Commission Orders
By John Presper and Elissa Sanford
|
Aug
26

On August 13, 2021, the Commission issued a notice of its determination to grant Complainants L&L Candle Company and Sotera Tschetter, Inc.’s (collectively, “Complainants”) motion to reopen the record, to vacate a portion of the initial determination (“ID”) regarding the domestic industry, to vacate the grant of summary determination of violation of section 337, and to remand the investigation in Certain Electronic Candle Products and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-1195).  The Commission issued an order remanding the investigation the same day.


Share

Read More

By John Presper
|
Feb
05
On January 27, 2021, the ITC issued a General Exclusion Order (“GEO”) in Certain Foldable Reusable Drinking Straws and Components and Accessories Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-1183).
Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
18
On January 13, 2017, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued a notice and order in Certain Radiotherapy Systems and Treatment Planning Software, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-968).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a September 25, 2015 complaint filed by Varian Medical Systems, Inc. and Varian Medical Systems International AG (collectively, “Varian”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondents Elekta AB, Elekta Ltd., Elekta GmbH, Elekta Inc., IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc., Elekta Instrument (Shanghai) Ltd., and Elekta Beijing Medical Systems Co. Ltd. (collectively, “Elekta”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain radiotherapy systems and treatment planning software and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,945,021 (“the ’021 patent”); 8,116,430 (“the ’430 patent”); 8,867,703 (“the ’703 patent”); 7,880,154 (“the ’154 patent”); 7,906,770 (“the ’770 patent”); and 8,696,538 (“the ’538 patent’).  See our September 30, 2015 and November 3, 2015 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively. On November 28, 2016, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of his Initial Determination (the “Final ID”) finding a violation of Section 337. See our December 27, 2016 post for more details.
Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz and John Presper
|
Dec
07
On November 30, 2016, the ITC issued Seizure and Forfeiture Orders in Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges with Printheads and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-723).

In the separate orders (see here and here), the ITC stated that the “U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (‘Customs’) has informed the Commission that (i) the owner, importer or consignee (or the agent of such person) of certain inkjet cartridges covered by a general exclusion order attempted to import the articles into the United States; (ii) Customs denied entry of the articles into the United States by reason of the general exclusion order; and (iii) upon such denial of entry, Customs provided the owner, importer, or consignee of the articles (or the agent of such person) with written notice of the aforesaid exclusion order and the fact that seizure and forfeiture would result from any further attempt to import the articles into the United States.”
Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz and John Presper
|
Dec
02
On November 30, 2016, the ITC issued a Seizure and Forfeiture Order in Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-691).

In the order, the ITC stated that the “U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (‘Customs’) has informed the Commission that (i) the owner, importer or consignee (or the agent of such person) of certain inkjet cartridges covered by a general exclusion order attempted to import the articles into the United States; (ii) Customs denied entry of the articles into the United States by reason of the general exclusion order; and (iii) upon such denial of entry, Customs provided the owner, importer, or consignee of the articles (or the agent of such person) with written notice of the aforesaid exclusion order and the fact that seizure and forfeiture would result from any further attempt to import the articles into the United States.”
Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz and John Presper
|
Dec
01
On November 30, 2016, the ITC issued a Seizure and Forfeiture Order in Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-946).

In the order, the ITC stated that the “U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (‘Customs’) has informed the Commission that (i) the owner, importer or consignee (or the agent of such person) of certain ink cartridges covered by a general exclusion order attempted to import the articles into the United States; (ii) Customs denied entry of the articles into the United States by reason of the general exclusion order; and (iii) upon such denial of entry, Customs provided the owner, importer, or consignee of the articles (or the agent of such person) with written notice of the aforesaid exclusion order and the fact that seizure and forfeiture would result from any further attempt to import the articles into the United States.”
Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz and John Presper
|
Dec
01
On November 18, 2016, the ITC issued an order instituting a rescission proceeding in Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-929).

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.  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 and issued a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and cease-and-desist orders (“CDOs”) directed at Eko Brands, LLC (“Eko”) and other respondents after finding such entities in default.  On June 1, 2016, ARM filed an enforcement complaint alleging that Eko and Espresso Supply, Inc. (“Espresso Supply”) have violated the LEO and CDOs.  According to the enforcement complaint, Espresso Supply recently purchased Eko.  See our June 6, 2016 post for more details regarding the enforcement complaint.  The Commission instituted a formal enforcement proceeding on July 1, 2016.
Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz and John Presper
|
Nov
04
On October 27, 2016 and November 3, 2016, the ITC entered consent orders against Respondents ACL Group (Intl.) Ltd. (“ACL”) and Zhejiang Aike Appliance Co., Ltd. (“Aike”), respectively, in Certain Hand Dryers and Housings for Hand Dryers (Inv. No. 337-TA-1015).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a June 15, 2016 complaint filed by Excel Dryer Inc. (“Excel”) 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 hand dryers and housings for hand dryers that infringe Excel’s trade dress.  See our June 27 and July 26, 2016 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.
Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz and John Presper
|
Sep
29
On September 7, 2016, the International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) issued a notice and order in Certain Wearable Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-973).  In the notice and order, the Commission determined to review-in-part and vacate-in-part the ALJ’s initial determination (“ID”) in Order No. 24 granting Respondents AliphCom d/b/a Jawbone and BodyMedia, Inc.’s (collectively, “Jawbone”) motion for summary determination that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,920,332 (“the ’332 patent”), 8,868,337 (“the ’337 patent”), and 9,089,760 (“the ’760 patent”) are directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

By way of background, this investigation is based on a November 2, 2015 complaint filed by Fitbit, Inc. (“Fitbit”) alleging violation of section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wearable activity tracking devices, systems, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of the ’332, ’377, and ’760 patents.  See our November 2, 2015 and December 3, 2015 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.  On August 9, 2016, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of Order No. 24 granting Jawbone’s motion for summary determination of invalidity and terminating the investigation in its entirety.  See our August 18, 2016 post for more details on the ID.
Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz and Christopher Ricciuti
|
Dec
15
On December 4, 2014, the International Trade Commission ("Commission") issued a notice modifying-in-part and vacating-in-part ALJ Dee Lord's initial determination terminating the investigation based on Complainant's lack of standing, and issued an order remanding the investigation to the ALJ in Certain Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-897).

By way of background, the investigation here is based on a September 3, 2013 complaint filed by Complainant Optical Devices, LLC ("Optical") alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain optical disc drives, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,904,007; 7,196,979; 8,416,651; RE40,927; RE42,913; and RE43,681.  See our September 6, 2013 and October 23, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.
Share

Read More

Next Page
www.xxx-clips-online.com