New 337 Complaints

Federal-Mogul Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Windshield Wiper Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
13
On May 9, 2013, Federal-Mogul Corporation of Southfield, Michigan and Federal-Mogul S.A. of Belgium (collectively, “Federal-Mogul”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Trico Corporation of Rochester Hills, Michigan, Trico Products of Brownsville, Texas, and Trico Components SA de CV of Mexico (collectively, “Trico”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain windshield wiper devices and components thereof that infringe claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,347,449 (“the ‘449 patent”). According to the complaint, the ‘449 patent generally relates to “a wiper device having a spoiler as a separate constructional element that is detachably connected to the metal carrier strip(s) of the wiper blade.”  Federal-Mogul asserts in the complaint that Trico manufacturers, assembles, packages and/or tests the accused products in Mexico and imports them into the U.S., sells them for importation into the U.S. and/or sells them after importation into the U.S.  The complaint specifically refers to Trico’s Force, Ice, NeoForm, ExactFit, Flex and Onyx wiper devices. Regarding domestic industry, Federal-Mogul states that its ANCO Profile, ANCO Contour, NAPA Vista, NAPA AccuFit and Tesla Model S products practice one or more claims of the ‘449 patent.  Federal-Mogul further states that it makes significant investments in facilities, equipment, and labor in the U.S. With respect to potential remedy, Federal-Mogul requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order directed to each named Respondent and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
Share

Read More

Black Hills Media Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Digital Media Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
16
On May 13, 2013, Black Hills Media, LLC of Wilmington, Delaware (“Black Hills”) 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 media devices that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,028,323; 8,214,873; 8,230,099; 8,045,952; 8,050,652 and 6,618,593 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”):
  • Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. of South Korea
  • Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey
  • Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC of Richardson, Texas
  • 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
  • Panasonic Corporation of Japan
  • Panasonic Corporation of America of Secaucus, New Jersey
  • Toshiba Corporation of Japan
  • Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. of Irvine, California
  • Sharp Corporation of Japan
  • Sharp Electronics Corporation of Mahwah, New Jersey
According to the complaint, the Asserted Patents generally relate to sharing of media across various electronic devices (e.g., phones, TVs, etc.).  Additionally, the ‘593 patent generally relates to location based services on smart phones. As to the allegedly infringing products, the complaint identifies specific products from each of the Proposed Respondents, including televisions, Blu-ray disc players, home theater systems, tablets, mobile telephones, components thereof and associated software. Regarding domestic industry, Black Hills asserted that its licensees have made substantial investments in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor and capital, and substantial investments in research, development, repair and warranty work in the U.S.  Black Hills further asserted that these investments are related to articles that practice the Asserted Patents. As to related litigation, Black Hills stated that on May 22, 2012 it filed complaints in the District of Delaware asserting certain Black Hills patents against: (i) Yamaha Corporation, Civil Action No. 12-635 (RGA); (ii) Logitech, Inc. and Logitech, LLC, Civil Action No. 12-636 (RGA); (iii) Sonos, Inc. Civil Action No. 12- 637 (RGA); and (iv) Pioneer Corporation, Civil Action No. 12-638 (RGA).  Further, Black Hills stated that on May 6, 2013 it filed complaints in the District of Delaware and the Eastern District of Texas asserting certain Black Hills patents against: (i) the Samsung Respondents, Civil Action No. 13-379 (JRG) (E.D. Tex); (ii) the LG Respondents, Civil Action No. 13-803 (UNA) (D. Del.); (iii) the Panasonic Respondents, Civil Action No. 13-806 (UNA) (D. Del.); (iv) the Toshiba Respondents, Civil Action No. 13-805 (UNA) (D. Del.); and (v) the Sharp Respondents, Civil Action No. 13-804 (UNA) (D. Del.). With respect to potential remedy, Black Hills requested that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed to the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

Graphics Properties Holdings Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Consumer Electronics With Display And Processing Capabilities

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
21
On May 17, 2013, 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 with display and processing capabilities that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,650,327 (the ‘327 patent), 8,144,158 (the ‘158 patent), and/or 5,717,881 (the ‘881 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):
  • Panasonic Corp. of Japan
  • Panasonic Corp. of North America of Secaucus, New Jersey
  • Toshiba Corp. of Japan
  • Toshiba America, Inc. of New York, New York
  • Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. of Irvine, California
  • Vizio, Inc. of Irvine, California
  • AmTran Logistics, Inc. of Irvine, California
  • AmTram Technology Co., Ltd. of Taiwan
  • ZTE Corp. of China
  • ZTE (USA) Inc. of Iselin, New Jersey and Richardson, Texas
  • ZTE Solutions, Inc. of Richardson, Texas
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to consumer electronics with display and processing capabilities.  In particular, the ‘327 and ‘158 patents relate to display systems and processes where geometry, rasterization, and frame buffer values are predominately determined by floating point numbers.  The ‘327 and ‘158 patents also relate to allowing data to be read from, operated on, written to, and stored in a frame buffer using the floating point format.  According to the complaint, the use of the frame buffer enables subsequent graphics operations to be performed directly on the frame buffer data without any loss of accuracy.  Lastly, the ‘881 patent relates to a supercomputer data processing apparatus that includes 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 refers to various laptops, netbooks, PCs, television sets, HD camcorders, and Blu-ray and DVD players as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, GPH states that it has an extensive domestic licensing program focused on the asserted patents.  GPH states that, since 2009, its activities have been primarily dedicated to licensing the asserted patents.  GPH further states that it employs licensing professionals and outside counsel in the U.S. in connection with its licensing activities.  In addition, GPH refers to the activities of its domestic licensees, including Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), Apple Inc. (“Apple”), and Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola”).  GPH states that Microsoft, Apple, and Motorola have made substantial investments in the U.S. relating to products that practice the asserted patents, including the Microsoft Surface RT, the Apple iPhone, and the Motorola Droid Razr Maxx. As to related litigation, GPH refers to numerous district court cases where it has alleged infringement of the asserted patents.  Some of these cases involve the Proposed Respondents, but many others involve entities other than the Proposed Respondents.  Most of the cases appear to have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.  GPH also refers to Inv. No. 337-TA-836, where it asserted the ‘327, ‘158, and ‘881 patents against various other entities.  That investigation was terminated based on a series of settlement agreements.  See our January 30, 2013 post for more details. 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

