New 337 Complaints

Overland Storage Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Automated Media Library Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
22
On October 19, 2010, Overland Storage, Inc. of San Diego, California (“Overland Storage”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that BDT AG of Germany, BDT-Solutions GmbH & Co. KG of Germany (“BDT-Solutions”), BDT Automation Technology (Zhuhai FTZ) of China, BDT de México, S. de R.L. de C.V. of Mexico, BDT Products, Inc. of Irvine, California (“BDT Products”), Dell Inc. of Round Rock, Texas (“Dell”), and International Business Machines Corp. of Armonk, New York (“IBM”) (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain automated media library devices that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,328,766 (the ‘766 patent) and 6,353,581 (the ‘581 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, “[t]he infringing articles and the domestic articles protected by the asserted patents are various models and types of automated media library devices, also called tape libraries.”  The automated media library devices have the ability to move tape cartridges from one drive to another without human intervention via robotic arms or actuators inside the media library itself. In the complaint, Overland Storage alleges that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  In particular, the complaint names the BDT FlexStor II tape library series — which is marketed and sold in the U.S. as, among other things, the Dell PowerVault TL 2000 Tape Library and the IBM System Storage TS3100 Tape Library — as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Overland Storage states that a domestic industry exists for the asserted patents as a result of Overland Storage’s significant investment in plant, labor, and capital in the U.S. in connection with articles protected by the asserted patents.  In particular, Overland Storage states that it designs, develops, and manufactures its 2000, 2000e, 4000, 4000e, 8000, and 8000e NEO Series Tape Libraries in San Diego, California.  Further, Overland Storage states that it contracts with Hon Hai/Foxconn to perform final assembly of Overland Storage’s 200s and 400s NEO Series Tape Libraries in Houston, Texas.  With respect to the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, Overland Storage alleges that the NEO 200s, 400s, 2000, 2000e, 4000, and 4000e are covered by at least one claim of each of the asserted patents and, additionally, that the NEO 8000 and 8000e are covered by at least one claim of the ‘766 patent. As to related litigation, Overland Storage states that on August 13, 2010, it filed suit against BDT AG, BDT-Solutions and BDT Products in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California alleging infringement of the ‘766 and ‘581 patents. With respect to potential remedy, Overland Storage requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

Data Network Storage Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Data Storage Products

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
25
On October 20, 2010, Data Network Storage, LLC of Newport Beach, California (“DNS”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that NetApp, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California (“NetApp”), Dell, Inc. of Round Rock, Texas (“Dell”), Xyratex, Ltd. of the United Kingdom, Xyratex International Inc. of West Sacramento, California, and Xyratex (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd of Malaysia (collectively, “Xyratex”), Dot Hill Systems Corp. of Longmont, Colorado (“Dot Hill”), International Business Machines Corporation of Armonk, New York (“IBM”), Cisco Systems, Inc. of San Jose, California (“Cisco”), and QNAP Systems, Inc. of Taiwan (“QNAP”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain data storage products and components thereof that infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,098,128 (the ‘128 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘128 patent generally relates to a system configured to receive and store data, and allow for conversion of storage commands to and from a common format.  The complaint states that to implement this technology, the claims require a file management system configured to convert storage commands to and from a common format, a processor configured to execute commands in a common format, and a file device driver configured to redirect commands to the file management system. In the complaint, DNS alleges that Dot Hill imports and supplies components from Taiwan that are assembled in the United States into NetApp products and Dot Hill products accused of infringing the ‘128 patent.  The complaint further alleges that Xyratex imports and supplies components from Malaysia to NetApp and Dell, which are assembled in the United States into products accused of infringing the ‘128 patent.  DNS also alleges in the complaint that IBM manufactures and imports accused products from Mexico and rebrands accused NetApp products under the IBM brand.  The complaint additionally states that QNAP imports accused products into the United States from Taiwan, and that QNAP is an OEM supplier of accused products sold by Cisco. According to the complaint, DNS’s business model includes acquiring, licensing and developing patent portfolios, and DNS is the exclusive licensee of the ‘128 patent, with an exclusive right to enforce the ‘128 patent pursuant to an agreement with the owner of the patent, Storage Computer Corporation.  DNS asserts in the complaint that a domestic industry exists through its substantial investments in the exploitation of the ‘128 patent.  The complaint states that DNS substantially invests in research and evaluation of its computer data storage patent portfolio to identify licensing opportunities for, among others, the ‘128 patent, and that due diligence requires market research and analysis of publicly available information, requiring significant capital expenditures by DNS.  The complaint states that litigation involving the ‘128 patent resulted in eleven license agreements that specifically include rights to the ‘128 patent. As to related litigation, DNS states in the complaint that case number 3-08-cv-0294-K filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas involves the ‘128 patent, and NetApp and Dell are the sole remaining defendants in that action, while case number 3:09-cv-00658 pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, involves the ‘128 patent and IBM is the sole remaining defendant.  DNS further states that on October 4, 2010, it filed case no. 10cv2060 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Cisco, Dot Hill, QNAP, and Xyratex, apparently involving the ‘128 patent. With respect to potential remedy, DNS requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease-and-desist order directed at all proposed respondents and their subsidiaries, related companies, and agents.
Share

Read More

Thomson Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain LCD Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
26
On October 22, 2010, Thomson Licensing SAS of France and Thomson Licensing LLC of Princeton, New Jersey (collectively, “Thomson”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Qisda Corporation of Taiwan, Qisda America Corporation of Irvine, California, Qisda (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. of China (collectively, “Qisda”), BenQ Corporation of Taiwan, BenQ America Corporation of Irvine, California, BenQ Latin America Corporation of Miami, Florida (collectively, “BenQ”), AU Optronics Corporation of Taiwan, and AU Optronics Corporation America of Houston, Texas (collectively, “AUO”) unlawfully and without authorization import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain LCD devices, modules and components thereof that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,978,063 (the ‘063 patent), 5,621,556 (the ‘556 patent) and 5,375,006 (the ‘006 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the ‘063 patent relates to LCD panel spacer elements that are positioned and shaped to improve the fabrication process and display quality of an LCD.  The ‘556 patent relates to a method for manufacturing an improved bottom-gate TFT that communicates with a pixel electrode positioned above a passivation layer.  The ‘006 patent relates to structures for improving twisted nematic LCD display image quality at different viewing angles. The accused products identified in the complaint include LCD devices such as monitors, televisions, modules, and panels manufactured, designed, distributed, sold, or offered for sale by or for Qisda, BenQ and AUO, as well as infringing components incorporated therein, such as LCD modules, panels, and birefringent film. Regarding domestic industry, Thomson asserts that it conducts “significant domestic industry activities in the United States relating to the patents-at-issue” through an extensive licensing program. With respect to related litigation, Thomson identifies in the complaint various proceedings regarding certain of the asserted patents, including another ITC complaint, two district court actions in the District of Delaware, and two reexaminations before the USPTO.  Thomson also references actions brought in the ITC and the Northern District of California involving other patents from its LCD licensing program. As to potential remedy, Thomson requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order pursuant to Section 337(d) and a permanent cease-and-desist order pursuant to Section 337(f).
Share

