New 337 Complaints

Freedom Scientific Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Handheld Magnifiers

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
27
On September 26, 2013, Freedom Scientific, Inc. of St. Petersburg, Florida (“Freedom Scientific”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Aumed Group Corp. of China and Aumed Inc. of San Carlos, California (collectively, “Aumed”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain handheld magnifiers and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. D624,107 (the ‘107 patent) and 8,264,598 (the ‘598 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to handheld magnifiers.  In particular, the ‘107 patent relates to the ornamental design of a handheld magnifier.  The ‘598 patent relates to a magnifier that includes a camera that displays enlarged images upon a screen for easy viewing.  In the complaint, Freedom Scientific states that Aumed imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to the Aumed “Image” Magnifier as an allegedly infringing product. Regarding domestic industry, Freedom Scientific states that its RUBY handheld magnifier practices claims of the asserted patents.  Freedom Scientific further states that it has engaged in research and development, engineering, sales activities, support activities, and administrative activities in the U.S. related to products that practice the asserted patents.  Freedom Scientific also states that it employs a significant amount of labor in the U.S. for engineering, marketing, sales, and support of products that practice the asserted patents. As to related litigation, Freedom Scientific states that, concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it is also filing a complaint against Aumed for infringement of the ‘107 and ‘598 patents in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. With respect to potential remedy, Freedom Scientific requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Aumed Group Corp.
Share

Read More

Trico Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Windshield Wipers

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
22
On October 21, 2013, Trico Products Corp. of Rochester Hills, Michigan (“Trico”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Federal-Mogul Corp. of Southfield, Michigan and Federal Mogul S.A. of Belgium (collectively, “Federal-Mogul”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain windshield wipers and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,836,925 (the ‘925 patent) and 6,799,348 (the ‘348 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to automotive windshield wipers.  In particular, the ‘925 patent relates to a windscreen wiper and the interrelation of certain elements to maximize efficiency of the wiper.  The ‘348 patent relates to a windscreen wiper and coupler that minimizes the overall height of a wiper blade while maximizing wind flow and visibility. In the complaint, Trico states that Federal-Mogul imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to the Federal-Mogul ANCO Contour, ANCO Profile, and GM GR.10.146 blades as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Trico states that, at a minimum, its NeoForm windshield wiper device is protected by the asserted patents.  As to the economic prong, Trico states that it conducts research, development, manufacturing, and other activities in the U.S. relating to products protected by the asserted patents. With respect to potential remedy, Trico requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order directed at Federal-Mogul, its affiliates, others acting on its behalf, and others who are in active concert or participation with it.
Share

Read More

BTG International Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Antivenom Compositions

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
01
On October 30, 2013, BTG International Inc. of West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania (“BTG”) 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 crotalid antivenom pharmaceutical compositions and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,048,414 (the ‘414 patent):
  • Veteria Laboratories of Mexico
  • BioVeteria Life Sciences, LLC of Prescott, Arizona
  • Instituto Bioclon S.A. de C.V. of Mexico
  • Laboratorios Silanes SA de CV of Mexico
  • The Silanes Group of Mexico
  • Rare Disease Therapeutics, Inc. of Franklin, Tennessee
  • Accredo Health Group, Inc. of Memphis, Tennessee
According to the complaint, the ‘414 patent generally relates to a pharmaceutical composition and corresponding method for treating snakebite victims.  The claimed pharmaceutical composition includes a particular type of antibody fragments, known as “Fab” fragments. In the complaint, BTG states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the ‘414 patent.  The complaint specifically refers to “Antivipmyn,” “Anavip,” and “Antivenin- Bothrops asper and Crotalus durissus” as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, BTG states that its CroFab and CroVet products practice certain claims of the ‘414 patent.  As to the economic prong, BTG states that it is a leading specialist pharmaceutical company with its principal offices in Pennsylvania.  According to the complaint, BTG and/or its predecessors have made significant investments within the U.S. in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor and capital in the U.S., and/or a substantial investment in the U.S. in the exploitation of the ‘414 patent, including research and development and engineering.  The complaint specifically refers to a BTG-owned snake farm in Utah, where BTG milks snakes to obtain the venom used to make its products that practice the ‘414 patent. As to related litigation, BTG states that the ‘414 patent was involved in an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  According to the complaint, this was an appeal from a final rejection of the claims of the ‘414 patent by an examiner of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. With respect to potential remedy, BTG requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents and other entities associated with the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

Tyco Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Acousto-Magnetic Electronic Article Surveillance Systems

