22
Oct
By John Presper and Alec Royka

On September 10, 2021, ALJ Cheney issued his final initial determination (“ID”) (Part I, Part II) finding a violation of section 337 in Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbine Generators and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-1218).

By way of background, this investigation was instituted based on a July 31, 2020 complaint filed by General Electric Company (“GE”) alleging violations of section 337 by Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy Inc., Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy A/S, and Gamesa Electric, S.A.U. (collectively, “SGRE”) based on the importation/sale of certain variable speed wind turbine generators and components thereof that infringed one of more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,921,985 (“the ’985 patent”) and 7,629,705 (“the ’705 patent”).

According to the ID, ALJ Cheney determined that there is a violation of section 337 with respect to the ’985 patent based on the following conclusions of law:

  • Claims 1, 6, 12, 29, 30, 33-35, and 37 of the ’985 patent have been infringed by the importation, sale, and use of all accused products (described in the complaint as “variable speed wind turbine generators having low and zero voltage ride through capability and components thereof, namely generators, power converters, uninterruptible power supplies, turbine controllers, blade pitch control systems, and converter controllers”).

  • Claim 1 of the ’705 patent has been infringed by the importation, sale, and use of the accused “DFIG” products (e., turbines having a doubly-fed induction generator).

  • The technical prong of the domestic industry requirement has been satisfied with respect to the ’985 and ’705 patents.

  • The economic prong of the domestic industry requirement has been satisfied with respect to the ’985 and ’705 patents.

  • Claims 1, 6, 12, 29, 30, 33-35, and 37 of the ’985 patent have not been shown invalid in view of the prior art.

  • Claim 1 of the ’705 patent has been shown to be directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

  • Claim 1 of the ’705 patent has not been shown invalid in view of the prior art.

  • Claim 1 of the ’705 patent has not been shown invalid as failing to satisfy the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.

  • A violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 has been shown by the importation and sale of articles that infringe claims 1, 6, 12, 29, 30, 33-35, and 37 of the ’985 patent.

  • A violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 has not been shown based on allegations of infringement of claim 1 of the ’705 patent.

As a result of his finding of a violation of section 337, ALJ Cheney recommended that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order directed to SGRE and set a 0% bond.
Share
www.xxx-clips-online.com