New 337 Complaints

Feb

Sony Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Display Devices, Including Digital Televisions and Monitors

By Eric Schweibenz

Feb

On February 9, 2011, Sony Corporation of Japan (“Sony”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that LG Electronics, Inc. of South Korea and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of New Jersey (collectively, “LG”) unlawfully and without authorization import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain display devices, including digital televisions and monitors that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,731,847 (the ‘847 patent), 5,583,577 (the ‘577 patent), RE 40,468 (the ‘468 patent), and 6,661,472 (the ‘472 patent) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). According to the complaint (1) the ‘847 patent “is generally directed to the synchronization and display of closed caption information, such as subtitles, on video pictures,” (2) the ‘577 patent “is generally directed to methods and systems for coding and decoding data to be superimposed on a displayed video image,” (3) the ‘468 patent “is generally directed to the secure transmission of video data from one device to another over a data bus,” and (4) the ‘472 patent “is generally directed to a fast and intuitive technique for selecting channels in a digital television.” In the complaint, Sony alleges that LG imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically names the LG 32LD350 LCD TV and LG E2360V LCD Monitor as infringing products. With respect to related litigation, Sony identifies in the complaint various proceedings regarding the Asserted patents, including another ITC complaint and three district court actions in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Regarding domestic industry, Sony asserts that it “has made significant investments in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor and capital, and substantial investments in its exploitation of the Asserted Patents, including research and development, repair and refurbishment, warranty support, licensing, and litigation.” In particular, Sony alleges that its digital televisions that are sold and supported in the United States, including the Sony KDL-26L5000 LDC TV, practice at least one or more claims of the Asserted Patents. Sony also asserts that although its digital television are manufactured abroad, “two of its principal U.S.-based subsidiaries . . . conduct significant domestic industry activities in the United States relating to the Sony digital televisions that practice the Asserted Patents.” Further, Sony asserts that it “has been and is currently engaged in, extensive licensing activities relating to the Asserted Patents.” In this regard, Sony indicates that the related litigations mentioned above resulted in licenses. With respect to potential remedy, Sony requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at LG.

Feb

Boston Beer Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Glassware

By Eric Schweibenz

Feb

On February 18, 2011, Boston Beer Corporation of Boston, Massachusetts (“Boston Beer”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that 1 Source Signature Glassware, Inc., di Sciacca Co., and San Tan Brewing Co. (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) — all of Chandler, Arizona — unlawfully import into the U.S. and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain glassware that infringes U.S. Patent Nos. D582,213 and D569,189 (collectively, the “asserted patents”). The complaint further alleges that other manufacturers, entities, sellers or importers whose identity Boston Beer has not yet ascertained (collectively, the “Unknown Manufacturers”) are working with, for, or in concert with the Proposed Respondents. The complaint states that Boston Beer is working to identify the Unknown Manufacturers and intends to add them as Respondents once identified. According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to the ornamental design for a glass. The ornamental design is shown and described in drawing figures from the asserted patents, which are reproduced in the complaint. In the complaint, Boston Beer alleges that the Proposed Respondents and Unknown Manufacturers import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically names a beer glass known as the “San Tan Glass” as an infringing product. Regarding domestic industry, Boston Beer states that its Samuel Adams Glass is within the scope of the single claim of each of the asserted patents and that the Samuel Adams Glass has been made, sold, and/or distributed in the U.S. Boston Beer further states that it has made substantial expenditures related to the engineering, design, research and evaluation of the Samuel Adams Glass in the U.S. With respect to potential remedy, Boston Beer requests that the Commission issue an exclusion order and a cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents.

Feb

Femina Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Vaginal Ring Birth Control Devices

By Eric Schweibenz

Feb

On February 25, 2011, Femina Pharma Incorporated of Miami, Florida (“Femina”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that the following entities (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain vaginal ring birth control devices known as the Nuvaring that infringe at least claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,086,909 (the ‘909 patent):

Merck & Co., Inc. of Whitehouse Station, New Jersey
Schering Plough Corporation of Kenilworth, New Jersey
Organon USA, Inc. of Roseland, New Jersey
N.V. Organon of the Netherlands
CVS Caremark Corporation of Woonsocket, Rhode Island
CVS Pharmacy, Inc. of Woonsocket, Rhode Island
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. of Bentonville, Arkansas
Walgreens Co. of Deerfield, Illinois
The Canamerican Drugs Inc. of Canada
The Canamerican Global Inc. of Canada
Canadian Med Service of Canada
Panther Meds Inc. of Canada
Canada Drugs Online of Canada
Drug World Canada of Canada
CanDrug Health Solutions Inc. of Canada
Big Mountain Drugs of Canada
BestBuyRx.com of Canada
Blue Sky Drugs of Canada
ABC Online Pharmacy of Canada
Canadadrugs.com LP of Canada
North Drug Store of Canada
Canada Pharmacy of Blaine, Washington

According to the complaint, the ‘909 patent generally relates to a medicated intravaginal device, such as a vaginal ring, for transvaginal delivery of a pharmaceutical agent to the uterus of a female. The complaint states that the drug delivery system described in the ‘909 patent allows delivery of a drug transvaginally in lower concentrations than those needed for systemic treatment and thus provides for lower systemic concentration and fewer side effects. In the complaint, Femina states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the ‘909 patent. The complaint specifically names the Nuvaring as an infringing product. According to the complaint, the Nuvaring is manufactured in the Netherlands by N.V. Organon, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc. and is related to Organon USA, Inc. and Schering Plough Corporation. The complaint alleges that all of the Proposed Respondents are involved with the importation and sale of the Nuvaring. Regarding domestic industry, Femina states that it, UMD Inc. (the previous owner of the ‘909 patent) (“UMD”) and Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Kimberly-Clark Worldwide Inc. (past parties to a joint development agreement with UMD in connection with the ‘909 patent) (collectively, “Kimberly-Clark”) have made significant investments in plant and equipment and have engaged in significant employment of labor and capital in the U.S. relating to the ‘909 patent. The complaint further states that Femina, UMD, and Kimberly-Clark have made substantial investments in the exploitation of the ‘909 patent, including substantial engineering, patent procurement, licensing, R&D, consultation, manufacturing, product sales, and sales support activities. The complaint names a UMD/Kimberly-Clark medicated tampon product as a representative product covered by certain claims of the ‘909 patent. With respect to potential remedy, Femina requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order (or in the alternative, a permanent limited exclusion order) and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.

Mar

Creative Kingdoms and New Kingdoms File New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Video Game Systems and Wireless Controllers

