New 337 Complaints

Dec

Digitude Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Portable Communication Devices

By Eric Schweibenz

Dec

On December 2, 2011, Digitude Innovations LLC of Alexandria, Virginia (“Digitude”) 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 portable communication devices that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,926,636 (the ‘636 patent), 5,929,655 (the ‘655 patent), 6,208,879 (the ‘879 patent), and 6,456,841 (the ‘841 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
Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. of Libertyville, Illinois
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of South Korea
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey
Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC of Richardson, Texas
Sony Corporation of Japan
Sony Corporation of America of New York, New York
Sony Electronics, Inc. of San Diego, California
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB of Sweden
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. of Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Amazon.com, Inc. of Seattle, Washington
Nokia Corporation of Finland
Nokia Inc. of Irving, Texas

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to portable communication technology. In particular, the ‘636 patent relates to a remote procedural call component management method for a heterogeneous computer network. The ‘655 patent relates to methods and apparatuses for providing dual-purpose I/O circuits, wherein each of the dual-purpose I/O circuits can be configured to support either one, or both, single-ended and differential I/O signaling modes. The ‘879 patent relates to a mobile information terminal that has more than one mode, such as a telephone mode and an information terminal mode. Lastly, the ‘841 patent relates to a mobile communication apparatus capable of notifying a user of the presence of unopened message information, such as a text message or voice mail. In the complaint, Digitude 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, Digitude states that it maintains a domestic industry through the activities of a domestic licensee. According to the complaint, the domestic licensee practices at least one claim of each of the asserted patents in the U.S. The details of the domestic licensee’s activities are provided in Confidential Exhibits and are not discussed in the body of the complaint. With respect to potential remedy, Digitude requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents.

Dec

Knowles Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Silicon Microphone Packages

By Eric Schweibenz

Dec

On December 7, 2011, Knowles Electronics LLC of Itasca, Illinois (“Knowles”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Analog Devices Inc. of Norwood, Massachusetts (“ADI”), Amkor Technology, Inc. of Chandler, Arizona (“Amkor”), and Avnet, Inc. of Phoenix, Arizona (“Avnet”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain silicon microphone packages and products containing the same that infringe, or that are made by a process that infringes, one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,439,616 (the ‘616 patent) and 8,018,049 (the ‘049 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to silicon microphone package technology. In particular, the ‘616 patent relates to a package that contains a silicon microphone die. The ‘049 patent relates to a package that contains a silicon microphone die and a method for manufacturing the package. In the complaint, Knowles states that ADI, Amkor, and Avnet import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically names a number of ADI silicon microphones and evaluation boards containing silicon microphones as infringing products. According to the complaint, Amkor manufactures these ADI products pursuant to ADI’s specifications and requirements and provides them to ADI and Avnet, among others. Regarding domestic industry, Knowles states that it practices the asserted patents in the U.S. through its manufacture, research and development, and application support for its SiSonic MEMS silicon microphone packages. According to the complaint, Knowles’s domestic facility includes salaried research and design engineers, salaried administrative employees, tens of millions of dollars’ worth of equipment, and other assets allowing for the research, development, production, and sales of its acoustic products. As to related litigation, Knowles states that on November 14, 2006, it filed a complaint against various entities and individuals in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging misappropriation of trade secrets related to silicon microphones. Knowles states that the resulting action was settled by the parties and dismissed with prejudice. Additionally, Knowles states that on December 13, 2006, it filed a complaint against Akustica, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,781,231 (the ‘231 patent). Knowles states that this action was settled by the parties and dismissed without prejudice. Knowles further states that on October 6, 2009, it filed a complaint against ADI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging infringement of the ‘231 patent and U.S. Patent No. 7,242,089 (the ‘089 patent). Knowles states that this action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on October 5, 2011. However, Knowles states that on September 27, 2011, it filed another complaint against ADI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,537,964 and the ‘049 patent. Knowles also refers to Inv. No. 337-TA-629 at the ITC, where it accused MEMS Technology Berhad (“MemsTech”) of violating Section 337 through its alleged infringement of the ‘231 and ‘089 patents. See our October 31, 2011 post for more details. Please note that Oblon Spivak represents MemsTech in the 629 investigation. Knowles further refers to Inv. No. 337-TA-695, where it accused ADI of violating Section 337 through its alleged infringement of the ‘231 and ‘089 patents. See our January 3, 2011 post for more details. Lastly, Knowles refers to various inter partes and ex parte reexaminations of the ‘231, ‘089, and ‘616 patents. With respect to potential remedy, Knowles requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at ADI, Amkor, Avnet, and related companies.

Dec

Twin-Star Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electric Fireplaces

By Eric Schweibenz

Dec

On December 13, 2011, Twin-Star International, Inc. of Delray Beach, Florida and TS Investment Holding Corp. of Miami, Florida (collectively, “Twin-Star”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Shenzhen Reliap Industrial Co., Ltd. of China (“Reliap”), Yue Qiu Sheng, a.k.a. Jason Yue of China (“Yue”), and Whalen Furniture Manufacturing Inc. of San Diego, California (“Whalen”) (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in connection with the importation into the U.S., sale for importation, and/or sale within the U.S. after importation of certain electric fireplaces, components thereof, manuals for same, and products containing same and in relation to certain processes for manufacturing or relating to same. According to the complaint, the unfair methods of competition and unfair acts at issue include the Proposed Respondents’ misappropriation of Twin-Star’s trade secrets, the Proposed Respondents’ infringement of Twin-Star’s registered copyrights, Yue’s breach of contract, and Reliap’s and Whalen’s tortious interference with Twin-Star’s contractual relations. According to the complaint, the technology at issue relates to electric fireplaces. In particular, the complaint states that “[a]n electric fireplace is a kinetic sculpture approximating the size and look of a real, wood burning fireplace.” The complaint further states that an electric fireplace “replicates the moving flames, burning embers, and charred wood of a real wood-burning fireplace” and that the electric fireplace “may incorporate an electric heater to simulate heat radiated by a real wood-burning fireplace.” The complaint refers to Twin-Star’s trade secrets, Twin-Star’s component supplier list, Twin-Star’s customer list, the Twin-Star manufacturing process, the development of the Twin-Star technology, Twin-Star’s manufacturing specifications, hardware and software for a “Twin-Star Prototype 3 LED Functional Indicator Display,” and certain Twin-Star registered copyrights – including the “E1 MANUAL,” “E22 MANUAL,” “KINETIC SCULPTURE 1,” and “KINETIC SCULPTURE 2” – as the intellectual property at issue. In the complaint, Twin-Star alleges that the Proposed Respondents import and sell Reliap Electric Fireplaces and user manuals therefor and that the Proposed Respondents wrongfully entered into the electric fireplace products industry through the misappropriation of Twin-Star’s trade secrets. According to the complaint, Yue was formerly employed by Twin-Star and, since the termination of his employment, Yue has misappropriated Twin-Star’s trade secrets in connection with the formation of his own new company Reliap. The complaint also accuses the Proposed Respondents of infringing Twin-Star’s registered copyrights. The complaint further states that Yue has breached his Stockholder Agreement with Twin-Star through his wrongful solicitation of customers, wrongful use and/or disclosure of confidential information, and unfair competition through the breach of non-competition provisions. Lastly, the complaint alleges that Reliap and Whalen have engaged in unfair competition through their tortious interference with Yue’s contractual relations with Twin-Star. Regarding domestic industry, Twin-Star states that a domestic industry exists “because of market realities,” including: (a) Twin-Star’s design and distribution of electric fireplace products and their related technology in the U.S.; (b) Twin-Star’s manufacturing-related and other activities relating to its electric fireplace technology in the U.S.; (c) Twin-Star’s substantial investment in exploitation, including engineering and research and development of its electric fireplace technology in the U.S.; (d) Twin-Star’s significant employment of labor and capital relating to its electric fireplace technology in the U.S.; and (e) Twin-Star’s significant investment in facilities and equipment relating to its electric fireplace technology in the U.S. As to related litigation, Twin-Star refers to ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-791, where Twin-Star is alleging that Reliap and Yue have violated Section 337 in connection with their sale and importation of certain electric fireplaces, components thereof, manuals for same, and products containing same and in relation to certain processes for manufacturing or relating to same. See our July 15, 2011 post for more details. Twin-Star also refers to district court cases in the Southern District of California and the District of Delaware. With respect to potential remedy, Twin-Star requests that the Commission issue an exclusion order, a cease and desist order, and an order instructing the Proposed Respondents to immediately and verifiably turn over to Twin-Star all documents and things in their possession, custody, or control that contain or embody one or more of Twin-Star’s trade secrets or any information derived from or based on one or more of Twin-Star’s trade secrets.