Read More

Apple Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Mobile Devices And Related Software

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
02
On October 29, 2010, Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Motorola, Inc. of Schaumburg, Illinois and Motorola Mobility, Inc. of Libertyville, Illinois (“Motorola Mobility”) (collectively, “Motorola”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain mobile devices and related software that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,812,828 (the ‘828 patent), 7,663,607 (the ‘607 patent), and 5,379,430 (the ‘430 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to software and methods used in a variety of electronic devices, including mobile devices.  In particular, the ‘828 patent is directed to a method for electronic devices such as mobile communications devices to integrate different types of manual input such as typing, multiple degree-of-freedom manipulation, and handwriting on a touch-sensitive surface.  The ‘607 patent is directed to a touch panel having transparent conductive layers that is capable of recognizing multiple touches by the fingers of a user.  Finally, the ‘430 patent is directed to a method for adding components or applications to a computer system “on the fly” without running an installation program or rebooting the operating system. In the complaint, Apple alleges that Motorola imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  In particular, the complaint names the Motorola Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq, Cliq XT, BackFlip, Devour A555, i1, and Charm as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Apple states that it makes extensive use of the inventions claimed in the asserted patents in numerous products that are developed and sold within the U.S.  These products include Apple’s Macintosh computers, iPhone 3GS, and iPhone 4.  Apple states that substantially all of the research, development, design, engineering, and testing of the Apple products that practice the asserted patents was conducted by Apple employees using or working within Apple’s facilities in Cupertino, California, Newark California, and Elk Grove, California.  Moreover, Apple notes that by the end of fiscal year 2009, it had opened 217 retail stores in the U.S. that provide sales, product advice, service, and training for Apple hardware and software, including the Apple products that practice the asserted patents. As to related litigation, Apple states that on October 6, 2010, Motorola Mobility filed complaints against Apple in the ITC (see our October 8, 2010 post for more details), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging infringement of certain patents.  Apple further states that on October 8, 2010, Motorola Mobility filed a complaint against Apple and NeXT Software, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of certain patents.  As for the ‘828, ‘607, and ‘430 patents specifically, Apple states that concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, Apple will file a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin accusing Motorola of infringing the asserted patents.   Further, Apple states that on June 28, 2010, the ‘430 patent was asserted against Nokia, Inc. and Nokia Corporation in a counterclaim in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. With respect to potential remedy, Apple requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Motorola and others acting on Motorola’s behalf.
Share

Read More

UTC Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Turbomachinery Blades

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
09
On November 5, 2010, United Technologies Corporation of Hartford, Connecticut (“UTC”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Rolls-Royce Group plc and Rolls-Royce plc (collectively, “Rolls-Royce”), both of the United Kingdom, unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain turbomachinery blades, engines, and components thereof that infringe U.S. Patent No. RE38,040 E (the ‘040 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘040 patent generally relates to turbomachinery blades that reduce or minimize certain adverse effects of the shock waves formed in the intake section of a turbofan engine.  In particular, the invention of the ‘040 patent improves on prior turbomachinery blades by bringing the endwall and passage shock waves together so that air encounters only the passage shock, thereby reducing the adverse effects of encountering both the endwall and passage shocks. In the complaint, UTC alleges that Rolls-Royce imports and sells products that infringe the ‘040 patent.  In particular, the complaint names the Trent 900 and Trent 1000 engines as infringing products.  According to the complaint, the Trent 1000 engine was developed to be used with the Boeing Company’s (“Boeing”) 787 “Dreamliner” aircraft, and Rolls-Royce first delivered a Trent 1000 engine to Boeing on June 4, 2007. Regarding domestic industry, UTC states that its Pratt & Whitney division operates facilities in East Hartford, Connecticut and Middletown, Connecticut that are used for the research and development, assembly, and manufacture of turbomachinery blades, fans, and engines covered by the ‘040 patent.  The complaint specifically names the GP7200 series engines manufactured in part at Pratt & Whitney’s Connecticut facilities as products covered by at least one claim of the ‘040 patent.  According to the complaint, the GP7200 series engines are sold to Airbus S.A.S. (“Airbus”) for use on the Airbus A380 aircraft. As to related litigation, UTC states that contemporaneously with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, UTC filed an amended complaint in its ongoing litigation against Rolls-Royce in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut asserting a cause of action for infringement of the ‘040 patent.  Additionally, UTC states that a continuation application of the parent of the patent from which the ’040 patent was reissued was involved in a patent interference with Rolls-Royce plc’s U.S. Patent No. 6,071,077.  The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) declared the interference on December 31, 2003 and initially awarded priority to UTC.  However, the PTO’s decision was later reversed by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  The district court’s decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on May 5, 2010. With respect to potential remedy, UTC requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Rolls-Royce.
Share

Read More

Motorola Mobility Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Gaming And Entertainment Consoles

