented to the entry of judgment against it and took a license to the ‘250 patent.  The remainder of this third case was then transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where it was voluntarily dismissed.  The fourth case was voluntarily dismissed.  Additionally, ChriMar states that the ‘250 patent has undergone ex parte reexamination at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”).  According to the complaint, on March 1, 2011, the PTO issued a reexamination certificate confirming the patentability of the reexamined claims without amendment.  Lastly, ChriMar states that on October 31, 2011, it filed a complaint against the Proposed Respondents (except for Cisco Systems International B.V.) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of the ‘250 patent. With respect to potential remedy, ChriMar requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

VirnetX Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Devices With Secure Communication Capabilities

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
08
On November 4, 2011, VirnetX, Inc. of Zephyr Cove, Nevada (“VirnetX”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain devices with secure communication capabilities, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,051,181 (the ‘181 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘181 patent generally relates to a method for establishing and/or using a secure communications link between two computer devices. In the complaint, VirnetX states that Apple imports and sells products that infringe the ‘181 patent.  The complaint specifically names the Apple iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPad 2, iPod Touch, and Macs running the “Lion” operating system as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, VirnetX states that it has made a significant investment in plant and equipment and a significant employment of labor and capital in the U.S. with respect to VirnetX technology protected by the ‘181 patent, including the VirnetX GABRIEL Connection Technology.  VirnetX also states that it has made substantial investments in the exploitation of the ‘181 patent through engineering and research and development in the U.S.  VirnetX specifically refers its facilities in Zephyr Cove, Nevada and Scotts Valley, California in support of its domestic industry allegations.  Additionally, VirnetX states it has licensed the ‘181 patent to Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), and that Microsoft engages in manufacturing, sales, customer support, and engineering and research and development activities in the U.S. with respect to Microsoft’s licensed Windows Peernet Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) that practice at least one claim of the ‘181 patent.  As to related litigation, VirnetX states that on August 11, 2010, it filed a complaint against Apple and others in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of various patents (not including the ‘181 patent).  Additionally, VirnetX states that on November 1, 2011, it filed a complaint against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of the ‘181 patent. With respect to potential remedy, VirnetX requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Apple.
Share

Read More

Elpida Memory Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Dynamic Random Access Memory (“DRAM”) Semiconductor Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
16
On November 15, 2011, Elpida Memory, Inc. of Japan and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. of Sunnyvale, California (“Elpida”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Nanya Technology Corporation of Taiwan and Nanya Technology Corporation U.S.A. of Santa Clara, California (collectively, “Nanya”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain semiconductor chips with DRAM circuitry, and modules and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of the following U.S. Patent Nos. 6,150,689 (the ‘689 patent), 6,635,918 (the ‘918 patent), 6,555,861 (the ‘861 patent), 7,659,571 (the ‘571 patent), 7,713,828 (the ‘828 patent), 7,495,453 (the ‘453 patent), and 7,906,809 (the ‘809 patent).  According to the complaint, the asserted patents are generally directed to DRAM semiconductor device designs and methods of manufacturing DRAM devices that address the technical, material and system challenges arising from the design of high-speed, highly integrated DRAM semiconductor devices that require large numbers of integrated circuits and memory cells, but also lower power consumption and faster speeds. In the complaint, Elpida states that Nanya imports and sells products that infringe the ‘689, ‘918, ‘861, ‘571, ‘828, ‘453, and ‘809 patents. The complaint specifically identifies a number of Nanya or Nanya Elixir memory modules as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Elpida states that it has made significant investments in plant and equipment, and employment of labor and capital with respect to the articles and methods protected by the asserted patents. As to related litigation, Elpida states that on April 2, 2010, it filed a complaint against Infineon Technologies AG and Infineon Technologies North America Corp. (collectively, “Infineon”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleging infringement of the ‘861 patent.  Shortly after the complaint was filed, Elpida and Infineon reached a confidential settlement and entered into a cross-license agreement.  Additionally, Elpida states that on September 6, 2011, it filed a complaint against Nanya in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging infringement of a number of Elpida’s patents.  Before serving Nanya in that case, Elpida amended the complaint to include the patents asserted in the instant Section 337 complaint. With respect to potential remedy, Elpida requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.
Share