Rohm and Haas and Dow File New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Opaque Polymers

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
22
On May 20, 2013, Rohm and Haas Company of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Rohm and Haas Chemicals LLC of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The Dow Chemical Company of Midland, Michigan (collectively, “Complainants”) 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 opaque polymers that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,020,435 (the ‘435 patent); 6,252,004 (the ‘004 patent); 7,435,783 (the ‘783 patent); and 7,803,878 (the ‘878 patent):
  • Organik Kimya San. ve Tic. A.S. of Turkey
  • Organik Kimya Netherlands B.V. of the Netherlands
  • Organik Kimya US, Inc. of Burlington, Massachusetts
  • Turk International LLC of Aptos, California
  • Aalborz Chemical LLC of Grand Rapids, Michigan
According to the complaint, the asserted patents are generally related to opaque polymers, described as “hollow-sphere polymeric pigments that allow paint manufacturers to reduce the raw material cost of their formulations by using tiny air voids trapped in the polymer to scatter light.” The complaint describes the activities of the Proposed Respondents alleged to directly infringe the asserted patents, asserting that Organik Kimya produces infringing polymers at both its Turkey and Netherlands locations.  The other Proposed Respondents are accused of importing, selling after importation, and/or distributing the opaque polymers produced by Organik Kimya. The complaint states that none of the asserted patents have been the subject of any previous litigation.   Complainants assert that they meet both the economic and technical prongs of the domestic industry requirement, providing confidential technical material illustrating the process by which Rohm and Haas manufactures opaque polymers in the United States together with claim charts illustrating how the Rohm and Haas products correspond to representative claims of the asserted patents.  Complainants also assert that they made “significant investments in plant and equipment and employment of labor and capital” in relation to these products.  With respect to potential remedy, the complaint requests the ITC to issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

Nokia Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Portable Electronic Communications Devices, Including Mobile Phones

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
28
On May 23, 2013, Nokia Corporation of Finland and Nokia Inc. of Sunnyvale, California (collectively, “Nokia”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that HTC Corporation of Taiwan and HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington (collectively, “HTC”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain portable electronic communications devices, including mobile phones and components thereof that infringe one more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,035,189 (the ‘189 patent), 6,373,345 (the ‘345 patent), 6,711,211 (the ‘211 patent), 7,187,945 (the ‘945 patent), 8,140,650 (the ‘650 patent), and 8,363,824 (the ‘824 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents “are a reflection of the breadth of Nokia’s extensive dedication and investment in technology.”  In particular, the ‘189 patent relates to a device that has the ability to add new services made available by a telecommunications system.  The ‘345 patent relates to a modulator structure that is suitable for use in mobile stations that are required to operate in multiple frequency bands.  The ‘211 patent relates to methods for encoding and decoding video information.  The ‘945 patent relates to a technology that facilitates band selection and mode switching in multi-standard and multi-band wireless communications devices.  The ‘650 patent relates to a method for an external managing entity to arrange use of configurations in a device with multiple configuration data sets.  Lastly, the ‘824 patent relates to a portable electronic device that includes a user input, an engine, a battery, and a housing. In the complaint, Nokia states that HTC imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to the HTC One S, One V, One X, Evo 4G LTE, Droid Incredible 4G LTE, Droid DNA, One X+, One VX, First, and One as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Nokia states that at least four of its mobile phones that are offered in the U.S.—the Lumia 810, Lumia 820, Lumia 822, and Lumia 920—practice one or more of the asserted patents.  Nokia further states that it has spent millions of dollars in the U.S. to create, test, and support these models for use by U.S. consumers.  Nokia specifically refers to a facility in San Diego, California, where it has conducted research and development and testing activities related to these mobile phones.  Nokia also refers to other facilities in Texas, California, and Washington.  Nokia further states that it has over 1500 U.S.-based employees, many of whom were specifically involved in the development and testing of the mobile phones that practice the asserted patents. As to related litigation, Nokia states that it previously asserted the ‘345 patent against Apple Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, but that that case was terminated based on a settlement agreement in June 2011. With respect to potential remedy, Nokia requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at HTC and related entities.
Share

Read More

E.T. Radcliffe And Emir Tiar File New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain TV Programs, Literary Works For TV Production And Episode Guides

