How to Search
New 337 Complaints

McCabe Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Stringed Musical Instruments

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
03
On February 26, 2010, Geoffrey McCabe (“McCabe”), of Hollywood, California filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to section 337.  The complaint indicates that McCabe is acting pro se. The complaint alleges that the following proposed respondents (collectively, “Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain stringed musical instruments and components thereof, including, fulcrum tremolos, as well as headless or tuner-less electric guitars equipped with fulcrum tremolos, which allegedly infringe Mr. McCabe’s U.S. Patent Nos. 5,965,831; 7,470,841; 6,175,066; 6,891,094; and 5,986,191 (“the asserted patents”):
  • Floyd Rose Guitars of Redmond, Washington
  • Floyd Rose Marketing, Inc. of Neptune, New Jersey
  • Floyd Rose of Sammamish, Washington
  • Davitt & Hanser Music Co., dba HHI of Hebron, Kentucky
  • Ping Well Industrial Co., Ltd. of Taiwan
  • Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP of Westfield, New Jersey
  • IBANEZ, Inc. (Hoshino) US of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
According to the complaint, the devices at issue include guitars as well as various fulcrum tremolo models embodying improvements for the setup and establishing of an instrument’s initial tuned condition under the unique conditions of a fulcrum tremolo, and then ensuring that the fulcrum tremolo returns exactly to that initial tuned condition after its use.  Such improvements include macro-tuners, ball bearing arrangements and global tuners. In the complaint, McCabe alleges that Floyd Rose contributes to the infringement of the asserted patents; that Floyd Rose Guitars designs and imports components for assembly of accused products; and Floyd Rose Marketing, has a financial interest in the importing, exporting, sales and distribution of accused products.  The complaint asserts that Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik contributes to infringement of the asserted patents by controlling the business interests of the Floyd Rose Respondents.  Davitt & Hanser Music Co. is accused of selling and distributing accused products manufactured by the Floyd Rose Respondents.  Ping Well Industrial Co., Ltd., and IBANEZ, Inc. (Hoshino) are accused of designing, manufacturing, importing and/or distributing accused products. Regarding domestic industry, McCabe states that he has made substantial investments in the exploitation of the asserted patents in the U.S. through research and development, engineering, licensing, product development, particularly pointing to strategic alliances with third party Kahler International, Inc., which manufactures fulcrum tremolos based on the asserted patents.  The complaint notes that on November 3, 2006, the ITC instituted investigation 337-TA-586 based on a prior complaint by McCabe asserting infringement of four of the five patents asserted in this investigation against some of the same Respondents named in the instant complaint.  The instant complaint further reports that the final initial determination in investigation 337-TA-586 found no violation based upon Mr. McCabe’s failure to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.  The complaint relies upon further licensing agreements from litigation subsequent to investigation 337-TA-586, as well as on licenses that arose from investigation 337-TA-586, including those provided to the present Respondents. Regarding potential remedy, Mr. McCabe requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order prohibiting importation, sale after importation, marketing, distributing, offering for sale, selling, licensing, or use of infringing stringed musical instruments and components thereof that infringe the asserted patents.
Share

Read More

Apple And NeXT Software File New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Personal Data And Mobile Communications Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
04
On March 2, 2010, Apple Inc. (formerly known as Apple Computer, Inc.) of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) and NeXT Software, Inc. (formerly known as NeXT Computer, Inc.) of Cupertino, California (collectively, “Complainants”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that High Tech Computer Corp. of Taiwan, HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington, and Exedea, Inc. of Houston, Texas (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the United States, sell for importation, and sell within the United States after importation “certain mobile communication devices and components thereof” that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,481,721 (the ‘721 patent), 5,519,867 (the ‘867 patent), 5,566,337 (the ‘337 patent), 5,929,852 (the ‘852 patent), 5,946,647 (the ‘647 patent), 5,969,705 (the ‘705 patent), 6,275,983 (the ‘983 patent), 6,343,263 (the ‘263 patent), 5,915,131 (the ‘131 patent), and RE 39,486 (the RE ‘486 patent) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). According to the complaint, (1) the ‘721 patent “relates generally to a means of allowing computer programs running one process to access objects that are located within a different process,” (2) the ‘867 and ‘983 patents “relate to the execution of object-oriented programs on a computer running a procedural operating systems,” (3) the ‘337 patent “relates generally to the distribution of event notifications between different software elements in a computer system,” (4) the ‘852 patent “relates generally to providing an efficient way for allowing a user to access a computing resource that is stored at a remote location, including by efficiently collecting the different software components needed to access that resource,” (5) the ‘647 patent “generally relates to a computer-based system and method for detecting structures and performing computer-based actions on detected structures,” (6) the ‘705 patent “relates generally to a software environment in which a foreground application can make use of a process running in the background to perform useful operations while simultaneously allowing the user to continue interacting with the user interface,” (7) the ‘263 patent “relates generally to providing programming abstraction layers for real-time processing applications,” (8) the ‘131 patent “relates generally to the use of application programming interfaces (APIs) to access system services,” and (9) the RE ‘486 patent “generally relates to a computer system that operates using ‘component layers.’” The accused products identified in the complaint include computing and mobile communication devices, cellular phones and smartphones, together with software designed for use on, and intended to be loaded onto, such devices.  The specific products named in the complaint include, for example, certain HTC Android Products, including the HTC Nexus One, the HTC Dream (sold commercially as the T-Mobile G1), HTC Magic (sold commercially as the HTC myTouch 3G), the HTC Hero, and the HTC Droid Eris. Regarding related litigation, Complainants assert in the complaint that the ‘705, ‘263, ‘131, ‘867, and RE ‘486 patents are the subject of pending Investigation No. 337-TA-704.  See our February 22, 2010 post for more details.  Complainants further assert that the Asserted Patents are the subject of a concurrently filed complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the Proposed Respondents. With respect to the domestic industry requirement, Complainants assert that they meet such requirement through, for example, Apple’s significant investments in physical operations, employment of labor and capital, and exploitation of the Asserted Patents. As to potential remedy, Complainants request that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed to the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

Hewlett-Packard Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges With Printheads