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
24
On November 22, 2010, Motorola Mobility, Inc. of Libertyville, Illinois (“Motorola Mobility”) and General Instrument Corporation of Horsham, Pennsylvania (collectively, “Complainants”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Washington (“Microsoft”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and sells within the U.S. after importation certain gaming and entertainment consoles, related software, and components thereof that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,319,712 (the ‘712 patent), 5,357,571 (the ‘571 patent), 6,069,896 (the ‘896 patent), 6,980,596 (the ‘596 patent), and 7,162,094 (the ‘094 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to wireless communications and digital video technology.  In particular, the ‘712 patent relates to cryptographic protection of a data stream in wireless communication architectures, including the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) architecture.  The ‘571 patent relates to secure point-to-point communications between communication units using wireless communication architectures.  The ‘896 patent relates to establishing connections between devices in a wireless peer-to-peer network.  The ‘596 patent relates to macroblock level adaptive frame/field coding for digital video content.  Finally, the ‘094 patent relates to frequency scanning paths for transform-based decoding of digital video content. In the complaint, Complainants allege that Microsoft imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  In particular, the complaint names the 250 GB Xbox 360 S and the 4 GB Xbox 360 S as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Complainants state that they operate several facilities throughout the U.S. where their employees engage in multiple activities relating to the asserted patents.  In particular, Complainants state that they design and develop within the U.S. wireless handheld devices, wireless communication devices, and communication system components that practice the technologies covered by the ‘712, ‘571, and ‘896 patents.  Additionally, Complainants state that they design and develop within the U.S. high definition IP video set-top boxes that practice the digital video decoding technologies covered by the ‘596 and ‘094 patents.  The complaint specifically names the Motorola Droid 2, Droid X, and VIP1200 as exemplary devices for purposes of satisfying the domestic industry requirement. As to related litigation, Complainants state that the ‘712 patent was involved in a prior ITC investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-706) based on a complaint filed by Motorola, Inc. (“Motorola”) against Research In Motion Limited and Research In Motion Corporation (collectively, “RIM”) on January 22, 2010.  See our January 25, 2010 post for more details.  The 706 investigation was terminated on June 29, 2010 due to a settlement agreement between the parties.  The ‘712 patent had also been the subject of a lawsuit against RIM in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, but that case was dismissed in June 2010 as well. Additionally, Complainants state that on October 1, 2010, Microsoft filed an ITC complaint against Motorola alleging a violation of Section 337 based on the importation and sale of certain mobile devices, associated software, and components thereof that infringe various Microsoft patents.  See our October 5, 2010 post for more details.  The Commission instituted an investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-744) based on Microsoft’s complaint on November 1, 2010.  Complainants further state that, also on October 1, 2010, Microsoft filed a patent infringement suit against Motorola in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging infringement of the same Microsoft patents that are at issue in the 744 investigation.  Complainants state that this district court case has been stayed pending a final determination in the 744 investigation at the ITC. Further, Complainants state that on October 6, 2010, Motorola Mobility filed a patent infringement action against Apple Inc. based on a number of patents, including the ‘712 patent, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  A notice of dismissal was filed in that case on November 9, 2010, after Motorola Mobility filed counterclaims involving the same patents in response to a suit brought by Apple against Motorola and Motorola Mobility in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Moreover, Complainants state that on November 9, 2010, Microsoft filed a declaratory judgment action based on alleged patent licensing obligations against Motorola and Motorola Mobility in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.  Microsoft’s complaint included an appendix that listed a number of patents, including the ‘712, ‘571, and ‘896 patents. Lastly, Complainants state that on November 10, 2010, they filed a patent infringement action against Microsoft based on a number of patents, including the ‘712, ‘571, ‘596, and ‘094 patents, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.  Complainants further state that, also on November 10, 2010, they filed another patent infringement action against Microsoft on a number of patents, not including any of the asserted patents, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.  Complainants further state that, also on November 10, 2010, Motorola Mobility filed yet another patent infringement action against Microsoft on a number of patents, not including any of the asserted patents, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. With respect to potential remedy, Complainants request that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Microsoft, its subsidiaries, related companies, and agents.
Share

Read More

Rambus Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Semiconductor Chips

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
06
On December 1, 2010, Rambus Inc. of Sunnyvale, California (“Rambus”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. of Austin, Texas; Broadcom Corporation of Irvine, California; LSI Corporation of Milpitas, California; MediaTek Inc. of Hsin-Chu, Taiwan; nVidia Corporation of Santa Clara, California; STMicroelectronics N.V. of Geneva, Switzerland; STMicroelectronics Inc. of Carrollton, Texas; Asustek Computer, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; Asus Computer International Inc. of Fremont, California; Audio Partnership PLC of London, United Kingdom; Biostar Microtech (U.S.A.) Corp. of City of Industry, California; Biostar Microtech International Corp., Hsin Tien, Taiwan; Cisco Systems, Inc. of San Jose, California; Elitegroup Computer Systems Co., Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan; EVGA Corporation of Brea, California; Galaxy Microsystems Ltd. of Kowloon Bay, Hong Kong; Garmin International, Inc. of Olathe, Kansas; G.B.T. Inc. of City of Industry, California; Giga-Byte Technology Co., Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan; Gracom Technologies LLC, of City of Industry, California; Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto, California; Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, Inc. of San Jose, California; Jaton Corporation of Fremont, California; Jaton Technology TPE of Hsi-Chih, Taiwan; Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. of Taipei Hsien, Taiwan; MSI Computer Corporation of City of Industry, California; Motorola, Inc. of Schaumburg, Illinois; Oppo Digital, Inc. of Mountain View, California; and Palit Microsystems Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan; Pine Technology Holdings, Ltd. of North Point, Hong Kong; Seagate Technology LLC of Scotts Valley, California; Sparkle Computer Co., Ltd. of Xizhi City, Taiwan; Zotac International (MCO) Ltd. of Shatin, N.T. Hong Kong; and Zotac USA Inc. of City of Industry, California (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully and without authorization import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain memory controllers and peripheral interfaces and/or products containing the same that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,405 (the ‘405 patent); 6,591,353 (the ‘353 patent); 7,287,109 (the ‘109 patent); 7,602,857 (the ‘857 patent); 7,602,858 (the ‘858 patent); and 7,715,494 (the ‘494 patent) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). According to the complaint, the ‘405, ‘353, and ‘109 patents relate to “controlling data transfers to and from memory devices.”  The ‘857, ‘858, and ‘494 patents relate to “high speed, chip-to-chip communication systems and disclose novel ways to improve signal integrity and transmission.” With respect to identifying the accused products, the complaint distinguishes between two classes of accused products and two types of Proposed Respondents.  One class of accused products “includes memory controller products that incorporate double data rate (“DDR”) memory controllers and DDRx memory controllers,” and another class of accused products “includes peripheral interface products having certain peripheral interfaces.”  Of these classes of products are products manufactured and sold by “Primary Respondents” and  products manufactured by “Customer Respondents” that incorporate the products of the Primary Respondents. Regarding domestic industry, Rambus asserts that it “has made a substantial investment in the exploitation of the Asserted Patents by virtue of its substantial engineering, research and development, licensing, and technical service activities within the United States relating to technology protected by the relevant claims of these patents.”  Further, Rambus asserted that ITC had previously determined that Rambus satisfied the domestic industry requirement as to the ‘405, ‘353, and ‘109 patents in Rambus I (Inv. No. 337-TA-661). With respect to related litigation, Rambus identified various proceedings regarding certain of asserted patents, including Rambus I, a number of district court actions, and oppositions in the European Patent Office regarding foreign counterparts to certain of the asserted patents. With respect to potential remedy, Rambus requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order (or, alternatively, a limited exclusion order) and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