By Eric Schweibenz

Mar

On March 21, 2011, Creative Kingdoms, LLC of Wakefield, Rhode Island and New Kingdoms, LLC of Nehalem, Oregon (collectively, “Proposed Complainants”) filed a complaint requesting the ITC to commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Nintendo Co., Ltd. of Japan and Nintendo of America, Inc. of Redmond, Washington (collectively, “Nintendo”) unlawfully and without authorization import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain video game systems and wireless controllers and components thereof that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,500,917 (the ‘917 patent), 6,761,637 (the ‘637 patent), 7,850,527 (the ‘527 patent), and 7,896,742 (the ‘742 patent) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). According to the Complaint, the ‘917 patent concerns a handheld wireless toy wand for facilitating a wireless interactive game in a real or computer generated environment where the toy has multiple motion sensors that cause different play effects based on different movement, or alternatively, where the toy can send different command signals based on movement of the toy and store user tracking information. The ‘637 patent is directed to an interactive game involving a transportable device that stores the player’s progress in the game, resulting in a modified game experience for the player, where the player moves the transportable device in such a manner as to electronically send and receive information to and from a master system and/or to actuate various play effects within an interactive play environment that may be real or computer generated. The ‘527 patent concerns an interactive play system where game participants simultaneously use wireless, handheld devices containing motion-sensitive circuitry to activate various effects throughout the game, and in addition to responding to player motions, the wireless devices contain memory, thereby enabling players to store information pertaining to game play that can be used to modify the game experience. The ‘742 patent relates to a motion-sensitive input device for facilitating a wireless interactive game having multiple motion sensors that cause different play effects to activate based on different movements of the input device, which is also capable of storing information pertaining to the user’s identity and progress during game play, wherein an auxiliary device can attach to the motion-sensitive input device to provide additional motion-sensing capabilities. The accused products identified in the complaint include Nintendo’s Wii wireless game system and controllers, including the Wii remote controller, alone and in combination with the Wii Nunchuck, Wii Motion Plus, and/or Nintendo licensed peripherals, and various Wii-compatible game discs. The Complaint also states that the Proposed Complainants will seek through discovery to determine if a Nintendo portable gaming system known as the “3DS,” infringes the Asserted Patents. Regarding the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, the Proposed Complainants allege that they license, own and/or operate a series of live action interactive game parks named MagiQuest, wherein players use handheld, motion-activated wands to cast seemingly-magical spells, complete various tasks and advance in the game. The MagiQuest Silver/Gold Adventure Series Wands are exemplary products that, when used with the interactive effects at MagiQuest locations, practice at least one claim of each of the Asserted Patents. With respect to the economic prong, the Proposed Complainants allege that they and their licensees have significant investment in employees, plant and equipment in the United States dedicated to the operation of gaming attractions and support operations for products covered by the Asserted Patents, as well as research and development, design, product support, testing and quality management, and licensing with respect to the Asserted Patents. As to related litigation, the Complaint states that Creative Kingdoms, LLC contemporaneously filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, asserting, inter alia, that Nintendo infringe the same Asserted Patents. With respect to potential remedy, the Complaint requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Nintendo.

Mar

Microsoft Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Handheld Electronic Computing Devices

By Eric Schweibenz

Mar

On March 21, 2011, Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Washington (“Microsoft”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that the following entities (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain handheld electronic computing devices, related software, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,778,372 (the ‘372 patent), 5,889,522 (the ‘522 patent), 6,339,780 (the ‘780 patent), 6,891,551 (the ‘551 patent), and 6,957,233 (the ‘233 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):

Barnes & Noble, Inc. of New York, New York
barnesandnoble.com LLC of New York, New York
Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. of Taiwan
Foxconn Electronics, Inc. of Taiwan
Foxconn Precision Component (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. of China
Foxconn International Holdings Ltd. of Hong Kong
Inventec Corporation of Taiwan

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to functions performed by electronic devices. In particular, the ‘372 patent describes playing a portion of a document’s content prior to receiving a background image. The ‘522 patent provides an application window and an associated control window that includes a tabbed display of application parameters. The ‘780 patent describes a graphic element that is displayed to indicate loading of content in a hypermedia browser with a content display area. The ‘551 patent is directed to selecting text within an electronic document. Finally, the ‘233 patent provides for capturing annotations made in an electronic document, such as an electronic book, without changing the electronic document. In the complaint, Microsoft states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically names the Barnes & Noble Nook and Nook Color — and related software loaded onto these devices — as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Microsoft states that it has made significant investments in plant and equipment and labor and capital in the U.S. in connection with the development and production of the Windows Phone 7 operating system and software products, which allegedly practice one or more claims of the ‘372, ‘522, ‘780, and ‘551 patents. Additionally, Microsoft states that its licensee Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) practices at least one claim of the ‘233 patent in the U.S. in connection with Amazon’s Kindle handheld electronic computing device. Microsoft further states, on information and belief, that Amazon has made significant investments in plant and equipment and labor and capital in the U.S. relating to the development and production of the Kindle. As to related litigation, Microsoft states that it asserted the ‘780 patent against Motorola Mobility, Inc. by way of a patent infringement counterclaim in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. With respect to potential remedy, Microsoft requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents.

Mar

Nokia Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Mobile Tablets, Portable Music Players, And Computers

By Eric Schweibenz

Mar

On March 28, 2011, Nokia Corporation of Finland, Nokia Inc. of White Plains, New York, and Intellisync Corporation of White Plains, New York (collectively, “Nokia”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain electronic devices, including mobile phones, mobile tablets, portable music players, and computers, and components thereof that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,209,911 (the ‘911 patent), 6,212,529 (the ‘529 patent), 6,141,664 (the ‘664 patent), 7,558,696 (the ‘696 patent), 6,445,932 (the ‘932 patent), 5,898,740 (the ‘740 patent), and 7,319,874 (the ‘874 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents “are a reflection of the breadth of Nokia’s extensive dedication and investment in technology.” In particular, the ‘911, ‘529, and ‘664 patents are directed to synchronization technology that allows two devices of extremely different storage capacity — e.g., mobile phones and personal computers — to sync with each other despite the huge storage disparity. The ‘696 patent relates to providing a centralized interface for applications running on a mobile device to obtain position data. The ‘932 patent relates to automatically storing draft information entered by a mobile phone user, as well as information related to that application, to non-volatile memory upon certain events, such as exiting or navigating away from the current application. The ‘740 patent relates to a method of using power control in a cellular communication system and receiver to achieve better voice quality with fewer dropped calls. Lastly, the ‘874 patent relates to a novel arrangement of interfaces that allows links to two different network interfaces in a device that can operate independently of which network is being used. In the complaint, Nokia alleges that Apple imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically names the Apple iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, iMac, Mac Mini, Mac Pro, MacBook, MacBook Pro, and MacBook Air as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Nokia states that many of its mobile phones practice or have practiced the asserted patents. The complaint specifically names the Nokia N8 mobile phone as a representative product covered by at least one claim of each of the ‘911, ‘529, ‘664, ‘696, ‘932, and ‘874 patents. The complaint also states that a future Nokia mobile phone that is currently under development in a San Diego, California research and development facility will practice at least one claim of the ‘740 patent. With respect to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, Nokia states that it has over 1,700 employees located in fourteen Nokia facilities in the U.S. that are involved in research and development at an annual cost of over $500 million. As to related litigation, Nokia states that on May 7, 2010, it filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin alleging, inter alia, that Apple infringed the ‘696 patent. According to the complaint, that action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on January 5, 2011, where it remains pending. Additionally, Nokia states that concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, Nokia will file another civil action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware accusing Apple of infringing the remaining asserted patents. With respect to potential remedy, Nokia requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Apple, its affiliates, and others acting on behalf of Apple.