Jan

Kodak Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices

By Eric Schweibenz

Jan

On January 10, 2012, Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Apple, Inc. of Cupertino, California, High Tech Computer Corp. a/k/a HTC Corp. of Taiwan, HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington, and Exedea, Inc. of Houston, Texas (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain electronic devices for capturing and transmitting images and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,210,161 (the ‘161 patent), 7,742,084 (the ‘084 patent), 7,453,605 (the ‘605 patent), 7,936,391 (the ‘391 patent), and 6,292,218 (the ’218 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘161, ‘084, ‘605, and ‘391 patents are directed to technology allowing a user to “easily share images with friends, relatives, or publishing services from their digital cameras--as opposed to first downloading the images to their personal computers--using an improved, highly efficient user interface.” The ‘218 patent is directed to “the first effective color preview for a digital camera,” referring to the display that allows a user to preview a scene and subsequently view a captured image on a digital camera. The complaint alleges that Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) infringes the ‘161, ‘084, ‘605, and ‘391 patents “by importing and/or selling after importation devices that directly infringe, contribute to infringement, and induce infringement either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.” Kodak points to the iPad 2, iPod touch, iPhone 4, and iPhone 4S as representative infringing devices. The complaint similarly accuses HTC Corp., HTC America, Inc., and Exedea, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) of infringing the ‘161, ‘084, ‘605, and ‘391 patents based on representative devices HTC EVO View 4g, Flyer, and Jetstream. HTC is further alleged to infringe the ‘218 patent based in particular on Kodak’s analysis of the HTC Vivid camera phone and the EVO View 4G handheld tablet. As to related litigation, the complaint describes a patent infringement case in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York accusing different defendants of infringing the ‘218 patent and patents related to the ‘161, ‘084, ‘391, and 605 patents. This suit was settled with a license bearing royalties to Kodak, and dismissed with prejudice. The ‘218 patent (among others) has also been asserted against different defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and again in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York with identical results. Kodak filed a complaint for violation of Section 337 against various respondents (different from the present complaint) in relation to the ‘218 patent (among others), and this case has been settled favorably for Kodak and terminated (Investigation No. 337-TA-663, see our March 12, 2010 post for more details). Kodak filed another Section 337 case against various respondents, including Apple, based on the ‘218 patent and other patents which has been remanded and is currently under investigation (Investigation No. 337-TA-703, see our August 8, 2011 post for more details on the original initial determination). RIM Ltd. and RIM Corp. filed a declaratory judgment action against Kodak in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas seeking a determination that they did not infringe the ‘218 patent, among others, and that these patents were invalid and unenforceable. This case remains pending. Kodak filed a case against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York alleging infringement of the ‘218 patent, among others. This case is stayed. The complaint describes that two ex partereexamination requests were filed against the ‘218 patent. These requests were merged and a Rexamination Certificate was issued confirming all claims as patentable without amendment. Concurrent with the filing of this complaint, Kodak filed suit against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York alleging infringement of the ‘161, ‘084, ‘605 and ‘391 patents and filed a separate suit in the same court against HTC alleging infringement of the ‘161, ‘084, ‘605, ‘391, and ‘218 patents. Kodak asserts that it meets both the economic and technical prongs of the domestic industry requirement, arguing that it has “made substantial investments in the United States in continuously developing advanced technologies that incorporate the inventions claimed in the [asserted patents].” The complaint also alleges that Kodak has made substantial investments in licensing its digital imaging portfolio which includes several of the asserted patents. Last, Kodak points out that domestic industry was previously considered by the Commission in relation to the ‘218 patent and it was found that Kodak satisfies the domestic industry requirement. 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’ devices or components thereof that infringe the ‘161, ‘084, ‘605, ‘391, and/or ‘218 patents. Kodak also requests permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents, directing each domestic Proposed Respondent to cease and desist from importing, marketing, selling, etc. imported devices or components that infringe the ‘161, ‘084, ‘605, ‘391, and/or ‘218 patents.

Jan

Mondis Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Video Displays

By Eric Schweibenz

Jan

On January 13, 2012, Mondis Technology, Ltd. of London, England (“Mondis”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Chimei Innolux Corporation of Taiwan and Innolux Corporation of Austin, Texas (collectively, “Innolux”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain video displays and products containing and using same such as computer monitors and televisions that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,247,090 (the ‘090 patent) and 7,089,342 (the ‘342 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to what is commonly known as “Plug-and-Play” technology. In particular, the ‘090 patent relates to storing and communicating display unit information to a video source using a bi-directional communications channel. The video source can then use the display unit information to generate compatible signals for the video display unit. Additionally, the ‘090 patent describes using the communication channel to send control instructions from a computer to the video display in order to adjust the displayed image. The ‘342 patent relates to storing and communicating display unit information to a video source using a bi-directional communications channel, wherein the display unit information includes an identification number for identifying the display unit together with other information. In the complaint, Mondis states that Innolux imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint alleges that a number of computer monitors and televisions manufactured by Innolux infringe the asserted patents, and specifically names the Lenovo Thinkvision L2251X computer monitor (manufactured by Innolux) as an infringing product. Regarding domestic industry, Mondis states that its activities relating to the licensing and enforcement of the asserted patents in the U.S. constitute a significant domestic investment in the exploitation of the asserted patents. In particular, Mondis states that, since acquiring the asserted patents in 2007 from original patentee Hitachi Ltd. (“Hitachi”), Mondis has engaged in an extensive licensing program relating to the asserted patents. Mondis states that it has employed counsel and other professionals in connection with its licensing program. According to the complaint, these professionals have analyzed the asserted patents, met with potential licensees during license negotiations, and prepared and litigated patent infringement litigation. Mondis states that, to date, it has entered into five licenses encompassing the asserted patents in its own right. Further, Mondis states that Hitachi entered into a number of additional licenses for the asserted patents before Mondis acquired the patents from Hitachi in 2007. In addition to its own—and Hitachi’s—licensing activities, Mondis relies on the domestic activities of these licensees to further support its domestic industry allegations. As to related litigation, Mondis states that Hitachi filed four patent infringement suits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California between 2003 and 2005, alleging infringement of the asserted patents. According to the complaint, all four of these cases were settled and licenses were taken by each of the defendants. Mondis further states that, on December 31, 2007, it filed an action against Innolux and others in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of, inter alia, the asserted patents. Mondis states that all of the defendants in that action other than Innolux settled and took licenses to the asserted patents. As to Innolux, Mondis states that a jury trial was held in June 2011, and that the jury found that the asserted patents are valid, that Innolux infringes, and that Innolux’s infringement was willful. On August 30, 2011, the Court entered final judgment and awarded damages in the amount of $15,560,847.00 to Mondis. Mondis states that an appeal of the district court’s decision is currently pending before the Federal Circuit. In the complaint, Mondis argues that “[t]he infringement, validity, and enforceability issues normally part of investigations before the Commission have been fully and finally litigated against Innolux in the Eastern District of Texas and accordingly should form no part of this investigation.” Mondis also refers to an ex parte reexamination of the ‘090 patent and an inter partes reexamination of the ‘342 patent, both filed by Innolux. According to the complaint, the ex parte reexamination terminated with a confirmation of the patentability of all original claims as well as certain new claims. The inter partes reexamination is still pending. With respect to potential remedy, Mondis requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Innolux.

