By Eric Schweibenz
On October 8, 2010, Broadcom Corporation and Global Locate, Inc. (collectively, “Complainants”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain GPS Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-602) against SiRF Technology, Inc. of San Jose, California (“SiRF”), CSR plc of England (“CSR”), MiTAC International Corporation of Taiwan and MiTAC Digital Corporation of Santa Clara, California (collectively, “MiTAC”), Mio Technology Limited, USA of Freemont, California (“Mio”), E-TEN Information Systems Co., Ltd. of Taiwan (“E-TEN”), and Pharos Science & Applications, Inc. of Torrance, California (“Pharos”) (collectively “Respondents”) for alleged violations of a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and cease and desist orders (“CDO”) previously issued by the ITC.

By way of background, on January 15, 2009, the ITC found a violation of Section 337 by several of the Respondents and issued an LEO and several CDOs.  The ITC’s final determination was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the court affirmed the ITC’s findings.  See our April 12, 2010 post for more details.  On April 22, 2010, the Respondents filed a petition seeking modification of the ITC’s LEO and CDOs pursuant to Commission Rule 210.76.  On May 10, 2010, the Complainants also filed a petition seeking modification of the ITC’s remedial orders.  On August 16, 2010, the ITC issued a notice of institution of modification proceedings.  In the notice, the ITC determined that the “Respondents’ petition complies with 19 U.S.C. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(k)(2) and 19 C.F.R. § 210.76(a), but that Complainants’ petition does not.”  However, the notice also stated that Complainants “might find a formal enforcement proceeding under Rule 210.75(b) a more suitable avenue to address its concerns.”  See our September 20, 2010 post for more details.

The complaint alleges that Respondents and their affiliates violated the ITC’s January 15, 2009 LEO and/or CDO by (a) marketing and advertising, (b) importing and selling for importation into the United States, and/or (c) aiding and abetting other entities in the importation, sale for importation, sale after importation, transfer or distribution of GPS devices and products containing same in the United States, which infringe one or more claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,606,346, 6,651,000, 7,158,080, 6,704,651, 6,417,801, and 6,937,187 (collectively, the “asserted patents”).  According to the Complaint, each of the asserted patents addresses problems relating to GPS signal and/or data processing.

The Complaint further alleges that SiRF and its parent CSR manufacture several lines of GPS chips that continue to infringe one of more of the asserted patents, and that such chips are further incorporated into personal navigation devices, personal digital assistant products, and other GPS products of Respondents Mio, MiTAC, E-TEN, and Pharos.

The Complaint states that several of the Respondents have alleged that certain of the accused GPS devices have been redesigned so that they no longer infringe the asserted patents.

In the event the requested enforcement proceeding finds a violation of the ITC’s LEO and/or CEO, the Complaint requests relief that includes the imposition of civil penalties pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337 (f) in the amount twice the value of goods imported or sold, or $100,000, whichever is greater, for each day the Cease and Desist Order is violated, modifying the ITC’s CDO and LEO to include additional affiliated parties and to expressly include in their scope purportedly redesigned GPS devices and products, and to issue permanent CDOs against Respondents and their affiliates from engaging in illegal activities.