Louis Vuitton Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Handbags

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
08
On December 3, 2010, Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. of France and Louis Vuitton U.S. Manufacturing, Inc. of San Dimas, California (collectively, “Louis Vuitton”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that a host of proposed respondents from Guangzhou China, Texas and California – T&T Hanbag Industrial Co., Ltd., Sanjiu Leather Co., Ltd. of Guangzhou, Meada Corporation (d/b/a Diophy International), Pacpro, Inc., Jianyon Zheng, Alice Bei Wang, Trendy Creations, Inc., The Inspired Bagger, and House of Bags, unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain handbags, luggage, accessories and packaging thereof that infringe U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 297,594, 1,643,625, 1,653,663, 1,875,198, 2,773,107, 2,177,828, 2,181,753, and 1,519,828. The Inspired Bagger and House of Bags are alleged to be in the business of purchasing counterfeit bags from China and selling them in the United States. As for the other proposed respondents, Louis Vuitton alleges that husband and wife team Jianyon Zheng and Alice Bei Wang “own, operate or control large-scale international counterfeiting and infringing enterprises targeting Louis Vuitton, among other brands.”  The Complaint alleges that Zheng and Wang created an elaborate set of shell corporations, including the other proposed respondents (with the exception of The Inspired Bagger and House of Bags). Louis Vuitton also alleges Zheng and Wang hide ownership and structure by dissolving and reincorporating various organizations.  In fact, Louis Vuitton points to one entity controlled by Zheng that Louis Vuitton alleges was dissolved days after he met with Louis Vuitton to discuss counterfeiting allegations.  Due to the frequent dissolution and reincorporation of companies, Louis Vuitton believes there may be other undiscovered entities controlled by Zheng or Wang. The proposed respondents are accused of infringing numerous marks protecting Louis Vuitton’s famous Toile Monogram Mark by selling bags that are either counterfeit (and, in some cases, advertised as “knockoffs”) or have confusingly similar design elements. Louis Vuitton argues it satisfies the domestic industry prong due to its production facility in San Dimas, California which employs numerous workers and produces, among other things, bags with the Toile Monogram Mark. Louis Vuitton seeks a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist order.
Share

Read More

Remy Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Starter Motors And Alternators

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
15
On December 9, 2010, Remy International, Inc. of Pendleton, Indiana (“Remy”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Wetherill Associates, Inc. d/b/a WAIGlobal of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, (“WAI”), Linhai Yongci of China, Metric Sales & Engineering of Northfield, Illinois, Wan Li Industrial Development, Inc. of South El Monte, California, Yongkang Boyu Auto Motor Company of China, Wuxi Susan Auto Parts Company of China, American Automotive Parts, Inc. of Niles, Illinois, and Motorcar Parts of America, Inc. of Torrance, California (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain starter motors and alternators that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,105,114 (the ‘114 patent), 5,252,878 (the ‘878 patent), 5,268,605 (the ‘605 patent), 5,295,404 (the ‘404 patent), 5,307,700 (the ‘700 patent), 5,315,195 (the ‘195 patent), and 5,453,648 (the ‘648 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents all generally relate to starter and alternator technology.  In particular, the ‘114 patent is directed to a frame and magnet assembly for a dynamoelectric machine.  The ‘878 patent is directed to a brush holder assembly.  The ‘605 patent is directed to an electrical field connection.  The ‘404 patent is directed to a shift lever mechanism for an engine starting apparatus.  The ‘700 patent is directed to an electric engine starter.  The ‘195 patent is directed to a self-attaching cover for a dynamoelectric machine.  Finally, the ‘648 patent is directed to a bridge rectifier having an output terminal stud. In the complaint, Remy alleges that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint names a number of specific product model numbers that correspond to allegedly infringing starter motors and alternators imported and sold by the Proposed Respondents. Regarding domestic industry, Remy states that its own starter motor and alternator products are covered by the asserted patents.  Further, the complaint states that these products were designed and developed by Remy in the United States for use in the aviation, trucking, boating, and automotive industries.  However, the section of the complaint relating to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement has been marked confidential and is not publicly available. As to related litigation, Remy states that on September 10, 2010, it filed suit against WAI in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana alleging infringement of the asserted patents. With respect to potential remedy, Remy requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order — or, alternatively, a limited exclusion order — and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

Schweitzer-Mauduit Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Reduced Ignition Proclivity Cigarette Paper Wrappers