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
13
On December 11, 2013, Tyco Fire & Security GmbH of Switzerland, Sensormatic Electronics, LLC of Boca Raton, Florida (“Sensormatic”), and Tyco Integrated Security, LLC of Boca Raton, Florida (collectively, “Tyco”) 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, sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain acousto-magnetic electronic article surveillance devices that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,729,200 (“the ‘200 patent”) and 6,181,245 (“the ‘245 patent”):
  • Ningbo Signatronic Technologies, Ltd. of China (“Ningbo”)
  • All-Tag Security Americas, Inc. of Boca Raton, Florida
  • All-Tag Security Hong Kong Co. Ltd. of Hong Kong
  • All-Tag Europe SPRL of Belgium
  • All-Tag Security UK, Ltd. of the United Kingdom
  • Best Security Industries of Delray Beach, Florida
  • Signatronic Corporation of Boca Raton, Florida
According to the complaint, the ‘200 and ‘245 patents generally relate to electronic article surveillance systems designed to deter and detect shoplifting.  In general operation, retailers place labels on merchandise and then the cashier at checkout uses a deactivator to deactivate the label.  If the label is not deactivated before the merchandise leaves the store, the label resonates an acousto-magnetic signal that is detected by the pedestals at the retailer’s doors.  The two patents at issue specifically relate to a label that can be deactivated with a low field of energy, but that remains stable and maintains its magnetization so as to avoid unintentional deactivation. In the complaint, Tyco states that the Proposed Respondents import, sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation “compatible” labels that are designed solely for use with Sensormatic’s acousto-magnetic EAS systems.  The complaint specifically refers to Ningbo’s “AM label T3,” “AM label T2,” “AM label K3,” “AM label K2,” “AM Roll Label Rk2,” and “AM label H3” as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Tyco states that its AM EAS labels practice claim 1 of the ‘200 patent and claim 1 of the ‘245 patent.  Tyco also states that its domestic activities in connection with the AM EAS labels include significant employment of labor or capital and substantial investment in exploitation of the patents, including engineering research and development, and licensing relating to products employing the ‘200 and ‘245 patents.  Further, Tyco asserts that its domestic industry activities include products in the AM EAS system such as AM EAS UltraMax detection systems and label deactivators. As to related litigation, Tyco states that the ‘200 and ‘245 patents were involved in an action filed by Sensormatic in the Southern District of Florida alleging infringement by Tag Company US LLC and Phenix Label Company.  The district court found the patents valid and enforceable, and infringed by the defendants.  The Federal Circuit affirmed.  Additionally, the validity of the ‘200 and ‘245 patents was confirmed after reexamination procedures where (1) 42 of the 47 claims of the ‘200 patent were confirmed, two were cancelled, and three were amended; and (2) 16 of the 19 claims of the ‘245 patent were confirmed, one was cancelled, and two were amended.  Tyco also contemporaneously filed suit in the Southern District of Florida asserting infringement of the ‘200 and ‘245 patents.  Further, Tyco has filed patent infringement suits in China against Ningbo for infringement of Chinese Patent ZL97197519.1, and in Germany against UG & Co. KG Security Products for infringement of European Patent No. 0922274. With respect to potential remedy, Tyco requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
19
On December 18, 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 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 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”):
  • Nokia Corp. (Nokia Oyj) of Finland
  • Nokia, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California
  • Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of South Korea
  • Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey
  • Samsung Telecommunications America, L.L.C. of Richardson, Texas
  • Sony Corp. of Japan
  • Sony Mobile Communications AB of Sweden
  • Sony Mobile Communications (USA), Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia
  • ZTE Corp. of China
  • ZTE (USA) Inc. of Richardson, Texas
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to personal security and tracking systems.  In particular, the ‘124 patent relates to a method for tracking a mobile device through GPS (Global Positioning System) signals.  The ‘795 patent relates to a cellular device. In the complaint, Pragmatus states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  Pragmatus specifically accuses the Proposed Respondents’ mobile devices and tablets that include mapping features of infringing the ‘124 patent, and the Proposed Respondents’ mobile devices and tablets that include Bluetooth and/or Wi-Fi features and security codes of infringing the ‘795 patent. Regarding domestic industry, Pragmatus states that it maintains an extensive domestic licensing program focused on the asserted patents.  According to the complaint, Pragmatus employs a management team that includes licensing professionals and intellectual property counsel in the U.S., and this management team has been involved in activities directly related to the asserted patents.  In addition, Pragmatus states that a domestic industry exists based on the activities of its domestic licensees, including HTC Corp. and related entities, LG Electronics, Inc. and related entities, and a major U.S. consumer electronics manufacturer. As to related litigation, Pragmatus states that the asserted patents are the subject of an investigation currently pending before the ITC, Inv. No. 337-TA-889.  See our July 31, 2013 post for more details on the 889 investigation.  Pragmatus further states that the asserted patents are currently being asserted in four cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the Proposed Respondents.  Pragmatus additionally states that the asserted patents are being asserted against Dell, Inc. and Hewlett Packard Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.  Lastly, Pragmatus states that the ‘795 patent is being asserted against various additional entities in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. 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 Proposed Respondents and their successors and assigns.
Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
30
On December 23, 2013, Magna Electronics Inc. (“Magna”) of Auburn Hills, Michigan filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that TRW Automotive U.S. LLC of Livonia, Michigan (“TRW”) 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 Nos. 8,116,929 (the ‘929 patent) and 8,593,521 (the ‘521 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘919 patent “concerns use of the shadow cast on the ground by a host vehicle equipped with a forward detecting camera such as Magna’s forward facing camera module (‘FCM’)” which can “determine the range to the vehicle ahead from the moving host vehicle in real time.”  Further according to the complaint, the ‘521 patent “concerns an automotive forward detecting camera that operates with repeating image data frame sets.”  In the complaint, Magna alleges that TRW produces infringing “S-Cam” products that contain “Mobileye processing chipsets” which are “supplied to General Motors and are used in model year 2014 Chevrolet Silverado vehicles” that are imported into the U.S. from Mexico.   Regarding domestic industry, Magna asserts that it has conducted significant activities in the U.S. relating to FCMs, including research and development, engineering, manufacturing, quality control, packaging, warranty and technical support as well as customer service. As to related litigation, Magna lists a number of recent cases involving TRW, including an ITC complaint filed by TRW earlier this year.  See our September 24, 2013 post for more details on TRW’s complaint and our November 8, 2013 post on the corresponding notice of investigation in that matter – 337-TA-899.   With respect to potential remedy, Magna requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at TRW in relation to the accused products.
Share

