By Eric Schweibenz and Alex EnglehartOn March 8, 2017, Electric Mirror, LLC of Everett, Washington (“Electric Mirror”) and Kelvin 42 LLC of Pensacola, Florida (collectively, “Complainants”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.
The complaint alleges that the following entities (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain mirrors with internal illumination and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,853,414 (the ’414 patent), 7,805,260 (the ’260 patent), 7,559,668 (the ’668 patent), D704,938 (the ’938 patent), and D579,671 (the ’671 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):
- Aptations, Inc. of Dublin, California
- Foundation Art Services, Inc. of Deerfield Beach, Florida
- Lumidesign Inc. of Canada
- Majestic Mirrors & Frame, LLC of Miami, Florida
- Project Light, LLC of Stow, Ohio
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to mirrors that have internal illumination as an integral part of the overall product. In particular, the ’414 and ’260 patents relate to a lighted mirror product that comprises a mirror platform having a reflective mirror surface and a chassis having at least one electrical component (such as ballast for a light source). The ’668 patent relates to a lighted mirror product that has lights disposed around the perimeter of a chassis located behind the mirror surface. The ’938 patent relates to a lighted mirror product in which the reflective surface of the mirror has a region made of a translucent or frosted portion that is near the perimeter of the mirror’s surface and, around the translucent or frosted portion, is a further perimeter of another material—such as another reflective surface. Lastly, the ’671 patent relates to a lighted mirror product in which the reflective surface of the mirror has two side edges and, proximate each side edge, is a translucent or frosted portion.
In the complaint, Complainants state that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically refers to various lighted mirror products associated with the Proposed Respondents as infringing products.
Regarding domestic industry, Complainants state that Electric Mirror’s Efinity, Integrity, Momentum, Novo-4, Nuria, Silhouette, and Trinity lighted mirror products practice claims of the asserted patents. Complainants further state that Electric Mirror has made significant investments in the U.S. relating to production, engineering, development, testing, marketing, distribution , customer service, repair, and warranty fulfillment in connection with products that practice the asserted patents. Complainants specifically refer to an Electric Mirror facility in Washington State where Electric Mirror employs more than 300 individuals involved in the aforementioned domestic industry activities.
As to related litigation, Complainants state that, concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, they are also filing complaints against most of the Proposed Respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and/or the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. In addition, Complainants state that, in 2010—before Electric Mirror became the exclusive licensee of the ’668 patent—Electric Mirror filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington relating to the ’668 patent against the entity that purported at that time to be the owner of such patent. However, that case was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment defendant.
With respect to potential remedy, Complainants request that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.