Enforcement Complaints
By author; ?>
|
Sep
02
On August 31, 2016, Navico, Inc. of Tulsa, Oklahoma and Navico Holding AS of Norway (collectively, “Navico”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan and Sidescan Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-921).  The enforcement complaint alleges that Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. (collectively, “Garmin”)—both of Olathe, Kansas—have violated cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) issued in the underlying investigation.

By way of background, the underlying investigation is based on a June 9, 2014 complaint filed by Navico alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain marine sonar imaging devices, including downscan and sidescan devices, products containing the same, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,305,840 (the ’840 patent), 8,300,499 (the ’499 patent), and 8,605,550 (the ‘550 patent).  See our July 11, 2014 post for more details on the underlying investigation.  On December 1, 2015, the Commission issued its final determination finding a violation of Section 337 by Garmin and others based on infringement of certain claims of the ‘840 and ‘550 patents, and issued a limited exclusion order and CDOs directed at Garmin.  On August 18, 2016, the Commission issued a modified limited exclusion order clarifying that certain components being imported by Garmin are covered by the original limited exclusion order.
Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Sep
01
On August 26, 2016, Cisco Systems, Inc. of San Jose, California (“Cisco”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (I) (Inv. No. 337-TA-944).  The enforcement complaint alleges that Arista Networks, Inc. of Santa Clara, California (“Arista”) has violated a cease and desist order (“CDO”) issued in the underlying investigation.

By way of background, the underlying investigation is based on a December 19, 2014 complaint filed by Cisco alleging that Arista unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, sells within the U.S. after importation, and/or uses within the U.S. after importation certain network devices, related software, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of, inter alia, U.S. Patent No. 7,162,537 (the ’537 patent).  See our December 29, 2014 and February 5, 2015 posts for more details on the underlying investigation.  On June 23, 2016, the Commission issued its final determination finding a violation of Section 337 by Arista based on, inter alia, infringement of certain claims of the ’537 patent.  The Commission issued a limited exclusion order and a CDO directed at Arista.  See our August 16, 2016 post for more details on the Commission’s opinion.
Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Jun
06
On June 1, 2016, Adrian Rivera of Whittier, California and Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. of La Mirada, California (collectively, “ARM”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-929).  The enforcement complaint alleges that Eko Brands, LLC of Woodinville, Washington (“Eko”) and Espresso Supply, Inc. of Seattle, Washington (“Espresso Supply”) have violated a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) issued in the underlying investigation.

By way of background, the underlying investigation is based on an August 4, 2014 complaint filed by ARM alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain beverage brewing capsules, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,720,320.  See our August 6, 2014 and September 11, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.  On March 17, 2016, the Commission issued its final determination and issued an LEO and CDOs directed at Eko and others after finding these entities in default.  According to the enforcement complaint, Espresso Supply recently purchased Eko.
Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Feb
16
On February 16, 2016, Navico, Inc. of Tulsa, Oklahoma and Navico Holding AS of Norway (collectively, “Navico”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan and Sidescan Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-921).  The enforcement complaint alleges that Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. (collectively, “Garmin”)—both of Olathe, Kansas—have violated cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) issued in the underlying investigation.

By way of background, the underling investigation is based on a June 9, 2014 complaint filed by Navico alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain marine sonar imaging devices, including downscan and sidescan devices, products containing the same, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,305,840 (the ‘840 patent), 8,300,499 (the ‘499 patent), and 8,605,550 (the ‘550 patent).  See our July 11, 2014 post for more details on the underlying investigation.  On December 1, 2015, the Commission issued its final determination finding a violation of Section 337 by Garmin and others based on infringement of certain claims of the ‘840 and ‘550 patents.  The Commission issued a limited exclusion order and CDOs directed at Garmin.
Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Apr
11
On April 10, 2013, BriarTek IP, Inc. of Alexandria, Virginia (“BriarTek”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-854).  The enforcement complaint alleges that DeLorme Publishing Co., Inc. and DeLorme InReach LLC d/b/a InReach LLC (collectively, “DeLorme”)—both of Yarmouth, Maine—have violated a consent order entered in the underlying investigation.

By way of background, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) instituted the underlying investigation on September 18, 2012 based on BriarTek’s complaint of August 17, 2012 and subsequent filings.  See our September 19, 2012 post for more details.  On March 7, 2013, DeLorme moved to terminate the investigation and for entry of a proposed consent order.  ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. granted DeLorme’s motion on March 15, 2013.  See our March 19, 2013 post for more details.  In the consent order, DeLorme agreed that it would not import or sell two-way global satellite communication devices, systems, or components thereof that infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,991,380 (the ‘380 patent) after April 1, 2013.


Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Feb
22
On February 19, 2013, Andrzej Bobel and Neptun Light, Inc. (“Neptun”) (collectively, “Complainants”)—both of Lake Forest, Illinois—filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-830).  The enforcement complaint alleges that Maxlite, Inc. f/k/a SK America, Inc. of West Caldwell, New Jersey (“Maxlite”) has violated a consent order entered in the underlying investigation.