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
08
On March 5, 2010, Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto, California (“HP”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that MicroJet Technology Co., Ltd. of Taiwan, Mipo Technology Limited of Hong Kong, Mipo Science & Technology Co., Ltd. of China, Mextec d/b/a Mipo America Ltd. of Miami, Florida, SinoTime Technologies, Inc. d/b/a All Colors of Miami, Florida, and PTC Holdings Limited of Hong Kong (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the United States, sell for importation, and/or sell within the United States after importation certain inkjet ink cartridges with printheads and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,234,598 (the ‘598 patent), 6,309,053 (the ‘053 patent), 6,398,347 (the ‘347 patent), 6,412,917 (the ‘917 patent), 6,481,817 (the ‘817 patent), and 6,402,279 (the ‘279 patent) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). According to the complaint, the “technology and products at issue generally relate to thermal inkjet printing devices, and more particularly to inkjet ink cartridges that include a component portion, known as a printhead.”  Specifically, (1) the ‘598 patent “primarily relates to an inkjet printhead, having a large number of ink ejectors, that reduces the number of interconnections needed to energize heater resistors (that power the ink ejectors) by using shared electrical ground returns,” (2) the ‘053 patent “primarily relates to inkjet printheads that include heater resistors that fire an ink drop when selected,” (3) the ‘347 patent “relates to uniformly energized heater resistors in an inkjet printhead,” (4) the ‘917 patent “relates to a narrow inkjet printhead having efficient FET drive circuits that are configured to compensate for parasitic resistances of power traces,” and (5) the ‘817 and ‘279 patents “relate[ ] to the transfer of drop generator activation information from a printer to a print cartridge to eject ink onto a print medium based on the image to be printed.” Regarding related litigation, HP asserts in the complaint that               “[s]imultaneousy with the filing of this Complaint, HP is filing a complaint against proposed respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California relating to the [Asserted Patents].” With respect to the domestic industry (technical prong) requirement, HP asserts that the HP 57 color ink cartridge practices at least one claim of each of the Asserted Patents.  Regarding the economic prong, HP asserts that its “domestic industry activities include HP’s significant investment in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor and capital, and substantial investment in the exploitation of the [Asserted Patents].” As to potential remedy, HP requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order (or, in the alternative, a permanent limited exclusion order), and permanent cease and desist orders directed to the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

Verizon Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
17
On March 16, 2010, Verizon Communications Inc. of New York, New York and Verizon Services Corp. of Arlington, Virginia (collectively, “Verizon”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Cablevision Systems Corp. of Bethpage, New York (“Cablevision”) unlawfully imports into the United States, sells for importation, and/or sells or leases within the United States after importation digital set-top boxes (“STBs”) that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,666,293 (the ‘293 patent), 5,635,979 (the ‘979 patent), 6,381,748 (the ‘748 patent), 6,367,078 (the ‘078 patent), and 7,561,214 (the ‘214 patent) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). According to the complaint, (1) the ‘293 patent “describes an STB that downloads operating system software and application software through a digital broadband channel,” (2) the ‘979 patent “describes a dynamically programmable STB that can be updated with software to support additional functionality,” (3) the ‘748 patent “describes an STB that can be used to access content on the Internet,” (4) the ‘078 patent “describes an STB with user-interface software that allows users to navigate available content by category, as well as by channel,” and (5) the ‘214 patent “describes an STB with user-interface software that allows users to navigate available programs by channel, and through the selection of an ‘anchor’ channel, by category.” The accused products identified in the complaint include STBs and software intended for use on or with the STBs.  The specific products named in the complaint include the Scientific Atlanta Explorer 4250HD, the Scientific Atlanta Explorer 8300HD, and the Scientific Atlanta Explorer 4200HD. Verizon asserts that it satisfies the domestic industry (economic prong) requirement through its significant investments in plant and equipment, employment of labor and capital, and engineering, research and development activities related to products and services that embody the Asserted Patents.  With respect to the domestic industry (technical prong) requirement, Verizon identified its FiOS TV services and the STBs it purchases through third-party vendors (including the Motorola 7216, Motorola 6416, Motorola 7100, Motorola 6200, Motorola 2708, and Motorola 2500 products). As to potential remedy, Verizon requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed to Cablevision.
Share

Read More

Sony Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Display Devices, Including Digital Televisions And Monitors

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
22
On March 18, 2010, Sony Corporation of Japan (“Sony”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that the proposed respondents, TPV Technology Limited of Hong Kong, Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co., Ltd. of Taiwan, TPV International (USA), Inc. of Austin, Texas, Envision Peripherals, Inc. of Fremont, California, Top Victory Investments Ltd. of Hong Kong, TPV Electronics (Fujian) Co., Ltd. of China, TPV Display Technology (Wuhan) Co., Ltd. of China, TPV Display Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. of China, (collectively, “TPV”), Innolux Display Corporation of Taiwan, Innolux Corporation of Austin, Texas (collectively, “Innolux”), and ViewSonic Corporation of Walnut, California (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the United States, sell for importation, and/or sell within the United States after importation certain display devices, including digital television and monitors which allegedly infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,434,626 (the ‘626 patent), 5,751,373 (the ‘373 patent), 6,111,614 (the ‘614 patent), 5,583,577 (the ‘577 patent), 5,684,542 (the ‘542 patent), 5,731,847 (the ‘847 patent), 6,661,472 (the ‘472 patent), 6,816,131 (the ‘131 patent), and U.S. Reissue Patent Nos. 38,005 (the ‘005 patent), and 40,468 (the ‘468 patent) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). According to the complaint, (1) the ‘626 patent “discloses and claims a video display or television receiver apparatus that can control the display characteristics of unavailable items in a menu,” (2) the ‘373 patent “discloses a television receiver and function selection method in which a user can designate and select items that are displayed in a hierarchical on-screen menu,” (3) the ‘614 patent “is directed generally to on screen displays for display devices used, for example, in multiple channel broadcasting systems,” (4) the ‘577 patent “is generally directed to methods and systems for coding and decoding caption data to be superimposed on a displayed video image,” (5) the ‘542 patent “is generally directed to the receiving of closed captioning information and the displaying of closed captions,” (6) the ‘847 patent “is generally directed to the synchronization and display of closed caption information,” (7) the ‘055 and ‘468 patents are “generally directed to the secure transmission of data from one device to another over a data bus,” (8) the ‘472 patent “is generally directed to a fast and intuitive technique for selecting channels in a digital television,” and (9) the ‘131 patent “is generally directed to a method for use by a display device . . . to receive digital display signals, detect their resolution and convert them to a digital output signal having a different resolution and the same horizontal frequency as the [display device].” The accused products identified include digital televisions and PC Monitors.  The specific products named in the complaint include certain TPV products including the AOC Envision Series L24H898 LCD TV, the AOC Envision Series L42H861 LCD TV, and the AOC 619Fh LCD Display, certain Innolux products, including the HP w2558hc LCD monitor, and certain ViewSonic products including the ViewSonic N2690w 26” LCD HDTV and the ViewSonic VX2260wm LCD Display. With respect to related litigation, Sony identifies in the complaint a number of district court actions regarding certain of the asserted patents that have resulted in settlement agreements or are otherwise pending. Regarding the domestic industry requirement, Sony asserts that its “digital televisions that are sold and supported in the United States, including but not limited to the Sony KDL-26L5000 LCD TV . . . practice at least one or more claims of the Asserted Patents.”  Sony further states that although its digital televisions are manufactured outside of the United States, two of its principal U.S.-based subsidiaries “conduct significant domestic industry activities in the United States relating to the Sony digital televisions that practice the asserted patents,” including “engineering, design, research, development, distribution, marketing and administration of warranty and repair of Sony digital televisions.”  Sony also asserts that it exploits the technology of the Asserted Patents through extensive licensing activities conducted in the United States. With respect to potential remedy, Sony requests that the Commission issue permanent exclusion orders and permanent cease and desist orders directed to the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

