ALJ Bhattacharyya Issues Initial Determination in Certain Electrical Connectors and Cages (337-TA-1241)

On March 11, 2022, ALJ Monica Bhattacharyya issued a notice of her initial determination (“ID”) of violation of section 337 in Certain Electrical Connectors and Cages, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-1241).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a December 18, 2020 complaint by Amphenol Corp. of Wallingford, Connecticut (“Amphenol”) alleging a violation of section 337 by Luxshare Precision Industry Co., Ltd. of China and related entities (“Respondents”) in the unlawful importation and sale in the U.S. of certain electrical connectors and cages, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of Amphenol’s patents relating to electrical connectors for use in electrical interconnection systems, including HSBP connectors and HSIO connectors that support high data rates.  See our February 19, 2021 post for more details regarding the complaint and Notice of Investigation.

According to the notice, ALJ Bhattacharyya found a violation of section 337 based on infringement of claims 1, 9, 24, and 29 of the ’117 patent, and made the following conclusions of law:

1. The Commission has subject matter jurisdiction over this investigation and in personam jurisdiction over Luxshare.

2. With the exception of Luxshare’s QSFP 2x1 Press-fit product, the accused products have been imported into the United States, sold for importation, and/or sold within the United States after importation.

3. With the exception of Luxshare’s QSFP 2x1 Press-fit product, the Commission has in rem jurisdiction over the accused products.

4. The redesign products are ripe for adjudication with respect to the ’117 patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,705,255 (“the ‘255 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 10,381,767 (“the ‘767 patent”).

5. The redesign products do not infringe any asserted claims of the ‘117, the ‘255, and the ‘767 patents.

6. Claims 1, 9, 24, and 29 of the ’117 patent are infringed by one or more accused products.

7. Claim 11 of the ’117 patent is not infringed.

8. Claims 12-14, 16, and 17 of the ’255 patent are not infringed.

9. Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 19 of the ’767 patent are infringed by Luxshare’s QSFP 2x1 Press-fit product, which has not been imported into the United States, sold for importation, and/or sold within the United States after importation.

10. Claims 6, 23, 28, and 29 of the ’767 patent are not infringed.

11. Claims 1, 9, 11, 24, and 29 of the ’117 patent have not been shown invalid by clear and convincing evidence as obvious in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

12. Claims 12-14, 16, and 17 of the ’255 patent have not been shown invalid by clear and convincing evidence as obvious in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

13. Claims 1, 4-6, 9-13, 15-17, and 19 of the ’767 patent have been shown invalid by clear and convincing evidence as anticipated and/or obvious in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103.

14. Claims 23, 28, and 29 of the ’767 patent have not been shown invalid by clear and convincing evidence as anticipated and/or obvious in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103.

15. Claims 1, 9, 11, 24, and 29 of the ’117 patent have not been shown invalid by clear and convincing evidence as lacking enablement and written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112.

16. Claims 12-14, 16, and 17 of the ’255 patent have not been shown invalid by clear and convincing evidence as lacking enablement and written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112.

17. Claims 1, 9, 11, 24, and 29 of the ’117 patent have not been shown invalid by clear and convincing evidence as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112.

18. Claims 12-14, 16, and 17 of the ’255 patent have not been shown invalid by clear and convincing evidence as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112.

19. Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 10-13, 15-17, 19, 23, 28, and 29 of the ’767 patent have not been shown invalid by clear and convincing evidence as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112.

20. The ’767 patent has not been shown unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

21. The technical prong of the domestic requirement has been satisfied for the ’117 patent and the ’255 patent.

22. The technical prong of domestic requirement would be satisfied with respect to the ’767 patent if the practiced claims were not invalid as anticipated and/or obvious.

23. The economic prong of the domestic industry requirement has been satisfied with respect to the ’117 patent, the ’255 patent, and the ‘767 patent.