Read More

Four New 337 Complaints Filed Before The End Of Calendar Year 2013

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
31
On December 20, 2013, Prospera Corporation of Pleasanton, California filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.  The complaint alleges that the following unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain electronic pulse massagers and components thereof that infringe U.S. Patent No. D666161:
  • Sanjay Gupta d/b/a Santa Medical of Tustin, California
  • BeautyKo LLC of Great Neck, New York
  • Bia Health Technologies, Ltd. d/b/a Mapleleaf
  • Sunpentown International, Inc. (SPT) of City of Industry, California
  • TruCore Distributors, Inc. of Farmingville, New York
  • SIM Trading Corporation of Halladale, Florida
  • K.S. Choi, Corp. of Los Angeles, California 
Additionally, on December 23, 2013, Tela Innovations, Inc. of Los Gatos, California filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.  The complaint alleges that the following unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain standard cell libraries, products containing or made using the same, integrated circuits made using the same, and products containing such integrated circuits that infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,490,043:
  • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. of Taiwan
  • TSMC North America of San Jose, California
Further, on December 24, 2013, Springfree Trampoline, Inc., Springfree Trampoline USA Inc., and Springfree Limited Partnership – all of Canada – filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.  The complaint alleges that Vuly Trampolines Pty Ltd. of Australia unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain soft-edged trampolines and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,319,174.   Lastly, on December 27, 2013, Macronix International Co., Ltd of China and Macronix America, Inc. of Milpitas, California filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.  The complaint alleges that the following unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain non-volatile memory devices and products that contain the same that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,552,360; 6,100,557; and 6,002,630: 
  • Spansion Inc. of Sunnyvale, California
  • Spansion LLC of Sunnyvale, California
  • Spansion (Thailand) Ltd. of Thailand
  • Beats Electronics LLC of Santa Monica, California
  • Delphi Automotive PLC of the United Kingdom
  • Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC of Troy, Michigan
  • Harman International Industries, Inc. of Stamford, Connecticut
  • Harman Becker Automotive Systems Inc. of Farmington Hills, Michigan
  • Harman Becker Automotive Systems GmbH of Germany
  • Ruckus Wireless Inc. of Sunnyvale, California
  • Tellabs Inc. of Naperville, Illinois
Share

Read More

Cresta Technology Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Television Sets

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
30
On January 28, 2014, Cresta Technology Corp. (“CrestaTech”) of Santa Clara, California filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint names Silicon Laboratories, Inc. of Austin, Texas; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd of Korea; Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey; LG Electronics Inc. of Korea; LG Electronics U.S.A. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (collectively, the “Silicon Labs Proposed Respondents”); MaxLinear, Inc. of Carlsbad, California; Sharp Corporation of Japan; Sharp Electronics Corporation of Mahwah, New Jersey; and Vizio, Inc. of Irvine, California (collectively, the “MaxLinear Proposed Respondents”).  CrestaTech alleges that the Proposed Respondents unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain television sets, television receivers, television tuners, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,075,585 (the ‘585 patent), 7,265,792 (the ‘792 patent) and 7,251,466 (the ‘466 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘585 patent “generally claims a television receiver that includes a multistandard channel filter with a programmable intermediate frequency, adapted to receive television signals in a variety of television standards and formats, and a plurality of demodulators for demodulating the signals in accordance with their format;” the ‘792 patent “generally claims a television receiver for digital and analog television signals that includes a frequency conversion circuit that receives an input radio frequency (‘RF’) signal in one of several television signal formats or standards and converts the input RF signal to an intermediate frequency signal (‘IF Signal’), an analog-to-digital converter that samples the IF Signal and generates a digital representation of the IF Signal, a signal processor that processes that digital representation in accordance with the television signal format of the input RF signal and generates digital output signals indicative of information encoded in the input RF signal, and a signal output circuit that receives the digital output signals from the signal processor and provides one or more output signals;” and the ‘466 patent “generally claims a television receiver or tuner circuit that includes a band selection filter coupled to receive an input RF signal and provide a band selected output signal, where the band selection filter includes a bank of band pass filters.” In the complaint, CrestaTech names several Silicon Labs’ tuner products that allegedly infringe the ‘585, ‘792, and ‘466 patents: (1) Generation: Si2170, Si2172; (2) Generation: Si2173; (3) Generation: Si2155, Si2136, Si2l46, Si2156, Si2176; (4) Generation: Si2l38, Si2148, Si2158, Si2178; and (5) Generation: Si2127, Si2l37, Si2147, Si2l57, Si2177 (collectively, the “Silicon Labs Products”) which are purported to be imported into and sold within the US by or on behalf of the Silicon Labs Respondents in exemplary infringing television models, including the Samsung model UN40F6300AF and the LG model 42LN5400.  Further in the complaint, CrestaTech also alleges that MaxLinear’s MxL601 tuner products infringe the ‘585, ‘792, and ‘466 patents and are imported into and sold within the US by or on behalf of the Silicon Labs Respondents in exemplary infringing television models, including the Sharp model LC-60LE650U and Vizio model M32li-A2.  Regarding domestic industry, CrestaTech asserts that it has continuing significant investments in plant and equipment, employment of labor and capital, and substantial investment in exploitation of the CrestaTech Patents, namely through its XC5000 series and CTC70X series television tuner products, and the research, design, development, engineering, product support, manufacturing support, firmware development, testing, and various customer support activities focused on them.  CrestaTech notes that its investments and activities are substantial both in absolute and relative terms; that they are important to the protected articles and represent significant domestic added value; that they are significant and substantial in the context of comparable products, the company’s overall investments, and the relevant marketplace; and that CrestaTech’s foreign product-related investments and activities related to its XC5000 series and CTC70X series products are relatively small in comparison to their domestic activities.  CrestaTech adds that to the extent its activities are not yet sufficient to establish domestic industry, that it has taken and is taking the necessary steps to establish a domestic industry in the U.S. As to related litigation, CrestaTech asserts that the ‘585, ‘792, and ‘466 patents are currently the subject of litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in case nos. 1:14-cv-00078 and 1:14-cv-00079 filed January 21, 2014 against Silicon Labs Proposed Respondents and MaxLinear Proposed Respondents. With respect to potential remedy, CrestaTech requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders directed at Silicon Labs Proposed Respondents and the MaxLinear Proposed Respondents in relation to the accused products.
Share

