On September 11, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) issued a judgment without opinion affirming the decision of the International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) in Viraj Profiles Limited v. ITC (2016-2482). This was an appeal from the Commission’s issuance of an exclusion order against Respondent Viraj Profiles Ltd. (“Viraj”). The underlying investigation is Certain Stainless Steel Products, Certain Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same, and Certain Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-933).

By way of background, this investigation was based on a complaint filed by Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc., Valbruna Stainless Inc., and Acciaierie Valbruna S.p.A. (collectively, “Valbruna”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain stainless steel products manufactured using Valbruna’s allegedly stolen trade secrets. See our September 8, 2014 and October 9, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Read More

On June 13, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its nonprecedential opinion in Garmin Int’l., Inc. v. ITC (2016-1572). This was an appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (“the Commission”) final determination finding, inter alia, that Garmin International, Inc., Garmin USA, Inc., and Garmin Corp. (collectively, “Garmin”) infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,305,840 (the ’840 patent) and 8,605,550 (the ’550 patent) and that such claims are not invalid. The underlying investigation is Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan and Sidescan Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-921). See our July 11, 2014 post for more details on the underlying investigation.

By way of background, the underlying investigation is based on a June 9, 2014 complaint filed by Navico, Inc. and Navico Holding AS (collectively, “Navico”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain marine sonar imaging devices that allegedly infringe one or more claims of the ’840 patent, the ’550 patent, and U.S. Patent No. 8,300,499. On December 1, 2015, the Commission issued its final determination finding that Garmin’s DownVü products infringe certain claims of the ’840 and ’550 patents. The Commission further found that many of the asserted claims of the ’840 and ’550 patents are not invalid as obvious over a 1960 article by Tucker entitled “Narrow-beam echo-ranger for fishery and geological investigations” (“Tucker”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,652,952 to Betts (“Betts”).

Read More

On June 12, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its precedential opinion in One-E-Way, Inc. v. ITC (2016-2105). This was an appeal from the International Trade Commission’s (“the Commission”) determination finding no violation of Section 337 in Certain Wireless Headsets (Inv. No. 337-TA-943).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a December 8, 2014 complaint filed by One-E-Way, Inc. (“OEW”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless headsets that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,865,258 and 8,131,391. See our January 8, 2015 and January 14, 2015 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.

Read More

On May 23, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its precedential opinion in Adrian Rivera et al. v. ITC (2016-1841). This was an appeal from the International Trade Commission’s (“the Commission”) determination finding no violation of Section 337 in Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-929).

By way of background, the investigation is based on an August 4, 2014 complaint filed by ARM Enterprises, Inc. and Adrian Rivera (“Rivera”) 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 (“the ’320 patent”). See our August 6, 2014 and September 11, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Read More

On June 13, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its non-precedential opinion in Navico Inc. v. ITC, 2016-1533. This was an appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (“the Commission”) final determination in Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan and Sidescan Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-921).

By way of background, the underlying investigation is based on a June 9, 2014 complaint filed by Navico, Inc. and Navico Holding AS (collectively, “Navico”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain marine sonar imaging devices that allegedly 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 reversing the Initial Determination’s primary claim construction and finding a violation of Section 337 by Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. (collectively, “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. 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. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s Final Determination on the issues of (1) contributory infringement, (2) invalidity of the ’550 patent, and (3) claim construction in the ’499 patent.

Read More

On February 15, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Organik Kimya, San. Ve Tic. A.S. v. ITC (2015-1774, 2015-1833). This was an appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (“the Commission”) final determination imposing a default judgment against Respondents Organik Kimya San. ve Tic., A.S., Organik Kimya Netherlands B.V., and Organik Kimya US, Inc. (collectively, “Organik Kimya”) and issuing a 25-year limited exclusion order and cease and desist order in Certain Opaque Polymers (Inv. No. 337-TA-883).

By way of background, the Commission instituted this investigation on June 18, 2013 based on a complaint filed by Rohm and Haas Co., Rohm and Haas Chemicals LLC, and Dow Chemical Co. (collectively, “Dow”). In the complaint, Dow alleged that Organik Kimya violated Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain opaque polymers that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,020,435; 6,252,004; 7,435,783; and 7,803,878. See our May 22, 2013 and June 20, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively. Dow subsequently filed an amended complaint alleging that Organik Kimya had misappropriated Dow trade secrets. During the investigation, it was uncovered that Organik Kimya had intentionally destroyed evidence responsive to Dow’s discovery requests and violated explicit discovery orders by the presiding Administrative Law Judge, Thomas B. Pender. See our May 26, 2015 post for more details.