Elan Microelectronics Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices With Multi-Touch Enabled Touchpads And Touchscreens

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
31
On March 29, 2010, Elan Microelectronics Corporation of Taiwan (“Elan”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) unlawfully imports into the United States, sells for importation, and/or sells within the United States after importation certain electronic devices with multi-touch enabled touchpads or touchscreens that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,825,352 (the ‘352 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘352 patent “discloses and claims technology that is fundamental to multi-touch user interfaces found in many computers and portable electronic devices.”  Specifically, the ‘352 patent “discloses a method for determining the number of fingers simultaneously present during each scan of the sensor surface” and “allows for the determination of the location of each finger and the distance between them.” In the complaint, Elan alleges that “certain imported electronic devices, including at least Apple’s iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS mobile phones, iPod Touch and iPad personal media players, MacBook, MacBook Pro, and MacBook Air portable computers, and Magic Mouse wireless mice” infringe the ‘352 patent.  Elan further alleges that “Apple’s Accused Products are manufactured abroad, sold for importation, imported and sold after importation in the United States by Apple or Apple’s vendors.” Regarding related litigation, Elan identifies a number of district court actions brought by Elan and Elantech (Elan’s predecessor in interest) involving the ‘352 patent, including an April 2009 action brought by Elan against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. With respect to the domestic industry (technical prong) requirement, Elan asserts that certain touchpad products of its licensee, Synaptics, Inc. (“Synaptics”), practice the ‘352 patent.  Regarding the economic prong requirement, Elan asserts that its “licensee Synaptics has made and continues to make significant investment in plant and equipment in the United States, employs significant labor and capital in the United States, and/or has made and continues to make substantial investment in its exploitation, including engineering, and research and development related to articles protected by the ‘352 patent.” As to potential remedy, Elan requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order, and permanent cease and desist order directed to Apple.
Share

Read More

Panasonic Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Large Scale Integrated Circuit Semiconductor Chips

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
02
On April 1, 2010, Panasonic Corporation, Ltd. of Japan (“Panasonic”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that manufacturers/distributors Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. of Austin, Texas, Freescale Semiconductor Japan Ltd. of Japan, Freescale Semiconductor Xiqing Integrated Semiconductor Manufacturing Site of China, Freescale Semiconductor Innovation Center of China, Freescale Semiconductor Malaysia Sdn. of Malaysia, Freescale Semiconductor Pte. Ltd. of Singapore, and Freescale Semiconductor Taiwan Ltd. of Taiwan (collectively “Freescale”), and retailers/downstream parties Mouser Electronics, Inc. of Mansfield, Texas, Premier Farnell Corporation d/b/a Newark of Independence, Ohio, and Motorola Inc. of Schaumburg, Illinois (collectively, “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the United States, sell for importation, and sell within the United States after importation certain large scale integrated circuit semiconductor chips and products containing same that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,933,364 (the ‘364 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 6,834,336 (the ‘336 patent) (collectively “the Panasonic Patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted technology “relates to semiconductor devices that are used as the ‘brains’ of mobile phones, audio equipment, home appliances and various other consumer electronics.”  Specifically, the products at issue pertaining to the ‘364 patent include LSI chips that include metal layers for stabilizing the potential of the memory section of a chip that includes a logic section.  The products at issue pertaining to the ‘336 patent include Very Long Instruction Word (“VLIW”) processors that include a unit for fetching VLIW instructions; and/or a unit for executing VLIW instructions in parallel. In the complaint, Panasonic asserts that the infringing products include all Freescale products having a StarCore Digital Signal Processor Core; all Freescale MSC and MXC products; part no. MPC8548E, a Power Architecture family product, and part no. SC29343VKP; all Freescale LSI chips having a design rule of 130 nm or smaller that include memory; and also products containing the same or a variant thereof, including several of Motorola’s mobile phones. Panasonic stated the Panasonic Patents have not been the subject of any related litigation. With respect to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, Panasonic asserts that the Panasonic Semiconductor Development Center’s (“PSDC”) “sole activities involve researching and developing circuitry for LSI chips, including those that practice the Panasonic Patents.”  Panasonic also states that “Panasonic invested substantial amounts” with regard to the Panasonic Patents and “continues to invest in licensing the Panasonic Patents.”  Panasonic additionally notes that it licensee, Texas Instruments, Inc. (“TI”), has also made significant investments and employs a significant amount of labor in connection with devices that practice the Panasonic Patents. With respect to the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, Panasonic asserts that circuitry for LSI chips designed by PSDC is used in Panasonic products that practice the Panasonic Patents.  Panasonic also asserts that products manufactured by TI practice claims of the Panasonic Patents. As to potential remedy, Panasonic requests that the Commission issue permanent exclusion orders and permanent cease and desist orders directed to the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

Microsoft Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Game Controllers

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
02
On April 1, 2010, Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Washington (“Microsoft”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Datel Design and Development Inc. of Clearwater, Florida and Datel Design and Development Ltd. of the United Kingdom (collectively, “Datel”) unlawfully import into the United States, sell for importation, and/or sell within the United States after importation certain game controllers that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. D521,015 (the ‘015 patent), D522, 011 (the ‘011 patent), D547,763 (the ‘763 patent), D581,422 (the ‘422 patent), D563,480 (the ‘480 patent), and D565,668 (the ‘668 patent) (collectively, the “Microsoft Patents”). According to the complaint, the “Microsoft Patents disclose and claim ornamental designs for portions of a game controller” that are “embodied in Microsoft’s Xbox 360 game system.” In the Complaint, Microsoft alleges that Datel “advertises itself as creator of the ‘world’s best-selling video game cheat products’ and a source for game accessories for all major video game console platforms, including the Xbox 360.”  Microsoft further alleges that Datel “is a vendor and supplier of game controllers, including the TurboFire and WildFire game controllers that infringe Microsoft’s patented designs.” Regarding related litigation, Microsoft asserts that “[c]oncurrent with the filing of this complaint, Microsoft is filing a complaint against the proposed respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging infringement of the ‘015, ‘011, ‘763, ‘422, ‘480, and ‘668 patents.” With respect to the domestic industry requirement, Microsoft asserts that the “Xbox 360 game pad satisfies the technical prong of domestic industry by incorporating each of the designs protected by the Microsoft Patents.”  Regarding the economic prong, Microsoft asserts that           “[a]lthough the Xbox 360 gamepad is not manufactured in the United States, Microsoft has made and continues to make substantial investments in the United States for activities relating to the Xbox 360 game system including the Xbox 360 controllers.” As to potential remedy, Micosoft requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order, and permanent cease and desist order directed to Datel.
Share