By way of background, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) instituted the underlying investigation on February 22, 2012 based on the Complainants’ complaint of January 23, 2012 and subsequent filings.  See our February 23, 2012 post for more details.  On June 15, 2012, Maxlite moved to terminate the investigation as to itself and for entry of a proposed consent order.  ALJ Thomas B. Pender granted Maxlite’s motion, terminated the investigation as to Maxlite, and entered the consent order on July 11, 2012.  See our July 16, 2012 post for more details.  In the consent order, Maxlite agreed that it would not import or sell dimmable compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) that infringe claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 5,434,480 (the ‘480 patent).


Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Sep
04
On August 29, 2012, Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. of Melville, New York (“Leviton”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-739).  The enforcement complaint alleges that Menard, Inc. of Eau Claire, Wisconsin (“Menard”), Shanghai ELE Manufacturing Corp. of China (“Shanghai ELE”), Shanghai Jia AO Electrical Co., Ltd. of China (“Shanghai Jia AO”), Westside Wholesale Electric & Lighting, Inc., Westside Electric Wholesale, Inc., and Westside Wholesale, Inc.—all of Los Angeles, California and/or Bell, California—(collectively, “Westside”), American Ace Supply Inc. of San Francisco, California (“American Ace”), and American Electric Depot Inc. of Fresh Meadows, New York (“AED”) have violated cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) and/or a general exclusion order (“GEO”) that had been entered in the underlying investigation.

By way of background, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) instituted the underlying investigation on October 5, 2010 based on Leviton’s complaint of September 3, 2010.  See our October 7, 2010 post for more details.  The underlying complaint named multiple entities—including Menard, Shanghai ELE, Shanghai Jia AO, AED, Westside, and American Ace—as proposed Respondents.  On December 22, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) finding Menard, Westside, and American Ace in default.  The Commission determined not to review the ID.  On December 20, 2011, ALJ Bullock issued an ID finding no violation of Section 337 by, inter alia, Shanghai ELE, Shanghai Jia AO, and AED.  The Commission determined to review the ID and, on April 27, 2012, the Commission issued a notice finding a violation of Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,737,809 (the ‘809 patent).  The Commission entered CDOs against certain defaulting Respondents including Menard, Westside, and American Ace, as well as a GEO.  See our May 3, 2012 post for more details.


Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Aug
22
On August 17, 2012, Isola USA Corp. of Chandler, Arizona (“Isola”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Prepregs, Laminates, and Finished Circuit Boards (Inv. No. 337-TA-659).  The enforcement complaint alleges that Taiwan Union Technology Corp. of Taiwan (“TUC”) violated a consent order that had been entered in the underlying investigation.

By way of background, the Commission instituted the underlying investigation on November 12, 2008 based on Isola’s complaint of October 6, 2008.  The underlying complaint named multiple entities—including TUC—as Respondents.  According to the enforcement complaint, on March 12, 2009, ALJ Charles E. Bullock entered a consent order between Isola and TUC, which the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) elected not to review on April 10, 2009.


Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Jun
06
On June 4, 2012, Apple Inc., f/k/a  Apple Computer, Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-710).  In the enforcement complaint, Apple alleges that High Tech Computer Corp. a/k/a HTC Corp. of Taiwan and HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington (collectively, “HTC”) have violated the Commission’s December 19, 2011 limited exclusion order (“LEO”) in the underlying investigation.

By way of background, the Commission instituted the underlying investigation on March 31, 2010 based on Apple’s complaint of March 2, 2010.  See our April 1, 2010 post for more details.  On July 15, 2011, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) finding, inter alia, that HTC violated Section 337 through its importation, use, and sale of personal data and mobile communications devices that infringe valid claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 (the ‘647 patent).  See our September 2, 2011 post for more details.  On December 19, 2011, the Commission issued an opinion modifying ALJ Charneski’s ID but upholding the finding of a violation of Section 337 based on HTC’s infringement of claims 1 and 8 of the ‘647 patent.  See our January 11, 2012 post for more details.  On the same day, the Commission issued an LEO identifying HTC by name.  The LEO went into effect on April 19, 2012.


Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Mar
05
On March 1, 2012, Align Technology, Inc. of San Jose, California (“Align”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment Appliances and Methods of Producing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-562) against ClearCorrect Operating, LLC of Houston, Texas (“ClearCorrect USA”), ClearCorrect Pakistan (Private), Ltd. of Pakistan (“ClearCorrect Pakistan”), Mr. Mudassar Rathore c/o ClearCorrect Pakistan, Mr. Waqas Wahab c/o ClearCorrect Pakistan, Mr. Nadeem Arif c/o ClearCorrect Pakistan, and Dr. Asim Waheed c/o ClearCorrect Pakistan (collectively, the “Proposed Enforcement Respondents”) for alleged violations of a consent order that was filed on October 13, 2006 and granted by the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) on October 27, 2006.

By way of background, the Commission instituted the underlying investigation on February 9, 2006 based on Align’s complaint of January 11, 2006.  The underlying complaint named OrthoClear, Inc., OrthoClear Holdings, Inc., and OrthoClear Pakistan Pvt, Ltd. (collectively, “OrthoClear”) as Respondents.  According to the enforcement complaint, on October 27, 2006, ALJ Robert L. Barton, Jr. issued an Initial Determination granting the parties’ joint motion to terminate the investigation and entered a consent order, which the Commission elected not to review on November 13, 2006.


Share

Read More

Next Page