Read More

On November 12, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) issued its precedential opinion in DeLorme Publ’g Co., Inc. v. ITC (2014-1572).  This was an appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (“the Commission”) determination finding a violation of the consent order entered in Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices, System and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-854).

By way of background, the Commission instituted the underlying investigation on September 18, 2012 based on BriarTek IP, Inc.’s (“BriarTek”) complaint of August 17, 2012.  See our September 19, 2012 post for more details.  On March 15, 2013, former ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. granted a motion by DeLorme Publishing Co., Inc. and DeLorme InReach, LLC (collectively, “DeLorme”) to terminate the investigation and for entry of a proposed consent order (“the Consent Order”).  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 BriarTek’s U.S. Patent No. 7,991,380 (the ’380 patent) after April 1, 2013.  On April 10, 2013, BriarTek filed an enforcement complaint alleging that DeLorme violated the Consent Order.  See our April 11, 2013 post for more details.  On July 2, 2014, the Commission issued the public version of its opinion in the enforcement proceeding determining that DeLorme violated the Consent Order and imposed a civil penalty of $6,242,500.  See our July 9, 2014 post for more details.

Read More

On November 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its precedential opinion in ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. ITC (2014-1527).  This was an appeal from the International Trade Commission’s (“the Commission”) determination finding a violation of Section 337 in Certain Digital Models, Digital Data, and Treatment Plans for Use In Making Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment Appliances Made Therefrom, and Methods of Making the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-833).

By way of background, the International Trade Commission instituted this investigation on March 20, 2012 based on a complaint filed by Complainant Align Technology, Inc. (“Align”). In the Complaint, Align alleged that Respondents ClearCorrect Operating, LLC and ClearCorrect Pakistan (Private), Ltd. (collectively, “ClearCorrect”) violated Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain digital models, digital data, or treatment plans for use in making incremental dental positioning adjustment appliances that infringe—or are made, produced, or processed by means of a process that infringes—one or more claims of various U.S. patents.  See our March 2, 2012 and April 6, 2012 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation.

Read More

On August 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in Suprema Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n (2012-1170).  In the opinion, the Federal Circuit determined to uphold the U.S. International Trade Commission's (the "Commission" or "ITC") position that allegations of induced infringement are actionable at the ITC even where the underlying direct infringement does not occur until after importation.

By way of background, this was an appeal from the Commission's final determination in Certain Biometric Scanning Devices, Components Thereof, Associated Software, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-720) finding a violation of Section 337 by Suprema, Inc. and Mentalix, Inc.  In reaching its final determination, the Commission had held that the statutory language making unlawful the importation of "articles that ... infringe a valid and enforceable United States patent" covered the importation of goods that, after importation, are used by the importer to directly infringe at the inducement of the goods' seller.  On appeal, a Federal Circuit panel disagreed with the Commission's conclusion on this issue, reasoning that there are no "articles that infringe" at the time of importation when direct infringement does not occur until after importation.  See our December 19, 2013 post for more details.  The Federal Circuit subsequently granted rehearing en banc and vacated the panel decision.

Read More

On May 11, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion reversing the International Trade Commission's (the "Commission") final determination finding a violation of Section 337 in Lelo Inc., et al v. Int'l Trade Comm'n (2013-1582).  This was an appeal by Respondents Lelo Inc. and Lelo AB (collectively, "Lelo") in connection with Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-823).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a December 2, 2011 complaint filed by Standard Innovation Corporation and Standard Innovation (US) Corp. (collectively, "Standard Innovation") alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain kinesiotherapy devices and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,931,605 (the '605 patent) and U.S. Patent No. D605,779 (the D'779 patent).  Standard Innovation withdrew the D'779 patent from the investigation.  An evidentiary hearing was held in August 2012.  On February 8, 2013, ALJ Pender issued an Initial Determination ("ID") construing the terms of the asserted claims and finding the '605 patent valid and infringed, but finding no violation of Section 337 on the grounds that Standard Innovation did not satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.  See our February 11, 2013 post for more details.

Read More