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
20
On December 17, 2010, Schweitzer-Mauduit International, Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia (“Schweitzer”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.  The complaint alleges that Schweitzer is the largest producer of cigarette papers in the world. The complaint further alleges that Astra Tobacco Corporation of Chapel Hill, North Carolina (“Astra”); delfortgroup AG of Austria (“Delfort”); LIPtec GMBH of Germany (“LIPtec”); and Julius Glatz GmbH of Germany (“Glatz”) (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully and without authorization import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain banded cigarette paper wrappers for use in reduced ignition proclivity cigarettes and products containing same, that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,725,867 (the ‘867 patent) and 5,878,753 (the ‘753 patent) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). According to the complaint, the ‘867 and ‘753 patents generally relate to “fire safe” cigarette technology, for example paper wrappers with a film forming substance that reduces porosity and diffusion of the cigarette in discrete areas that act as “speed bumps” to reduce the ignition intensity of a coal of a burning cigarette.  If such a lower ignition propensity (“LIP”) cigarette is left unattended on a substrate, the complaint states that the burning tobacco will reach one of these “speed bumps” and self-extinguish. With respect to accused products, the complaint identifies Doral branded LIP cigarettes, and alleges these are made with banded cigarette paper wrappers manufactured by Delfort in Austria, and imported into the United States by Astra.  The complaint further identifies Signal and Skydancer brand LIP cigarettes as representative infringing products made with banded cigarette paper wrappers manufactured and/or imported by Glatz and/or LIPtec. Regarding domestic industry, Schweitzer asserts that its LIP banded cigarette papers featuring Alginex® water-based technology embody the ‘867 and ‘753 patents.  In further support of domestic industry, the complaint relies upon exhibits demonstrating the number of individuals and amounts invested in research and development to support Schweitzer’s LIP technology claimed in the asserted patents, and the amount invested in plant and equipment and the number of individuals involved to manufacture its LIP products incorporating the technology of the asserted patents.  Finally, Schweitzer asserts that it received significant revenue from licensing the Asserted Patents. With respect to related litigation, Schweitzer filed a complaint on February 8, 2010, in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina against the Proposed Respondents, asserting infringement of the ‘867 and ‘753 patents. As to potential remedy, Schweitzer requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

Microsoft Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Game Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
27
On December 23, 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 Ltd., Datel Direct Ltd., Datel Holdings Ltd., and Datel Electronics Ltd. — all of the United Kingdom — and Datel Design and Development Inc. of Clearwater, Florida (collectively, “Datel”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain game devices, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,787,411 (the ‘411 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘411 patent is directed to a gaming console wireless protocol for peripheral devices.  In particular, the patent discloses and claims methods for communicating voice and data between a gaming console and a wireless accessory. In the complaint, Microsoft alleges that Datel imports and sells products that infringe the ‘411 patent.  The complaint specifically names the Datel TurboFire 2 Controller for the Xbox 360 as an infringing product.  According to the complaint, the Datel TurboFire 2 Controller is marked as being made in China. Regarding domestic industry, Microsoft states that its Xbox 360 Gamepad practices at least one claim of the ‘411 patent and that it invests heavily in technology relating to the ‘411 patent, including investments in plant, equipment, labor, capital, engineering, and research and development. As to related litigation, Microsoft states that contemporaneously with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it also filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging that Datel infringes the ‘411 patent. With respect to potential remedy, Microsoft requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Datel and related companies.
Share

Read More

Sony Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Mobile Telephones And Modems

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
04
On December 23, 2010, Sony Corporation of Japan (“Sony”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that LG Electronics, Inc. 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, “LG”) unlawfully and without authorization import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain mobile telephones and modems that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,311,092 (the ‘092 patent), 5,907,604 (the ‘604 patent), 6,263,205 (the ‘205 patent), 6,507,611(the ‘611 patent), 6,674,464 (the ‘464 patent), 7,839,447 (the ‘447 patent), and 6,674,732 (the ‘732 patent) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The accused products identified in the complaint include the following products manufactured by LG: Accolade (VX5600), Cosmos (VN250), Encore (GT550), enV Touch (VX11000), Fathom (VS750), Glance (VX7100), GU295, Lotus Elite (LX610), LX370, Neon (GT365), Quantum (C900), Remarq (LN240), Rumor Touch (LN510), VL600, Vu Plus (GR700), and Xenon (GR500). According to the complaint (1) the ‘092 patent “relates generally to an apparatus designed to delay the recording of audio for a predetermined time after selection of [] recording controls,” (2) the ‘604 patent “relates generally to methods of associating an image of an individual’s face with that individual’s phone number,” (3) the ‘205 patent is directed to “maximiz[ing] communication capacity while also controlling the transmission power of the individual mobile telephones to maintain the stability of [a mobile telephone] system,” (4) the ‘611 patent relates to “transmitting digital audio that has been encoded by one of a plurality of encoders that is selected based on detecting the transmission rate of [a] network,” (5) the ‘464 and ‘447 patents relate to “apparatuses that process image data differently based on the mode in which the imaging device is operated,” and (6) the ‘732 patent relates to “transmitting or receiving wireless communication signals using both time-division and frequency-division” and “improv[ing] upon the signal quality available from using these channel sharing methods individually.” Regarding domestic industry, Sony asserts that “[t]he domestic industry for the Asserted Patents includes the substantial United States investments and expenditures of Sony and/or Sony’s licensees, including Nokia, Samsung and Sony Ericsson, and substantial investment in the exploitation of the inventions claimed in the Asserted Patents, including through engineering, research and development, servicing, and licensing.” With respect to related litigation, Sony identified “a concurrently filed District Court action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.” Regarding potential remedy, Sony requests that the Commission issue an exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at LG.
Share

Read More

Gaumard Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Birthing Simulators and Associated Systems

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
04
On December 30, 2010, Gaumard Scientific Company, Inc. of Miami, Florida (“Gaumard”) filed a complaint requesting the ITC to commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Shanghai Honglian Medical Instrument Development Co., Ltd. of China (d/b/a General Doctor), and Shanghai Evenk International Trading Co., Ltd. of China (collectively, “Honglian”) unlawfully and without authorization import into the U.S. from China, sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain birthing simulators and associated systems that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,503,087 (the ‘087 patent) and 7,114,954 (the ‘954 patent) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). According to the complaint, the ‘087 and ‘954 patents are both directed to teaching patient care during child birthing.  These include systems of computer integrated manikins for adult and neonatal advanced life support training, which employ electromechanical mechanisms to simulate the child birthing process and problems that may arise during that process.  One embodiment includes maternal and associated fetal manikins, wherein the system simulates a natural birth, and in some instances, a larger neonatal simulator is included to replace the fetal simulator in post-birth simulations. The accused products identified in the complaint include the following Honglian products: GD/F55 Advanced Delivery and Maternal and Neonatal Emergency Simulator and GD/F53 Advanced Maternal and Neonatal Delivery Model.  The complaint also identifies a GD/F56 system, and alleges that Honglian are promoting it for sale in the United States and that Honglian stated the GC/F56 will be available in March 2011.  The complaint alleges that Honglian’s above identified products copy Gaumard’s NOELLE® line of patented simulators, and include precisely the same electro-mechanical mechanisms that translate and rotate the fetal simulator through the maternal simulator. Regarding the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, the complaint alleges that all of Gaumard’s ten NOELLE® simulator models practice at least one or more claims of the ‘087 and ‘954 patents.  With respect to the economic prong, Gaumard alleges it made significant investment in plant and equipment relating to its NOELLE® simulator models, all of which are designed, developed and manufactured in Miami, Florida.  Gaumard also alleges significant investment in the employment of labor and capital with respect to administrative, engineering, manufacturing, marketing, sales, research and development activities relating to the NOELLE® simulator models in the United States. With respect to potential remedy, Gaumard requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Honglian.
Share