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
10
On June 7, 2013, E.T. Radcliffe, LLC of Dallas, Texas (“Radcliffe”) and Emir Tiar of Coto De Caza, California (“Tiar”) (collectively, the “Complainants”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that The Walt Disney Company of Burbank, California (“Disney”), Thunderbird Films, Inc. of Los Angeles, California (“Thunderbird”), and Mindset Television, Inc. of Canada (“Mindset”) (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) have engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation of articles that infringe registered copyrights directed to certain literary works for television production.  According to the complaint, Tiar created a television pilot script, character analysis, and episode guide for a children’s television program entitled Student Teacher.  These literary works were then given to a well-known producer related to Thunderbird.  The complaint states that Tiar’s script, character analysis, and episode guide were subsequently copied, distributed, and modified to produce a television program in Canada called Mr. Young.  According to the complaint, Mr. Young is currently being imported from Canada into the U.S. and aired on the Disney Channel. The intellectual property at issue includes various original literary works registered with the U.S. Copyright Office and assigned to Radcliffe.  These works include Student Teacher [with Show Bible] (Reg. No. PAU003415849), Student Teacher Derivative Work (Reg. No. TXU001832727), and Student Teacher Show Bible (Reg. No. PAU003639268).  The complaint describes Student Teacher as a comedy about a middle school student named Mattie Drake who becomes the teacher of his class. The complaint alleges that Mr. Young is produced and filmed in Vancouver, Canada by Thunderbird.  According to the complaint, in or around September 2011, Disney announced that it had purchased the rights to Mr. Young and would broadcast the program on Disney XD throughout the U.S.  The complaint states that Disney is, in fact, importing the program for broadcast in the U.S.  The complaint describes the story of Mr. Young, where a student becomes teacher of his class, as “identical” to the story presented in the intellectual property related to Student Teacher.  According to the complaint, Adam Young, like Mattie Drake, is the teacher of a class of students his own age.  Moreover, as in Student Teacher, the underlying conflict of Adam’s interactions with his elder colleagues and his internal conflict between the roles of teacher and friend to his students comprise the main plot of the show. Regarding domestic industry, the Complainants allege that there is “an industry” pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(A) composed of authors, agents, and producers who write, market, and produce programs for television.  The complaint states that authors within the industry have made significant investments in labor and capital to create their literary works.  The complaint further states that every aspect of this industry is harmed “when unethical agents and producers use unfair methods of competition to create programs based on the works of others.” The Complainants further allege that a domestic industry exists in the Student Teacher intellectual property pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B).  According to the complaint, Tiar invested significant labor and capital to create the Student Teacher works through the investment in hardware and software necessary to produce the literary works as well as the intellectual creativity in the composition of characters, scenes, dialogues, and events.  He further made a substantial investment in research needed to compose quality works so that the content of the writings is appealing, captivating, and believable to an outside reader.  The complaint further alleges that Radcliffe has invested a substantial amount in acquiring the works and has subsequently licensed the rights for Student Teacher to Kindle Direct Publishing for publication and resale through Amazon.com, Inc.’s self-publication technology. As to related litigation, the Complainants state that they filed a cause of action against some of the Proposed Respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in October 2012, but that that case was dismissed without prejudice in March 2013.  The Complainants also refer to a related lawsuit against other entities. With respect to potential remedy, the Complainants request that the Commission invoke all available remedies under Section 337, including exclusion from entry, exclusion during the investigation, cease and desist orders, and forfeiture.
Share

Read More

Manitowoc Cranes Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Crawler Cranes

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
14
On June 12, 2013, Manitowoc Cranes, LLC of Manitowoc, Wisconsin (“Manitowoc Cranes”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Sany Heavy Industry Co., Ltd. of China and Sany America, Inc. of Peachtree City, Georgia (collectively, “Sany”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain crawler cranes and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,546,928 (the ‘928 patent) and 7,967,158 (the ‘158 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents), and that were designed and manufactured using Manitowoc Cranes’ misappropriated trade secrets. According to the complaint, the asserted patents and trade secrets generally relate to crawler crane technology.  In particular, the ‘928 and ‘158 patents relate to mobile lift cranes and methods of operating mobile lift cranes with a moveable counterweight unit.  The ‘928 invention employs a moveable counterweight unit that is part of the mobile lift crane itself.  The ‘158 invention includes a linear actuation device (e.g., a hydraulic cylinder or a rack and pinion assembly) for causing the counterweight to move.  The trade secrets at issue cover Manitowoc Cranes’ transformable variable position counterweight (“VPC”) technology, which allows a crane to be set up in different configurations for different purposes.  The trade secrets also include information relating to commercial aspects and benefits of transformable VPC technology. In the complaint, Manitowoc Cranes states that Sany imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents and make use of the asserted trade secrets.  The complaint specifically refers to the Sany SCC8500 Crane and components thereof as infringing products.  According to the complaint, Sany’s misappropriation of Manitowoc Cranes’ trade secrets is a coordinated effort involving a former Manitowoc Cranes employee, John Lanning.  The complaint states that Sany targeted Mr. Lanning due to his knowledge of Manitowoc Cranes’ trade secrets directed to transformable VPC technology, and that Mr. Lanning has improperly shared those trade secrets and other confidential information with Sany. Regarding domestic industry, Manitowoc Cranes states that its Manitowoc 31000 Crane practices one or more claims of the asserted patents.  Manitowoc Cranes further states that it is in the process of developing and plans to sell in the U.S. at least two future cranes that incorporate the trade secrets directed to transformable VPC technology.  As to the economic prong, Manitowoc Cranes states that it has made significant investments in plant and equipment, a significant employment of labor and capital, and a substantial investment in the exploitation of the asserted patents in the U.S.  Manitowoc Cranes specifically refers to its facilities in Manitowoc, Wisconsin and Port Washington, Wisconsin.  Manitowoc Cranes further alleges that its domestic industry has been injured by Sany’s trade secret misappropriation, including through price erosion, reduction in sales, reduction in revenue, damage to reputation, and lost market position. As to related litigation, Manitowoc Cranes states that it filed suit alleging infringement of the asserted patents in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on June 12, 2013, contemporaneously with the filing of the instant ITC complaint. With respect to potential remedy, Manitowoc Cranes requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Sany and related entities.  Manitowoc Cranes further requests that the Commission issue orders instructing Sany and related entities to immediately and verifiably destroy all crawler cranes and related molds, tooling, and other equipment in their possession, custody, or control that make use of Manitowoc Cranes’ misappropriated trade secrets.  Manitowoc Cranes also requests that the Commission issue an order instructing Sany and related entities to immediately and verifiably turn over to Manitowoc Cranes all documents and things in their possession, custody, or control that contain or embody one or more of the misappropriated trade secrets, or any information derived from or based on those trade secrets.
Share

Read More

Knowles Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Silicon Microphone Packages