Apr

Ogma Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices And Image Display Devices

By Eric Schweibenz

Apr

On April 1, 2011, Ogma, LLC of Longview, Texas (“Ogma”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that the following entities (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain motion-sensitive sound effects devices and image display devices and components and products containing same that infringe one or both of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,150,947 (the ‘947 patent) and 5,825,427 (the ‘427 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):

• Activision Blizzard, Inc. of Santa Monica, California • Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California • Canon, Inc. of Japan • Canon USA, Inc. of Lake Success, New York • Seiko Epson Corporation of Japan • Epson America, Inc. of Long Beach, California • HTC Corporation of Taiwan • HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington • InFocus Corp. of Portland, Oregon • Jakks Pacific, Inc. of Malibu, California • Kyocera Communications, Inc. of San Diego, California • LEGO A/S dba LEGO Group of Denmark • LEGO Systems, Inc. of Enfield, Connecticut • Lenovo (United States), Inc. of Morrisville, North Carolina • Lenovo Group Ltd. of China • Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. of Singapore • Mad Catz, Inc. of San Diego, California • Motorola Mobility, Inc. of Libertyville, Illinois • Nintendo Co., Ltd. of Japan • Nintendo of America, Inc. of Redmond, Washington • Nyko Technologies, Inc. of Los Angeles, California • Sanyo North America Corp. of San Diego, California • Sanyo Electric Co. Ltd. of Japan • Sanyo Electronic Device (U.S.A.) Corporation of San Diego, California • Sharp Corporation of Japan • Sharp Electronics Corporation of Mahwah, New Jersey • Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC of Foster City, California • Sony Corporation of Japan • Sony Corporation of America of New York, New York • Sony Electronics Inc. of San Diego, California • Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA), Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia • Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB of Sweden • Vivitek Corporation of San Jose, California • VTech Electronics North America, LLC of Arlington Heights, Illinois • VTech Holdings, Ltd. of Hong Kong • ViewSonic Corp., Ltd. of Walnut, California • WowWee Group Ltd. of Hong Kong • WowWee USA, Inc. of Carlsbad, California

According to the complaint, the ‘947 patent discloses a novel sound-effect device that couples a motion-sensitive actuator and a playback component to produce sounds associated with accelerations of the device. In particular, the complaint states that electronic devices that employ the inventions claimed in the ‘947 patent, such as cellular phones, tablet computers, toys, video game devices and other electronics devices, employ an accelerometer that detects changes in motion and uses such changes to trigger the playing of sound effects. As to the ‘427 patent, the complaint states that that patent is directed to an improved image display system that optimally produces video images that have aspect ratios intermediate to those of the traditional 4:3 aspect ratio of standard television and the 16:9 ratio of high definition television. In the complaint, Ogma states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically identifies a number of infringing products that are produced by the various Proposed Respondents. Regarding domestic industry, Ogma states that it and its predecessors-in-interest have made substantial investments in the exploitation of the asserted patents in the U.S., particularly in connection with licensing efforts. Ogma further states that its licensees have made substantial investments in plant, equipment, labor and capital in the exploitation of the asserted patents. In particular, Ogma has licensed the ‘947 patent to Source Audio, Inc. (“Source Audio”) and the complaint states that Source Audio’s Hot Hands Motion Controlled Phaser Flanger player practices valid claims of the ‘947 patent, and further that Source Audio has made substantial investments in the U.S. related to its Hot Hands products. With respect to the ‘427 patent, Ogma states that its predecessor licensed the ‘427 patent to Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) and that HP has conducted significant domestic industry activities in the U.S. relating to its LCD monitor products, which practice the ‘427 patent. As to related litigation, Ogma states that on February 3, 2011, it filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas accusing a number of defendants — many of which are also Proposed Respondents named in the instant ITC complaint — of infringing the ‘947 patent. Ogma further states that on March 11, 2011, it filed another lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas accusing various other defendants of infringing the ‘947 patent. Moreover, Ogma states that on March 14, 2011, it filed a third lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas accusing various defendants of infringing the ‘427 patent. Finally, Ogma states that on March 16, 2011, it filed a fourth lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas accusing various other defendants of infringing the ‘427 patent. The complaint also states that on December 18, 2006, Ogma’s predecessor filed suit against Hewlett Packard, Inc. and Dell, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of the ‘427 patent. According to the complaint, this case settled after Hewlett Packard, Inc. and Dell, Inc. took licenses to the ‘427 patent. With respect to potential remedy, Ogma requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.

Apr

Kaneka Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Polyimide Films

By Eric Schweibenz

Apr

On April 1, 2011, Kaneka Corporation of Japan (“Kaneka”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that SKC Kolon PI, Inc. of South Korea and SKC Corporation of Covington, Georgia (collectively, “SKC”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain polyimide films, products containing same, and related methods that infringe at least one of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,264,866 (the ‘866 patent), 6,746,639 (the ‘639 patent), 7,018,704 (the ‘704 patent), 7,691,961 (the ‘961 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents relate generally to polyimide films and methods of their production, and their applications in flexible printed circuits, base films in tape automated bonding carrier tape, cable coatings in aircraft, base films in magnetic recording tape, and coating materials for superconducting coil wire. More specifically, the ‘866 patent relates to a method for producing a polyimide film wherein the imidization ratio and/or the amount of volatile constituents are controlled to improve the adhesive strength of the polyimide film. The ‘639 Patent generally relates to a method for producing a polyimide film that exhibits increased thickness uniformity and reduced bubble inclusion while maintaining the mechanical strength of the film, wherein the method involves extruding, casting, and forming into a film a composition of resin solution obtained by adding a dehydrating agent and a chemically-imidizing catalyst to a low viscosity varnish. The ‘704 patent relates to a polyimide film with increased dimensional stability and flexural endurance, and also relates to a flexible printed circuit that utilizes such a polyimide film that exhibits exceptional flexural endurance and is more resistance to temperature-induced curl, torsion and warpage. Finally, the ‘961 patent generally relates to a polyimide film in which the rate of dimensional change is reduced when it undergoes a step of laminating a metal foil under heating or by etching the metal layer to form wiring. In the complaint, Kaneka states that SKC Kolon PI, Inc. manufactures the accused products outside the U.S. and sells them for importation to the U.S. market, and SKC Corporation imports the accused products into the U.S. and sells them domestically after importation. The complaint identifies the accused products as including but not limited to those products designated as IN, IF, LV, and LN polyamide films. Regarding domestic industry, the complaint asserts that Kaneka made significant investments in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor and capital relating to the polyimide films at issue, and significant investments in its exploitation of the Kaneka Patents in the United States, including research and development, manufacturing, technical support, and marketing. More specifically, with respect to the technical prong, Kaneka points to its Apical AV Film Types and NP Film Types, which are developed, marketed, sold and supported in the United States, as practicing at least one or more claims of the asserted patents. With respect to the economic prong, Kaneka relies upon its wholly owned subsidiary’s plant in Houston Texas which makes and sells the Apical line of films, using methods relevant to the asserted patents. As to related litigation, the complaint states that on July 26, 2010, Kaneka filed suit against SKC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of the same asserted patents. The complaint further states that on September 29, 2010, SKC filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, seeking a declaratory judgment relating to the same asserted patents. According to Keneka, both lawsuits are still pending. With respect to potential remedy, Kaneka requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at SKC.

May

Zenith Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices Having A Digital Television Receiver

By Eric Schweibenz

May

On April 29, 2011, Zenith Electronics LLC of Lincolnshire, Illinois (“Zenith”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Sony Corporation of Japan, Sony Corporation of America of New York, New York, and Sony Electronics, Inc. of San Diego, California (collectively, “Sony”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain electronic devices having digital television receivers and components thereof that infringe one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,598,220 (“the ‘220 patent”), 5,629,958 (“the ‘958 patent”) and 5,636,251 (“the ‘251 patent”) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the ‘220 patent generally relates to a digital video field identification system for use in digital televisions, the ‘958 patent generally discloses a novel frame structure and synchronization system for a digital television, and the ‘251 patent generally relates to a television system that includes an improved trellis coded modulation (TCM) reception system for error correction. The complaint states that the asserted patents are essential to the practice of the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) Digital Television System transmission standard. Zenith alleges that Sony and others on its behalf manufacture, assemble, package, and/or test digital TV and receiver products such as Sony “Bravia” television models in at least Mexico and then import them, sell them for importation, and/or sell them within the U.S. after importation in violation of Section 337. Regarding domestic industry, Zenith asserts that it and its predecessor have made substantial investments in the exploitation of the asserted patents in the U.S., specifically in connection with licensing activities. In particular, the complaint states that Zenith’s licensing efforts include membership in and administrator fees paid to the MPEG LA patent pool, which manages licensing programs for standards and other technology platforms used in consumer electronics. With respect to related litigation, Zenith states that it filed suit on October 29, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas accusing Sony of infringing a number of patents, including the ‘220 patent, the ‘958 patent, and the ‘251 patent. Zenith also states that it previously filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas (Zenith Electronics Corp. v. Thomson, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5:06-CV-017-DF) accusing Thomson, Inc., Thomson SA, Philips Electronics North America Corp., Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., TTE Technology, Inc., TTE Corp., Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc., and Pioneer Corp. of infringing the asserted patents, which resulted in each defendant taking a license. Zenith further states that its predecessor previously filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas (Zenith Electronics LLC v. V, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5:06-CV-246-DF) asserting that V, Inc., Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC, Funai Corp., Inc., Funai Electric Co., Ltd., Polaroid Corp., Petters Group Worldwide, LLC, APH USA, Inc., and Akai Electric Co., Ltd. infringe the asserted patents, which resulted in some defendants taking a license and a judgment of infringement as to one defendant. With respect to potential remedy, Zenith requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed to Sony.