Jan

Canon Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Toner Cartridges

By Eric Schweibenz

Jan

On January 23, 2012, Canon Inc. of Japan, Canon U.S.A., Inc. of Lake Success, New York, and Canon Virginia, Inc. of Newport News, Virginia (“CVI”) (collectively, “Canon”) 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 toner cartridges and components thereof, including but not limited to photosensitive drums, that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,903,803 (the ‘803 patent) and 6,128,454 (the ‘454 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):

Clover Holdings, Inc. of Hoffman Estates, Illinois
Clover Technologies Group, LLC d/b/a Depot International f/k/a Depot America f/k/a Image1 Products of Ottawa, Illinois
Clover Vietnam Co., Ltd. of Vietnam
Dataproducts USA, LLC of Thousand Oaks, California
Dataproducts Imaging Solutions S.A. de C.V. of Mexico
CAU, Inc. d/b/a Cartridges Are Us of Ithaca, Michigan
Shanghai Orink Infotech International Co., Ltd. of China
Orink Infotech International Co., Ltd. of Hong Kong
Zhuhai Rich Imaging Technology Co., Ltd. of China
Standard Image Co., Ltd. a/k/a Shanghai Orink Co., Ltd. of China
Zhuhai National Resources & Jingjie Imaging Products Co., Ltd. d/b/a Huebon Co., Ltd. d/b/a Ink-Tank of China
Standard Image USA, Inc. d/b/a Imaging Standard Inc. of Santa Ana, California
Printronic Corporation d/b/a Printronic.com d/b/a InkSmile.com of Santa Ana, California
Nukote, Inc. of Plano, Texas
Nukote International de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. of Mexico
Acecom, Inc. – San Antonio d/b/a InkSell.com of San Antonio, Texas
Atman, Inc. s/b/a pcRUSH.com of El Segundo, California
Dexxxon Digital Storage, Inc. of Lewis Center, Ohio
Discount Office Items, Inc. of Columbus, Wisconsin
Deal Express LLC d/b/a Discount Office Items of Columbus, Wisconsin
Do It Wiser LLC d/b/a Image Toner of Marietta, Georgia
E-Max Group, Inc. d/b/a Databazaar.com of Miramar, Florida
Green Project, Inc. of Hacienda Heights, California
GreenLine Paper Company, Inc. of York, Pennsylvania
IJSS Inc. d/b/a TonerZone.com d/b/a InkJetSuperstore.com of Los Angeles, California
Imaging Resources, LLC of Chatsworth, California
Ink Technologies Printer Supplies, LLC of Dayton, Ohio
Myriad Greeyn LLC of Virginia Beach, Virginia
Office World, Inc. of Eugene, Oregon
OfficeWorld.com, Inc. of Eugene, Oregon
OnlineTechStores.com, Inc. d/b/a SuppliesOutlet.com of Reno, Nevada
SupplyBuy.com, Inc. of Nashville, Tennessee
Virtual Imaging Products Inc. of Canada
Zinyaw LLC d/b/a TonerPirate.com of Houston, Texas

According to the complaint, the asserted patents both disclose the same subject matter. In particular, the complaint states that the asserted patents are directed, in part, to a novel and advantageous projection on a photosensitive drum that is configured to couple with and receive a rotational force from a hole in a laser beam printer (“LBP”), so that the drum may be rotated. The novel structure of the projection enables a process cartridge which contains the drum to be easily inserted and removed from a LBP by a user and at the same time enables the drum to be rotated in a smooth and stable fashion, thereby ensuring a high quality of the resultant printing. In the complaint, Canon 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, Canon states that CVI currently manufactures, inspects, packages, engineers, and recycles millions of toner cartridges and photosensitive drums in the U.S. that utilize technology protected by each of the asserted patents. According to the complaint, CVI manufactures certain toner cartridges that it sells to Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) for distribution throughout the U.S. under the HP brand name. Canon states that CVI’s main campus is located in Newport News, Virginia, and that this campus includes three primary facilities: (1) a Main Plant, (2) an Advanced Cartridge Manufacturing (“ACM”) Plant, and (3) a Toner Plant. The complaint includes a photograph of former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine officiating a ribbon cutting ceremony in celebration of the completion of CVI’s ACM Plant. As to related litigation, Canon states that, concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it is also filing a civil action against the Proposed Respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging infringement of the asserted patents. Additionally, Canon states that on June 28, 2010, it filed an ITC complaint relating to the asserted patents. The ITC instituted an investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-731) based on this complaint. See our July 28, 2010 post for more details. Canon states that the 731 investigation was terminated on May 5, 2011, when the Commission issued a consent order prohibiting all 20 Respondents in that investigation from importing into the U.S., selling for importation, and selling or offering for sale in the U.S. after importation the accused toner cartridges and components thereof. Canon further states that, concurrently with the filing of the complaint in the 731 investigation, it also filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the same Respondents. Canon states that this action was terminated on May 24, 2011 in view of a stipulation, consent judgment, and permanent injunction. Canon also states that the asserted patents have undergone ex parte reexaminations, and that the USPTO has issued reexamination certificates for each of the asserted patents. Lastly, Canon refers to various foreign proceedings involving a Korean counterpart to the asserted patents. With respect to potential remedy, Canon requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order—or, alternatively, a limited exclusion order—and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents. Canon states that a general exclusion order is warranted in view of the numerous sources abroad of infringing toner cartridges and components thereof and the available channels of distribution.

Jan

Neptun Light Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps

By Eric Schweibenz

Jan

On January 23, 2012, Neptun Light, Inc. and Andrzej Bobel of Lake Forest, Illinois (collectively, “Neptun”) 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 dimmable compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,434,480 (“the ‘480 patent”) and 8,035,318 (“the ‘318 patent”):

SK America, Inc. d/b/a/ Maxlite of Fairfield, New Jersey
U Lighting America Inc. of San Jose, California
Golden U Lighting Manufacturing (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. of China
Feit Electric Company, Inc. of Pico Rivera, California
General Electric Company of Fairfield, Connecticut
Xiamen Topstar Lighting Co. Ltd. of China
Technical Consumer Products, Inc. of Aurora, Ohio
TCP China of China
TCP (Shanghai) Tiancanbao Lighting Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. of China
Shanghai Jensing Electron Electrical Equipment Co., Ltd. of China
Shanghai Qiangling Electronics Co. Ltd. of China
Zhejiang Qiang Ling Electronic Co. Ltd. of China