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
25
On June 21, 2013, 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 GoerTek, Inc. of China and GoerTek Electronics, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California (collectively, “GoerTek”) 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), 8,018,049 (the ‘049 patent), and 8,121,331 (the ‘331 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to silicon microphone packages.  In particular, the ‘616 and ‘331 patents relate to packages that contain a silicon microphone die.  The ‘049 patent relates to a package that contains a silicon microphone die, as well as a method for manufacturing such a package.  In the complaint, Knowles states that GoerTek imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to various GoerTek silicon microphone packages as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Knowles states that its SPU0140LR5H bottom-port MEMS microphone product and/or its SPU0140HR5H top-port MEMS microphone product—both of which are in Knowles’s SiSonic product family—practice at least one claim of each of the asserted patents.  As to the economic prong, Knowles refers to its significant activities within the U.S., including manufacture, research and development, and application engineering support for its SiSonic MEMS silicon microphone packages.  Knowles specifically refers to its facilities in Illinois and California. As to related litigation, Knowles states that, concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it is also suing GoerTek in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for infringement of the asserted patents.  Knowles also refers to a previous case in the Northern District of Illinois against Analog Devices, Inc., which was settled and voluntarily dismissed on March 13, 2013.  In addition, Knowles refers to ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-825, where Knowles alleged infringement of the ‘049 and ‘616 patents against Analog Devices, Inc. and others.  That investigation was recently terminated based on a settlement agreement.  See our March 13, 2013 post for more details.  Lastly, the complaint refers to inter partes reexaminations of the ‘616 and ‘049 patents, as well as an inter partes review (IPR) of the ‘616 patent. 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 GoerTek and related entities.
Share

Read More

Pragmatus Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Wireless Devices, Including Mobile Phones And Tablets

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
28
On June 27, 2013, Pragmatus Mobile, LLC of Alexandria, Virginia (“Pragmatus”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Pantech Co., Ltd. of South Korea and Pantech Wireless, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia (collectively, “Pantech”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain wireless devices, including mobile phones and tablets, that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,149,124 (the ‘124 patent) and 8,466,795 (the ‘795 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to personal security and tracking systems for mobile devices.  In particular, the ‘124 patent relates to a method for tracking a mobile device through Global Positioning System (GPS) signals.  The ‘795 patent relates to a cellular device that may include a variety of components. In the complaint, Pragmatus states that Pantech imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to Pantech’s Discover device as an infringing product. Regarding domestic industry, Pragmatus states that a domestic industry exists by virtue of Pragmatus’s extensive domestic licensing activities focused on the asserted patents.  Pragmatus states that it employs a management team that includes licensing professionals and intellectual property counsel in the U.S.  In addition, Pragmatus states that a domestic industry exists based on the activities of its licensees in the U.S., including HTC Corporation and HTC America Inc. (collectively, “HTC”), LG Electronics, Inc. and its U.S. subsidiaries (collectively, “LG”), and an additional U.S. corporation.  Pragmatus states on information and belief that HTC’s and LG’s smartphone product lines incorporate technology protected by the asserted patents. The complaint states on information and belief that there has been no other litigation involving the asserted patents. With respect to potential remedy, Pragmatus requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order directed at Pantech Wireless, Inc. and its successors and assigns.
Share

Read More

ResMed Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
22
On July 19, 2013, ResMed Corp. of San Diego, California, ResMed Inc. of San Diego, California, and ResMed Ltd. of Australia (collectively, “ResMed”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that BMC Medical Co., Ltd. of China, 3B Medical, Inc. of Lake Wales, Florida, and 3B Products, L.L.C. of Lake Wales, Florida (collectively, “BMC”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain sleep-disordered breathing treatment systems and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,997,267 (the ‘267 patent), 7,614,398 (the ‘398 patent), 7,938,116 (the ‘116 patent), 7,341,060 (the ‘060 patent), 8,312,883 (the ‘883 patent), 7,178,527 (the ‘527 patent), 7,950,392 (the ‘392 patent), and 7,926,487 (the ‘487 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to medical systems used in the treatment of sleep-disordered breathing (SDB), particularly obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).  In particular, the ‘267 patent relates to a respiratory mask assembly for delivering breathable air to a patient.  The ‘398 patent relates to a humidifier for humidifying air in a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) system.  The ‘116 and ‘060 patents relate to a respiratory mask assembly including a frame for delivering breathable air to a patient.  The ‘883 patent relates to a nasal assembly for delivering air to a patient.  The ‘487 patent relates to a vent assembly for use with a respiratory mask of the type used in a CPAP machine.  Lastly, the ‘527 and ‘392 patents relate to a nasal cushion and a nasal mask. In the complaint, ResMed states that BMC imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to BMC’s Willow, iVolve, RESmart CPAP, and RESmart Auto-CPAP as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, ResMed states that various components of its SDB treatment systems are protected by the asserted patents.  As to the economic prong, ResMed states that it conducts research and development, manufactures certain components, packages and sells SDB treatment systems, and conducts other activities designed to exploit the asserted patents in the U.S.  ResMed specifically refers to its facilities in California and South Carolina.  As to related litigation, ResMed states that on March 28, 2013, it filed an ITC complaint against Apex Medical Corp. and others alleging infringement of some of the asserted patents.  The ITC subsequently instituted an investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-879) based on that complaint.  Seeour April 30, 2013 postfor more details.  ResMed also refers to a related district court case, which has been stayed pending resolution of the 879 investigation.  ResMed further states that on May 29, 2013, it sued BMC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging infringement of many of the same patents asserted in the instant ITC complaint.  ResMed also refers to an Australian case involving the University of Sydney, which has now settled. With respect to potential remedy, ResMed requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at BMC.
Share

Read More

Clorox Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Laundry And Household Cleaning Products