Read More

Ivoclar Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Lithium Silicate Materials

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
20
On February 19, 2014, Ivoclar Vivadent AG of Liechtenstein, Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc. of Amherst, New York, and Ivoclar Vivadent Manufacturing Inc. of Somerset, New Jersey (collectively, “Ivoclar”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Dentsply International Inc. of York, Pennsylvania, Dentsply Prosthetics U.S. LLC a/k/a Dentsply Ceramco of York, Pennsylvania, and DeguDent GmbH of Germany (collectively, “Dentsply”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain lithium silicate materials and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,047,021 (the ‘021 patent) and 8,444,756 (the ‘756 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to lithium silicate glass-ceramic materials and a production process for those materials.  In particular, the ‘021 patent relates to a specific process using a starting glass of a specific composition to provide a lithium silicate glass-ceramic blank with lithium metasilicate crystals as the main crystalline phase.  The ‘756 patent relates to a machinable lithium silicate glass-ceramic product with lithium metasilicate as the main crystalline phase, and which exhibits a flexural strength greater than 180 MPa. In the complaint, Ivoclar states that Dentsply imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to Dentsply’s Celtra Duo product family as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Ivoclar states that its IPS e.max CAD product is protected by the asserted patents.  Ivoclar further states that it is expending significant resources in the U.S. on plant and equipment, and in employment of labor and capital, in connection with IPS e.max CAD.  Ivoclar also refers to investments in research and development, validation studies, marketing-support studies, complaint handling, and technical support in running and managing clinical studies in support of IPS e.max CAD. As to related litigation, Ivoclar states that on October 15, 2013, it asserted the ‘021 and ‘756 patents against Dentsply in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.  According to the complaint, the Delaware case is still pending. With respect to potential remedy, Ivoclar requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Dentsply and related entities.
Share

Read More

Bose Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Earpiece Devices Having Positioning And Retaining Structure

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
27
On February 26, 2014, Bose Corp. of Framingham, Massachusetts (“Bose”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Monster, Inc. of Brisbane, California, Monster, LLC of Las Vegas, Nevada, and Monster Technology International, Ltd. of Ireland (collectively, “Monster”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain earpiece devices having positioning and retaining structure and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,311,253 (the ‘253 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘253 patent relates to an earpiece comprising an acoustic driver, a housing, and an ear interface with a unitary structure that has a body and a positioning and retaining structure.  The patent describes how it is desirable to place the earpiece in the user’s ear such that it is oriented properly, stable, and comfortable to the user.  In one aspect of the invention, the body and the positioning and retaining structure hold the earpiece in position without the use of ear hooks or “twist lock” tips, which may be unstable, uncomfortable, or ill fitting. In the complaint, Bose states that Monster imports and sells products that infringe the ‘253 patent.  The complaint specifically refers to Monster’s iSport Intensity devices as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Bose states that many of its earpiece devices are covered by claims of the ‘253 patent.  Bose refers to facilities and equipment in Massachusetts that are used in connection with research, development, engineering, design, product support, and warranty service for its products that practice the ‘253 patent.  Bose further states that it has employed and continues to employ a significant number of employees at its Massachusetts facilities that devote substantial person-hours towards activities related to products that practice the ‘253 patent. With respect to potential remedy, Bose requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Monster.
Share

Read More

Baxter Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Hemostatic Products

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
05
On February 28, 2014, Baxter International Inc. of Deerfield, Illinois, Baxter Healthcare Corp. of Deerfield, Illinois, and Baxter Healthcare SA of Switzerland (collectively, “Baxter”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Johnson & Johnson Inc. of Brunswick, New Jersey, Ethicon, Inc. of Somerville, New Jersey, Ferrosan Medical Devices A/S of Denmark, and Packaging Coordinators, Inc. of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain hemostatic products and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,303,981 (the ‘981 patent), 8,512,729 (the ‘729 patent), 6,066,325 (the ‘325 patent), 8,357,378 (the ‘378 patent), and 8,603,511 (the ‘511 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to hemostatic products that are used by medical providers to control bleeding during surgery.  In particular, the ‘325 patent relates to biocompatible polymeric compositions and methods of using such compositions to control bleeding while allowing for delivery of drugs and/or other biologically active agents as the composition degrades.  The ‘981 patent relates to methods for preparing and delivering biocompatible polymeric compositions, thereby allowing surgeons to quickly and efficiently prepare the composition and apply it to a target site in a patient’s body while reducing contamination risk.  The ‘729 patent relates to methods for delivering biocompatible polymeric compositions to various treatment sites to treat patients.  Lastly, the ‘378 and ‘511 patents relate to a medical delivery device for the delivery, to a target site in a patient’s body, of biocompatible polymeric compositions having properties that are beneficial for localized drug delivery. In the complaint, Baxter states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to the SURGIFLO product family as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Baxter states that it makes extensive use of the inventions claimed in the asserted patents in its FLOSEAL products, and that it has made and continues to make significant domestic investments in those products.  By way of example, Baxter states that it manufactures and sells its FLOSEAL Hemostatic Matrix products in the U.S.  Baxter further states that its FLOSEAL sales have exceeded $140 million annually since 2010. As to related litigation, Baxter states that it is currently engaged in litigation against the Proposed Respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where Baxter is alleging infringement of the asserted patents.  Baxter also refers to two cases in Germany involving unfair competition allegations with respect to Baxter’s FLOSEAL products. With respect to potential remedy, Baxter requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents and others acting on their behalf.
Share

