Commission Opinions
By John Presper and Elissa Sanford
|
Jul
19
On July 9, 2021 the ITC issued the public version of its opinion in Certain Bone Cements and Bone Cement Accessories (Inv. No. 337-TA-1175) finding no violation of section 337 by reason of misappropriation of trade secrets, false advertising, or tortious interference.
Share

Read More

By John Presper
|
May
20
On May 18, 2021 the ITC issued the public version of its opinion in Certain Collapsible and Portable Furniture (Inv. No. 337-TA-1178). According to the opinion, the Commission determined that there was no violation of section 337 and terminated the investigation.
Share

Read More

By John Presper and Alec Royka
|
Mar
25
On March 17, 2021, the ITC issued the public version of its opinion reversing ALJ Cameron R. Elliot’s initial determination (“ID”) that Complainant Universal Electronics, Inc. (“UEI”) lacked standing to assert U.S. Patent No. 10,593,196 (“the ’196 patent”) in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Streaming Players, Televisions, Set Top Boxes, Remote Controllers, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-1200).
Share

Read More

By John Presper and Elissa Sanford
|
Feb
17
On February 8, 2021, the ITC issued the public version of its opinion in Certain Motorized Self-Balancing Vehicles (Inv. No. 337-TA-1000). According to the opinion, the Commission determined to terminate the investigation as moot in light of reissue of the asserted patent by the PTO.
Share

Read More

By John Presper
|
Feb
12
Further to our February 5, 2021 post, the Commission issued the public version of its opinion on remedy, public interest, and bonding in Certain Foldable Reusable Drinking Straws and Components and Accessories Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-1183) on February 10, 2021.
Share

Read More

By John Presper
|
Feb
11
On February 10, 2021, the ITC issued a notice of its final determination finding a violation of section 337 in Certain Lithium Ion Batteries, Batter Cells, Battery Modules, Battery Packs, Components Thereof, and Processes Therefor (Inv. No. 337-TA-1159). According to the notice, the Commission found a violation of section 337 and issued a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and cease-and-desist order against Respondents SK Innovation Co., Ltd. of Republic of Korea (“SKI”) and SK Battery America, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia (“SKBA”) (collectively, “SK”).
Share

Read More

By Alex Englehart and Michael West
|
Nov
09
On October 26, 2018, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued the public version of its opinion (part 1 and part 2) in Certain Non-Volatile Memory Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-1046). In the opinion, the Commission reversed in-part and affirmed in-part ALJ Dee Lord’s Initial Determination (ID), and found a violation of Section 337.

By way of background, this investigation is based on a March 7, 2017 complaint filed by Macronix International Co., Ltd. and Macronix America, Inc. (collectively, “Macronix”) alleging violation of Section 337 by way of unlawful importation into the U.S., selling for importation, and/or selling within the U.S. after importation certain non-volatile memory devices and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,552,360 (“the ’360 patent”); 6,788,602 (“the ’602 patent”); and 8,035,417 (“the ’417 patent”).  See our April 6, 2017 post for more details on the Notice of Investigation.
Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz and Alex Englehart
|
Aug
31
On August 11, 2017, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued an opinion in Certain UV Curable Coatings for Optical Fibers, Coated Optical Fibers, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-1031). In the opinion, the Commission determined to review ALJ MaryJoan McNamara’s initial determination (“ID”) finding certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,706,659 (the ’659 patent) invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, and, on review, to reverse and vacate the ID.
Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz and Alex Englehart
|
Aug
25
On August 15, 2017, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued its opinion in the consolidated enforcement and rescission proceeding stemming from the underlying investigation in Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-929). In the opinion, the Commission determined to (i) reverse the finding in ALJ Theodore R. Essex’s enforcement initial determination (“EID”) that the remedial orders in the underlying investigation cannot be enforced due to a lack of domestic industry; (ii) find that the complainants had failed to show that the respondents possessed the intent necessary to violate the remedial orders; (iii) decline to rescind the remedial orders; and (iv) terminate the consolidated enforcement and rescission proceeding.

By way of background, the underlying investigation is based on an August 4, 2014 complaint filed by Adrian Rivera and Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, “ARM”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain beverage brewing capsules, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,720,320 (the ’320 patent). See our August 6, 2014 and September 11, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively. On March 17, 2016, the Commission issued its final determination in the underlying investigation and issued a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and cease-and-desist orders (“CDOs”) directed at Eko Brands, LLC and other respondents based on their infringement of claims 8 and 19 of the ’320 patent.
Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz and John Presper
|
Aug
21
On August 3, 2017, the International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) issued its opinion in Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-989).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a complaint filed by Nautilus Hyosung, Inc. and Nautilus Hyosung America Inc. (collectively, “Nautilus”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondents Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. and Diebold Self-Service Systems (collectively, “Diebold”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,891,551 (“the ’551 patent”); 7,950,655 (“the ’655 patent”); 8,152,165 (“the ’165 patent”); and 8,523,235 (“the ’235 patent”). See our February 9, 2016 and March 10, 2016 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively. The ALJ previously granted motions by Nautilus to terminate the investigation as to all asserted claims of the ’551, ’165, and ’655 patents. After holding an evidentiary hearing in November 2016, the ALJ issued a final initial determination (“ID”) on March 13, 2017 finding a violation of Section 337 by Diebold in connection with the ’235 patent. Specifically, the ID found that the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over the accused products, and in personam jurisdiction over Diebold. The ID also found that Nautilus satisfied the importation requirement, that the accused products directly infringed claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 9 of the ’235 patent, and that Diebold contributorily infringed such claims. The ID further found that Diebold failed to establish that the asserted claims of the ’235 patent are invalid for indefiniteness, anticipation, or obviousness. Finally, the ID found that Nautilus established the existence of a domestic industry that practices the ’235 patent. Accordingly, the ALJ recommended issuance of a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) prohibiting the importation of Diebold's automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe the asserted claims of the ’235 patent. The ALJ also recommended issuance of cease-and-desist orders based on the presence of Diebold’s commercially significant inventory in the U.S.
Share

Read More

Next Page