By John Presper

On March 23, 2022, the ITC issued a notice of its determination finding no violation of section 337 in Certain Digital Video-Capable Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-1224).

By way of background, this investigation was based on a September 18, 2020 complaint filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips North America LLC alleging violations of section 337 by Respondents Dell Technologies Inc.; Dell Inc.; Hisense Co. Ltd.; Hisense Visual Technology Co.; Ltd. Hisense Electronics Manufacturing Company of America Corp.; Hisense USA Corp.; Hisense Import & Export Co. Ltd.; Hisense International Co., Ltd.; Hisense International (HK) Co., Ltd.; Hisense International (Hong Kong) America Investment Co., Ltd.; HP, Inc.; Lenovo Group Ltd.; Lenovo (United States), Inc.; LG Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics USA, Inc.; TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd.; TCL King Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) Co. Ltd.; TTE Technology, Inc.; TCL Moka International Ltd.; TCL Moka Manufacturing S.A. de C.V.; TCL Smart Device (Vietnam) Company Ltd.; MediaTek Inc.; MediaTek USA Inc.; Realtek Semiconductor Corp.; and Intel Corp. through the importation/sale of digital video-capable devices and/or components thereof that infringe one or more of claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,436,809; 9,590,977; 10,091,186 (the “186 patent”); and 10,298,564 (the “564 patent”).  On October 2, 2021, ALJ Cameron Elliot issued his initial determination (“ID”) finding no violation of section 337.  See our December 29, 2021 post for more details regarding the ID.

According to the notice, the Commission determined to review the ID in part with respect to its findings on claim construction, infringement, validity, and domestic industry for the ’186 and ’564 patents.  The Commission also requested briefing on remedy, bonding, and the public interest.  Based on the record, the Commission found that the asserted claims of the ’186 and ’564 patents are not infringed, and that the domestic industry products do not practice the claims of either patent.  The Commission took no position on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, anticipation, obviousness, and whether the written description requirement is met for the claim terms “predetermined time” and “certificate.”

We will post the public version or the Commission’s opinion when it becomes available.

UPDATE:  On April 26, 2022, the Commission issued the public version of its opinion.