May

Linex Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Wireless Communication Devices and Systems

By Eric Schweibenz

May

On May 6, 2011, Linex Technologies, Inc. of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida (“Linex”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto, California; Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California; Aruba Networks, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California; Meru Networks of Sunnyvale, California; and Ruckus Wireless of Sunnyvale, California (collectively, “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain wireless communication devices and systems, components thereof, and products containing same that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,757,322 (the ‘322 patent), and/or RE42,219 (the ‘219 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents relate to products receiving transmissions complying with an IEEE 802.11n wireless communication standard, and which further support “multiple input, multiple output” (MIMO) modes that bolster signal strength that otherwise scatter or fade as signals travel through a multipath environment. The asserted patents are related to one another, and they both relate to techniques that first split data into two or more parallel streams prior to transmission and then recombine (multiplex) the transmitted data at the receiver. Additionally, the asserted patents relate to the transmission of parallel data streams together with spread spectrum processing that purportedly yield a transmitted signal highly resistant to fading and multipath distortion. The technique employs unique codes within each of the parallel data streams that enable each receiver to distinguish and separate the streams, so that the receiver can appropriately combine the signals at the different receiver antennas, thereby increasing the signal-to-noise ratio and attaining higher data rates and/or increased ranges of operation. The complaint alleges that each of the Proposed Respondents manufactures, imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation various identified laptop and/or access point products that infringe one or both asserted patents, and that each respondent actively induces infringement of the asserted patents by designing their products to be capable of infringing those claims and by promoting and encouraging infringing uses of their products. As to related litigation, the complaint alleges that on May 6, 2011, Linex filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of both the ‘322 patent and the ‘219 patent, and the named defendants in that litigation are the same Proposed Respondents named in this investigation. The complaint additionally identifies an action commenced by Linex on June 1, 2007, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of the ‘322 patent. However, none of the named defendants in that Texas action are Proposed Respondents in this investigation, and all defendants and claims in the Texas litigation have been dismissed. Regarding domestic industry, the complaint asserts that Linex invested substantial resources in developing licensing strategies and actively licensing its MIMO technology portfolio, which includes the asserted patents, as well as negotiating licenses specifically for the ‘322 patent and U.S. Patent No. 7,068,705, (the ‘705 patent) from which the ‘219 patent reissued. Linex alleges it has incurred substantial personnel labor costs and personnel expenses relating to licensing the asserted patents. Linex further asserts significant expenditures for the purchase of potentially infringing products and other materials to determine infringement of the asserted patents, as well as retaining outside intellectual property counsel to support the effectiveness of licensing operations, and assisting Linex in developing licensing strategies, preparing infringement analysis of third-party products, and preparing and managing patent infringement litigation based on Linex’s patent portfolio, including the ‘322 and ‘705 patent. With respect to potential remedy, Linex requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.

May

Thompson/Center Arms And Smith & Wesson File New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms

By Eric Schweibenz

May

On May 11, 2011, Thompson/Center Arms Co., Inc. (“Thompson”) and Smith & Wesson Corp. (“S&W”) (collectively, “Complainants”) – both of Springfield, Massachusetts – filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that the following entities (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain muzzle-loading firearms and components thereof that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,908,781 (the ‘781 patent), 7,814,694 (the ‘694 patent), 7,140,138 (the ‘138 patent), 6,604,311 (the ‘311 patent), 5,782,030 (the ‘030 patent), and 5,639,981 (the ‘981 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):

Dikar Sociedad Cooperativa Limitada of Spain
Bergara Barrels Europe of Spain
Blackpowder Products Inc. of Duluth, Georgia
Connecticut Valley Arms of Duluth, Georgia
Bergara Barrels North America, Duluth, Georgia
Ardesa Firearms of Spain
Traditional Sporting Goods, Inc. d/b/a Traditions Sporting Firearms of Old Saybrook, Connecticut

According to the complaint, the asserted patents “relate to a firing mechanism, barrel, and structural components used to close the rear of the barrel of long guns and pistols.” Specifically, the ‘781 patent “is directed to a muzzle-loading firearm having break-open action that allows access to the breech plug.” The ‘694 patent “is directed to a muzzle-loading firearm having a breech plug, a barrel with an initial portion, and a deformable seal in front of a threaded engagement.” The ‘138 patent “is directed to a firearm having a hammer and a spur” and “teaches using a removable fastener to allow the spur to [be] moveable among [a] plurality of positions.” The ‘311 patent “is directed to a lever-operated muzzle-loading firearm and a method of discharging a muzzle-loaded firearm having a barrel with a breech-end and incorporated therein a removable breech plug.” The ‘030 patent “is directed to a method for making an improved barrel for a muzzle-loading firearm” and “teaches using [a] tool to enlarge the muzzle end of the barrel to provide a smooth muzzle end that is slightly larger than the rifled section of the barrel.” The ‘981 patent “is directed to an improved barrel for [ ] muzzle-loading firearms.” In the complaint, Complainants allege that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically identifies a number of accused products that are produced by the various Proposed Respondents. According to the complaint, the accused products include an engraving on the side of the frame indicating that such products are manufactured in Spain. Regarding domestic industry, Complainants assert that Thompson has made significant investments in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor and capital, and substantial investments in exploitation of the asserted patents. With respect to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, Complainants assert, among other things, that Thompson currently utilizes two facilities in the U.S. – located in Rochester, New Hampshire and Springfield, Massachusetts – for the manufacture, distribution, and/or repair of its firearms covered by the asserted patents. The complaint also asserts that S&W has a license to the asserted patents and has been manufacturing firearms in the U.S. since 1852 and presently manufactures its firearms in the same Springfield, Massachusetts facility used by Thompson. Regarding the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, Complainants assert that Thompson’s Encore™ models practice at least one claim of each of the asserted patents. As to related litigation, Complainants assert that contemporaneous with the filing of this Complaint, they will file an action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Proposed Respondents for patent infringement. With respect to potential remedy, Complainants request that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.