Read More

Apple Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Digital Imaging Devices And Related Software

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
16
On April 15, 2010, Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”) unlawfully imports into the United States, sells for importation, and sells within the United States after importation certain digital imaging devices and related software that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,031,964 (the ‘964 patent) and RE 38,911 (the RE ‘911 patent) (collectively “the Asserted Patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted technologies “relate generally to advancements and innovations in the fields of image processing, power management, and memory architectures in portable digital devices.”  Specifically, the products at issue pertaining to the ‘964 patent include imaging devices for capturing raw image data and a central processing unit that allocates storage locations within a dynamic random-access memory depending on the requirements of the system and the current image data. The ‘964 patent also concerns a power management system to protect data stored in the device's memory if a power failure is detected.  The products at issue pertaining to the RE ‘911 patent include digital image capture devices containing two or more image processors that alter image processing (such as white balance, color, sharpness, resolution,) within the digital image capture device. In the complaint, Apple asserts that the infringing products include the following Kodak digital cameras and video cameras: the Kodak Z Series of Cameras, including the Z915, Z950, Z1085 IS, and Z1485 IS; the Kodak M Series of Cameras, including the M340, M341, M380, M381, M530, M550, MI033, and MI093 IS; the Kodak C Series of cameras, including the C142, C180, C182, C190, and C913; the Kodak SLICE camera; and the Kodak video cameras, including the Zi6, Zi8, Zxl, and the Zx3 PLAYSPORT. Apple’s complaint also asserts that “[c]oncurrently with the filing of this complaint, Apple will file a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California accusing Kodak of infringing the Asserted Patents.”  Apple further asserts in the complaint that it is presently involved in pending patent litigations against Kodak concerning patents other than the Asserted Patents in a Section 337 investigation (337-TA-703), and two district court patent litigations in the Western District of New York, all filed by Kodak on January 14, 2010. With respect to the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, Apple asserts that its iMac and MacBook portable computers, with pre-installed software, including Mac OS x v.10.6 Snow Leopard, iTunes, iPhoto, Photo Booth and other software, as well as the iPhone practice at least one of the Asserted Patents. With respect to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, Apple asserts that it “made substantial investments in the Apple products that practice the Asserted Patents, including by way of example, investments in engineering, research, and development.”  It further asserts that “[s]ubstantially all of the R&D covered by these investments took place in the United States. In particular, the Apple products that practice the Asserted Patents were conceived, researched, and developed in the United States.”  Apple also asserts that for the 2009 fiscal year, its “net revenues were $36.54 billion, including $13.78 billion from Macintosh product sales, $2.41 billion from software licensing and services, and $6.75 billion from iPhone sales and related products and services.”  Additionally, Apple asserts in the complaint that “[d]uring the 2009 fiscal year, Apple sold 10.4 million 18 Macintosh units and 20.7 million iPhone units.” As to potential remedy, Apple requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist order directed to Kodak.
Share

Read More

Georgia Pacific Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Paper Towel Dispensing Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
22
On April 19, 2010, Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP (“Georgia Pacific”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Kruger Products LP of Canada and KTG USA LP of Memphis, Tennessee (together “Kruger”); Stefco Industries, Inc. of Haines City, Florida and Cellynne Corporation of Haines City, Florida (together “Stefco”); Draco Hygienic Products Inc. of Ontario, California (“Draco”); NetPak Electronic Plastic and Cosmetic, Inc. d/b/a Open for Business of Chicago, Illinois and Netpak Elektronik Plastik Ve Kozmetik Sanayi Ve Ticaret Ltd. of Turkey (together “NetPak”); Paradigm Marketing Consortium, Inc. d/b/a United Supply Systems of Syosset, New York and United Sourcing Network Corp. of Syosset, New York (together “Paradigm”); New Choice (H.K.) Ltd. of Hong Kong and Vida International Inc. of Taiwan (all collectively, “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the United States, sell for importation, and/or sell within the United States after importation certain electronic paper towel dispensing devices and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,871,815, 7,017,856, 7,182,289, and 7,387,274 (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted technologies relate to “a cost-effective and convenient way of grounding” an electronic paper towel dispenser device to protect its electronic circuitry from the static electric charges that build inside the dispenser as the paper towel product is dispensed from the paper towel roll. In the complaint, Georgia Pacific asserts that Proposed Respondents’ imported electronic paper towel dispensing devices and components thereof, including at least Kruger’s Titan2 Touchless Electronic Roll Towel Dispenser, Stefco’s 92004 Electronic Roll Towel Dispenser, Draco's Sensorcut and Tear & Go Hands-Free Paper Towel Dispensers, NetPak's Carpex Touchless Paper Towel Dispenser, and Paradigm’s Emerald Automated Touchless Paper Towel Dispenser infringe the Asserted Patents. The Complaint also asserts that “[c]oncurrent with the filing of this complaint, Georgia-Pacific has filed civil actions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, alleging that Kruger, Stefco, Draco, NetPak, and Paradigm infringe the Asserted Patents.” With respect to the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, Georgia-Pacific asserts that its electronic paper towel dispensers practice the Asserted Patents.  Regarding the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, Georgia-Pacific asserts it made substantial investments in the United States in the form of at least domestic engineering, research and development, and repair and service relating to electronic paper towel dispensers that are protected by the Asserted Patents. As to potential remedy, Georgia-Pacific requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order.  In the alternative, Georgia-Pacific seeks a permanent limited exclusion order directed to each Proposed Respondent.  It also seeks a permanent cease and desist order against the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

Blumberg Industries Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Lighting Products