Read More

Horizon Hobby Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Radio Control Hobby Transmitters And Receivers

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
14
On January 11, 2011, Horizon Hobby, Inc. of Champaign, Illinois (“Horizon Hobby”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Koko Technology Ltd. of China (“Koko”), and Cyclone Toy & Hobby of China (“Cyclone”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain radio control hobby transmitters and receivers and products containing same that infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,391,320 (the ‘320 patent), U.S. Copyright Registration No. TX-7-226-001, and U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3,080,770 for the mark SPEKTRUM. According to the complaint, the ‘320 patent is directed to a method and system for controlling a radio control (R/C) device via a secure radio link where spread spectrum modulation is employed to provide a digital radio frequency link between a controller and an R/C device.  The controller is coupled with a transmitter module and a radio controlled device is coupled with a receiver module to provide an add-on upgrade capability.  The complaint states that spread spectrum transmitters and receivers are easier for consumers to use because they do not require selecting a specific frequency before using R/C hobby vehicles (such as hobby airplanes); they are safer because they are not prone to cross-control or interference, and they remove the artificial limit imposed by frequency boards, which would effectively limit the number of hobbyists who could participate in one location at the same time. In the complaint, Horizon Hobby alleges that KoKo and Cyclone copy and export from China into the United States counterfeits of Horizon Hobby’s SPEKTRUM line of products, which utilize the spectrum modulation technology claimed in the ‘320 patent.  In addition to infringing the ‘320 patent and the SPEKTRUM trademark, the complaint alleges that the computer code embedded within KoKo’s and Cyclone’s counterfeit hobby receivers infringes Horizon Hobby’s above-identified copyright registration. Regarding domestic industry, the complaint states that Horizon Hobby is one of the largest designers, manufacturers, and distributers of radio controlled hobby vehicles and accessories in the world, and it employs over 700 designers, engineers, administrators, manufacturers, and customer support staff in the United States.  The complaint further states that the ‘320 patent, as well as the copyright and trademark at issue in this matter are embodied within Horizon Hobby’s SPEKTRUM product line.  The complaint further asserts that Horizon Hobby made significant investment in labor and capital in the United States, and a substantial investment in exploitation of the ‘320 patent through research and development, engineering, licensing, product development, testing and quality control. With respect to potential remedy, Horizon Hobby requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order (or in the alternative, a limited exclusion order) and a permanent cease and desist order directed to KoKo, Cyclone, and their related companies.
Share

Read More

Eli Lilly Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Gemcitabine

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
24
On January 20, 2011, Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana (“Lilly”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Jiangsu Hansoh Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. of China (“Hansoh”), Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. of India (“Intas”), ChemWerth, Inc. of Woodbridge, Connecticut (“ChemWerth”), and Hospira, Inc. of Lake Forest, Illinois (“Hospira”) (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully and without authorization import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain gemcitabine and products containing same that infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,606,048 (the ‘048 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘048 patent relates to a method of preparing gemcitabine, which is a synthetic analog of naturally occurring nucleosides that are the building blocks of DNA and RNA.  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the use of gemcitabine in the treatment of ovarian cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, metastatic breast cancer, and pancreatic cancer.  The ‘048 patent covers a key reaction for manufacturing gemcitabine (referred to as the Sn2 process) which involves fewer steps, higher yields, and lower costs than a previously known process that the complaint characterizes as not commercially viable (referred to as the Sn1 process). The complaint alleges that the gemcitabine active pharmaceutical ingredient is manufactured outside the United States by Hansoh using the infringing Sn2 process, which is then shipped to India for formulation into Hospira’s generic gemcitabine pharmaceutical product by Intas, finally being imported into and sold in the United States by Respondents, including at least ChemWerth and Hospira. Regarding domestic industry, Lilly asserts that because the manufacturing process for a new pharmaceutical composition is a necessary part of a new drug application (NDA) with the FDA, the costs Lilly incurred in researching and developing the ‘048 patent’s process are directly attributable to Lilly’s research and development of gemcitabine and its NDA, and these costs constitute part of Lilly’s domestic industry.  Lilly also licensed the ‘048 patent to a domestic manufacturer exclusively for Lilly’s use and sale, and Lilly itself performs substantial processing and formulation activities in Indianapolis related to gemcitabine, and Lilly and its licensed domestic manufacturer have made significant investments in their facilities and personnel to maintain and run these operations. With respect to related litigations, the ‘048 patent is the subject of a declaratory judgment action filed by Hospira against Lilly in the Northern District of Illinois on October 1, 2010.  Additionally, Lilly has filed several litigations regarding the foreign counterparts to the ‘048 patent against Hospira’s foreign entities in Canada, Singapore, Denmark, United Kingdom, and Australia.  Lilly also filed an infringement action against Hansoh in China in connection with the Chinese counterpart of the ‘048 patent. With respect to potential remedy, Lilly requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

