07
Aug
By John Presper and Alec Royka
On July 23, 2021, ALJ Cameron Elliot released the public version of his July 9, 2021 final initial determination (“ID”) in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Streaming Players, Televisions, Set Top Boxes, Remote Controllers, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-1200) finding no violation of section 337.

By way of background, the Commission instituted this investigation on May 22, 2020 based on a complaint filed by Universal Electronics, Inc. (“UEI”) alleging violations of section 337 by Respondents Roku Inc. (“Roku”), TCL Multimedia Holdings Ltd.; Shenzen TCL New Technology Co.; TCL King Electrical Appliances; TTE Technology Inc. d/b/a TCL USA; TCL Corp.; TCL Moka, Int’l Ltd.; TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.; TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd.; TCL Smart Device (Vietnam) Co., Ltd.; Hisense Co. Ltd.; Hisense Electronics Manufacturing Co. of America Corp. d/b/a Hisense USA; Hisense Import & Export Co. Ltd.; Qingdao Hisense Electric Co., Ltd.; Hisense International (HK) Co., Ltd.; Funai Electric Co., Ltd.; Funai Corporation Inc. ; and Funai (Thailand) Co., Ltd. through the importation and/or sale of certain electronic devices, including streaming players, televisions, set top boxes, remote controllers, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,911,325 (“the ’325 patent”); 7,589,642 (“the ’642 patent”); 7,969,514 (“the ’514 patent”); 10,600,317 (“the ’317 patent”); 10,593,196 (“the ’196 patent”); and 9,716,853 (“the ’853 patent”). The only remaining respondent in the investigation is Roku, which previously moved for summary determination that UEI lacked standing to assert the ’196 patent. ALJ Elliot granted Roku’s motion, but the Commission reversed his decision. See our February 10, 2021 and March 25, 2021 posts for more details regarding these rulings. By the time of this ID, the asserted claims remaining in the investigation are claim 19 of the ’642 patent; claims 3, 6, 9, and 11 of the ’317 patent; and claims 1, 3, 11, and 13-15 of the ’196 patent.

According to the ID, ALJ Elliot determined that there was no violation of section 337 based on the following conclusions of law:


















Share



Copyright © 2021 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P.