Read More

Rovi Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Controls Technology

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
16
On November 15, 2011, Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc., United Video Properties, Inc., and Gemstar Development Corporation—all of Santa Clara, California—and Index Systems, Inc. of the British Virgin Islands (collectively, “Rovi”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Vizio, Inc. of Irvine, California (“Vizio”) and Haier Group Corp. of China and Haier America Trading, LLC of New York, New York (collectively, “Haier”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain products containing interactive program guide (“IPG”) and parental controls technology, including televisions, that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,493,643 (the ‘643 patent), RE41,993 (the ‘993 patent), 6,701,523 (the ‘523 patent), and 7,047,547 (the ‘547 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to IPG and parental controls technology.  In particular, the ‘643 patent relates to a system and method for providing an interactive television program guide with video-on-demand browsing capabilities.  The ‘993 and ‘523 patents relate to a system and method for restricting access to television programs.  Lastly, the ‘547 patent relates to an electronic program guide that restricts access to program schedule information. In the complaint, Rovi states that Vizio and Haier import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically names the Vizio M420SV, VF552XVT, VBR133, and E371VL and the Haier HL46XSL2 as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Rovi states that a domestic industry exists by virtue of Rovi’s substantial investment in the exploitation of the asserted patents in the U.S., including engineering, research and development, and licensing efforts.  Rovi further states that a domestic industry is present as a result of Rovi’s significant investment in plant and equipment and substantial employment of labor and capital with respect to articles protected by the asserted patents.  Rovi specifically refers to its Rovi Entertainment Store platform and its i-Guide platform.  According to the complaint, these platforms practice the inventions claimed in the ‘643 patent and the ‘547 patent, respectively.  In addition, Rovi states that a domestic industry is present because several licensees of the asserted patents—including two “major international corporations who both have a large U.S. presence”—practice the inventions claimed in the asserted patents within the U.S. As to related litigation, Rovi states that the ‘643 and ‘993 patents were the subject of both a previous ITC investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-801) and litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Sharp Corporation and related entities (collectively, “Sharp”).  According to the complaint, Sharp agreed to settle these matters.  See our October 5, 2011 post for more details on the termination of the 801 investigation.  Additionally, Rovi states that the ‘523 patent was the subject of another previous ITC investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-747) and litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Toshiba Corporation and related entities (collectively, “Toshiba”).  According to the complaint, Toshiba agreed to take a license to settle these matters.  See our July 12, 2011 post for more details on the termination of the 747 investigation.  Rovi further states that the ‘643 patent is currently the subject of litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Amazon.com, Inc. and others.  Rovi additionally states that the ‘523 patent is currently the subject of two reexamination proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  Lastly, Rovi states that a European patent related to the ‘547 patent is currently undergoing an opposition proceeding. With respect to potential remedy, Rovi requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.
Share

Read More

GPH Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Consumer Electronics And Display Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
18
On November 17, 2011, Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. of New Rochelle, New York (“GPH”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. 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 consumer electronics and display devices and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,650,327 (the ‘327 patent), 6,816,145 (the ‘145 patent), and 5,717,881 (the ‘881 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
  • Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California
  • Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of South Korea
  • Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey
  • Samsung Telecommunications America, L.L.C. of Richardson, Texas
  • Sony Corporation of Japan
  • Sony Corporation of America of New York, New York
  • Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB of Sweden
  • Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. of Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to various aspects of consumer electronics and display technology.  In particular, the ‘327 patent relates to a display system and process where geometry, rasterization, and frame buffer values are predominately determined by floating point numbers.  The ‘145 patent relates to a liquid crystal flat panel display monitor with a wide aspect ratio that is particularly well suited for the display of text, graphics, and other types of still and/or motion audio/visual works.  Lastly, the ‘881 patent relates to a computer data processing apparatus including an instruction set adapted to issue one and two parcel instructions. In the complaint, GPH 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, GPH states that it has an extensive domestic licensing program focused on the asserted patents.  According to the complaint, GPH invests heavily in the exploitation of its technologies and patents, including the asserted patents, through its extensive licensing activities.  GPH states that it employs licensing professionals in the U.S. to evaluate its patent holdings, and that these licensing professionals work alongside intellectual property counsel in evaluating licensing opportunities in the consumer electronics and display devices industry.  Additionally, GPH states that a domestic industry exists by virtue of the U.S. activities of its licensees, which include Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) and International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”).  According to the complaint, Microsoft practices the ‘327 and ‘881 patents and IBM practices the ‘145 and ‘881 patents in the U.S. With respect to potential remedy, GPH requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order directed at the domestic Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