According to the complaint, the ‘480 patent is directed to “circuitry for electronic ballasts that power dimmable CFLs with the ballasts providing a high power factor and low harmonic distortion” which allows for improved dimmable CFL performance. The ‘318 patent is directed to “an electronic ballast for enabling a full range of dimming of a CFL.” Both patents address deficiencies in ballast circuitry that cause visible flicker during the dimming operation in dimmable CFLs. The complaint identifies Mr. Bobel as the inventor of the ‘480 and ‘318 patents and the founder, CEO and chief engineer of Neptun, a “manufacturer of energy conservation lighting products such as LED, induction and compact fluorescent, including dimmable CFLs … designed for residential, commercial, outdoor and other infrastructure lighting applications.” The complaint defines SK America, Inc. d/b/a/ Maxlite, U Lighting America, Inc., Feit Electric Company, Inc., General Electric Company, and Technical Consumer Products, Inc. as importers, distributors and/or sellers of infringing dimmable CFLs manufactured abroad, namely in China. The complaint also defines Golden U Lighting Manufacturing (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Xiamen Topstar Lighting Co. Ltd., TCP-China, TCP (Shanghai) Tiancanbao Lighting Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd., Shanghai Jensing Electron Electrical Equipment Co., Ltd., Shanghai Qiangling Electronics Co. Ltd., and Zhejiang Qiang Ling Electronic Co. Ltd. as manufacturers of infringing dimmable CFLs in China. Regarding the technical prong of domestic industry requirement, Neptun asserts that it is in the business of developing, designing and manufacturing in the U.S. dimmable CFLs which practice the ‘480 and ‘318 patents, such as Neptun’s dimmable CFL R30 product. With respect to the economic prong, Neptun points to substantial investments in labor, capital, research and development, and marketing for over 15 different models of dimmable CFLs that it currently sells in the United States. Neptune also adds that not only is it is a licensee of the ‘480 patent, but the ‘480 patent has been licensed to another dimmable CFL manufacturer. With respect to potential remedy, the complaint asks the Commission to issue permanent cease and desist orders and a permanent limited exclusion order forbidding entry into the U.S. of all infringing dimmable CFLs that are manufactured, imported or sold for importation by or on behalf of the Proposed Respondents.

Feb

MT.Derm Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Ink Application Devices

By Eric Schweibenz

Feb

On January 30, 2012, MT.Derm GmbH of Germany (“MT.Derm”) and Nouveau Cosmetique USA Inc. of Orlando, Florida (collectively, the “Complainants”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that T-Tech Tattoo Device Inc. of Canada (“T-Tech”), Yiwu Beyond Tattoo Equipments Co., Ltd. of China (“Yiwu”), and Guangzhou Pengcheng Cosmetology Firm of China (“Guangzhou”) (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, sell within the U.S. after importation, and/or offer for sale within the U.S. after importation certain ink application devices and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,345,553 (the ‘553 patent) and 6,505,530 (the ‘530 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to ink application devices for tattooing, applying permanent makeup, scar concealment, and areola reconstruction and methods of using these devices. More specifically, the asserted patents relate to ink application devices that use disposable cartridges designed to reduce or eliminate health risks associated with tattooing and the application of permanent makeup. In the complaint, the Complainants state that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically names T-Tech’s EZ Needle Cartridges and certain Yiwu and Guangzhou needle cartridges as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, the complaint states that MT.Derm has made a substantial investment in the exploitation of the asserted patents in the U.S. through the design, manufacturing, assembly, marketing, and sale of its PMU medical devices, handsets, and disposable cartridges. The complaint states that MT.Derm’s PMU and tattoo devices and disposable needle cartridges embody all of the features claimed in certain claims of the asserted patents. Additionally, the complaint refers to the Complainants’ investment in U.S. labor, training and education, customer support, research and development, and commercial property all in further exploitation of the asserted patents. As to related litigation, the Complainants state that on April 4, 2004, MT.Derm’s predecessor filed a civil action against Le Belle International, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging infringement of the ‘553 patent. According to the complaint, this case was dismissed without prejudice based on a settlement agreement. Additionally, the Complainants state that on July 6, 2009, MT.Derm filed a civil action against Stacey Diorio (an individual doing business as “Natural Profile”) in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging infringement of the ‘553 and ‘530 patents. According to the complaint, this case was also dismissed without prejudice based on a settlement agreement. With respect to potential remedy, the Complainants request that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents, their affiliates, subsidiaries, divisions, licensees, agents, contractors, and other related entities. The Complainants state that a general exclusion order is warranted because a widespread pattern of infringement exists, the source of infringing products is difficult to identify, and a limited exclusion order is likely to be circumvented.

Feb

Immersion Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Mobile Electronic Devices Incorporating Haptics

By Eric Schweibenz

Feb

On February 7, 2012, Immersion Corporation of San Jose, California (“Immersion”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Motorola Mobility, Inc. and Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “Motorola”)—both of Libertyville, Illinois—unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain mobile electronic devices incorporating haptic feedback technology (“haptics”), including cellular phones and smartphones that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,429,846 (the ‘846 patent), 7,592,999 (the ‘999 patent), 7,969,288 (the ‘288 patent), 7,982,720 (the ‘720 patent), 8,031,181 (the ‘181 patent), and 8,059,105 (the ‘105 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to haptics technology. The complaint states that, broadly speaking, haptics provides touch or tactile sensations to users of electronic devices. In particular, the ‘846 patent relates to outputting a haptic feedback effect to a user contacting a touch input device, which includes a touchscreen, based on the position of the user’s contact. The ‘999 patent relates to outputting a haptic feedback effect to a user when the user selects or touches one of the menu items from a menu displayed on a touchscreen. The ‘288 patent relates to systems and methods for enabling haptics on electronic devices with a multi-tasking environment, where multiple application programs can simultaneously run. The ‘720 patent relates to, among other things, producing haptic effects associated with graphical items in an active state and an inactive state. The ‘181 patent relates to a haptic feedback device comprising a touchscreen with at least two regions: a first region associated with cursor positioning and a second region associated with control functionality different from cursor positioning. The ‘105 patent relates to haptic feedback in response to both user input (e.g., pressing a key) and user-independent events (e.g., receipt of a phone call). In the complaint, Immersion states that Motorola imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically names the Motorola Droid Razr, Droid 3, Droid Bionic, Photon, Droid X2, Atrix, Atrix 2, Admiral, Xprt, and other Motorola mobile electronic devices incorporating haptics as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, the complaint states that Immersion has invested substantial resources to research, develop, design, engineer, test, and commercialize advanced software products that practice the asserted patents when run on a mobile electronic device. Further, the complaint states that Immersion offers customers several services and other products designed to help manufacturers integrate haptics into electronic devices with touchscreen interfaces. Immersion specifically refers to its 32,881 square-foot facility in San Jose, California, where it employs many engineers who work on the technologies disclosed in the asserted patents. Immersion states that its TouchSense software products are designed to implement haptics in electronic devices using the patented inventions. According to the complaint, Immersion has licensed its TouchSense software products to several cellular phone, smartphone, and handheld computer manufacturers, including Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”). By way of example, the complaint states that Samsung’s Galaxy S II incorporates Immersion’s TouchSense 3000 software and practices the inventions claimed in the asserted patents. With respect to potential remedy, Immersion requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Motorola.