Read More

FMC Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Sulfentrazone

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
06
On March 5, 2014, FMC Corp. of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (“FMC”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Beijing Nutrichem Science and Technology Stock Co., Ltd. of China, Summit Agro USA, LLC of Cary, North Carolina, Summit Agro North America Holding Corp. of New York, New York, and Jiangxi Heyi Chemicals Co. Ltd. of China (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain sulfentrazone active ingredient and formulated sulfentrazone compositions made by a process that infringes one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,169,952 (the ‘952 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘952 patent relates to a process for making sulfentrazone by reacting an aniline with a sulfonating agent in the presence of dimethylformamide at a temperature range of about 120° C to about 160° C for about 3 to about 7 hours. In the complaint, FMC states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the ‘952 patent.  The complaint specifically refers to sulfentrazone products labeled as Blanket 4F, SFZ-4SC, and/or SAUSX-01 as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, FMC states that its sulfentrazone business is dedicated to exploiting the technology covered by the ‘952 patent.  FMC states that products under its Authority, Spartan, Zeus, BroadAxe, Blindside, Echelon, Dismiss, and Solitare brands exploit the process of the ‘952 patent.  FMC further states that although it manufactures sulfentrazone abroad, its activities in the U.S., including research and development of the process of the ‘952 patent, research and development regarding additional products containing sulfentrazone manufactured by the process of the ‘952 patent, and formulation, packaging, and sale of products containing sulfentrazone constitute a domestic industry for purposes of Section 337. As to related litigation, FMC states that on January 16, 2014, it filed a complaint relating to the ‘952 patent in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. With respect to potential remedy, FMC requests that the Commission issue a temporary exclusion order, a temporary cease and desist order, a permanent exclusion order, and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents and their agents, distributors, and majority owned business entities, or anyone acting in concert with them.
Share

Read More

ViXS Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Set-Top Boxes, Gateways, Bridges And Adapters

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
18
On April 17, 2014, ViXS Systems, Inc. of Canada and ViXS USA, Inc. of Austin, Texas (collectively, “ViXS”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Entropic Communications, Inc. of San Diego, California, DirecTV, LLC of El Segundo, California, Wistron Corp. of Taiwan, Wistron NeWeb Corp. of Taiwan, and Cybertan of Taiwan (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain set-top boxes, gateways, bridges and adapters and components thereof infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,301,900, 7,099,951, 7,200,855, and 7,406,598 (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to the structure and operation of multimedia devices such as set-top boxes, bridges, gateways, or adapters and integrated circuit components contained in such devices.   In the complaint, ViXS states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  Regarding domestic industry, ViXS states that such an industry exists as defined by 19 U.S.C. §§ 1337(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C) relating to significant investment in plant and equipment; significant employment of labor and capital; and substantial investment in the exploitation of the patents, including engineering and research and development of domestic industry products and components thereof. As to related litigation, ViXS states that it is currently engaged in litigation against proposed respondent Entropic in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California based on patents different from the Asserted Patents.  Also, ViXS alleges that the Asserted Patents are the subject of a parallel court proceeding filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, filed the same day as this complaint. With respect to potential remedy, ViXS requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents and others acting on their behalf.
Share

Read More

Spansion Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Non-Volatile Memory Chips

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
01
On April 29, 2014, 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 non-volatile memory chips and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,246,611 (the ‘611 patent), 6,744,666 (the ‘666 patent), 6,399,446 (the ‘446 patent), and 6,436,766 (the ‘766 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):
  • Macronix International Co., Ltd. of Taiwan
  • Macronix America, Inc. of Milpitas, California
  • Macronix Asia Ltd. of Japan
  • Macronix (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. of Hong Kong
  • Acer Inc. of Taiwan
  • Acer America Corp. of San Jose, California
  • ADT Corp. of Boca Raton, Florida
  • Amazon.com, Inc. of Seattle, Washington
  • ASRock Inc. of Taiwan
  • ASRock America, Inc. of Chino, California
  • ASUSTek Computer Inc. of Taiwan
  • Asus Computer International of Fremont, California
  • Belkin International, Inc. of Playa Vista, California
  • D-Link Corp. of Taiwan
  • Leap Motion, Inc. of San Francisco, California
  • Lowe’s Companies, Inc. of Mooresville, North Carolina
  • Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. of Wilkesboro, North Carolina
  • Microsoft Corp. of Redmond, Washington
  • Nintendo Co., Ltd. of Japan
  • Nintendo of America, Inc. of Redmond, Washington
  • Sercomm Corp. of Taiwan
  • Vonage Holdings Corp. of Holmdel, New Jersey
  • Vonage America Inc. of Holmdel, New Jersey
  • Vonage Marketing LLC of Holmdel, New Jersey
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to non-volatile memory technology.  In particular, the ‘611 patent relates to a system for erasing non-volatile memory cells by periodically checking to see whether certain memory cells have been successfully erased, and applying an increased erase voltage upon verifying that the previous erase voltage did not successfully erase the memory cell.  The ‘666 patent relates to reducing the programming time of a page mode memory device.  Lastly, the ‘446 and ‘766 patents relate to a process for fabricating a memory cell that includes depositing and patterning a hard mask, and using the hard mask to implant different ions in the semiconductor. In the complaint, Spansion states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  Spansion specifically names certain non-volatile memory chips manufactured and sold by the Macronix entities as infringing products.  Spansion also names various downstream products containing the Macronix memory chips as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Spansion states that it has made significant investments in plant, equipment, labor, and capital in the U.S. relating to products that are, or will be, covered by the ‘666, ‘446, and ‘766 patents.  Spansion further states that it has made substantial and ongoing domestic investments in research and development and engineering dedicated to the exploitation of the ‘666, ‘446, and ‘766 patents.  In addition, Spansion states that an industry is currently in the process of being established in the U.S. with respect to the ‘611 patent.  Spansion specifically refers to its facility in Austin, Texas, where it manufactures and tests wafers used to make chips covered by the asserted patents. As to related litigation, Spansion states that on April 28, 2014, it filed a complaint against the Proposed Respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging infringement of the asserted patents.  Spansion also refers to additional patent litigation between itself and the Macronix entities (not involving the asserted patents) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and the ITC (Inv. Nos. 337-TA-893 and 337-TA-909).  See our September 9, 2013 and January 30, 2014 posts for more details on these investigations. With respect to potential remedy, Spansion requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.  Spansion states that a general exclusion order is warranted because a limited exclusion order could be circumvented, there is a pattern of violation of Section 337, and it is difficult to identify the source of infringing downstream products.
Share