May

Lutron Electronics Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Lighting Control Devices

By Eric Schweibenz

May

On May 16, 2011, Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. (“Lutron”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that the following entities (collectively “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain lighting control devices including dimmer switches and parts thereof that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,637,930 (the ‘930 patent) and/or 5,248,919 (the ‘919 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):

Pass & Seymour, Inc. of Syracuse, New York
AH Lighting of Los Angeles, California
American Top Electric Corp. of Santa Ana, California
Big Deal Electric Corp. of Santa Ana, California
Diode LED of Emeryville, California
Elemental LED, LLC of Emeryville, California
Wenzhou Huir Electric Science & Technology Co., Ltd. of China
Westgate Mfg., Inc. of Vernon, California
Zhejiang Lux Electric Co. LTD. of China
Zhejiang Yuelong Mechanical & Electrical Co. LTD. of China

According to the complaint, the ‘930 patent relates to a dimmer product with a switching control sized and arranged relative to the dimming control so that the switching function is emphasized over the dimming function. The ‘919 patent relates to a dimmer switch with multiple fade-rate capability, to allow for a longer time from the tap of an on-off button to a lamp turning fully off. The complaint alleges that Elemental LED and the three Proposed Respondents located in China manufacture, import, and/or sell infringing lighting control devices and/or components, while the remaining Proposed Respondents import, distribute, and/or sell infringing devices. The complaint specifically identifies a number of allegedly infringing products provided by the various Proposed Respondents. As to related litigations, the complaint states that on May 16, 2011, concurrently with the filing of this complaint, Lutron brought an action for infringement of the ‘930 patent against Pass & Seymour, AH Lighting, American Top Electric Corp., Big Deal Electric Corp., Diode LED, Elemental LED, and Westgate, and for infringement of the ‘919 patent against Westgate in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Further, on July 24, 2009, the ITC instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-681 based on a complaint filed by Lutron alleging violations of Section 337 by reason of infringement of the ‘930 patent by Neptun Light, Inc, and that investigation was terminated based on a consent order. On May 11, 2009, the ITC instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-676 based on another complaint filed by Lutron alleging Section 337 violations by reason of infringement of the ‘930 and ‘919 patents by Universal Smart Electric Corp, which likewise terminated based on a consent order. On March 2, 2007, Lutron brought an action against Leviton Manufacturing Co. (“Leviton”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, (Civil Action No. 9:07-CV-43) for Leviton’s alleged infringement of the ‘930 and ‘919 patents, which was dismissed based on settlement. On April 5, 2007, the ITC instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-599 based on a Complaint filed by Lutron alleging violations of Section 337 by reason of infringement of the ‘930 and ‘919 patents, and/or additional U.S. Patent Nos. 5,982,103 and 5,905,442 by Leviton and Control4 Corporation, which was terminated based on a settlement with Leviton and withdrawal of the Complaint as to Control4. On June 4, 2003, Lutron brought an action for infringement of the ‘930 and ‘919 against Cooper Industries, Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2 :03 CV 03479), which was dismissed based on settlement. With respect to the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, Lutron alleges that its Maestro®, RadioRA®, and Diva® dimmer switches practice at least one claim of the ‘930 or ‘919 patent. With respect to the economic prong, Lutron alleges significant investment in plant and equipment, particularly through its manufacturing facilities in Alburtis, Pennsylvania and Humacao, Puerto Rico, as well as significant employment of labor and capital, and substantial investment in exploiting the asserted patents through engineering and research and development. As to remedy, Lutron requests a permanent general exclusion order, alleging that (1) Lutron’s three prior ITC investigations concerning the ‘930 and ‘919 patents did not deter a substantial number of entities from continuing to manufacture, import, and sell after importation dimmer products that infringe these patents; (2) dimmer switches of certain Proposed Respondents are the same as products imported by respondents in Lutron’s two most recent ITC investigations; (3) numerous other entities in addition to the Proposed Respondents are located outside the U.S. and offer over the Internet dimmer switches and components that appear to infringe the ‘930 and ‘919 patents; (4) large business-to-business Internet portals operate to bring together importers and sellers from around the world with numerous manufacturers in China (in addition to those Chinese manufacturers identified as Proposed Respondents) who offer lighting control devices that appear to infringe the ‘930 and ‘919 patents, or who appear willing to reproduce products on request; (5) cost of producing infringing products is not a barrier to entering the U.S. market, (6) production of such products can be accomplished through simple manufacturing and testing equipment and unskilled labor, and it is relatively easy for existing manufacturers to shift production at minimal expense to produce infringing devices; (7) the U.S. has a vast distribution network for infringing products, and (8) only a general exclusion order can prevent circumvention of any relief granted by the ITC. Lutron also requests permanent cease and desist orders be directed at the Proposed Respondents.

May

CSP Technologies Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Flip-Top Vials

By Eric Schweibenz

May

On May 17, 2011, CSP Technologies, Inc. (“CSP”) of Auburn, Alabama filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Süd-Chemie AG of Germany, Süd-Chemie, Inc. of Louisville, Kentucky (collectively, “Süd-Chemie”), and Airsec S.A.S. of France (“Airsec”) (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain flip-top vials and products using the same that infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,537,137 (the ‘137 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘137 patent “relates to a resealable container and lid assembly having a lip snap seal for storing and packaging moisture-sensitive items, including but not limited to edible breath-freshening strips, drug delivery strips, diagnostic test strips, and effervescent tablets.” In the complaint, CSP alleges that the Proposed Respondents “are direct competitors of CSP in the field of product packaging for products such as diagnostic test strips.” CSP also alleges that the “infringing flip-top vials are offered by Süd-Chemie as Handy Active Tubes® (HAT®),” “Airsec manufactures the infringing flip-top vials in France,” and “Süd-Chemie, directly or indirectly, imports, sells for imporation, and/or sells within the United States after importation the infringing flip-top vials or products using the same.” CSP further alleges that Süd-Chemie sells and offers for sale the accused HAT® tubes to pharmaceutical distributors for packaging products in the accused vials. According to the complaint, one such pharmaceutical distributor is LifeScan, Inc., a Johnson & Johnson Company. Regarding domestic industry, CSP asserts that a domestic industry exists in the U.S. and/or is in the process of being established in the U.S. with respect to the articles protected by the ‘137 patent. Specifically, CSP alleges that it has made substantial investment in the exploitation of the ‘137 patent, including substantial investment in engineering, research and development that are related to the ‘137 patent. CSP also alleges that it has made significant investment in plant and equipment and has made significant employment of labor and capital in the U.S. that are related to articles protected by the ‘137 patent. Finally, CSP alleges that its Lip-Seal Vials are covered by the asserted claims of the ‘137 patent. As to related litigation, CSP asserts that it filed on March 14, 2011 a complaint against the Proposed Respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for infringement of the ‘137 patent. In addition, CSP asserts that it previously filed suits involving foreign counterparts of the ‘137 patent in Germany and France against Süd-Chemie and Airsec, respectively. With respect to potential remedy, CSP requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.

May

MOSAID Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Equipment for Communications Networks