Feb

Peregrine Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Radio Frequency Integrated Circuits

By Eric Schweibenz

Feb

On February 15, 2012, Peregrine Semiconductor Corporation of San Diego, California (“Peregrine”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that RF Micro Devices, Inc. of Greensboro, North Carolina (“RFMD”) and Motorola Mobility, Inc. of Libertyville, Illinois (“Motorola”) (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain radio frequency integrated circuits, including radio frequency switches, and devices containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,910,993 (the ‘993 patent), 7,123,898 (the ‘898 patent), 7,460,852 (the ‘852 patent), 7,796,969 (the ‘969 patent), and 7,860,499 (the ‘499 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to advanced integrated circuit technologies for use in radio frequency (RF) circuits, including but not limited to RF switches. In particular, the ‘994 patent relates to an integrated circuit transistor apparatus and method of manufacturing same that provides improved linearity of MOSFET transistors on an RF integrated circuit. The ‘898 patent relates to a radio frequency switch apparatus and method of manufacturing same that provides improved characteristics of the switch, thus relaxing requirements for signals input to the switch and improving signals output from the switch. The ‘852, ‘969, and ‘499 patents are related to the ‘898 patent and, like the ‘898 patent, they teach a radio frequency switch apparatus and method of manufacturing same. In the complaint, Peregrine states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically names devices with M1D1604 and M1D1293 integrated circuit die markings as infringing products. According to the complaint, these accused dies are marketed and sold by RFMD under the RF switch device names RF1603, RF1604, and RF1293, and variants thereof. The complaint further states that Motorola’s DROID RAZR and DROID BIONIC smartphones contain the infringing M1D1604 die. Regarding domestic industry, the complaint states that Peregrine’s PE42641 and PE42440 RF switch products each embody at least one claim of each of the asserted patents. With respect to the economic prong, Peregrine states that its activities in the U.S. are devoted to developing, manufacturing, and testing RF switching devices that employ and exploit technology covered by the asserted patents. Peregrine specifically refers to its facilities in California, Illinois, and New Hampshire and states that it has made significant and substantial investments in these facilities that directly relate to the research, development, engineering, and manufacture of RF switching products that exploit the technology of the asserted patents. Peregrine further states that it employs full-time equivalent personnel dedicated to the manufacture of the patented products, as well as engineers and engineering technicians either partially or fully dedicated to researching and developing RF switching products that exploit technology protected by the asserted patents. With respect to potential remedy, Peregrine requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order—or in the alternative, a permanent limited exclusion order—and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents. Peregrine states that a general exclusion order is warranted because there is a pattern of violation of Section 337, it is difficult to identify the sources of infringing products, and a general exclusion order is necessary to prevent circumvention of an exclusion order limited to products of the Proposed Respondents.

Feb

Pragmatus Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Consumer Electronics

By Eric Schweibenz

Feb

On February 17, 2012, Pragmatus AV, LLC of Alexandria, Virginia (“Pragmatus”) 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, including mobile phones and tablets, that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,854,893 (the ‘893 patent), 6,237,025 (the ‘025 patent), 6,351,762 (the ‘762 patent), 7,185,054 (the ‘054 patent), and/or 7,206,809 (the ‘809 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):

ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. of Taiwan
ASUS Computer International, Inc. of Fremont, California
Pantech Co., Ltd. of South Korea
Pantech Wireless, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia
Research In Motion Ltd. of Canada
Research In Motion Corp. of Irving, Texas
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

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to consumer electronics technology used in mobile phones and tablets. In particular, the ‘893 patent relates to a method of conducting a teleconference using a graphical rolodex user interface. The ‘025 patent relates to a method of conducting a teleconference by maintaining a directory of potential participants and associating the directory with a database. The ‘762 patent relates to a method of conducting a video conference where users log into workstations and receive calls only at their login location. The ‘054 patent relates to a method of conducting a video conference where users may make calls from at least one of a graphical rolodex with a scrollable list of video-enabled participants or a quick dial panel with icons representing video-enabled participants. Lastly, the ‘809 patent relates to a method of conducting a real-time communication (e.g., video chat, audio chat, instant message) between multiple devices. In the complaint, Pragmatus 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, Pragmatus states that it is a privately owned company that focuses on licensing intellectual property, including the asserted patents. Pragmatus states that it acquired the asserted patents from Intellectual Ventures, who acquired them from their original owner, Avistar Communications/Collaboration Properties. According to the complaint, a domestic industry exists with respect to the asserted patents because Pragmatus has an extensive domestic licensing program focused on these patents. Pragmatus states that it invests heavily in the exploitation of its technologies and patents, including the asserted patents, through its extensive licensing activities. Pragmatus further states that a domestic industry exists by virtue of the activities of Pragmatus’s domestic licensees, including significant investment in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor and capital, and substantial investment in research and development with respect to the asserted patents. The complaint names Sony Corporation, Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., Microsoft Corporation, and Apple, Inc. as licensees to the asserted patents. As to related litigation, Pragmatus states that the asserted patents are currently being litigated—or have recently been litigated—against a variety of entities in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint refers to 13 distinct lawsuits in that court in which at least one of the asserted patents has been asserted. Additionally, the complaint states that patents that share a common specification with the asserted patents are currently being asserted in the Southern District of Florida and the Northern District of California against various entities. Pragmatus also states that the asserted patents and many related patents have been the subject of extensive ex parte reexamination requests before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. With respect to potential remedy, Pragmatus requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order directed at the domestic Proposed Respondents and their successors and assigns.

Mar

Align Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Digital Models, Digital Data, And Treatment Plans For Use In Making Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment Appliances

By Eric Schweibenz

Mar

On March 1, 2012, Align Technology, Inc. of San Jose, California (“Align”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that ClearCorrect Pakistan (Private), Ltd. of Pakistan (“ClearCorrect Pakistan”) and ClearCorrect Operating, LLC of Houston, Texas (collectively, “ClearCorrect”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain digital models, digital data, or treatment plans for use in making incremental dental positioning adjustment appliances that infringe—or are made, produced, or processed by means of a process that infringes—one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,217,325 (the ‘325 patent), 6,705,863 (the ‘863 patent), 6,626,666 (the ‘666 patent), 8,070,487 (the ‘487 patent), 6,471,511 (the ‘511 patent), 6,722,880 (the ‘880 patent), and 7,134,874 (the ‘874 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to novel methods of straightening teeth. In particular, the ‘325 patent relates to methods for facilitating tooth repositioning treatment and fabricating tooth repositioning appliances. The ‘511 patent relates to, among other things, a computer-implemented orthodontic treatment plan. The ‘666 patent relates to methods for producing a plurality of digital data sets representing tooth arrangements. The ‘863 patent relates to a method for producing digital models for use in fabricating incremental dental positioning appliances. The ‘880 patent relates to methods of using digital data sets representing tooth arrangements to fabricate aligners. Lastly, the ‘874 and ‘487 patents relate to computer-implemented methods of creating treatment plans. In the complaint, Align states that ClearCorrect imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically names the ClearCorrect System and ClearCorrect appliances that are used with the ClearCorrect System as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Align states that the asserted patents cover and relate to its Invisalign System, which encompasses proprietary software programs, sophisticated design parameters and tools, extensive know-how, advanced production processes, and ultimately, customized aligners and computerized interfaces used to treat patients. As to the economic prong, Align refers to its 122,350 square-foot headquarters in San Jose, California. Align states that this facility is home to Align’s senior executive officers, as well as the marketing and sales, customer care, research and development, software engineering, and administrative functions of the company. Align states that it has over 2,500 employees, approximately 600 of whom are in the U.S. Align further states that it has spent over $240 million in research and development of the Invisalign System. As to related litigation, Align states that it has instituted civil litigation against ClearCorrect in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas based in part on some of the acts of patent infringement asserted in the instant ITC complaint. Align further states that in January 2005, it filed an ITC complaint against an entity known as OrthoClear alleging trade secret misappropriation and infringement of many of the same patents asserted in the instant ITC complaint. According to the instant complaint, on October 13, 2006, Align and OrthoClear entered into a Consent Order whereby OrthoClear and its officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, successors, and assigns agreed (1) to not import articles infringing any of the patents-in-suit, and (2) to not sell, import, sell after importation, or aid/abet/encourage/participate in, or induce the sale for importation of the articles at issue. The instant complaint states that, in spite of this Consent Order, former OrthoClear managers, directors, and operators are now infringing Align’s patents under the auspices of ClearCorrect Pakistan. Accordingly, Align further states that contemporaneously with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it is also requesting the initiation of an ITC enforcement action to address the former OrthoClear employees’ violation of the Consent Order through their work in managing, owning, operating, and/or working for ClearCorrect Pakistan. With respect to potential remedy, Align requests that the Commission issue permanent cease and desist orders directed at ClearCorrect.