Read More

Silicon Labs Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Silicon Tuners

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
07
On May 6, 2014, Silicon Laboratories Inc. of Austin, Texas (“Silicon Labs”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Cresta Technology Corp. of Santa Clara, California, Hauppauge Digital, Inc. of Hauppauge, New York, Hauppauge Computer Works, Inc. of Hauppauge, New York, PCTV Systems S.a.r.l. of Germany, and PCTV Systems S.a.r.l., Luxembourg of Luxembourg (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain silicon tuners and products containing same, including television tuners, that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,137,372 (the ‘372 patent) and 6,233,441 (the ‘441 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to the synthesis of high-frequency signals with improved phase noise and other impurity requirements that overcome the integration problem associated with earlier implementations.  More specifically, the asserted patents relate to the provision of coarse and fine tuning control for synthesizing high-frequency signals using a discretely variable capacitance circuit and a continuously variable capacitance circuit. In the complaint, Silicon Labs states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to the Hauppauge! WinTV-HVR Hybrid TV Stick 950Q, model 1191, WinTV-HVR-850, model 1230, Hauppauge! PCTV HD PCI Card 800i, CrestaTech Xceive XC 5000 silicon tuner, and CrestaTech X7 silicon tuner as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Silicon Labs states that it makes extensive use of the asserted patents in numerous different products, including its Si2178 silicon television tuner.  According to the complaint, Silicon Labs’ silicon tuner products are developed in the U.S., manufactured abroad, and sold within the U.S.  Silicon Labs specifically refers to its headquarters in Austin, Texas, as well as to various additional facilities in New Hampshire, Georgia, Oregon, Michigan, Minnesota, California, Massachusetts, and Alabama.  The complaint states that substantially all of the research, development, design, engineering, and testing of the Silicon Labs products that practice the asserted patents has been done by Silicon Labs employees working within the U.S. As to related litigation, Silicon Labs states that the asserted patents were the subject of a declaratory judgment action filed by MaxLinear Inc. on May 13, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.  According to the complaint, that case was dismissed on October 21, 2013.  Silicon Labs further states that it asserted the ‘441 patent against Airoha Technology Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, but that that case was also dismissed. With respect to potential remedy, Silicon Labs requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, a limited exclusion order, and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents and others acting on their behalf.
Share

Read More

Canon Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Toner Cartridges

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
08
On May 7, 2014, Canon Inc. of Japan, Canon U.S.A., Inc. of Melville, New York, and Canon Virginia, Inc. of Newport News, Virginia (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, namely photosensitive drum units, that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,280,278 (the ‘278 patent), 8,630,564 (the ‘564 patent), 8,682,215 (the ‘215 patent), 8,676,090 (the ‘090 patent), 8,369,744 (the ‘744 patent), 8,565,640 (the ‘640 patent), 8,676,085 (the ‘085 patent), 8,135,304 (the ‘304 patent), and 8,688,008 (the ‘008 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):
  • Ninestar Image Tech Limited of China
  • Zhuhai Seine Technology Co., Ltd. of China
  • Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd. of City of Industry, California
  • Seine Tech (USA) Co., Ltd. of Walnut, California
  • Seine Image Int’l Co., Ltd. of Hong Kong
  • Ninestar Image Tech, Ltd. of Hong Kong
  • Seine Image (USA) Co., Ltd. of Diamond Bar, California
  • Nano Pacific Corp. of South San Francisco, California
  • Aster Graphics, Inc. of Placentia, California
  • Jiangxi Yibo E-tech Co., Ltd. of China
  • Aster Graphics Co., Ltd. of China
  • Print-Rite Holdings Ltd. of Hong Kong
  • Print-Rite N.A., Inc. of La Vergne, Tennessee
  • Union Technology Int’l (M.C.O.) Co. Ltd. of China
  • Print-Rite Unicorn Image Products Co. Ltd. of China
  • Innotex Precision Ltd. of Hong Kong
  • International Laser Group, Inc. of Woodland Hills, California
  • Shenzhen ASTA Official Consumable Co., Ltd. of China
  • Acecom, Inc. – San Antonio d/b/a InkSell.com of San Antonio, Texas
  • ACM Technologies, Inc. of Corona, California
  • American Internet Holdings, LLC of Midland Park, New Jersey
  • The Supplies Guys, LLC of Midland Park, New Jersey
  • Do It Wiser LLC d/b/a Image Toner of Marietta, Georgia
  • Grand Image Inc. d/b/a Grand Image USA d/b/a INK4S.com of City of Industry, California
  • Green Project, Inc. of Hacienda Heights, California
  • Ink Technologies Printer Supplies, LLC of Dayton, Ohio
  • Katun Corp. of Bloomington, Minnesota
  • LD Products, Inc. of Long Beach, California
  • Linkyo Corp. of La Puente, California
  • Nectron International, Inc. of Sugar Land, Texas
  • Online Tech Stores, LLC d/b/a SuppliesOutlet.com d/b/a SuppliesWholesalers.com d/b/a OnlineTechStores.com of Reno, Nevada
  • Printronic Corp. d/b/a Printronic.com d/b/a InkSmile.com of Santa Ana, California
  • Zinyaw LLC d/b/a TonerPirate.com of Houston, Texas
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to toner cartridge technology.  In particular, the ‘278, ‘564, and ‘215 patents relate to a unique coupling member provided at one end of a photosensitive drum to receive rotational driving force from a printer and transmit that driving force to the drum.  The ‘090 patent relates to a photosensitive drum unit including a cylinder with a photosensitive layer and a drum flange.  The ‘744 patent relates to a process cartridge having an inclinable coupling member.  The ‘640 and ‘085 patents relate to improvements to the inventions of the ‘278, ‘564, ‘215, and ‘090 patents that facilitate assembly and disassembly of the photosensitive drum unit.  The ‘304 patent relates to a process cartridge with a photosensitive drum, a drum flange, and an inclinable coupling member.  Lastly, the ‘008 patent relates to ways to implement the inventions of the ‘278, ‘564, and ‘215 patents in cartridges that do not necessarily contain photosensitive drum units. In the complaint, Canon states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  Canon specifically refers to various toner cartridges and components thereof associated with the Proposed Respondents as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Canon states that is has engaged in a significant investment 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.  Canon specifically refers to its facility in Newport News, Virginia, which includes a main plant, an advanced cartridge manufacturing plant, and a toner plant.  Canon states that it uses a significant amount of the total square footage at these facilities to manufacture toner cartridges covered by the asserted patents. As to related litigation, Canon states that on January 29, 2014, it filed eleven complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting various patents, including some of the asserted patents.  Canon states that each of these complaints involved one or more of the Proposed Respondents.  In addition, Canon states that, concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it is also filing ten additional complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  These new complaints are directed to each Proposed Respondent that had not already been named in the previously-filed district court actions in New York.  Canon also refers to a number of foreign proceedings involving related patents. With respect to potential remedy, Canon requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, a limited exclusion order, and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.  Canon states that a general exclusion order is warranted because a limited exclusion order could be circumvented, there is a pattern of violation of Section 337, and it is difficult to identify the source of infringing downstream products.  In arguing for a general exclusion order, Canon refers to Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-829), and states that a general exclusion order would be warranted in the present investigation just as it was in the 829 investigation.  See our August 5, 2013 post for more details on the Commission opinion on remedy and bond in the 829 investigation.
Share