Microsoft Files New Complaint Regarding Certain Set-Top Boxes

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
25
On January 24, 2011, Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Washington (“Microsoft”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that TiVo Inc. of Alviso, California (“TiVo”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain set-top boxes and hardware and software components thereof that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,585,838 (the ‘838 patent), 5,731,844 (the ‘844 patent), 6,028,604 (the ‘604 patent), and 5,758,258 (the ‘258 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). The accused products are certain set-top boxes known as digital video recorders (“DVRs”), and their associated software and hardware.   According to the complaint, the ‘838 patent discloses systems and methods for providing an electronic program guide.  The ‘844 patent discloses computer systems and methods for providing a user with efficient selection of a television program or other content to view or record.  The ‘604 patent discloses graphical user interfaces and operating environments for controlling a computer through limited input devices such as remote controls.  The ‘258 patent discloses systems and methods for associating viewing restrictions with identifiable viewer classes in an interactive viewing environment. According to the complaint, TiVo’s infringing DVRs are manufactured and assembled outside the U.S., primarily in Mexico, and imported into the U.S. for sale, and TiVo infringes the asserted patents by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the articles claimed by or practicing the claimed methods of the asserted patents, or by contributing and/or inducing their infringement by end users of its products.  The complaint specifically identifies the following TiVo models as infringing: TiVo Premiere, TiVo Premiere XL, TiVo HD, and TiVo HD XL. Regarding domestic industry, the complaint alleges that Microsoft’s Mediaroom product/software uses the subject matter claimed in the asserted patents, and this software platform is licensed for use in connection with AT&T’s U-verse subscriber service, which in turn is provided through set-top boxes practicing the asserted patents.  Microsoft further alleges that it made significant investment in plant, equipment, research and development, and employment in the U.S. with respect to its Mediaroom product/software. As to related litigation, Microsoft states that concurrently with this complaint, it is filing a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington accusing TiVo of infringing each of the same asserted patents. With respect to potential remedy Microsoft requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at TiVo.
Share

Read More

Sharp Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
26
On January 24, 2011, Sharp Corporation of Japan (“Sharp”) 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 sell within the U.S. after importation certain liquid crystal display devices and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,879,364 (the ‘364 patent), 7,304,626 (the ‘626 patent), 7,532,183 (the ‘183 patent), 7,283,192 (the ‘192 patent), 6,937,300 (the ‘300 patent), 7,057,689 (the ‘689 patent), and 7,838,881 (the ‘881 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”) or are manufactured using a process covered by the asserted patents:
  • AU Optronics Corp. of Taiwan
  • AU Optronics Corporation America of Houston, Texas
  • BenQ America Corp. of Irvine, California
  • BenQ Corporation of Taiwan
  • Haier America Trading LLC of New York, New York
  • Haier Group Company of China
  • LG Electronics Inc. of South Korea
  • LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
  • SANYO Electric Co., Ltd. of Japan
  • SANYO North America Corporation of San Diego, California
  • TCL Corporation of China
  • TTE Technology, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana
  • VIZIO, Inc. of Irvine, California
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to various aspects of liquid crystal display devices, including but not limited to, LCD panels and LCD modules.  In particular, the ‘364 patent relates to a liquid crystal display apparatus having negative type liquid crystal between a pair of substrates and structures for controlling alignment of the liquid crystal in order to improve viewing characteristics.  The ‘626 patent relates to a liquid crystal display device including switching devices (e.g., TFTs).  The ‘183 patent relates to an LCD device and its drive method, and in particular to a driving technique which improves the response time of substantially vertically aligned (VA) type LCDs.  The ‘192 patent relates to an LCD device having improved viewing characteristics at wide viewing angles.  The ‘300 patent relates to a method of fabricating a liquid crystal display device.  The ‘689 patent relates to a liquid crystal display device having a wide viewing angle, including a liquid crystal cell having a pair of substrates and a liquid crystal layer interposed between the substrates.  Finally, the ‘881 patent relates to an active matrix substrate for use in connection with a display device such as a liquid crystal display. In the complaint, Sharp alleges that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents or are manufactured using processes that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint names a number of specific infringing LCD devices that have been imported and/or sold by the Proposed Respondents.  In particular, the complaint alleges that AU Optronics Corp. and AU Optronics Corporation America (collectively, “AUO”) manufacture LCD devices in China and that AUO and the remaining Proposed Respondents import and sell products that incorporate these AUO LCD devices. Regarding domestic industry, Sharp states that it has made significant investments in the U.S. relating to the asserted patents through its licensing activities, including litigation.  Sharp further states that it has established a domestic industry through its research and development of the patented LCD technology and after-market support for LCD products that embody the asserted patents.  The complaint names Sharp Electronics Corporation of Mahwah, New Jersey and Sharp Laboratories of America, Inc. of Camas, Washington as wholly-owned subsidiaries that conduct significant research and development, manufacturing, and technical support activities in the U.S. As to related litigation, Sharp notes that the ITC previously upheld the validity and enforceability of the ‘364 and ‘626 patents and the parent to the ‘183 patent in connection with Inv. No. 337-TA-634, where Sharp had alleged that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) had violated Section 337.  See our November 10, 2009 post for more details.  Sharp states that following the Final Initial and Recommended Determinations in the ‘634 investigation, Samsung agreed to take a license to Sharp’s patents.  Sharp further states that it asserted the ‘192 patent, among others, in Inv. No. 337-TA-702, but that the parties settled that investigation shortly after it was instituted.  See our March 1, 2010 post for more details.  Additionally, Sharp states that it was involved in litigation against Samsung Ltd. and certain Samsung subsidiaries relating to the ‘689 patent in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  That litigation was dismissed in February 2010 pursuant to a settlement agreement.  Finally, Sharp states that concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it is filing a civil action against AUO in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the same seven asserted patents. With respect to potential remedy, Sharp requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