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
26
On July 25, 2013, The Clorox Company of Oakland, California (“Clorox”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Industrias Alen, S.A. de C.V. of Mexico and Alen USA, LLC of Houston, Texas (collectively, “Alen”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain laundry and household cleaning products and packaging thereof under the trademarks CLORALEX and PINOL.  According to the complaint, these designations infringe and dilute Clorox’s CLOROX and PINE-SOL marks as shown in various registered U.S. trademarks. In the complaint, Clorox states that it markets many bleach and cleaning products under the CLOROX mark, including liquid bleaches, all-fabric bleach liquid, laundry bleach powder, toilet bowl cleaners, and disinfecting wipes.  According to the complaint, the CLOROX mark has been federally registered since 1915 and Clorox has used the CLOROX mark continuously since that date.  The complaint further states that Clorox sells household all-purpose cleaners under the PINE-SOL mark. The complaint states that Alen imports and sells products that infringe and dilute the CLOROX and PINE-SOL marks.  The complaint specifically refers to CLORALEX Triple Action bleach, color, Max bleach, Floral Fantasy bleach, Lemon Fresh bleach, Plus bleach, Plus wipes, Ultra bleach, and 99 household cleaner, as well as PINOL liquid cleaning product, HD liquid cleaning product, wipes, laundry detergent, detergent floral, and laundry liquid soap detergent as accused products. Regarding domestic industry, Clorox states that its CLOROX trademark appears on all of its CLOROX branded products and that its PINE-SOL trademark appears on all of its PINE-SOL branded products.  As to the economic prong, Clorox refers to significant and substantial activities in the U.S. directed to manufacturing, packaging, testing, marketing and distributing Clorox products featuring the CLOROX mark and/or Clorox products featuring the PINE-SOL mark.  Clorox states that it owns or leases over ninety facilities in the U.S. and has approximately 4,900 employees in the U.S.  In addition, Clorox states that while it believes that it does not need to prove an injury to domestic industry to prevail based on the unfair act of dilution, Alen’s allegedly wrongful conduct does threaten to substantially injure and has substantially injured Clorox’s domestic industry for household cleaners and laundry products. As to related litigation, Clorox refers to two related district court actions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  The complaint also refers to four actions involving Clorox and Allen before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, all of which are currently suspended.  Lastly, the complaint refers to numerous other actions between Clorox and other parties before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. With respect to potential remedy, Clorox requests that the Commission issue permanent limited exclusion orders and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Alen.
Share

Read More

Straight Path IP Group Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Point-To-Point Network Communication Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
02
On August 1, 2013, Straight Path IP Group, Inc. of Glen Allen, Virginia (“Straight Path”) 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 point-to-point network communications devices and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,009,469 (the ‘469 patent), 6,108,704 (the ‘704 patent), and 6,131,121 (the ‘121 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):
  • AmTran Logistics, Inc. of Irvine, California
  • AmTran Technology Co., Ltd. of Taiwan
  • 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
  • Panasonic Corp. of Japan
  • Panasonic Corp. of North America of Secaucus, New Jersey
  • Sharp Corp. of Japan
  • Sharp Electronics Corp. of Mahwah, New Jersey
  • Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. of Japan
  • Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. of Foster City, California
  • Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC of Foster City, California
  • Sony Corp. of Japan
  • Sony Corp. of America of New York, New York
  • Sony Electronics Inc. of San Diego, California
  • Sony Mobile Communications AB of Sweden
  • Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. of Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
  • Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia
  • Toshiba Corp. of Japan
  • Toshiba America Inc. of New York, New York
  • Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. of Irvine, California
  • Vizio, Inc. of Irvine, California
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to point-to-point network communications.  In particular, the ‘704, ‘469, and ‘121 patents all relate to computer programs and methods for establishing point-to-point communication links over a network.  The ‘469 patent additionally relates to user-interfaces to help form point-to-point communication links.  The ‘121 patent additionally relates to the use of dynamically assigned network protocol addresses when forming point-to-point communication links. In the complaint, Straight Path states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to various smartphone handsets, tablet computers, eReaders, smart TVs, gaming consoles, Blu-ray players, set-top boxes, and VoIP phone systems as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Straight Path states that there are several domestic licensees of the asserted patents, including IDT Corp. (“IDT”) and Microsoft Corp. (“Microsoft”).  The complaint states that IDT’s VoiceLine SoftPhone point-to-point network communication technology practices at least one claim of each of the asserted patents.  The complaint also states on information and belief that Microsoft’s Xbox One Gaming Console, which will be commercially released later in 2013, will incorporate Skype technology that is protected by at least one claim of each of the asserted patents.  In addition, Straight Path refers to IDT’s and Microsoft’s substantial investments in the U.S. relating to their respective products that practice the asserted patents. As to related litigation, Straight Path states that, concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it is also asserting the ‘469, ‘704, and ‘121 patents against the Proposed Respondents in U.S. district courts.  Straight Path additionally refers to several previous district court cases that involved the asserted patents but that did not involve any of the Proposed Respondents.  Straight Path also refers to a reexamination of the asserted patents in which the examiner confirmed the validity of numerous claims of the asserted patents, many without any amendments.  Lastly, Straight Path states that Sipnet EU S.R.O. filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) of the ‘704 patent on April 11, 2013. With respect to potential remedy, Straight Path requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the domestic Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

