Enforcement Complaints
By John Presper
|
Jan
07

On December 28, 2021, the ITC released a Notice of Enforcement Proceeding relating to the general exclusion order (“GEO”) and cease-and-desist order (“CDO”) issued against Respondent Panduit Corporation (“Panduit”) in Certain High-Density Fiber Optic Equipment and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-1194).


Read More

By John Presper
|
Feb
18
On February 16, 2021, the ITC issued a notice of enforcement proceeding in Certain Blowers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-1217). The enforcement complaint was filed by Regal Beloit America, Inc. of Beloit, Wisconsin (“Regal”). The notice identifies East West Manufacturing, LLC of Atlanta, Georgia and East West Industries of Binh Duong, Vietnam (collectively, “East West”) as respondents. The enforcement proceeding was instituted to determine whether East West violated the November 12, 2020 consent order in the underlying investigation through the importation and sale of a “redesigned” blower that Regal alleges is “virtually identical” to the original blower that East West acknowledged infringed the patent-in-suit and is covered by the consent order. See our February 4, 2021 post for more details regarding the enforcement complaint.

Read More

By John Presper
|
Feb
04
On January 15, 2021, Regal Beloit America, Inc. of Beloit, Wisconsin (“Regal”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Blowers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-1217). The enforcement complaint alleges that East West Manufacturing, LLC of Atlanta, Georgia and East West Industries of Vietnam (collectively, “East West”) have violated a consent order terminating the underlying investigation.

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
06
On November 17, 2017, Nautilus Hyosung Inc. of South Korea and Nautilus Hyosung America Inc. of Irving, Texas (collectively, “Nautilus Hyosung”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-989). The enforcement complaint alleges that Diebold Nixdorf Inc. and Diebold Self-Service Systems (collectively, “Diebold”)—both of North Canton, Ohio—have violated a cease and desist order (“CDO”) issued in the underlying investigation.

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz and Alex Englehart
|
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.

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz and Alex Englehart
|
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.

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz and Alex Englehart
|
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.

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz and Alex Englehart
|
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.

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
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.


Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
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).


Read More

Next Page