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
06
On May 4, 2010, Blumberg Industries, Inc., d/b/a Fine Art Lamps of Miami Lakes, Florida (“Fine Art Lamps”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.  The complaint alleges that Lights & More, Inc. (“L&M”) of San Juan, Puerto Rico and Tampa, Florida unlawfully imports into the United States, and/or sells within the United States after importation certain lighting products, lamps and/or lighting fixtures that infringe U.S. Design Patent No. D570,038; and Copyright Registration Nos. VA 1-399-618 and VA 1-415-353, and U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 3,703,710, 3,703,711, 3,700,479, and 3,700,480. According to the complaint, the subject matter relates to “a lighting fixture individually … as well as individual components of the lighting fixture that are consistently expressed in all of the models of the line, such as beveled, arcuate crystals; arcuate support arms; and the combined support arms and crystals where the crystals appear as an extension of the support, and thus an extension of a flowing artistic gesture.…Additionally, the combination of a support and a crystal is presented to the viewer as part metallic finish and part optically aesthetic crystal.” The complaint asserts that the following L&M products infringe the intellectual property of Fine Art Lamps: (a) chandelier with L&M's product number 18288, (b) chandelier with L&M's product number 18292, (c) semi-flush mount lamp with L&M's product number 18290, (d) lantern with L&M's product number 18296, (e) L&M's pendant lamp, and (f) lantern with L&M's product number 18296. With respect to the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, Fine Art Lamps asserts that its BEVELED ARCS™ Collection includes at least the trade dress that incorporates the registered trademarks and copyright for BEVELED ARCS™.  Regarding the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, Fine Art Lamps asserts that it maintains a manufacturing and warehousing facility of more than 400,000 square feet in Florida and “actively advertises, markets, and otherwise promotes its BEVELED ARCS™ Collection, and has incurred over $3 million in promotional expenditures since the introduction of the BEVELED ARCS™ Collection in January 2007, of which a substantial percentage was devoted to promoting the BEVELED ARCS™ Collection.” As to potential remedy, Fine Art Lamps requests that the “Commission issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative, a limited exclusion order, as well as an order for L&M to cease and desist from committing further acts of” patent, trademark, and copyright infringement.
Share

Read More

Cross Match Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Biometric Scanning Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
12
On May 11, 2010, Cross Match Technologies, Inc. of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida (“Cross Match”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Suprema, Inc. of South Korea (“Suprema”) and Mentalix, Inc. of Plano, Texas (“Mentalix”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain biometric scanning devices, components thereof, associated software, and products containing the same, (collectively, the “accused products”) which allegedly infringe Cross Match’s U.S. Patent Nos. 5,900,993, 6,483,932, 7,203,344, and 7,277,562 (collectively, the “Cross Match Patents”). According to the complaint, the Cross Match Patents relate to “innovative devices used to capture and process the unique physiological characteristics, including fingerprints and palmprints, of individuals to verify their identities.”  In particular, the inventions relate to lens systems for use in fingerprint detection, a method and apparatus for rolled fingerprint capture, and a biometric imaging and scanning method. In the complaint, Cross Match alleges that Suprema (or others on its behalf) manufactures, assembles, and/or packages the accused products in Korea and then imports them into the U.S., sells them for importation into the U.S., and/or sells them after importation into the U.S.  Cross Match further alleges that Mentalix has imported, will imminently import, and/or has sold or offered for sale after importation into the U.S. Suprema’s accused products. Cross Match states in the complaint that it sued Suprema and Mentalix for infringement of the same Cross Match Patents on February 10, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and that the district court litigation is ongoing.  Cross Match further states in the complaint that a European counterpart to U.S. Patent No. 7,277,562 was the subject of an opposition proceeding in Europe that resulted in all claims being affirmed, and that the decision in that opposition proceeding is currently being appealed. Regarding domestic industry, Cross Match states that it conducts significant domestic activities in the U.S. relating to products that practice the Cross Match Patents.  According to Cross Match, it sells products covered by the asserted patents in the U.S. to private financial institutions, local law enforcement, schools, and the U.S. federal government.  Further, Cross Match’s research, design, manufacturing, and business operations relating to the asserted patents and products that practice the same are located primarily in Florida. Regarding potential remedy, Cross Match requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease-and-desist order directed at Suprema and Mentalix.
Share

Read More

HTC Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Portable Electronic Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
14
On May 12, 2010, HTC Corp. of Taiwan (“HTC”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Apple, Inc., a/k/a Apple Computer, Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain portable electronic devices and related software, (collectively, the “accused products”) which allegedly infringe HTC’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,999,800 (the ‘800 patent); 5,541,988 (the ‘988 patent); 6,058,183 (the ‘183 patent); 6,320,957 (the ‘957 patent); and 7,716,505 (the ‘505 patent) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).  The complaint asserts that the accused products include portable media players, smartphones, portable computers, tablets, and software to be loaded on such devices.  The complaint specifically identifies Apple’s iPod, iPhone, and iPad product lines. According to the complaint, the technology at issue in the ‘988, ‘183, and ‘957 patents relates generally to hardware and software used to implement telephone directories within mobile telephone systems.  The complaint describes the ‘800 patent as relating to power management methods in a smart portable electronic device, for example, “by controlling how the smart phone switches among the various combinations of the operational modes of the PDA system and the mobile phone system.”  According to the complaint, the ‘505 patent discloses a power control method for a smart phone, such that when the power supply is low, the smart phone enters a sleep mode and data that can be accessed from volatile memory is transferred to a nonvolatile memory. When the smart phone is charged, it supplies power to the volatile memory and accesses data from the non-volatile memory to initiate normal device operations. In the complaint, HTC alleges that Apple (or others on its behalf) manufactures the accused products in China and then imports them into the U.S., sells them for importation into the U.S., and/or sells them after importation into the U.S. Regarding domestic industry, HTC alleges that through its subsidiary HTC America, Inc., it has made significant investment in plant, equipment, labor and capital in the United States for the repair, product support, and other customer support services for HTC's devices that practice the Asserted Patents.  HTC additionally states it made substantial investments in the exploitation of the Asserted Patents through research and development and engineering in the United States for HTC's devices that practice the Asserted Patents, which include the Nexus One, HTC Pure, Droid Incredible by HTC, Droid Eris by HTC, HTC Hero, T-Mobile myTouch 3G, T-Mobile Gl, HTC HD2, HTC Imagio, HTC Tilt2, HTC Touch Pro2, HTC Snap, T-Mobile Dash 3G, HTC Ozone, HTC Touch Cruise, HTC Touch Pro, HTC Touch Diamond, HTC Touch, T-Mobile Shadow, Verizon XV6900, HTC Advantage, HTC S640, HTC Tilt, Mogul by HTC, and HTC S743. Regarding potential remedy, HTC requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a permanent cease-and-desist order directed at Apple.
Share