By Eric Schweibenz

May

On May 17, 2011, MOSAID Technologies Inc. of Ottawa, Canada (“MOSAID”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Cisco Systems, Inc. of San Jose, California, Cisco Consumer Products LLC of Irvine, California, Cisco Systems International B.V. of the Netherlands and Scientific Atlanta LLC of Lawrenceville, Georgia (collectively, “Cisco”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain equipment for communications networks including switches, routers, gateways, bridges, wireless access points, cable modems, IP phones, and products containing same that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,035,280 (the ‘280 patent), 7,292,600, (the ‘600 patent), 7,830,858 (the ‘858 patent), 6,842,459 (the ‘459 patent), 7,633,966 (the ‘966 patent) and 5,841,360 (the ‘360 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the ‘280, ‘600, and ‘858 patents are directed generally to a local area network for data communication, sensing, and/or control based on serially connected modules referred to as “Serial Intelligent Cells” (“SICs”), which in turn can be interconnected so that communications between two adjacent SICs are both point-to-point and bidirectional. Such communications may occur in different areas of the network independent of one another, and example networks can use dedicated wiring and/or existing wiring, such as in-house telephone or electrical wiring. SICs also can enable concurrent power and data transmission on the same wiring, and some SICs may also optionally connect to other equipment, such as data terminals, computers, telephones, sensors, or actuators, including to facilitate interconnectivity among devices. The ‘459 and ‘966 patents are directed generally to data communication networks, including those having both wired and nonwired segments. The wired segments allow data communication through electrically conducting lines that also carry telephone signals, electrical power, or cable television signals. The non-wired segments allow data communication without using electrically conducting media, such as by propagating radio, light, or sound waves. A device is then used to couple wired and non-wired segments together and to adapt their respective communication protocols. The ‘360 patent is directed generally to a network topology allowing distributed sensing, control, or communications, using a power source and multiple line-Powered, Serially connected Intelligent Cells (“PSICs”). Such networks could allow data to be passed in either direction from one cell to an adjacent cell and allow communication between one pair of adjacent cells that is independent of and simultaneous to communication between another pair of adjacent cells. These would also provide simultaneous power and data connection between PSICs, where, for example, one PSIC sends the power on the same data wiring to another PSIC. This purportedly could provide advantages in simultaneous data communications, improved addressing and control, and reduction of cabling. The complaint asserts that Cisco manufactures, causes to be manufactured, assembles, and/or causes to be assembled outside the United States and imports and/or causes the importation into the United States of Power over Ethernet (“POE”) switches, routers, gateways, and bridges; Digital Subscriber Line (“DSL”) wireless access points (“WAPs”); POE WAPs; Cable WAPs; POE Internet Protocol (“IP”) phones; cable modems with Voice over IP (“VoIP”); and products containing the same (collectively referred to as the “Accused Products”). The complaint specifically identifies model numbers of numerous Accused Products provided by Cisco. Regarding related litigation, on August 13, 2010, Cisco filed a declaratory judgment action against MOSAID in the District of Delaware concerning ten patents, six of which are the Asserted Patents herein. MOSAID counterclaimed for infringement of the ten patents, including the Asserted Patents. On April 29, 2009, MOSAID filed a patent infringement action against ShoreTel, Inc. in the District of Delaware alleging that ShoreTel infringed five patents, including the ‘360 and ‘280 patents. This case has since been voluntarily dismissed, “with results favorable to MOSAID.” On August 25, 2005, Serconet, Limited (the prior owner of the Asserted Patents) filed a patent infringement action against Asoka USA, Inc. and Asoka’s customers Amazon.com, Inc. and eBay, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. Serconet’s complaint alleged infringement of the ‘459 patent. The case settled in February 2011 after the reexamination certificate for the ‘459 patent issued. On June 29, 2006, Serconet filed a patent infringement action against Netgear, Inc. in the Southern District of New York, which included the ‘280 and ‘360 patents. This case was transferred to the Northern District of California, and it settled and was dismissed in November 2007. Finally, on November 2, 2005, Merlot Communications, Inc. filed a declaratory judgment action against Serconet in the District of Massachusetts, which, after amendment on January 6, 2006, included the ‘360 patent. This case was transferred to the Southern District of New York and ultimately consolidated with a patent infringement action filed on January 3, 2006, by Serconet against certain Merlot customers and distributors, in the Southern District of New York asserting the ‘360 patent. In June 2006, these cases were settled and dismissed with respect to Merlot, its customers, and its distributors. As to the domestic industry requirement, MOSAID argues that its licensees made significant investments in research and development, labor, capital, plant and equipment in the United States relating to their products that practice the Asserted Patents and are covered by their licenses to the Asserted Patents. MOSAID also alleges that it and Serconet have made and it will continue to make substantial investments in exploiting the Asserted Patents through licensing, including investment in patent litigation and negotiations in the United States. With respect to remedy, MOSAID requests a permanent general exclusion order, or, alternatively, a limited exclusion order, as well as permanent cease and desist orders directed at Cisco.

May

Otter Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Protective Cases

By Eric Schweibenz

May

On May 25, 2011, Otter Products, LLC of Fort Collins, Colorado (“Otter”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that the following entities (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain protective cases and components thereof that infringe various claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,933,122 (the ‘122 patent), one or more of U.S. Design Patent Nos. D600,908, D617,784, D615,536, D617,785, D634,741, and D636,386 (collectively, the “asserted design patents”), and one or more of U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 3,788,534, 3,788,535, 3,623,789, and 3,795,187 (collectively, the “asserted trademarks”):

A.G. Findings and Mfg. Co., Inc. d/b/a Ballistic of Sunrise, Florida
AFC Trident Inc. of Chino, California
Alibaba.com Hong Kong Ltd. of China
Anbess Electronics Co. Ltd. of China
Cellairis Franchise, Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia
Cellet Products of Santa Fe Springs, California
DHgate.com of China
Griffin Technology, Inc. of Nashville, Tennessee
Guangzhou Evotech Industry Co., Ltd. of China
Hardcandy Cases LLC of Sacramento, California
Hoffco Brands, Inc. of Wheat Ridge, Colorado
Hong Kong Better Technology Group Ltd. of China
Hong Kong HJJ Co. Ltd. of China
Hypercel Corporation of Valencia, California
InMotion Entertainment of Jacksonville, Florida
MegaWatts Computers, LLC of Tulsa, Oklahoma
National Cellular of Brooklyn, New York
OEMBargain.com of Wantagh, New York
One Step Up Ltd. of New York, New York
Papaya Holdings Ltd. of Hong Kong
Quanyun Electronics Co., Ltd. of China
ShenZhen Star & Way Trade Co., Ltd. of China
Sinatech Industrial Co., Ltd. of China
SmileCase of Windsor Mill, Maryland
Suntel Global Investment Ltd. of China
TheCaseInPoint.com of Titusville, Florida
TheCaseSpace of Fort Collins, Colorado
Topter Technology Co. Ltd. of China
Trait Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. of China

According to the complaint, the ‘122 patent is directed to a multi-layer enclosure that protects various types of electronic devices from moisture, dust, dirt, and other contaminants, and also provides shock protection against drops and bumps. The asserted design patents are directed to the ornamental features of Otter’s protective case designs for handheld electronic devices, including smart phones, tablet computers, and other mobile devices. The asserted trademarks are directed to “OtterBox®,” “Otter Box®,” “Defender Series®,” and “Impact Series®.” In the complaint, Otter states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the ‘122 patent, the asserted design patents, and the asserted trademarks. The complaint specifically names a number of allegedly infringing products from each of the Proposed Respondents. Regarding domestic industry, Otter states that its Defender Series protective cases practice the ‘122 patent and that its Impact Series, Defender Series, and Commuter Series cases each practice one or more of the asserted design patents. Otter further states that all of its products bear one or more of the asserted trademarks. As to the economic prong, Otter states that it conducts extensive activities in the U.S. relating to products that practice the ‘122 patent, the asserted design patents, and the asserted trademarks. According to the complaint, these activities include engineering, research and development, design, quality control, assembly, packaging, technical support, warranty support, and customer service. As to related litigation, the complaint states that Otter has filed six civil actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado since 2009 alleging that various entities infringe certain patents and trademarks including, inter alia, the ‘122 patent, one of the asserted design patents, and the OtterBox®, Otter Box®, Defender Series® trademarks. Additionally, the complaint states that on January 5, 2011, Global Cellular, Inc. and Cellairis Franchise, Inc. filed a declaratory judgment action against Otter in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. With respect to potential remedy, Otter requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order (or in the alternative, a limited exclusion order) and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents.