Read More

Bear Archery Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Archery Products

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
12
On May 9, 2014, Bear Archery, Inc. of Evansville, Indiana (“Bear Archery”) and SOP Services, Inc. of Las Vegas, Nevada (collectively, “Complainants”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Ningbo Topoint Outdoor Sports Co., Ltd. of China (“Topoint”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain archery products that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. RE38,096 (the ‘096 patent), 6,978,775 (the ‘775 patent), and 7,226,375 (the ‘375 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”).  The complaint further alleges that Topoint unlawfully imports and distributes related marketing materials, and that Topoint’s archery products and related marketing materials infringe U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 2,501,255 for the mark WHISKER BISCUIT ARROW REST and U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3,312,392 for the mark WHISKER BISCUIT (collectively, the “asserted trademarks”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to archery.  In particular, the ‘096 patent relates to an arrow rest for guiding and supporting an arrow on an archery bow.  The ‘775 patent relates to certain improvements to circular full capture arrow rests.  Lastly, the ‘375 patent relates to a mechanical broadhead arrowhead that expands upon hitting a target. In the complaint, Complainants state that Topoint imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to the TP813 Arrow Rest, the TP815 Arrow Rest, the TP105 Arrow Rest Component, the TP2000 Rest Combination, the TP9000 Rest Combination, the TP222 Broadhead, and the TP223 Broadhead as infringing products.  In addition, Complainants state that Topoint is infringing the asserted trademarks through its use of the marks in the advertising, promotion, and sale of the accused archery products. Regarding domestic industry, Complainants state that Bear Archery offers a number of arrow rest and broadhead arrow products that are covered by the asserted patents and that are sold in association with the asserted trademarks.  These include, for example, the Whisker Biscuit® Kill Shot and the Meat Seeker 2.  Complainants state that the research and development that led to Bear Archery’s products that practice the asserted patents took place in the U.S.  Complainants specifically refer to facilities in Indiana and Florida, and state that employees at these facilities  conduct activities relating to the development, engineering, design, product support, and service for products that practice the asserted patents. As to related litigation, Complainants refer to two district court cases involving the patent from which the ‘096 patent later reissued.  Both of these cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, and were dismissed in 2003 and 2005, respectively.  Complainants also refer to a case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana involving the asserted trademarks, which is ongoing. With respect to potential remedy, Complainants request that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order, or in the alternative, a permanent limited exclusion order.  Complainants state that a general exclusion order is warranted because it can be very difficult to determine the source of allegedly infringing products, and Topoint has demonstrated the ability to utilize a number of different companies for purposes of sales and/or importation of the accused products.
Share

Read More

Freescale Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Integrated Circuits