Read More

FlashPoint Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Imaging Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
17
On May 14, 2010, FlashPoint Technology, Inc. of Peterborough, New Hampshire (“FlashPoint”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Nokia Corp. of Finland, Nokia, Inc. of Irving, Texas, Research In Motion Ltd. of Canada, Research In Motion Corp. of Irving, Texas, HTC Corp. of Taiwan, HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington, LG Electronics of South Korea, LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, and LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. of San Diego, California (collectively, “Respondents”) unlawfully import, sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain electronic imaging devices that infringe FlashPoint’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,134,606 (the ‘606 patent), 6,163,816 (the ‘816 patent) and 6,262,769 (the ‘769 patent). According to the complaint, the patents-in-suit relate to the operation of electronic imaging devices, such as digital cameras and cellular telephones containing digital cameras.  In particular, the inventions relate to systems and methods for efficiently controlling the operating parameters of an electronic imaging device, for obtaining a set of capability parameters for an electronic imaging device, and for automatically rotating captured images displayed on a graphical user interface of a hand-held electronic imaging device as the device is rotated during a display mode. In the complaint, FlashPoint alleges that Nokia Corp. and Nokia, Inc. import, sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation the Nokia 5230 Nuron device that infringes certain claims of the ‘606, ‘816 and ‘769 patents.  FlashPoint further alleges that Research In Motion Ltd. and Research In Motion Corp. (collectively, “RIM”) import, sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation RIM’s Blackberry Storm2 9550 that infringes certain claims of the ‘606, ‘816 and ‘769 patents.  FlashPoint further alleges that HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc. import, sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation the HTC Droid Incredible that infringes certain claims of the ‘606 patent, as well as the HTC myTouch3G that infringes certain claims of the ‘816 and ‘769 patents.  FlashPoint further alleges that LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. import, sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation the LG eXpo (GW820) phone that infringes certain claims of the ‘606 and ‘816 patents, as well as the LG Ally phone that infringes certain claims of the ‘769 patent. Regarding domestic industry, FlashPoint states that all of its licensing revenue is derived from portfolio wide licenses that include the patents-in-suit, and that it has “significant employment of both labor and capital resources to maintain its licensing operations involving this portfolio.”  According to FlashPoint, it has generated “significant licensing revenue” from its patents covering accused digital camera products, including the patents-in-suit, which have been licensed to 26 different companies.  FlashPoint also asserts that a domestic industry exists due to its multiple domestic licensees’ (e.g., Apple Inc. and Eastman Kodak Co.) significant investment in plant and equipment, capital and labor, and research and development with respect to the patents-in-suit. With respect to potential remedy, FlashPoint requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order directed to all Respondents and a cease-and-desist order directed to each domestic Respondent.
Share

Read More

Chrysler Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Automotive Vehicles

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
18
On May 14, 2010, Chrysler Group LLC of Auburn Hills, Michigan (“Chrysler”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Xingyue Group Co., Ltd. of China, Shanghai Xingyue Power Machinery Co. Ltd. of China, Shanghai Xingyue USA, Inc. of City of Industry, California, Zhejiang Xingyue Vehicle Co. Ltd. of China, Shanghai Tandem Industrial Co., Ltd. of China, Excalibur Motorsports of Chino, California, Boat N RV Supercenter of Rockwood, Tennessee, Recon Cycles of Conore, Tennessee, and Vehicles Online, Inc. of Charlotte, North Carolina (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import, sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain automotive vehicles that infringe U.S. Patent No. D513,395 (the ‘395 patent).  According to the complaint, the ‘395 patent discloses and claims the ornamental design for a vehicle body. In the complaint, Chrysler alleges that proposed respondent Xingyue Group Co., Ltd. manufactures and imports ATVs designated as product XYJK800 that infringe the ‘395 patent.  Chrysler also alleges that proposed respondent Shanghai Xingyue Power Machinery Co. Ltd. sells the infringing vehicles under the brand names Xingyue and GSMoon.  Chrysler further alleges that proposed respondents Shanghai Xingyue USA, Inc. and Zhejiang Xingyue Vehicle Co. Ltd. import the infringing vehicles.  Chrysler also alleges that proposed respondent Excalibur Motorsports sells the infringing XYJK800 / GP800 F1 4X4 vehicle, which it obtains from Zhejiang Xingyue Vehicle Group.  In addition, Chrysler alleges that proposed respondent Shanghai Tandem Industrial Co., Ltd. manufactures and/or imports infringing vehicles designated as product TDUV800-2.  Additionally, Chrysler alleges that proposed respondent Boat N RV Supercenter sells infringing vehicles designated as 09 Fuzion XYJK800, which are the same as the XYJK800 products manufactured by proposed respondent Xingyue Group Co., Ltd.  Chrysler also alleges that proposed respondent Recon Cycles sells infringing vehicles designated as the Jeepzter, which it obtains from proposed respondent Xingyue Group Co., Ltd.  Chrysler further alleges that proposed respondent Vehicles Online, Inc. sells infringing vehicles designated as “New 800cc Jeep,” which are likewise the same as the XYJK800 products manufactured by proposed respondent Xingyue Group Co., Ltd. According to the Complaint, Chrysler asserts that the claimed design is embodied in its award-winning Jeep Hurricane® concept vehicle, and that “Jeep’s substantial investment and expenditures in the United States for plant and equipment, labor or capital, engineering, research and development and marketing of the Hurricane® concept vehicle that embodies the design claimed in the ‘395 patent” satisfy the domestic industry requirement. Chrysler states in the complaint that it sued USA Wholesale Scooters, Inc., Noel Farbman, Lee Schuco d/b/a New Dynamic Ventures and d/b/a USA Scooter Store, CCF Global Corp. d/b/a Zeus Marine & Off-Road Vehicles, d/b/a Zeus Utility & Off-Road Vehicles, and d/b/a Zeus Marine Pro, Charley Flores, and Carmenza Flores-Rodriguez for trademark infringement, counterfeiting and dilution of Chrysler’s Jeep® Trademarks, Jeep Grille® Trademarks and Jeepster® Trademarks, federal unfair competition, cybersquatting, and infringement of the ‘395 patent on May 11, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  Chrysler further states in the complaint that although not related to the ‘395 patent, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Puerto Rico filed suit in USA v. Four units all terrain vehicles (ATV) TDUV-800-2, Model, 3:09-cv-02209-FAB, as a result of the seizure of four of the infringing vehicles by Customs and Border Protection in Puerto Rico that were being imported from China. With respect to potential remedy, Chrysler requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order directed to all of the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