Mar

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

By Eric Schweibenz

Mar

On March 5, 2012, 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 (“Apple”)
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 Electronics, Inc. of San Diego, California
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB of Sweden
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to technology used in consumer electronics and display devices. In particular, the ‘327 patent relates to a display system and process where geometry, rasterization, and frame buffer values are predominantly 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 focusing on the asserted patents. According to the complaint, GPS 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. that work alongside intellectual property counsel in evaluating licensing opportunities in the consumer electronics and display devices industry. GPH also states that a domestic industry exists based on the activities of its domestic licensees. In particular, GPH states that it licenses the asserted patents to Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”), and Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. (“Motorola”), and that Microsoft, IBM, and Motorola make use of the technology claimed in the asserted patents in various products. As to related litigation, GPH states that after filing its original ITC complaint on November 17, 2011 (see our November 18, 2011 post for more details), it filed analogous actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Respondents named in the original complaint infringe the asserted patents. Additionally, GPH states that Apple has filed declaratory judgment actions against GPH in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. 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.

Mar

Fabri-Kal Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Food Storage Containers

By Eric Schweibenz

Mar

On March 5, 2012, Fabri-Kal Corp. of Kalamazoo, Michigan (“Fabri-Kal”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Green Wave International, Inc. of Brooklyn, New York, Trans World International, Inc. of Brooklyn, New York, John Calarese & Co., Inc. of Medway, Massachusetts, and Eco Greenwares Corp. of Fremont, California (the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain food storage containers, cups, plates, cutlery, and related items and packaging thereof that infringe Fabri-Kal’s U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,945,021 for GREENWARE®. According to the complaint, Fabri-Kal markets a product line under the GREENWARE® trademark and logo. GREENWARE® products are “manufactured using entirely plant-based plastics, which offer significant advantages over traditional plastic,” are compostable, and have a smaller environmental footprint than comparable products. Fabri-Kal alleges that it has adopted and continually used the GREENWARE® trademark and logo since at least July 30, 2004. The complaint describes the infringing activities of the Proposed Respondents, pointing to plastic molded food products manufactured in China under the names of “Greenwave,” “Green Wave,” and/or “Eco Greenwares.” Fabri-Kal contends that allowing the Proposed Respondents to sell these products will “undermine consumer confidence in a leading manufacturer and innovator” and that the infringing products “are likely to be confused with Fabri-Kal’s domestically-sourced and domestically-produced products.” Fabri-Kal asserts that, in addition to the potentially confusingly named products, the Proposed Respondents “use, and have used, in commerce, a reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of the GREENWARE® trademark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods without the consent of Fabri-Kal.” Fabri-Kal further asserts that it meets both the economic and technical prongs of the domestic industry requirement, arguing that it has “continually produced food containers, cups, and related items in the United States under the GREENWARE® trademark” and that it has made “substantial investments in capital and labor” including manufacturing, warehousing, and printing facilities. Additionally, Fabri-Kal notes that it employs more than 800 people and extensively advertises and promotes the GREENWARE® products. As a result of its marketing and sales efforts, Fabri-Kal’s GREENWARE® products “have come to be known as environmentally-responsible products of high quality, durability, and reliability.” Fabri-Kal asserts that the goodwill it has developed in its GREENWARE® products is threatened by and will be substantially injured by the Proposed Respondents’ continued sale and distribution of infringing products. With respect to potential remedy, the complaint requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order barring entry into the United States any food containers and related products bearing marks confusing similar to the GREENWARE® trademark. Fabri-Kal suggests that a general exclusion order is necessary based on “the ease with which Respondents can establish new identities.” Alternatively, Fabri-Kal requests a limited exclusion order directed to each named Proposed Respondent and its subsidiaries and affiliates. Fabri-Kal also requests cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.

Mar

LSI Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Audiovisual Components

By Eric Schweibenz

Mar

On March 12, 2012, LSI Corporation of Milpitas, California (“LSI Corp.”) and its subsidiary Agere Systems Inc. of Allentown, Pennsylvania (“Agere”) (collectively, “LSI”) 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 audiovisual components and products containing the same, including, without limitation, certain digital televisions, Blu-ray disc players, home theater systems, DVD players and/or recorders, and other substantially similar audiovisual devices and systems that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,870,087 (the ‘087 patent), 6,452,958 (the ‘958 patent), 6,707,867 (the ‘867 patent), and 6,982,663 (the ‘663 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):

Funai Electric Company, Ltd. of Japan
Funai Corporation, Inc. of Rutherford, New Jersey
P&F USA, Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia
Funai Service Corporation of Groveport, Ohio
MediaTek Inc. of Taiwan
MediaTek USA Inc. of San Jose, California
MediaTek Wireless, Inc. (USA) of Woburn, Massachusetts
Ralink Technology Corporation of Taiwan
Ralink Technology Corporation (USA) of Cupertino, California
Realtek Semiconductor Corporation of Taiwan

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to wireless communications and multimedia data processing. In particular, the ‘087 patent relates to digital video compression and decompression, and specifically to a decoding system that includes, among other components, transport logic, a system controller, a decoder, and a single unified memory. The ‘958 patent relates to wireless communication, and specifically to digital modulation and demodulation methods and/or systems that provide increased data rates while minimizing performance degradation due to such factors as multipath signal transmission and noise interference. The ‘867 patent relates to methods that synchronize a transmitter and a receiver in a wireless network (such as a wireless local area network), and systems that are capable of implementing such synchronization methods. Lastly, the ‘663 patent relates to a system and method for encoding and decoding digital signals. In the complaint, LSI 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, LSI states that it has made significant investments in plant, equipment, labor, and capital in the U.S. with respect to the asserted patents in the form of research and development. LSI further states that it has exploited the asserted patents through licensing, research and development, and engineering. LSI refers to the “long and storied history of innovation” of itself and its predecessors, which include AT&T, Bell Labs, Lucent, Agere, LSI Logic, and VideoLocus. LSI also states that it continues to invest heavily in research and development. Additionally, LSI states that it has made substantial investments in the U.S. in the exploitation of the asserted patents through licensing, including investment in plant, equipment, labor, and capital dedicated to product market research, procurement of products suspected of infringement, patent-specific reverse engineering and related technical analysis, and correspondence and license negotiations with potential licensees. LSI also refers to its licensees’ practice of the asserted patents and related significant investments in the U.S. According to the complaint, these licensees include, inter alia, Acer Inc., Sony Corp., and Mitsumi Electric Company, Ltd. As to related litigation, LSI states that on March 12, 2012, it filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of the asserted patents by the same Funai entities listed as Proposed Respondents in the instant ITC complaint. Additionally, LSI refers to six other district court cases that each involve at least one of the asserted patents. According to the complaint, three of these cases are still pending, and the other three resulted in favorable outcomes for Agere or LSI Corp. With respect to potential remedy, LSI requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents and any of their principals, stockholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, licensees, distributors, controlled or majority-owned business entities, successors, and assigns.

