On June 30, 2011, the International Trade Commission issued a notice determining to reverse-in-part, affirm-in-part, and remand for further proceedings an initial determination (“ID”) issued by Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern on January 24, 2011 in Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-703).  In the notice, the Commission determined to modify ALJ Luckern’s construction of various claim terms and remand questions of infringement, invalidity, and/or waiver of certain infringement arguments.

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”) and the Respondents are Research In Motion, Ltd., Research In Motion Corporation (collectively, “RIM”), and Apple Inc. (“Apple”) (RIM and Apple collectively, the “Respondents”).   In the ID, ALJ Luckern determined there was no violation of Section 337.  More specifically, ALJ Luckern determined, inter alia, that (i) none of Respondents’ accused products infringed the sole claim now at issue: claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,292,218 (the ‘218 patent); (ii) claim 15 of the ‘218 patent is invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103; and (iii) the domestic industry requirement is satisfied with respect to the ‘218 patent.  See our March 18, 2011 post for more details. 

On March 25, 2011, the Commission issued a notice determining to review ALJ Luckern’s ID in its entirety and requesting further briefing with respect to invalidity and claim construction.  See our March 29, 2011 post for more details.

In the June 30 notice, the Commission modified ALJ Luckern’s construction of the claim terms “motion processor” and “still processor,” and remanded the issue of infringement of these limitations.  The Commission also modified the construction of “at least three different colors” in the limitation “a second number of color pixel values provided in a second color pattern having at least three different colors,” and determined that the accused products infringe this limitation.  The Commission also modified the construction of “initiating capture of a still image while previewing a motion image,” and found that the Apple iPhone 3G and the RIM accused products practice this limitation, but affirmed ALJ Luckern’s determination that Kodak has waived the argument that in a flash-photography mode of operation the Apple iPhone 3GS and Apple iPhone 4 practice this limitation. The Commission found that the Apple iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 do not literally infringe the asserted claim in their non-flash-photography modes of operation, and remanded to ALJ Luckern to determine whether Kodak waived its opportunity to argue that the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 in their non-flash modes infringe this limitation under the doctrine of equivalents, and if not, whether these products practice the limitation under the doctrine of equivalents.   Based on the above claim construction modifications, the Commission also provided ALJ Luckern and Respondents an opportunity to revisit invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 on remand.

The Commission affirmed the remaining matters in ALJ Luckern’s ID, including the constructions of other claim terms, validity under 35 U.S.C. § 112, enforceability, domestic industry, and exhaustion.

Finally, the Commission extended the target date by two months, to August 30, 2011, to provide the ALJ with sufficient time to extend the target date for himself based on further remand proceedings.