Nanya Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
23
On November 21, 2011, Nanya Technology Corporation of Taiwan (“Nanya”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Elpida Memory, Inc. of Japan and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. of Sunnyvale, California (collectively, “Elpida”) and Kingston Technology Co., Inc. of Fountain Valley, California (“Kingston”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain dynamic random access memory (“DRAM”) devices and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,677,566 (the ‘566 patent), 6,399,983 (the ‘983 patent), 6,586,796 (the ‘796 patent), and 6,664,634 (the ‘634 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to improvements in DRAM design and performance.  In particular, the ‘566 patent relates to a semiconductor chip package that includes discrete conductive leads in electrical contact with bond pads on a semiconductor chip.  The ‘983 patent relates to a semiconductor structure that reduces shorts between adjacent capacitors.  The ‘796 patent relates to a more stable DRAM and capacitor that has improved leakage current characteristics.  Lastly, the ‘634 patent relates to improved metal wiring patterns for increasingly dense integrated circuit memory devices to improve signal transmission speed and reduce cross-talk among signal traces. In the complaint, Nanya states that Elpida and Kingston import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically names a number of Elpida and Kingston DRAM memory modules as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Nanya states that its DDR3 memory products practice the asserted patents within the U.S.  As to the economic prong, Nanya states that its U.S. subsidiary Nanya Technology Corporation Delaware (“Nanya DE”) has made significant investments in plant and equipment and has engaged in significant employment of labor and capital in the U.S. with respect to products that practice the asserted patents.  Additionally, Nanya states that a domestic industry exists by virtue of Nanya DE’s substantial investment in the exploitation of the asserted patents through engineering and research and development.  Nanya specifically refers to Nanya DE’s facilities in Vermont, Texas, and California.  Nanya further states that Nanya and Nanya DE engineers have been assigned to work with engineers at Micron Technology, Inc. (“Micron”) at a Micron facility in Idaho. With respect to potential remedy, Nanya requests that the Commission issue limited exclusion orders and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Elpida and Kingston.
Share

Read More

Freescale Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Integrated Circuits