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
14
On May 12, 2014, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. of Austin, Texas (“Freescale”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that the following entities (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain integrated circuits and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,962,926 (the ‘926 patent), 7,158,432 (the ‘432 patent), 7,230,505 (the ‘505 patent), 7,518,947 (the ‘947 patent), 7,626,276 (the ‘276 patent), and 7,746,716 (the ‘716 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):
  • MediaTek Inc. of Taiwan
  • MediaTek USA Inc. of San Jose, California
  • Acer Inc. of Taiwan
  • AmTRAN Technology Co. Ltd. of Taiwan
  • AmTRAN Logistics, Inc. of Irvine, California
  • ASUSTek Computer Inc. of Taiwan
  • ASUS Computer International, Inc. of Fremont, California
  • BLU Products, Inc. of Doral, Florida
  • Sharp Corp. of Japan
  • Sharp Electronics Corp. of Mahwah, New Jersey
  • Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Co. of America Inc. of San Diego, California
  • Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. of Irvine, California
  • Toshiba Logistics America, Inc. of Irvine, California
  • TPV Display Technology (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. of China
  • Trend Smart America, Ltd. of Lake Forest, California
  • Trend Smart Ce Mexico, S.r.l. de C.V. of Mexico
  • Vizio, Inc. of Irvine, California
  • Yamaha Corp. of Japan
  • Yamaha Corp. of America of Buena Park, California
  • Lenovo Group Ltd. of China
  • Lenovo (United States) Inc. of Morrisville, North Carolina
  • Best Buy Co., Inc. of Richfield, Minnesota
  • Newegg Inc. of City of Industry, California
  • Buy.com Inc. d/b/a Rakuten.com Shopping of Aliso Viejo, California
  • Walmart Stores, Inc. of Bentonville, Arkansas
  • Amazon.com, Inc. of Seattle, Washington
  • B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. of New York, New York
  • Costco Wholesale Corp. of Issaquah, Washington
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to circuitry for timing operations within memory circuits, and to bond pad structures and layouts used on integrated circuits.  In particular, the ‘926 patent relates to a semiconductor device employing two or more rows of bond pads.  The ‘432 patent relates to a memory device using sense amplifiers with fast sense time and resistance to perturbations in the signal on the sense line.  The ‘505 patent relates to a voltage controlled oscillator with gain control to reduce variation in the Voltage Controlled Oscillator (VCO) gain as a consequence of changing voltage inputs.  The ‘947 patent relates to a self-timed memory using a set of local clock driver circuits inside the memory itself for providing timing functions, rather than reliance upon an external clock to synchronize internal memory operation.  The ‘276 patent relates to layering techniques in the metal/dielectric stack underlying a bond pad.  Lastly, the ‘716 patent relates to a memory having a dummy bitline for timing control. In the complaint, Freescale states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  Freescale specifically refers to various integrated circuits, wireless communication devices, wireless phones, televisions, optical disc players, and tablets associated with the Proposed Respondents as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Freescale states that it has made significant investments in plant, equipment, labor, and capital in the U.S. with respect to articles protected by the asserted patents.  Freescale also states that it has made a substantial investment in the exploitation of the asserted patents through engineering, and research and development.  Freescale states that it received revenues of $4.19 billion in 2013, and expended $755 million on research and development that year. As to related litigation, Freescale states that, concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it also filed suit for infringement of the asserted patents against certain of the Proposed Respondents in a U.S. district court. With respect to potential remedy, Freescale requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, a limited exclusion order, and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents and related entities.  Freescale states that a general exclusion order is warranted because products incorporating allegedly infringing integrated circuits are widely dispersed and constitute a pattern of violation of Section 337, and the source of those products is difficult to ascertain.
Share

Read More

Navico Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan And Sidescan Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
10
On June 9, 2014, 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 Garmin International, Inc., Garmin North America, Inc., and Garmin USA, Inc.—all of Olathe, Kansas—and Garmin (Asia) Corp. of Taiwan (collectively, “Garmin) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain marine sonar imaging devices, including downscan and sidescan devices, products containing the same, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,305,840 (the ‘840 patent), 8,300,499 (the ‘499 patent), and 8,605,550 (the ‘550 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to marine sonar imaging technology.  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 with both a linear transducer and a conical transducer, which provides images based upon data from both transducers.  Lastly, the ‘550 patent relates to a sonar imaging device using a linear downscan transducer and a pair of linear sidescan transducers, which provides images based upon data from each transducer. In the complaint, Navico states that Garmin imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to various Garmin devices that include “DownVu” and/or “SideVu” features—as well as the DownVu and SideVu transducers themselves— as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Navico states that it sells several models of marine sonar devices in the U.S. that practice the asserted patents under its Lowrance and Simrad brands.  Navico further states that it has spent millions of dollars in the U.S. to create, test, and support these devices for use by U.S. consumers.  Navico states that it employs approximately 190 individuals in the U.S., many of whom work on research and development at Navico’s Tulsa, Oklahoma facility. As to related litigation, Navico states that it previously asserted the ‘840 and ‘499 patents against Raymarine, Inc. (“Raymarine”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.  According to the complaint, the case against Raymarine was dismissed with prejudice based on a stipulation between the parties.  Navico also states that Raymarine filed three petitions for inter partes review (IPR) directed to claims of the ‘840 patent.  The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office instituted IPR proceedings based on Raymarine’s petitions, but those proceedings were terminated on March 25, 2014 in response to joint motions by the parties.  In addition, Navico refers to a previous ITC investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-898) where it alleged that Raymarine and others infringed the ‘840 and ‘499 patents.  See our November 7, 2013 post for more details on the 898 investigation.  The ITC terminated the 898 investigation based on a settlement agreement.  See our March 26, 2014 post for more details. With respect to potential remedy, Navico requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Garmin and related entities.
Share

Read More

Enterprise Systems Technologies Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Communications Or Computing Devices, And Components Thereof

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
17
On July 16, 2014, Enterprise Systems Technologies S.a.r.l. of Luxembourg (“Enterprise”) 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 communications or computing devices and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,454,201 (the ‘201 patent); 6,594,366 (the ‘366 patent); 6,691,302 (the ‘302 patent); and 5,870,610 (the ‘610 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):

  • Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California
  • Cirrus Logic Inc. of Austin, Texas
  • HTC Corporation of Taiwan
  • HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington
  • LG Electronics, Inc. of Korea
  • LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
  • LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. of San Diego, California
  • Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of 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 relate generally to messaging, telephony, communication, computing, and network technology.  More specifically, the ‘302 patent is directed to an improved interface for native operating systems to operate with programs using non-native programming languages.  The ‘610 patent is directed to a system for autoconfiguration of new software of devices added to a system.  The ‘366 patent describes a combined telephone and music player that share a jack.  The ‘201 patent is directed to a system for sending instant messages to mobile stations of other users without knowing the user’s mobile number, based on other unique identifiers (such as a user name).

Share

Read More