Spansion Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Flash Memory Chips

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
05
On August 1, 2013, Spansion LLC of Sunnyvale, California (“Spansion”) 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 Macronix flash memory chips and downstream products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,369,416 (the ‘416 patent); 6,900,124 (the ‘124 patent); 7,018,922 (the ‘922 patent); 6,459,625 (the ‘625 patent); 7,151,027 (the ‘027 patent); 6,731,536 (the ‘536 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):
  • Macronix International Co., Ltd. of Taiwan
  • Macronix America, Inc. of Milpitas, California
  • Macronix Asia Limited of Kanagawa, Japan
  • Macronix (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. of Hong Kong
  • Acer Inc. of Taiwan
  • Acer America Corporation of San Jose, California
  • ASUSTek Computer Inc. of Taiwan
  • Asus Computer International (America) of Fremont, California
  • Belkin International, Inc. of Playa Vista, California
  • D-Link Corporation of Taiwan
  • D-Link System, Inc. of Fountain Valley, California
  • Netgear Inc. of San Jose, California
  • Nintendo Co., Ltd. of Kyoto, Japan
  • Nintendo of America, Inc. of Redmond, Washington
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to non-volatile flash memory used in cell phones and computers, for example.  Specifically, the technology described in the Spansion patents relates to how to structure flash memory cells, how to isolate the memory cells, and how to manufacture and operate the cells in a way that makes the chips containing those memory cells smaller, faster, less expensive, and more reliable.  The ‘416 patent addresses issues related to contact holes and the need to reduce the size of the memory die layout.  The ‘124 and ‘922 patents address certain issues brought about when flash memory devices are made more dense and cost effective.  The ‘625 patent relates to optimizing the number and size of electrical connections between chip components.  The ‘027 patent relates to the reduction of steps and stinger spacers during chip fabrication.  Finally, the ‘536 patent describes a multi-level security protection system for the sectors of a flash memory device. Regarding the allegedly infringing products, the complaint identifies five different generations of flash memory chips sold for importation into the U.S., imported, and/or sold within the U.S. after importation by the Proposed Macronix Respondents, along with specific products from each additional Proposed Respondent containing allegedly infringing chips. As to domestic industry, Spansion states that it has made significant investments in plant and equipment and in labor and capital in the U.S.  In particular, Spansion has a facility in Austin, Texas that manufactures and tests wafers used to make chips that are sold commercially.  Further, it is alleged that the Spansion products that practice the claimed inventions make up the overwhelming majority of the production output at the Austin facility. With respect to related litigation, Spansion states that its complaint was concurrently filed with a complaint for patent infringement in the Northern District of California, styled as Spansion LLC v. Macronix International Co., Ltd. et al.  The ‘922, ‘124, ‘625, and ‘416 patents were previously asserted in Inv. No. 337-TA-735, which settled before hearing.  The ‘027 patent was previously asserted in the Eastern District of Virginia, styled as Spansion LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (No. 1-10-cv-00881).  That case was dismissed upon the parties’ settlement.  Lastly, the ‘416, ‘625, ‘124, and ‘922 patents were previously asserted in the Northern District of California, styled as Spansion LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. (Nos. 3-10-cv-03446 and 5-10-cv-03446), which was dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement.   Regarding potential remedy, Spansion requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order excluding all infringing Macronix chips and product containing such chips or, in the alternative, a limited exclusion order specifically directed to each Proposed Respondent.  Spansion also requests that the Commission issue cease and desist orders directed to the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

Toyo Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Tires

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
15
On August 14, 2013, Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. of Japan, Toyo Tire Holdings of Americas Inc. of Cypress, California, Toyo Tire U.S.A. Corp. of Cypress, California, Nitto Tire U.S.A. Inc. of Cypress, California, and Toyo Tire North America Manufacturing Inc. of White, Georgia (collectively, “Toyo”) 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 tires that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Design Patent Nos. D487,424 (the ‘424 patent), D610,975 (the ‘975 patent), D610,976 (the ‘976 patent), D610,977 (the ‘977 patent), D615,031 (the ‘031 patent), D626,913 (the ‘913 patent), D458,214 (the ‘214 patent), and D653,200 (the ‘200 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):
  • Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire Co., Ltd. of China
  • Weifang Shunfuchang Rubber & Plastic Co., Ltd. of China
  • Doublestar Dong Feng Tyre Co., Ltd. of China
  • Shandong Yongtai Chemical Group Co., Ltd. of China
  • MHT Luxury Alloys of Rancho Dominguez, California
  • Wheel Warehouse, Inc. of Anaheim, California
  • Shandong Linglong Tyre Co., Ltd. of China
  • Dunlap & Kyle Company, Inc. d/b/a Gateway Tire and Service of Batesville, Mississippi
  • Unicorn Tire Corp. of Memphis, Tennessee
  • West KY Customs, LLC of Benton, Kentucky
  • Svizz-One Corporation Ltd. of Thailand
  • South China Tire and Rubber Co., Ltd. of China
  • American Omni Trading Co, LLC of Houston, Texas
  • Tire & Wheel Master, Inc. of Stockton, California
  • Simple Tire of Cookeville, Tennessee
  • WTD Inc. of Cerritos, California
  • Guangzhou South China Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. of China
  • Turbo Wholesale Tires, Inc. of Irwindale, California
  • TireCrawler.com of Downey, California
  • Lexani Tires Worldwide, Inc. of Irwindale, California
  • Vittore Wheel & Tire of Asheboro, North Carolina
  • RTM Wheel & Tire of Asheboro, North Carolina
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to the ornamental features of Toyo’s unique tire designs. In the complaint, Toyo states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell tires that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to the Durun Terrain Grabber M/T, Mark Ma Dakar M/T, Tri-Ace Dub, Winrum KF770, Sunny SN3890, LionHart LH-3, Lexani LX-Six, Wanli S-1089, Thunderer M/T R405, Councours A/T, and Pioneer A/T as infringing tires. Regarding domestic industry, Toyo states that it has conducted extensive activities in the U.S. directed to tires that practice the asserted patents.  According to the complaint, these activities include manufacturing, quality control, packaging, materials and product engineering, research and development, warranty and technical support, sales, marketing, and customer service.  Toyo specifically refers to its Proxes 4, Trail Grappler M/T, Open Country A/T, and Open Country A/T II tires as products that practice at least one of the asserted patents. With respect to potential remedy, Toyo requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