Jun

X2Y Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Microprocessors

By Eric Schweibenz

Jun

On May 31, 2011, X2Y Attenuators, LLC of Erie, Pennsylvania (“X2Y”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Intel Corporation of Santa Clara, California, Componentes Intel de Costa Rica S.A. of Costa Rica, Intel Malaysia Sdn. Bhd of Malaysia, Intel (Philippines) of the Philippines, Intel Products (Chengdu) Ltd. of China, and Intel Products (Shanghai) Ltd. of China (collectively, “Intel”), Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) and Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto, California (“HP”) (Intel, Apple, and HP collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain microprocessors, components thereof, and products containing same that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,738,249 (the ‘249 patent), 7,110,227 (the ‘227 patent), 7,609,500 (the ‘500 patent), 7,733,621 (the ‘621 patent) and 7,916,444 (the ‘444 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents “represent a cross-section of X2Y’s patent portfolio.” The complaint states that “[t]he heart of X2Y’s patented technology is an energy-conditioning architecture formed by layered arrangements of conductive elements and dielectric materials.” In particular, the ‘249 patent relates to embodiments of the X2Y architecture, including its incorporation into a substrate interposed between an integrated circuit chip and a printed circuit board. The ‘227 patent relates to embodiments of the X2Y architecture, including its implementation as an integral capacitor formed by power planes and ground planes in an integrated circuit substrate. The ‘500 patent relates to embodiments of the X2Y architecture that increase electrode shielding. The ‘621 patent relates to embodiments of the X2Y architecture, including its incorporation into integrated circuit substrates. Lastly, the ’444 patent relates to embodiments of the X2Y architecture and variations thereof that allow the architecture to be incorporated into different electronic structures. In the complaint, X2Y alleges that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. In particular, the complaint alleges that Intel imports and sells allegedly infringing microprocessors and components thereof and that Apple and HP import and sell products containing Intel’s allegedly infringing microprocessors and components. The complaint specifically names the Intel Core i3, Core i5, Core i7 and Xeon families of microprocessors as infringing products. The complaint also names the Apple iMac, Mac Pro, and MacBook Pro series computers and the HP TouchSmart, Pavilion, Compaq, Pro, Elite, 3130, Z200, Z400, Z600, Z800, EliteBook, ProBook, ENVY, and ProLiant series computers as products that contain Intel’s allegedly infringing microprocessors and components thereof. Regarding domestic industry, X2Y states that it has entered into partnerships with select leading domestic and foreign passive component manufacturers wherein X2Y licenses the right to manufacture and sell X2Y energy conditioning components that practice the asserted patents. The complaint specifically names Johanson Dielectrics, Inc. of Sylmar, California (“JDI”) as an entity licensed to practice the asserted patents. According to the complaint, JDI manufactures X2Y® series capacitors in the U.S. that are used in a variety of applications in the consumer electronics, military, aeronautical, and automotive industries and practice at least the ‘227, ‘500, ‘621, and ‘444 patents. The complaint further states that X2Y and JDI have made substantial investments in the U.S. in the exploitation of the ‘227, ‘500, ‘621, and ‘444 patents, including investments in plant and equipment, labor and capital, domestic engineering, and research and development. Additionally, X2Y states it has devoted years of engineering and research and development activities to exploiting the asserted patents by establishing a market in the U.S. for licensed products, and has made substantial domestic investments in activities relating to licensing the asserted patents. In particular, X2Y states that it “has attempted to persuade Intel to license X2Y’s technology for use in Intel’s microprocessors.” As to related litigation, X2Y states that contemporaneously with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it also filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging that Intel, Apple, and HP infringe the asserted patents. With respect to potential remedy, X2Y requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents, their affiliates, and others acting on the Proposed Respondents’ behalf.

Jun

Samsung Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices

By Eric Schweibenz

Jun

On June 1, 2011, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea (“Samsung”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that AU Optronics Corp. of Taiwan and AU Optronics Corporation America of Houston, Texas (collectively, “AUO”), Acer America Corporation of San Jose, California, Acer Inc. of Taiwan, BenQ America Corp. of Irvine, California, BenQ Corp. of Taiwan, SANYO Electric Co., Ltd. of Japan, and SANYO North America Corporation of San Diego, California (all collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain liquid crystal display devices and products containing same that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,771,344 (the ‘344 patent), 6,882,375 (the ‘375 patent), 7,535,537 (the ‘537 patent), 7,787,087 (the ‘087 patent), and RE41,363 (the ‘363 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to various aspects of liquid crystal display devices. In particular, the ‘344 patent relates to the formation and design of liquid crystal display electrodes to allow for a wider viewing angle. The ‘375 patent relates to a repair structure implemented in a liquid crystal display that helps reduce the visibility of pixel defects. The ‘537 patent relates to a specific structural organization for creating slimmer LCD modules. The ‘363 patent relates to an improved thin-film transistor (TFT) substrate design for LCDs. Lastly, the ‘087 patent relates to dividing a pixel into multiple domains, with the liquid crystal molecules in each domain oriented at a different tilt angle. In the complaint, Samsung alleges that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. In particular, the complaint alleges that AUO imports and sells certain infringing liquid crystal display panels and that the remaining Proposed Respondents import and sell various televisions, computer monitors, and laptop computers that contain the infringing AUO liquid crystal display panels. Regarding domestic industry, Samsung states that together with its wholly owned subsidiary Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”), Samsung makes significant investments in plant and equipment, employs significant labor and capital, and makes substantial investments in engineering control, testing, and validation in the U.S. in connection with products that embody the asserted patents. The complaint specifically refers to SEA facilities in South Carolina and New Jersey that are involved with various activities relating to products that embody the asserted patents. Samsung specifically names its E1920X monitor and UN46D6000 television as representative products that practice the asserted patents. As to related litigation, Samsung states that the ITC previously upheld the validity and enforceability of the ‘344 patent when it affirmed Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern’s Initial Determination that certain Sharp Corporation (“Sharp”) televisions infringed claims 7 and 8 of the ‘344 patent in Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-631. See our June 26, 2009 post for more details. Samsung further states that ALJ Luckern determined that Samsung satisfied the domestic industry requirement with respect to the ‘344 patent. Additionally, Samsung states that the ‘344 patent was the subject of a related Enforcement Proceeding before ALJ Luckern, although Samsung settled that action after Sharp agreed to take a license. See our April 13, 2010 post for more details. Samsung further states that the ‘344 patent was the subject of civil litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, but that that litigation was also dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement. Lastly, Samsung states that concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it also filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that AUO infringes the asserted patents. With respect to potential remedy, Samsung requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents.