Graco Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Strollers and Playards

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
02
On February 1, 2011, Graco Children’s Products Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia (“Graco”) filed a complaint requesting the ITC to commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Baby Trend, Inc. of Ontario, California (“Baby Trend”) unlawfully and without authorization imports into the U.S. from China, sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain strollers and playards that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,669,225 (the ‘225 patent), 7,044,497 (the ‘497 patent), 7,188,858 (the ‘858 patent), 7,404,569 (the ‘569 patent), and 6,510,570 (the ‘570 patent) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). According to the complaint, the ‘225, ‘497, ‘858, and ‘569 patents relate to improvements in strollers, while the ‘570 patent relates to improvements in playards.  More specifically, the complaint states that the ‘225 patent relates to a stroller retention device preventing forward movement of a child lying down on a reclined backrest in the event the stroller abruptly stops, wherein the child sits directly on the retention device when the backrest is not reclined.   The ‘497 patent relates to an apparatus for securing an infant carrier to a stroller, wherein at least one of the securing mechanisms is mounted on the stroller’s push arms, and wherein these mechanisms rotate about their respective push arm to engage and secure the front portion of a rearward-facing infant carrier.  The ‘858 and ‘569 patents relate to a stroller frame geometry, known generally as a “Z-frame” that provides a more direct structural tie between the front and rear wheels, wherein the two front legs are connected to the rear legs at pivot points that allow the front legs to collapse onto the rear legs when the stroller is folded.  The ‘570 patent relates to a playard, commonly referred to as a “play pen,” where corner panels attached to the inner sides of side panels conceal the legs at each corner, and also secure the cushioned floor board by providing a gap below the lower end of the corner panel into which each corner of the floor board rests. The accused products identified in the complaint include certain strollers designated as the Baby Trend Free Style, Baby Trend Stride Sport, and Baby Trend Venture, and certain playards designated as the Baby Trend Nursery Center. Regarding the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, the complaint alleges that numerous identified models of Graco strollers, travel systems and playards sold and supported in the United States practice one or more claims of the ‘225, ‘497, ‘858, ‘569, and ‘570 patents.  With respect to the economic prong, Graco alleges that it employs a significant number of personnel in the United States engaged in sales, research and development, customer and technical service, product marketing, brand management, and general administration, and that the total costs incurred in the United States attributable to sales of its strollers and playards practicing the Asserted Patents are between $11,000,000 and $26,000,000, and its products are distributed through over 9,000 retail outlets in the United States. With respect to potential remedy, Graco requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Baby Trend.
Share

Read More

LG Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices Having A Blu-Ray Disc Player

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
07
On February 4, 2011, LG Electronics, Inc. of South Korea (“LG”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Sony Corporation of Japan, Sony Corporation of America of New York, New York, Sony Electronics, Inc. of San Diego, California, Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. of Japan, and Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC of Foster City, California (collectively, “Sony”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain electronic devices having a Blu-ray Disc player and components thereof that infringe various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,701,835 (the ‘835 patent), 7,577,080 (the ‘080 patent), 7,619,961 (the ‘961 patent), and 7,756,398 (the ‘398 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to the playback of Blu-ray Discs, i.e., the reproduction of data recorded on Blu-ray Disc media.  In particular, the ‘835 patent relates to a data structure for managing the reproduction of data streams, which may represent one or more reproduction paths, e.g. multiple camera angles, that are recorded on a Blu-ray Disc.  The ‘080 patent relates to a method and apparatus for reproducing data from a Blu-ray Disc, including a linking area linking a neighboring data area.  The ‘961 patent relates to a method and apparatus for reproducing data stored in a Blu-ray Disc, including a linking data area that is preceded and followed by a real data area.  Finally, the ‘398 patent relates to an apparatus for reproducing a text subtitle stream for updating palette information that is recorded on a Blu-ray Disc. In the complaint, LG alleges that Sony imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically names the Sony PlayStation3 video game console as an infringing product. Regarding domestic industry, LG states that it sells Blu-ray Disc players within the U.S. that practice at least one claim of each of the asserted patents.  By way of example, LG names its BD300 Blu-ray Disc player as a product that practices the claimed inventions.  With respect to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, LG states that is has made and continues to make significant investments in plant facilities and equipment within the U.S. in connection with the service and engineering of products covered by the asserted patents.  LG specifically refers to its facilities in Huntsville, Alabama and Rancho Cucamonga, California as facilities that are involved with products covered by the asserted patents. With respect to potential remedy, LG requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Sony.
Share

Read More

LG Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Digital Televisions

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
08
On February 4, 2011, LG Electronics, Inc. of South Korea (“LG”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Sony Corporation of Japan, Sony Corporation of America of New York, New York, and Sony Electronics, Inc. of San Diego, California (collectively, “Sony”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain digital televisions and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,785,906 (the ‘906 patent), RE 37,326 (the ‘326 patent), 5,533,071 (the ‘071 patent), and 5,923,711 (the ‘711 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to digital television technology.  In particular, the ‘906 patent relates to a web television, i.e., a television capable of processing internet content.  The ‘326 patent relates to an improved high definition television receiver apparatus capable of demodulating and processing VSB-modulated television signals.  The ‘071 patent relates to a circuit for error-correcting a received complex data signal.  Finally, the ‘711 patent relates to a data processor for receiving and processing a signal having multi-level symbols. In the complaint, LG alleges that Sony imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically names Sony’s Bravia line of television models, including the KDL-46HX800 and KDL-32EX500, as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, LG states that it sells digital televisions within the U.S. that practice at least one claim of each of the asserted patents.  By way of example, LG names its 42LE5500 digital television as a product that practices the claimed inventions.  With respect to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, LG states that it has made and continues to make significant investments in plant facilities and equipment within the U.S. in connection with the service and engineering of products covered by the asserted patents.  LG specifically refers to its facilities in Huntsville, Alabama and Rancho Cucamonga, California as facilities that are involved with products covered by the asserted patents.  As to related litigation, LG states that on June 5, 2009, Vizio, Inc. (“Vizio”) filed a complaint against LG in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging infringement of seven patents, and that LG asserted two of its own patents, one of which was the ‘326 patent, in counterclaims against Vizio.  LG further states that on July 16, 2010, Vizio filed an ITC complaint against LG asserting infringement of the same seven patents that had been previously asserted in the Maryland litigation.  The Commission instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-733 on August 13, 2010, based on Vizio’s complaint.  See our August 16, 2010 post for more details.  On September 15, 2010, LG filed an ITC complaint against Vizio, AmTran Technology Co., Ltd. and AmTran Logistics, Inc., asserting infringement of the ‘906 patent, among others.  The Commission subsequently instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-742 on October 12, 2010, based on LG’s complaint.  See our October 14, 2010 post for more details.  LG later amended its complaint to include an allegation of infringement of the ‘326 patent.  On November 1, 2010, LG and Vizio jointly moved to stay the Maryland litigation pending the resolution of ITC Inv Nos. 337-TA-733 and 337-TA-742.  Joint motions for termination were filed on January 18, 2011, in both of these investigations based on a settlement and license agreement between LG and Vizio.  Both of these joint motions have now been granted.  See our January 27, 2011and January 28, 2011posts for more details. With respect to potential remedy, LG requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Sony.
Share

Read More