Mar

Pragmatus Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Consumer Electronics

By Eric Schweibenz

Mar

On March 13, 2012, Pragmatus AV, LLC of Alexandria, Virginia (“Pragmatus”) 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, including mobile phones and tablets, that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,854,893 (the ‘893 patent), 6,237,025 (the ‘025 patent), 7,054,904 (the ‘904 patent), 7,185,054 (the ‘054 patent), and/or 7,206,809 (the ‘809 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):

ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. of Taiwan
ASUS Computer International, Inc. of Fremont, California
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
Pantech Co., Ltd. of South Korea
Pantech Wireless, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia
Research In Motion Ltd. of Canada
Research In Motion Corp. of Irving, Texas
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

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to consumer electronics technology used in mobile phones and tablets. In particular, the ‘893 patent relates to a method of conducting a teleconference using a graphical rolodex user interface. The ‘025 patent relates to a method of conducting a teleconference by maintaining a directory of potential participants and associating the directory with a database. The ‘904 patent relates to a method of capturing audio and video signals and marking audio and video signals for searching. The ‘054 patent relates to a method of conducting a video conference where users may make calls from at least one of a graphical rolodex with a scrollable list of video-enabled participants or a quick dial panel with icons representing video-enabled participants. Lastly, the ‘809 patent relates to a method of conducting a real-time communication (e.g., video chat, audio chat, instant message) between multiple devices. In the complaint, Pragmatus 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, Pragmatus states that it is a privately owned company that focuses on licensing intellectual property, including the asserted patents. Pragmatus states that it acquired the asserted patents from Intellectual Ventures, who acquired them from their original owner, Avistar Communications/Collaboration Properties. According to the complaint, a domestic industry exists with respect to the asserted patents because Pragmatus has an extensive domestic licensing program focused on these patents. Pragmatus states that it invests heavily in the exploitation of its technologies and patents, including the asserted patents, through its extensive licensing activities. Pragmatus further states that a domestic industry exists by virtue of the activities of Pragmatus’s domestic licensees, including significant investment in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor and capital, and substantial investment in research and development with respect to the asserted patents. The complaint names Sony Corporation, Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., Microsoft Corporation, and Apple, Inc. as licensees to the asserted patents. As to related litigation, Pragmatus states that the asserted patents are currently being litigated—or have recently been litigated—against a variety of entities in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint refers to 15 distinct lawsuits in that court in which at least one of the asserted patents has been asserted. Additionally, the complaint states that patents that share a common specification with the asserted patents are currently being asserted in the Southern District of Florida and the Northern District of California against various entities. Pragmatus also states that the asserted patents and many related patents have been the subject of extensive ex parte reexamination requests before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. With respect to potential remedy, Pragmatus requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order directed at the domestic Proposed Respondents and their successors and assigns.

Mar

Emerson Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Food Waste Disposers

By Eric Schweibenz

Mar

On March 16, 2012, Emerson Electric Co. of St. Louis, Missouri (“Emerson”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Anaheim Manufacturing Co. of Brea, California (“Anaheim”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain food waste disposers and components and packaging thereof that infringe Emerson’s trade dress rights and/or U.S. Patent No. D535,850 (the ‘850 patent). The complaint also alleges that Anaheim has violated Emerson’s INSINKERATOR trademarks, including U.S. Reg. Trademark No. 2,518,010. The complaint further alleges that Anaheim’s acts constitute unlawful passing off under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and (b). According to the complaint, the ‘850 patent relates to a novel, ornamental design for a food waste disposer that is used in one or more of Emerson’s Evolution® series food waste disposers. In the complaint, Emerson states that Anaheim imports and sells products that infringe the ‘850 patent, Emerson’s trade dress rights, and Emerson’s INSINKERATOR trademarks. According to the complaint, Anaheim imports and sells infringing food waste disposers under private label, including KitchenEater, Barracuda™, Dayton®, and Plumber Friendly. Regarding domestic industry, Emerson states that its Evolution® series food waste disposers employ the design claimed in the ‘850 patent. Emerson further states that both its Evolution® series and its Badger® series food waste disposers embody Emerson’s trade dress rights. Moreover, Emerson states that sink mount assemblies designed to connect to these food waste disposers bear the INSINKERATOR trademarks. As to the economic prong, Emerson refers to its large production facility in Racine, Wisconsin, where it develops, manufactures, and tests the Badger® and Evolution® series food waste disposers. Emerson also states that it employs approximately 1000 individuals in the U.S. Emerson further states that it has made a substantial investment in exploiting the ‘850 patent through engineering and research and development. As to related litigation, Emerson states that, concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it is also filing a complaint against Anaheim in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri seeking injunctive and monetary relief for design patent infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition under the Lanham Act, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and other state law counts. With respect to potential remedy, Emerson requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited and/or general exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Anaheim.

Mar

Microchip Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuit Devices

By Eric Schweibenz

Mar

On March 23, 2012, Microchip Technology Incorporated (“Microchip”) 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 semiconductor integrated circuit devices and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,225,088 (the ‘088 patent), 6,245,597 (the ‘597 patent), 6,159,765 (the ‘765 patent), 5,760,720 (the ‘720 patent), 6,559,783 (the ‘783 patent), and 6,847,904 (the ’904 patent):

Intersil Corp. of Milpitas, California
Zilker Labs, Inc. of Austin, Texas
Techwell, Inc. of San Jose, California

According to the complaint, the asserted patents “relate generally to integrated circuit devices and package designs, and methods of manufacturing such devices and packages.” The ‘088 patent is directed to power supply systems including a “programmable power supply and a programmable brownout detector.” The ‘597 patent is related to “reducing die cracking in integrated circuits by using an epoxy adhesive with a specified thickness to attach an integrated circuit die to a mounting structure.” The ‘765 patent is directed to an integrated circuit package having two devices mounted therein that are “coupled to one another allowing for communication and control.” The ‘720 patent describes an invention related to trimming electronic analog components and to “measuring parameters of analog components during testing and storing calibration constants.” The ‘783 patent describes a method and device that “automatically converts a plurality of analog input channels using a single analog to digital converter.” The ‘904 patent is directed to “a programmable gain amplifier controlled through a serial communications interface, fabricated on an integrated circuit with a multiplexer.” The complaint alleges that the Proposed Respondents have “engaged in unlawful and unfair acts, including the sale for importation into the United States, and/or sale within the United States after importation of the Accused products that infringe one or more of the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents.” The complaint provides a list of fifteen accused products identified by serial number that correspond with the six asserted patents. As several of the accused products were purchased in the United States, Microchip contends that the Proposed Respondents manufacture and/or package the accused products outside the United States and then imports the products. With respect to related litigation, the complaint describes that Microchip is concurrently filing a civil action in the United States District of Arizona alleging infringement of the same asserted patents by the same parties. Microchip asserts that it meets both the economic and technical prongs of the domestic industry requirement, arguing that “each of the Asserted Patents is important to Microchip’s success in the highly competitive industry of integrated circuits by providing Microchip with features that are competitive and desired by customers in that industry.” The complaint also alleges that Microchip has made significant investments in the United States with respect to (i) personnel engaged in, among other things, engineering, testing, and manufacturing of Microchip’s integrated circuit and electronic component products, (ii) capital, operation, and maintenance of its United States manufacturing facilities (asserting approximately 80% of its 2011 products were made in the United States); and (iii) activities necessary to commercialize and support Microchip’s integrated circuit and electronic component product line. Last, Microchip asserted that certain of its products practice at least one independent claim of each asserted patent. Regarding potential remedy, the complaint requests the Commission to issue a permanent exclusion order and cease and desist order directed at Proposed Respondents and their allegedly infringing devices.