Jun

OSRAM Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Light-Emitting Diodes

By Eric Schweibenz

Jun

On June 3, 2011, OSRAM GmbH of Germany (“OSRAM”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, Samsung LED Co., Ltd. of Korea, and Samsung LED America, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia (collectively, “Samsung”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, sell within the U.S. after importation and/or offer to sell within the U.S. after importation certain light-emitting diodes (“LEDs”) and products containing same that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,812,500 (the ‘500 patent), 7,078,732 (the ‘732 patent), 7,126,162 (the ‘162 patent), 7,345,317 (the ‘317 patent), 7,629,621 (the ‘621 patent), 6,459,130 (the ‘130 patent), 6,927,469 (the ‘469 patent), 7,199,454 (the ‘454 patent), and 7,427,806 (the ‘806 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to luminescence conversion technology and LED packaging technology. In particular, the ‘500, ‘732, ‘162, ‘317, and ‘621 patents relate to a light-radiating semiconductor component with a luminescence conversion element. The ‘130 and ‘454 patents relate to an optoelectronic semiconductor component. The ‘469 patent relates to a surface mountable light emitting or receiving device. Lastly, the ‘806 patent relates to a semiconductor component emitting and/or receiving electromagnetic radiation, and a housing base for such a component. In the complaint, OSRAM alleges that Samsung imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically refers to various Samsung High Power LEDs, White LEDs, and LED HDTVs as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, OSRAM states that its White LEDs, White LEDs using chip-level conversion (CLC) technology, Dragon LEDs, Advanced Power TOPLEDs, and Advanced Power TOPLED Plus LEDs are covered by claims of the asserted patents. As to the economic prong, OSRAM states that its U.S. subsidiary OSRAM Opto Semiconductors Inc. of Sunnyvale, California (“OSRAM-OS U.S.”) provides application engineering, marketing, distribution, and sales within the U.S. of LEDs that are protected by the asserted patents. OSRAM further states that another U.S. subsidiary, OSRAM Sylvania Inc. of Danvers, Massachusetts (“OSRAM Sylvania”) researches and develops, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells within the U.S. modules containing LEDs that are protected by the asserted patents. According to the complaint, OSRAM-OS U.S. and OSRAM Sylvania also provide a variety of related products, accessories, and services, including warranty and customer support. OSRAM also states that it has invested substantial resources toward licensing its patented technology, and that OSRAM’s licensees engage in domestic industry activities in the U.S. As to related litigation, OSRAM states that the ‘500 patent was the subject of a declaratory judgment action filed by Citizen Elecs. Co. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2005, but that that case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. OSRAM furthers states that the ‘162 and ‘500 patents were the subject of litigation against Citizen Watch Co. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in 2006, but that that case settled before any substantive briefs were filed or orders were issued regarding the patents. OSRAM further states that concurrent with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, OSRAM is filing suit against Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the asserted patents. The complaint additionally states that, also concurrent with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, OSRAM is both filing another ITC complaint and filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against LG Electronics, Inc. and related entities alleging infringement of many of the same patents that are asserted against Samsung in the instant ITC complaint. With respect to potential remedy, OSRAM requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the named Samsung entities and their affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and assigns.

Jun

OSRAM Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Light-Emitting Diodes

By Eric Schweibenz

Jun

On June 3, 2011, OSRAM GmbH of Germany (“OSRAM”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that LG Electronics, Inc. of Korea, LG Innotek Co., Ltd. of Korea, LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, and LG Innotek U.S.A., Inc. of San Diego, California (collectively, “LG”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain light-emitting diodes (“LEDs”) and products containing same that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,459,130 (the ‘130 patent), 6,812,500 (the ‘500 patent), 6,849,881 (the ‘881 patent), 6,927,469 (the ‘469 patent), 6,975,011 (the ‘011 patent), 7,078,732 (the ‘732 patent), 7,106,090 (the ‘090 patent), 7,126,162 (the ‘162 patent), 7,151,283 (the ‘283 patent), 7,199,454 (the ‘454 patent), 7,271,425 (the ‘425 patent) and 7,629,621 (the ‘621 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to LED technology. In particular, the ‘732, ‘500, ‘162, ‘283, and ‘621 patents relate to a light-radiating semiconductor component with a luminescence conversion element. The ‘130, ‘469, and ‘454 patents relate to an optoelectronic semiconductor component. The ‘011 patent relates to an optoelectronic semiconductor component having multiple external connections. The ‘425 patent relates to an optoelectronic component. The ‘881 patent relates to an optical semiconductor device comprising a multiple quantum well structure. Lastly, the ‘090 patent relates to an optical semiconductor device with multiple quantum well structure. In the complaint, OSRAM alleges that LG imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically refers to various LG LEDs, LED monitors, and LED televisions as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, OSRAM asserts that its White LEDs, White LEDs using chip-level conversion (CLC) technology, Dragon LEDs, Advanced Power TOPLEDs, and Advanced Power TOPLED Plus LEDs are covered by claims of the asserted patents. As to the economic prong, OSRAM states that its U.S. subsidiaries OSRAM Opto Semiconductors Inc. of Sunnyvale, California and OSRAM Sylvania Inc. of Danvers, Massachusetts invest significantly in plant and equipment, employ significant labor and capital, and make substantial investments in the exploitation of products that practice the asserted patents, including engineering, research and development, and licensing in the U.S. OSRAM also states that its licensees engage in domestic industry activities in the U.S. As to related litigation, OSRAM states that it was a Complainant in Inv. No. 337-TA-512, but that that investigation did not involve any of the patents asserted in the instant ITC complaint. OSRAM also states that the ‘500 patent was the subject of a declaratory judgment action filed by Citizen Elecs. Co. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2005, but that that case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. OSRAM furthers states that the ‘162 and ‘500 patents were the subject of litigation against Citizen Watch Co. and others in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in 2006, but that that case settled as a result of a licensing agreement. OSRAM further states that concurrent with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, OSRAM is filing suit against LG in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging infringement of the asserted patents. The complaint additionally states that, also concurrent with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, OSRAM is filing another ITC complaint against other Respondents alleging infringement of many of the same patents that are asserted against LG in the instant ITC complaint. See our June 6, 2011 post for more details. With respect to potential remedy, OSRAM requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the named LG entities and their affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and assigns.

Jun

Honeywell Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain GPS Navigation Products

By Eric Schweibenz

Jun

On June 6, 2011, Honeywell International Inc. of Morristown, New Jersey (“Honeywell”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. of Japan and Furuno U.S.A., Inc. of Camas, Washington (collectively, “Furuno”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain GPS navigation products, components thereof, and related software that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,209,070 (the ‘070 patent), 6,865,452 (the ‘452 patent), 5,461,388 (the ‘388 patent), and 6,088,653 (the ‘653 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to “various aspects of GPS navigation products and related software.” In particular, the ‘070 and ‘452 patents “relate to the way in which information, such as navigation information, information regarding obstacles and potential collisions, and information regarding weather and/or other hazards, is displayed and/or communicated to the operator of a vehicle.” The ‘388 and ‘653 patents “relate to the ways in which navigation[ ] systems receive, process, and produce relevant information.” In the complaint, Honeywell alleges that Furuno manufactures, imports, and sells products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically refers to various Furuno GPS navigation products and related software as infringing products, including Furuno’s NavNet vx2 chart plotter, Furuno’s NavNet 3D product, Furuno’s MaxSea software, Furuno’s Time Zero technology, and certan Furuno Satellite Compass models. Regarding domestic industry, Honeywell asserts that its GPS navigation products and related software are covered by claims of the asserted patents. As to the economic prong, Honeywell alleges that it invests significantly in plant and equipment and in the employment of labor and capital and makes substantial investments in engineering and research and development in connection with products that practice the asserted patents. Honeywell also alleges that it has made substantial investment in seeking and securing a license to the ‘653 and ‘452 patents. With respect to potential remedy, Honeywell requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Furuno.

Start
Previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next Page
End

Sony Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Display Devices, Including Digital Televisions and Monitors

Boston Beer Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Glassware

Femina Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Vaginal Ring Birth Control Devices

Creative Kingdoms and New Kingdoms File New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Video Game Systems and Wireless Controllers

Microsoft Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Handheld Electronic Computing Devices

Nokia Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Mobile Tablets, Portable Music Players, And Computers

Ogma Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices And Image Display Devices

Kaneka Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Polyimide Films

Zenith Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices Having A Digital Television Receiver

Linex Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Wireless Communication Devices and Systems

Thompson/Center Arms And Smith & Wesson File New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms

Lutron Electronics Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Lighting Control Devices

CSP Technologies Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Flip-Top Vials

MOSAID Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Equipment for Communications Networks

Otter Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Protective Cases

X2Y Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Microprocessors

Samsung Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices

OSRAM Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Light-Emitting Diodes

OSRAM Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Light-Emitting Diodes

Honeywell Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain GPS Navigation Products

About Us

ALJs

Useful Links

Archives

More from Oblon

About Us

ALJs

Stay Updated

Useful Links

Archives

More from Oblon