A&J Manufacturing Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
22
On August 21, 2013, A&J Manufacturing, LLC of St. Simons, Georgia and A&J Manufacturing, Inc. of Green Cove Springs, Florida (collectively, “A&J”) 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 multiple mode outdoor grills and parts thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,381,712 (the ‘712 patent), D660,646 (the ‘646 patent), and D662,773 (the ‘773 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):
  • The Brinkmann Corporation of Dallas, Texas
  • W.C. Bradley Co. of Columbus, Georgia
  • GHP Group, Inc. of Morton Grove, Illinois
  • Kamado Joe Company of Duluth, Georgia
  • Outdoor Leisure Products, Inc. of Neosho, Missouri
  • Rankam Group of Gardena, California
  • Academy Ltd. of Katy, Texas
  • HEB Grocery Company, LP of San Antonio, Texas
  • Kmart Corporation of Hoffman Estates, Illinois
  • Sears Brands Management Corporation of Hoffman Estates, Illinois
  • Sears Holdings Corporation of Hoffman Estates, Illinois
  • Sears, Roebuck & Company of Hoffman Estates, Illinois
  • Tractor Supply Company of Brentwood, Tennessee
  • Guangdong Canbo Electrical Co., Ltd. of China
  • Chant Kitchen Equipment (HK), Ltd. of China
  • Dongguan Kingsun Enterprises Co., Ltd. of China
  • Zhejiang Fudeer of China
  • Ningbo Huige of China
  • Keesung Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of China
  • Ningbo Spring Communication Technologies Co. Ltd. of China
  • Wuxi Joyray International Corp. of China
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to multiple mode outdoor grills, that is, grills that permit simultaneous cooking with gas and solid fuels.  In particular, the ‘712 patent relates to a simultaneous multiple-mode cooking grill mounted on a common supporting structure.  The ‘646 and ‘773 patents relate to ornamental design features in the lids and exhaust vents of multiple mode cooking grills. In the complaint, A&J states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell multiple mode grills that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to various grills associated with the Proposed Respondents. Regarding domestic industry, A&J states that its Char-Griller Duo, Char-Griller Trio, and King Griller Double Play products practice certain claims of the asserted patents.  As to the economic prong, A&J states that it maintains facilities in the U.S. for design, engineering, development, testing, marketing, and distributing of products that practice the asserted patents.  A&J also allegedly maintains facilities in the U.S. to supply customer support, quality assurance, warranty fulfillment, and replacement parts for its products that practice the asserted patents. As to related litigation, A&J states that, concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it is also filing 10 complaints for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. With respect to potential remedy, A&J requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order, a limited exclusion order, and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.  A&J states that a general exclusion order is warranted because there is a pattern of violation of Section 337, and it is difficult to identify all the sources of infringing products.
Share

Read More

Draeger Medical Systems Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Thermal Support Devices For Infants

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
30
On August 29, 2013, Draeger Medical Systems, Inc. of Telford, Pennsylvania (“Draeger”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Atom Medical International, Inc. of Japan (“Atom”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain thermal support devices for infants, infant incubators, infant warmers, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,483,080 (the ‘080 patent) and 7,335,157 (the ‘157 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to various features or components that may be included in a thermal support device.  In particular, the ‘080 patent relates to infant thermal support devices which have air circulation systems that include air warmers or heaters, and in particular to a fail-safe component in the air warmer or heater that prevents the system from overheating.  The ‘157 patent relates to a humidifier module for use in thermal support devices. In the complaint, Draeger states that Atom imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to Atom’s Dual Incu i Infant Incubator and Warmer Model 100 and Incu i Infant Incubator Model 101 as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Draeger states that its Isolette C2000 and Isolette 8000 products practice and exploit the asserted patents.  According to the complaint, these products are designed, manufactured, and produced at Draeger’s facility in Telford, Pennsylvania.  Draeger also states that it employs 57 individuals with manufacturing responsibilities and 12 individuals with engineering, development, or technical responsibilities associated with its Isolette products. As to related litigation, Draeger states that on September 17, 2012, it sued Atom and Philips Electronics North America Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida for infringement of various patents, including the ‘080 patent.  Draeger further states that it later amended its complaint to include an assertion of infringement with respect to the ‘157 patent. With respect to potential remedy, Draeger requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Atom and its successors and assigns.
Share

Read More

Optical Devices Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Optical Disc Drives

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
06
On September 3, 2013, Optical Devices, LLC of Peterborough, New Hampshire (“Optical Devices”) 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 optical disc drives, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,904,007 (the ‘007 patent), 7,196,979 (the ‘979 patent), 8,416,651 (the ‘651 patent), RE40,927 (the ‘927 patent), RE42,913 (the ‘913 patent), and RE43,681 (the ‘681 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):
  • Lenovo Group Ltd. of Hong Kong
  • Lenovo (United States) Inc. of Morrisville, North Carolina
  • LG Electronics, Inc. of South Korea
  • LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
  • Nintendo Co., Ltd. of Japan
  • Nintendo of America, Inc. of Redmond, Washington
  • Panasonic Corp. of Japan
  • Panasonic Corp. of North America of Secaucus, New Jersey
  • Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of South Korea
  • Samsung Electronics America Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey
  • Toshiba Corp. of Japan
  • Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. of Irvine, California
  • MediaTek, Inc. of Taiwan
  • MediaTek USA Inc. of San Jose, California
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally encompass technology that is essential to contemporary optical disc drives, including those contained in most desktop and laptop computers, console gaming systems, and audio/visual products.  In particular, the ‘007 patent relates to methods and apparatuses for calibrating loop gains in a digital servo system.  The ‘979 patent relates to methods and apparatuses for maintaining operating parameters for operating an optical disc drive.  The ‘651 patent relates to digital servo methods and digital servos for producing or determining tracking and focus control signals.  The ‘927 patent relates to methods and apparatuses for measuring characteristics or properties of optical systems including a focusing means and a surface exhibiting some degree of retroreflectivity positioned in the focal plane of the focusing means.  The ‘913 patent relates to methods and apparatuses for detecting characteristics or properties of at least a portion of an optical system based on retroreflected energy.  Lastly, the ‘681 patent relates to methods and apparatuses for directing a laser at an object within an optical system. In the complaint, Optical Devices states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to various laptop computers, Blu-ray disc players, and video games systems associated with the Proposed Respondents. Regarding domestic industry, Optical Devices states that a domestic industry exists based on the activities of one or more of its domestic licensees.  In particular, Optical Devices refers to the activities of Sony Corp. and related entities (collectively, “Sony”) and Sharp Corp. and related entities (collectively, “Sharp”), and states that various Sony and Sharp products practice the asserted patents in the U.S.  According to the complaint, Sony and Sharp have made significant investments in plant and equipment, engaged in a significant employment of labor and capital, and made substantial investments in the exploitation of the patented technology in the U.S. As to related litigation, Optical Devices states that it is currently engaged in litigation against Panasonic and LG in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.  Optical Devices further states that it intends to file additional complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the remaining Proposed Respondents.  Optical Devices also refers to a previous litigation against Sharp, which was voluntarily dismissed on August 12, 2013. With respect to potential remedy, Optical Devices requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order directed at the domestic Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