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
02
On December 1, 2011, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. of Austin, Texas (“Freescale”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. 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 integrated circuits, integrated circuit chipsets, and products containing same, including televisions, that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,467,455 (the ‘455 patent):
  • MediaTek Inc. of Taiwan (“MediaTek”)
  • Zoran Corporation of Sunnyvale, California (“Zoran”)
  • Vizio, Inc. of Irvine, California
  • Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. of Japan
  • Sanyo North America Corporation of San Diego, California
  • Sanyo Manufacturing Corporation of Forrest City, Arkansas
  • TPV Technology Limited of Hong Kong
  • TPV International (USA) Inc. of Austin, Texas
  • Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co., Ltd. of Taiwan
  • Top Victory Electronics (Fujian) Co., Ltd. of China
  • AOC International (USA) Ltd. of Fremont, California
  • Envision Peripherals, Inc. of Fremont, California
  • Amtran Technology Co., Ltd. of Taiwan
  • Amtran Logistics, Inc. of Irvine, California
According to the complaint, the ‘455 patent generally relates to on-die termination circuitry of integrated circuit technology.  In particular, the ‘455 patent describes circuitry designed to reduce unwanted signal reflection on a bi-directional communication bus between two integrated circuits.  The complaint states that the system and method described in the ‘455 patent permit disabling the termination circuitry on one of the integrated circuits when data is not being received from the communication bus.  The selective enabling and disabling of the termination circuitry allows the system to reduce unwanted signal reflection, which also typically conserves power. In the complaint, Freescale states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the ‘455 patent.  The complaint specifically identifies a number of allegedly infringing products associated with the various Proposed Respondents. Regarding domestic industry, Freescale states that it has engaged in the significant employment of labor and capital and/or made substantial investments in engineering, research and development, and/or licensing with respect to the ‘455 patent.  Freescale cites to former Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern’s Order No. 33 in Inv. No. 337-TA-709, which found that Freescale has made a substantial investment in licensing its patents, including the ‘455 patent, within the U.S.  See our April 21, 2011 post for more details.  Freescale further states that it has at least 22 employees supporting Freescale’s patent licensing activities in the U.S., and that it “has invested substantial sums in enforcement actions of its patents, including the ‘455 patent, resulting in royalty bearing licenses.” As to related litigation, Freescale states that on December 7, 2006, it filed an infringement suit against ProMOS Technologies in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of, inter alia, the ‘455 patent.  Freescale states that this case settled and was dismissed.  Additionally, Freescale refers to Inv. No. 337-TA-656 at the ITC, where it alleged that LSI Corporation (“LSI”) violated Section 337 in connection with the alleged infringement of, inter alia, the ‘455 patent.  Freescale states that this investigation was terminated due to a settlement agreement.  Freescale also refers to a district court action against LSI in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which also settled.  Freescale additionally refers to Inv. No. 337-TA-709, in which it alleged that various Respondents infringed, inter alia, the ‘455 patent.  ALJ Luckern found no violation of Section 337 in that investigation, and the Commission declined review.  See our May 20, 2011 post for more details.  Freescale also states that on March 1, 2010, it filed an infringement suit against Funai Corporation, Inc. and Funai Electric Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Funai”) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.  Freescale further states that the ‘455 patent was the subject of reexamination, but that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office confirmed the patentability of all claims on November 16, 2011.  Freescale additionally states that on June 8, 2011, it filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas against, inter alia, Zoran and Mediatek, alleging infringement of the ‘455 patent.  Freescale additionally states that, also on June 8, 2011, it filed a complaint at the ITC naming Funai, MediaTek, and Zoran as Respondents.  The Commission instituted an investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-786) based on that complaint on July 11, 2011.  See our July 11, 2011 post for more details.  On August 29, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued an ID granting-in-part Respondents’ motion for summary determination that Freescale’s claims against Funai are precluded based on the final determination in the 709 investigation.  On October 13, 2011, the ITC decided to review the ID in part.  See our October 14, 2011 post for more details.  In the instant complaint, Freescale argues that unlike certain Funai products that were at issue in the 786 investigation, the accused products in the instant ITC complaint were not at issue in the 709 investigation, and therefore Freescale’s instant infringement claims are not precluded.  Lastly, Freescale states that on August 16, 2011, it filed an infringement suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas against various entities—including all of the Proposed Respondents listed in the instant ITC complaint other than Zoran and MediaTek—alleging infringement of the ‘455 patent.  With respect to potential remedy, Freescale requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents, their affiliates, and others acting on their behalf.
Share