Mar

Technology Properties Limited Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Computers and Computer Peripheral Devices

By Eric Schweibenz

Mar

On March 26, 2012, Technology Properties Limited LLC (“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 computers and computer peripheral devices, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,976,623 (the ‘623 patent), 7,162,549 (the ‘549 patent), 7,295,443 (the ‘443 patent), 7,522,424 (the ‘424 patent), 6,438,638 (the ‘638 patent), and 7,719,847 (the ‘847 patent):

Acer Inc. of Taiwan
Brother Industries, Ltd. of Japan
Canon Inc. of Japan
Dane-Elec Memory of France
Dell Inc. of Round Rock, Texas
Falcon Northwest Computer Systems, Inc. of Medford, Oregon
Fujitsu Limited of Japan
Jasco Products Company of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto, California
HiTi Digital, Inc. of Taiwan
Kingston Technology Company, Inc. of Fountain Valley, California
Micron Technology, Inc. of Boise, Idaho
Lexar Media, Inc. of Fremont, California
Microdia Limited of San Jose, California
Newegg Inc. of City of Industry, California
Rosewill Inc. of City of Industry, California
Sabrent of Chatsworth, California
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea
Seiko Epson Corporation of Japan
Shuttle Inc. of Taiwan
Systemax Inc. of Port Washington, New York

According to the complaint, TPL is the exclusive licensee of the asserted patents, all of which are generally directed to flash memory readers. The ‘623 patent discloses a memory card apparatus having more than one interface to read at least two different types of memory cards, allowing faster data transfer between flash cards. The ‘549 patent is directed to a system with a controller chip that interfaces with a flash memory card and can conduct bad block mapping to reduce errors. The ‘443 patent discloses a multi-media memory adapter capable of receiving multiple types of flash memory cards. The ‘638 patent is directed to a multi-flash card reader that uses a converter chip to read data from different kinds of flash cards. The ‘424 patent and the ‘847 patent are both directed to an apparatus with a port having multiple sets of contact pins adapted to interface with different types of flash memory cards. The complaint describes the infringing activities of each of the Proposed Respondents separately and specifically identifies a number of allegedly infringing products associated with each of the various Proposed Respondents, including, among other items, lap tops, card readers, and printers. With regard to related litigation, the complaint states that TPL is concurrently filing civil actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas accusing the same parties of infringing the asserted patents. ASUSTek Computer Inc. filed a declaratory judgment of noninfringement against TPL and other parties in February, 2008 based on the ‘623 patent and the ‘638 patent, among other patents. Soon after, TPL filed two suits against ASUSTek Computer Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, one alleging infringement of the ’443 and ‘549 patents, and one alleging infringement of the ‘623 patent, among others. These cases have all been dismissed based on settlement. TPL filed a complaint for violation of Section 337 against 18 respondents in relation to the ‘623, ‘443, ‘549, and ‘424 patents (Investigation No. 337-TA-807, see our August 26, 2011 post for more details). This case is still pending at the ITC with 5 respondents remaining. TPL also filed a complaint against the same 18 defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of the ‘623, ‘443, ‘549, and ‘424 patents, and this case has been stayed pending resolution of the 337-TA-807 investigation. TPL asserts that it meets both the economic and technical prongs of the domestic industry requirement, arguing primarily 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 ‘424, ‘443, ‘549, ‘623, ‘638, and ‘847 Patents.” TPL bases this argument on the fact that that its predecessor in interest developed the products and technology that form the “CORE Flash Patent Portfolio,” and made significant investments in plants, equipment, labor, and capital, resulting in extensive use of the inventions claimed in the asserted patents. TPL argues that it meets the domestic industry requirement by continuing to make substantial investments in licensing this portfolio, including employing a “team of IP legal and Research and Development employees who have worked to analyze and license the CORE Flash Portfolio.” With respect to potential remedy, the complaint requests the Commission to issue permanent limited exclusion and cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents and their allegedly infringing devices.

Mar

HumanEyes Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Cameras and Mobile Devices

By Eric Schweibenz

Mar

On March 28, 2012, HumanEyes Technologies, Ltd. (“HumanEyes”) 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 cameras and mobile devices, related software and firmware, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,665,003 (the ‘003 patent) and 7,477,284 (the ‘284 patent):

Sony Corporation of Japan
Sony Corporation of America of New York, New York
Sony Electronics, Inc. of San Diego, California
Sony Mobile Communications AB of England
Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia

According to the complaint, HumanEyes is the exclusive licensee of the asserted patents, both related to improved methods of generating 3D images. The ‘003 patent is directed to generating a pair of panoramic mosaic images for use in facilitating panoramic stereoscopic viewing of a scene and displaying these images in a viewer. The ‘284 patent relates to generating mosaic images of a scene from a series of images captured using an ordinary camera and displaying the resulting mosaic images “to provide a sense of depth.” The complaint describes the infringing activities of the Proposed Respondents as a collaborative effort and specifically notes that at least a subset of the Proposed Respondents knew of the patents, as the ‘284 patent was cited in a non-final rejection during the prosecution of a patent assigned to Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics, Inc. HumanEyes identifies the accused products as various cameras and mobile phones and associated firmware and software in the Cyber-Shot (DSC) camera and Xperia mobile phone product lines. With regard to related litigation, the complaint states that HumanEyes is concurrently filing a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware accusing the Proposed Respondents of infringing the asserted patents. HumanEyes asserts that it meets both the economic and technical prongs of the domestic industry requirements. According to the complaint, HumanEyes develops and markets software to create panoramic 3D mosaic images using a standard digital camera, and currently offers a “comprehensive suite of software products and [a] U.S. based Snapily lenticular printing” service that realize this goal. Both the software and the Snapily printing services are alleged to practice the asserted patents. HumanEyes states that the United States is its “most important geographic market” and nearly “100% of [its] online sales are believed to be U.S. customers.” The complaint notes that HumanEyes’ investments also include printing equipment at the Snapily facilities as well as employees in the U.S. that tend to business development, sales, customer support, and R&D work. Last, HumanEyes argues that it has also “invested substantially in a licensing program aimed at identifying and cultivating partnerships with companies interested in incorporating HumanEyes technology into their products.” With respect to potential remedy, the complaint requests the Commission to issue permanent exclusion and cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents and their allegedly infringing devices.

Start
Previous
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Next Page
End

Digitude Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Portable Communication Devices

Knowles Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Silicon Microphone Packages

Twin-Star Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electric Fireplaces

Kodak Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices

Mondis Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Video Displays

Canon Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Toner Cartridges

Neptun Light Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps

MT.Derm Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Ink Application Devices

Immersion Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Mobile Electronic Devices Incorporating Haptics

Peregrine Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Radio Frequency Integrated Circuits

Pragmatus Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Consumer Electronics

Align Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Digital Models, Digital Data, And Treatment Plans For Use In Making Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment Appliances

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

Fabri-Kal Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Food Storage Containers

LSI Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Audiovisual Components

Pragmatus Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Consumer Electronics

Emerson Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Food Waste Disposers

Microchip Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuit Devices

Technology Properties Limited Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Computers and Computer Peripheral Devices

HumanEyes Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Cameras and Mobile Devices

About Us

337 Complaints by Calendar Year

ALJs

Useful Links

Archives

More from Oblon

About Us

337 Complaints by Calendar Year

ALJs

Stay Updated

Useful Links

Archives

More from Oblon