07
Aug
By John Presper and Elissa Sanford
On July 27, 2021, the ITC issued the public version of its opinion finding no violation of section 337 in Certain Mobile Devices with Multifunction Emulators (Inv. No. 337-TA-1170).

By way of background, this investigation was instituted on August 12, 2019 based on a complaint filed by Dynamics Inc. of Cheswick, Pennsylvania (“Dynamics”) alleging violations of section 337 by Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of South Korea and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey (collectively, “Samsung”) through the importation and/or sale of certain mobile devices with multifunction emulators that infringement one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,827,153 (“the ’153 patent”); 10,032,100 (“the ’100 patent”); 10,223,631 (“the ’631 patent”); and 10,255,545 (“the ’545 patent”).

On March 16, 2021, ALJ Cameron Elliot issued a notice of initial determination (“ID”) finding no violation of section 337 on the grounds that, inter alia, Dynamics had not been shown to practice any claims of the ’153 patent or the ‘631 patent; the domestic industry requirement was not satisfied with respect to the ’153 patent, the ‘631 patent, or the ‘545 patent; claims 1, 8, 12, and 18 of the ’100 patent had been shown to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and claims 1, 6, and 12 had been shown to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103; claims 1, 4, 6, and 22 of the ’631 patent had been shown to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103; and claims 1, 3, and 5 of the ’545 patent had been shown to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102. See our March 17, 2021 post for more details regarding the ID.

On review, the Commission construed the term “analog waveform” in the ’153 patent to mean “a wave shape whose amplitude changes in a continuous fashion” that includes so-called real-world square waveforms,” and affirmed the ID’s finding that the accused Samsung products infringe the asserted claims of the ’153 patent. The Commission also affirmed the ID’s finding that Dynamics failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish that its domestic industry products practice any claims of the ’153 patent. The Commission reversed the ID’s finding that the combination of the Shoemaker and Gutman references failed to render the asserted ’153 patent claims obvious. Regarding the ’100 patent, the Commission reversed the finding that Samsung failed to show that the Doughty reference in combination with the VivoTech reference rendered claim 4 obvious. The Commission also clarified that claims 4 and 6 of the ’100 patent are infringed. Further, the Commission found the domestic industry requirement was not met with respect to the ’100 patent because the domestic industry claim had been found invalid. Regarding the ’545 patent, the Commission took no position on the ID’s domestic industry findings.

Having found no violation of section 337, the Commission terminated the investigation.
Share
www.xxx-clips-online.com