By Eric Schweibenz
On July 2, 2009, eInstruction Corporation (“eInstruction”) of Denton, Texas filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to section 337.

The complaint alleges that proposed respondent Qomo HiteVision, LLC (“Qomo”) of Wixom, Michigan unlawfully imports into the U.S. and sells within the U.S. after importation certain products using collaborative system technology and components thereof that infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,390,673 B2 (the “‘673 Patent”).

According to the complaint, the technology at issue relates to a “collaborative input system that is particularly useful in schools” and “supports student-centered, collaborative learning where both the teacher and students can concurrently interact with and contribute to the same digital content.”  The complaint further explains that “[t]his technology creates a powerful shared learning environment for lessons and activities” where “teachers have the capability of viewing each student’s graded answer seconds after a question has been posed, which allows teachers to provide differentiated instruction as the lesson unfolds.”

In the complaint, eInstruction alleges that Qomo’s QIT30 Prodigy Interactive RF Wireless Tablets are “contributorily infringing claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-18 and 21-24 of the ‘673 Patent.”

eInstruction alleges that it satisfies the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement because “eInstruction’s INTERWRITE MOBI and INTERWRITE PAD are covered by the ‘673 Patent when used on a personal computer and display.”  eInstruction also alleges that it satisfies the economic prong based on “significant investment in research and development, plant and equipment in the United States” and “significant employment of labor and capital, in connection with its substantial investment in the exploitation of the ‘673 Patent, including engineering, research and development, quality assurance, product design, customer technology support relating to the subject matter of the asserted ‘673 Patent.”

Regarding potential remedy, eInstruction requests the Commission to issue a general exclusion order, or, in the alternative, a limited exclusion order, as well as a cease and desist order relating to Qomo’s products using collaborative system technology and components thereof that infringe the ‘673 Patent.