By Eric Schweibenz
On October 6, 2010, Motorola Mobility, Inc. of Libertyville, Illinois (“Motorola”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and sells within the U.S. after importation certain wireless communications devices, portable music and data processing devices, computers, and components thereof that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,272,333 (the ‘333 patent), 6,246,862 (the ‘862 patent), 6,246,697 (the ‘697 patent), 5,359,317 (the ‘317 patent), 5,636,223 (the ‘223 patent), and 7,751,826 (the ‘826 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”).

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to various features found in wireless devices.  In particular, the ‘333 patent relates to controlling applications and the transmission of data in wireless communications systems.  The ‘862 patent relates to a system for controlling the operation of a user interface (such as a touch screen) in a wireless device, such as a smartphone.  The ‘697 patent relates to transmitting voice and data signals in wireless communication systems.  The ‘317 patent relates to selective call receivers.  The ‘223 patent relates to communication systems and methods of adaptable channel access in data communications systems.  Finally, the ‘826 patent relates to a system that enables the user of a wireless device, such as a smartphone, to control when the Global Positioning System (GPS) of the smartphone is able to send location data over the wireless network.

In the complaint, Motorola alleges that Apple imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  In particular, the complaint cites Apple’s iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPod Touch 4, iPad, iPad 3G, AppleTV, MacBook, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, iMac, Mac mini, Mac Pro, and Apple App Store as infringing products.

Regarding domestic industry, Motorola states that it has made significant investments in plant and equipment, as well as in the engineering, research and development, and licensing of the asserted patents and of articles protected by the asserted patents.  Motorola also states that is has made a significant employment of labor and capital relating to the asserted patents.  As for the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, the complaint asserts that at least one claim of each of the asserted patents reads on the Motorola CLIQ, CLIQ XT, Droid, Droid 2, and/or Droid X.

As to related litigation, Motorola states that, concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it also filed suit against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement of the ’333, ‘862, ‘697, ‘317, ‘223 and ‘826 patents.  Motorola also states that it had previously asserted the ‘333 and ‘317 patents against Research In Motion Limited and Research In Motion Corporation (collectively, “RIM”) at the ITC in an investigation styled Certain Wireless Communications System Server Software, Wireless Handheld Devices and Battery Packs, Inv. No. 337-TA-706.  The 706 investigation was terminated on June 29, 2010, as a result of a settlement agreement between the parties.  Additionally, the ‘317 and ‘223 patents had been the subject of lawsuits against RIM in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, but those cases were dismissed in June 2010 as well.

With respect to potential remedy, Motorola requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease-and-desist order directed at Apple and its subsidiaries, related companies, and agents.