Hewlett-Packard Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
27
On May 25, 2010, Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto, California, and Hewlett-Packard Development Company (“HPDC”), L.P. of Houston, Texas (collectively, “HP”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that MicroJet Technology Co., Ltd. of Taiwan (“MicroJet”), Asia Pacific Microsystems, Inc. of Taiwan (“APM”), Mipo Technology Limited of Hong Kong, Mipo Science & Technology Co., Ltd. of China, Mextec d/b/a Mipo America Ltd. of Miami, Florida, SinoTime Technologies, Inc. d/b/a All Colors of Miami, Florida, and PTC Holdings Limited of Hong Kong (“PTC”) (collectively "proposed respondents"), have engaged in violations of Section 337 through the unlicensed importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and/or the sale within the United States after importation of the accused products that infringe one or more claims of United States Patent Nos. 6,234,598 ("the '598 patent"), 6,309,053 ("the '053 patent"), 6,398,347 ("the '347 patent"), 6,412,917 ("the '917 patent"), 6,481,817 ("the '817 patent"), and 6,402,279 ("the '279 patent") (collectively, the "HP Patents"). According to the complaint, the “technology and products at issue generally relate to thermal inkjet printing devices, and more particularly to inkjet ink cartridges that include a component portion, known as a printhead.”  Specifically, (1) the ‘598 patent “primarily relates to an inkjet printhead, having a large number of ink ejectors, that reduces the number of interconnections needed to energize heater resistors (that power the ink ejectors) by using shared electrical ground returns,” (2) the ‘053 patent “primarily relates to inkjet printheads that include heater resistors that fire an ink drop when selected,” (3) the ‘347 patent “relates to uniformly energized heater resistors in an inkjet printhead,” (4) the ‘917 patent “relates to a narrow inkjet printhead having efficient FET drive circuits that are configured to compensate for parasitic resistances of power traces,” and (5) the ‘817 and ‘279 patents “relate[ ] to the transfer of drop generator activation information from a printer to a print cartridge to eject ink onto a print medium based on the image to be printed.” In the complaint, HP alleges that MicroJet and/or APM manufacture infringing ink cartridges, and the remaining proposed respondents import those products into the United States, sell them for importation into the United States, and/or sell them after they have been imported into the United States.  HP further alleges that at least MicroJet and/or APM are contributory infringers of the HP Patents because their products are not staple articles or commodities, but rather are known to be particularly adapted for use in practicing the inventions of the HP Patents.  The complaint specifically identifies the following as infringing products:  Mipo's HP 57-compatible color ink cartridge (product code MP 57 - C6657A) and HP 28-compatible color ink cartridge (product code MP 28 - C8728A); PTC's HP 21-compatible black ink cartridge (product codes HC 21; HC 21XL - C9351) and HP 22-compatible color ink cartridges (product codes HC 22XL - C9352). As to the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, the complaint asserts that ink cartridges from the following HP product families practice the asserted claims of the HP Patents:  HP 21, HP 22, HP 27, HP 28, HP 54, HP 56, HP 57, HP 58, and HP 59.  Examples of specific ink cartridges from these product families include: (i) the C6657A, C8728A, C9352A, C9352C, C9352D, and CB278A color ink cartridges; (ii) the C6656A, C8727A, C9351A, C9351C, C9351D, and CB334A black ink cartridges and (iii) the C9359A, and CC6658A photo print cartridges. With respect to the economic prong of the domestic industry, the complaint alleges that HP has conducted and continues to conduct activities with respect to the design and development, manufacturing administration and control, sourcing, packaging, distribution, warranty and returns, and sales and marketing activities relating to the domestic industry products.  The complaint further alleges that HP has made and/or continues to make significant U.S. investments in the facilities, labor, equipment and/or capital to support these activities, as well as significant investments in the exploitation of the HP Patents. Regarding related litigation, HP asserts in the complaint that on May 20, 2010, HP and HPDC filed a complaint against proposed respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California relating to the same HP Patents in Case No. CV-10-2175-HRL.  The complaint also identifies that on March 5, 2010, HP filed a complaint with the ITC against the several of the same proposed respondents, and that HP moved to terminate the Investigation based on a withdrawal of the March 5, 2010 complaint.  See our March 8, 2010 post.  HP also identified that it filed on March 5, 2010, and then voluntarily dismissed on May 20, 2010, a complaint against several of the same proposed respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California relating to the same HP Patents in Case No. CV-I0-00965-EMC. As to potential remedy, HP requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order (or, in the alternative, a permanent limited exclusion order), and permanent cease and desist orders directed to the proposed respondents.
Share

Read More

S3 Graphics Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
02
On May 28, 2010, S3 Graphics, Inc. of Fremont, California and S3 Graphics Co., Ltd. of the Cayman Islands (collectively, “S3G”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and sells within the U.S. after importation certain electronic devices with image processing systems, components thereof, and associated software (collectively, the “accused products”) that infringe S3G’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,043,087, 6,775,417, 6,683,978, and 6,658,146 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The complaint asserts that the accused products include, but are not limited to multimedia devices, smart phones, personal computers, and software for use with such devices.  The complaint specifically identifies the Apple iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad, Apple computers such as the MacBook used in conjunction with an Apple software development kit (“SDK”), and other application software. According to the complaint, the Asserted Patents generally relate to aspects of an image processing system for encoding and decoding, including compressing image data files into a more compact form, a format for storing the compressed data, and a system for decompressing that data for display as an image.  In particular, the Asserted Patents disclose an image compression technology including an image decomposer, an encoder for computing image data values and generating codeword reference values, and a construction module for creating indices that map each image data value to a set of colors generated from the codewords.  The Asserted Patents also disclose a format for storage of encoding or compressing image data that includes a portion for storage of multiple codewords from which a set of colors can be computed and a portion for storage of indices for mapping pixel color to computed color.  Finally, the Asserted Patents disclose an image decoding or decompressing technology that includes a decomposer for processing the encoded image data stream into a header and a plurality of encoded image blocks, a header converted for generating an output image header, one or more block data decoders for generating from the codewords and indices pixel image attributes such as color for mapping those attributes to pixels, and an image composer that reassembles data blocks for a display device and/or a data file. In the complaint, S3G alleges that Apple sells a variety of imported products, including but not limited to the Apple iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad, Apple computers such as the MacBook, certain applications for those products, and associated software that incorporate the image data compression, decompression, and/or data format disclosed and claimed in the Asserted Patents.  The complaint further alleges that Apple provides an SDK specifically adapted for use with Apple computers to compress and decompress image data files using the technology disclosed and claimed in the Asserted Patents, and that Apple’s SDK and computers generate encoded image files in the format disclosed and claimed in the Asserted Patents. Regarding domestic industry, S3G states that it employs a work force in the U.S. that conducts research, development, engineering, product design, support, and repair in the U.S. for S3G’s products that practice the Asserted Patents, including at least the S3 Graphics, Inc. Chrome series of graphics products.  S3G further states that it operates a licensing business in the U.S. that licenses S3G’s patent portfolio (including the Asserted Patents) and that its licensees practice the Asserted Patents in the U.S. With respect to potential remedy, S3G requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a permanent cease-and-desist order directed at Apple.
Share