Read More

Standard Innovation Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
06
On December 2, 2011, Standard Innovation Corporation of Canada and Standard Innovation (US) Corp. of Wilmington, Delaware (collectively, “Standard Innovation”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. 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 kinesiotherapy devices and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,931,605 (the ‘605 patent) and D605,779 (the ‘779 patent):
  • LELO Inc. of San Jose, California
  • LELOi AB of Sweden
  • LELO of China
  • Natural Contours Europe of The Netherlands
  • Momentum Management, LLC a.k.a Bushman Products of Torrance, California
  • Evolved Novelties of Canoga Park, California
  • Nalpac Enterprises, Ltd. d/b/a Nalpac, Ltd. of Ferndale, Michigan
  • E.T.C., Inc. d/b/a Eldorado Trading Company, Inc. of Broomfield, Colorado
  • Williams Trading Co., Inc. of Pennsauken, New Jersey
  • Honey’s Place, Inc. of San Fernando, California
  • Lover’s Lane & Co. of Plymouth, Michigan
  • PHE, Inc. d/b/a Adam & Eve of Hillsborough, North Carolina
  • Castle Megastore Group, Inc. of Tempe, Arizona
  • Shamrock 51 Management Company, Inc. d/b/a Fairvilla.com of Maitland, Florida
  • Paris Intimates, LLC of West Bloomfield, Michigan
  • Drugstore.com, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington
  • Peekay Inc. of Auburn, Washington
  • Mile Inc. d/b/a Lion’s Den Adult of Worthington, Ohio
  • Marsoner, Inc. d/b/a Fascinations of Chandler, Arizona
  • Love Boutique-Vista, LLC d/b/a Déjà vu of Vista, California
  • Toys in Babeland LLC of Seattle, Washington
 According to the complaint, the ‘605 patent is directed to “a sexual stimulation device worn by a woman during intercourse that includes an arm dimensioned for placement inside a vagina and an arm dimensioned for placement against a clitoral area.” The device has arms tapering down toward a connecting portion that connects the two arms, and at least one of the arms has a tear-drop shape.  The patent is also directed to the construction of the asserted devices, which include vibrators.  The ‘779 patent is a design patent directed to the ornamental design for a vibrator. The complaint defines LELO Inc., LELOi AB, LELO, Natural Contours Europe, Momentum Management, and Evolved Novelties as “Manufacturer Respondents,” who manufacture, design, sell for importation, import, and/or sell after importation infringing kinesiotherapy devices and components thereof that use Standard Innovation’s patented technologies.  The complaint further defines Nalpac Enterprises, Ltd., E.T.C., Inc., Williams Trading Co., Inc., and Honey’s Place, Inc. as “Distributor Respondents,” who import, and/or sell after importation infringing kinesiotherapy devices and components thereof.  The remaining respondents are defined as “Retail Respondents,” who import, and/or sell after importation infringing kinesiotherapy devices and components thereof.  The complaint specifically identifies a number of allegedly infringing products associated with the various Proposed Respondents. As to related litigation, the complaint states that Standard Innovation is contemporaneously filing a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas asserting infringement of the ‘605 patent against LELOi AB, LELO Inc., and LELO. Regarding the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, Standard Innovation asserts that its We-Vibe ® family of products (We-Vibe, We-Vibe II and We-Vibe 3) practices the ‘605 and ‘779 patents.  As to the economic prong, Standard Innovation points to millions of dollars in U.S. sales of We-Vibe ® products, its U.S. supply contracts, research and development activities in the U.S., warehousing of products in the U.S., employees in the U.S., and educational training, seminars, distribution, administrative activities, marketing, its U.S. webstore (accessible only in the U.S.), and its regular participation in U.S. tradeshows. With respect to potential remedy, the complaint requests the Commission to issue a general exclusion order, in view of alleged widespread patterns of infringement by numerous unknown entities and from numerous origins, the ease of manufacturing infringing kinesiotherapy devices, and the likely ease with which new companies and brands would replace domestic companies affected by a limited exclusion order.  In the alternative, the complaint requests a limited exclusion order.  The complaint further requests a permanent exclusion order forbidding entry into the U.S. of infringing kinesiotherapy devices, and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents, their affiliates, and others acting on their behalf.
Share

Read More

Non-Practicing Entity Walker Digital Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Blu-Ray Disc Players, Relying Solely on Licensing Activities For Alleged Domestic Industry

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
08
On December 5, 2011, Walker Digital, LLC (“Walker Digital”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. 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.
Share

Read More