TRW Automotive Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Vision-Based Driver Assistance System Cameras

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
24
On September 20, 2013, TRW Automotive U.S. LLC of Livonia, Michigan (“TRW”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Magna Electronics, Inc. (“Magna”) of East Lansing, Michigan unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain vision-based driver assistance system cameras that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,807,287 (the ‘287 patent). According to the complaint, the asserted patent generally relates to an apparatus and method for road profile prediction by looking at and processing image data derived from the road ahead of the data to locate lane markers and find lane positions, heading, curvature, and horizon. In the complaint, TRW alleges that Magna produces an infringing forward-facing camera called “EYERIS,” and that this product is being included in passenger vehicles assembled outside the United States, including the Chevrolet Equinox.  The complaint also asserts that a Magna affiliate has opened a production line/factory in China for making the accused products. Regarding domestic industry, TRW asserts that it has made significant investment in research and design facilities in Michigan where manufacture, research, and design of driver assistance systems are conducted.  Commercial TRW products are also manufactured domestically in Illinois, and TRW asserts that the Scalabe Camera of the “S-Cam” forward driver assistance system practices at least one claim of the‘287 patent. As to related litigation, TRW states that on June 23, 2013, it sued Magna in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan for infringement of two patents, including the ‘287 patent.  According to the complaint, Magna also sued TRW on June 20, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan alleging infringement of numerous patents.  Magna filed a separate suit against TRW in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan alleging infringement of numerous additional patents, and TRW answered alleging infringement of the ‘287 patent as a counterclaim.  With respect to potential remedy, TRW requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Magna in relation to the accused products.
Share

Read More

Navico Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
24
On September 20, 2013, Navico, Inc. of Tulsa, Oklahoma and Navico Holding AS of Norway (collectively, “Navico”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Raymarine, Inc. of Nashua, New Hampshire and Raymarine UK Ltd. of the United Kingdom (collectively, “Raymarine”) and In-Tech Electronics Ltd. of Hong Kong (“In-Tech”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain marine sonar imaging devices, products containing the same, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,305,840 (the ‘840 patent) and 8,300,499 (the ‘499 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to sonar imaging devices.  In particular, the ‘840 patent relates to a sonar imaging device with a linear transducer to generate high quality images of the seafloor and other objects beneath a watercraft.  The ‘499 patent relates to a sonar imaging device using both a linear transducer and a conical transducer, which provides images based on data from both transducers. In the complaint, Navico states that Raymarine and In-Tech import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to the Raymarine Dragonfly as an example allegedly infringing product. Regarding domestic industry, Navico states that several models of its marine sonar devices with  DownScan sonar technology practice one or more of the asserted patents within the U.S.  Navico states it has spent millions of dollars in the U.S. to create, test, and support these devices for use by U.S. consumers.  In addition, Navico specifically refers to its facilities in Oklahoma and New Hampshire, and states that it has approximately 175 U.S.-based employees. As to related litigation, Navico states that Navico, Inc. previously asserted the ‘840 and ‘499 patents against Raymarine, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.  However, Navico states that on August 26, 2013, Navico, Inc. voluntarily dismissed that case and re-filed the complaint with Navico Holding AS as an additional plaintiff.  Navico states that it has not yet served the re-filed district court complaint on Raymarine, Inc.  Additionally, Navico states that Raymarine, Inc. has filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of the ‘840 patent, but has not sought review of the ‘499 patent. With respect to potential remedy, Navico requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Raymarine and In-Tech, as well as their parents, subsidiaries, and other affiliates.
Share

Read More

Furuno Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Navigation Products

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
25
On September 23, 2013, 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 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 navigation products, including GPS devices, navigation and display systems, radar systems, navigational aids, mapping systems, and related software that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,084,565 (the ‘565 patent), 6,424,292 (the ‘292 patent), 7,161,561 (the ‘561 patent), and 7,768,447 (the ‘447 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):
  • Garmin Ltd. of Switzerland
  • Garmin International, Inc. of Olathe, Kansas
  • Garmin North America, Inc. of Olathe, Kansas
  • Garmin USA, Inc. of Olathe, Kansas
  • Navico Holding AS of Norway
  • Navico UK Limited of the United Kingdom
  • Navico Inc. of Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Raymarine, Inc. of Nashua, New Hampshire
  • Raymarine UK Ltd. of the United Kingdom
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to systems, devices, and methods for improving navigation, radar and map displays used in on-road vehicle, marine, and aviation applications.  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 in another window.  The ‘292 patent relates to a display system for radar or similar devices that displays current and past video images on a display.  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.  The ‘447 patent relates to a display system for radar or similar devices that redraws a sensed image when a detection range is changed. In the complaint, Furuno states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to various products associated with the Proposed Respondents. Regarding domestic industry, Furuno states that its NavNet 3D series of products (among others) practice the asserted patents.  Furuno also states that it conducts significant activities in the U.S. relating to the technology of the asserted patents.  Furuno specifically refers to its facilities in Washington and Maryland, and asserts that it has a variety of technical and non-technical personnel in the U.S. performing functions related to the technology of the asserted patents. As to related litigation, Furuno states that the ‘565 and ‘561 patents were the subject of ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-810, which was terminated in March 2012 based on a settlement agreement.  See our October 28, 2011 post for more details on the 810 investigation.   Furuno also states that it previously asserted the ‘565 and ‘561 patents in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against Honeywell International Inc. and others.  Furuno further states that, contemporaneously with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it is also asserting the ‘565, ‘292, ‘561, and ‘447 patents against the Proposed Respondents in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. With respect to potential remedy, Furuno requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents, their subsidiaries, related companies, and agents.
Share

Read More