Read More

Batesville Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Caskets

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
10
On June 8, 2010, Batesville Services, Inc. of Batesville, Indiana (“Batesville”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The Complaint alleges that Ataudes Aguilares, S. de R.L. de C.V. of Mexico (“Ataudes Aguilares”) unlawfully imports, sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain caskets that infringe Batesville’s U.S. Patent Nos. 5,611,124 (the ‘124 patent), 5,727,291 (the ‘291 patent), 6,836,936 (the ‘936 patent), 6,976,294 (the ‘294 patent), and 7,340,810 (the ‘810 patent) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”). According to the Complaint, the ‘124, ‘291, ‘936, and ‘294 patents relate to caskets having a memorabilia compartment, which is a designated compartment or receptacle specifically for mementos, as an integral part of the casket.  The ’810 patent relates to an attachment mechanism permitting the quick and efficient installation and removal of ornamental corner pieces. In the Complaint, Batesville alleges that Ataudes Aguilares imports into the U.S., sells for importation into the U.S., and/or sells within the U.S. after importation caskets with a memorabilia compartment and innovative attachment mechanism that infringe certain claims of the patents-in-suit. Regarding domestic industry, Batesville alleges that it has significant investment in manufacturing plants and equipment and significant employment of labor and capital.  Namely, Batesville asserts that it currently employs approximately 3,300 employees in the U.S. and manufactures and assembles its patented caskets in its production facilities in Indiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee. As to related litigation, Batesville asserts that in November 2009, Batesville filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico naming Luquillo Funeral Home and Mr. Alejandro Sanchez, J.G. Perez Memorial and Mr. Johnny Galiano, and Naranjito Memorial and Messrs. Luis Matos and Glen Matos as defendants.  Batesville asserts that several of these defendants have admitted to infringement of the patents-in-suit and have admitted under oath that Ataudes Aguilares is the supplier of the infringing caskets.  According to the Complaint, all defendants in this related litigation have executed a Consent Judgment in Batesville’s favor. With respect to potential remedy, Batesville requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease-and-desist order directed to Ataudes Aguilares.
Share

Read More

Radiodetection Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Underground Cable And Pipe Locators

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
14
On June 10, 2010, Radiodetection, Ltd. of the United Kingdom (“Radiodetection”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Vivax-Metrotech Corp. of Santa Clara, California, SebaKMT of Germany, and Leidi Utility Supply Ltd. of China (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain underground cable and pipe locators that infringe Radiodetection’s U.S. Patent No. 6,268,731 (the ‘731 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘731 patent generally relates to a device for locating an electrically conductive object.  In particular, the patent is directed to a method and apparatus for measuring the position and orientation of a buried underground object such as a cable or pipe using the electromagnetic field generated by a current in the object. In the complaint, Radiodetection alleges that the Proposed Respondents import and sell handheld cable and pipe locators under the designation “vLocPro,” and that the vLocPro directly infringes and/or induces infringement of various claims of the ‘731 patent. Regarding domestic industry, Radiodetection states that its “RD8000” product is representative of its line of locator products that practice the claims of the ‘731 patent in the U.S.  According to the complaint, Radiodetection maintains distribution and repair facilities in Illinois and Maine and employs a significant number of personnel at those facilities.  Additionally, Radiodetection states that it expends substantial resources on marketing in the U.S. and that it has participated in numerous trade shows and conferences in the U.S. As to related litigation, Radiodetection states that “[o]n the date of this Complaint, or immediately thereafter, Radiodetection will be filing an action against all [Proposed] Respondents identified herein, alleging infringement of at least the ‘731 patent in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.” With respect to potential remedy, Radiodetection requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease-and-desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

eInstruction Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Collaborative System Products

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
16
On June 15, 2010, eInstruction Corporation of Denton, Texas (“eInstruction”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Promethean Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia and Promethean Technology Shenzhen Ltd. of China (collectively, “Promethean”) unlawfully import into the U.S. and sell within the U.S. after importation certain collaborative system products and components thereof that infringe eInstruction’s U.S. Patent No. 6,930,673 B2 (the ‘673 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘673 patent generally relates to a teaching system for use in school classrooms.  In particular, the patent is directed to a collaborative input system comprising a host computer, an associated display, and a plurality of electronic tablets or pads that are wirelessly connected to the host computer.  Each tablet or pad can receive input via a pen whose activity is detectable by the surface of the tablet or pad, and this input is presented on the host computer’s display.  The software running on the host computer manages and prioritizes the input from the plurality of tablets or pads. In the complaint, eInstruction alleges that Promethean imports and sells wireless tablets under the designations “ActivSlate” and “ActivSlate 50” and that these tablets indirectly infringe all of the claims of the ‘673 patent when used according to Promethean’s instructions.  eInstruction further alleges that Promethean has tested and demonstrated the use of its “ActivSlate” and “ActivSlate 50” tablets in a teaching system that directly infringes the claims of the ‘673 patent. Regarding domestic industry, eInstruction states that its “INTERWRITE MOBI” and “INTERWRITE PAD” products practice the claims of the ‘673 patent in the U.S.  According to the complaint, eInstruction designs, develops, and engineers the  “INTERWRITE MOBI” and “INTERWRITE PAD” products at an Arizona facility.  Software is added to the products and sales are coordinated out of eInstruction’s Texas facilities. As to related litigation, eInstruction notes that the ‘673 patent was the subject of an earlier ITC investigation, Inv. No. 337-TA-682, and that that investigation settled.  See our December 4, 2009 post for more details about the termination of the 682 investigation. With respect to potential remedy, eInstruction requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order -- or in the alternative a permanent limited exclusion order -- and a permanent cease-and-desist order directed at Promethean.
Share

Read More

Copyright © Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. | Disclaimer
The opinions, commentary and characterizations provided to this online forum by the authors and moderators are provided for encouraging discussion, thought and debate on important ITC issues. These postings are in no way representative of the opinions of the Oblon firm, or its clients, but rather the personal views of the individual authors.