How to Search
New 337 Complaints

Anu Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices Having A Retractable USB Connector

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
19
On April 18, 2012, Anu IP LLC of Longview, Texas (“Anu”) 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 electronic devices having a retractable USB connector that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,979,210 (the ‘210 patent) and 7,090,515 (the ‘515 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):
  • AIPTEK International, Inc. of Taiwan
  • Aluratek, Inc. of Tustin, California
  • Archos S.A. of France
  • Archos, Inc. of Greenwood Village, Colorado
  • Bluestar Alliance LLC of New York, New York
  • Centon Electronics, Inc. of Aliso Viejo, California
  • Coby Electronics Corporation of Lake Success, New York
  • Corsair Memory, Inc. of Fremont, California
  • Emtec Electronics, Inc. of Lew Center, Ohio
  • General Imaging Company of Torrance, California
  • Huawei Technology Company, Ltd. of China
  • Iriver, Inc. of Irvine, California
  • JVC Kenwood Corporation of Japan
  • JVC Americas Corporation of Wayne, New Jersey
  • Latte Communications, Inc. of San Jose, California
  • Lexar Media, Inc. of Fremont, California
  • Maxell Corporation of America, Inc. of Woodland Park, New Jersey
  • Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. of Japan
  • Office Depot, Inc. of Boca Raton, Florida
  • Olympus Corporation of Japan
  • Olympus Corporation of the Americas of Center Valley, Pennsylvania
  • Option NV of Belgium
  • Option, Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia
  • Panasonic Corporation of Japan
  • Panasonic Corporation North America of Secaucus, New Jersey
  • Patriot Memory LLC of Fremont, California
  • Provantage LLC of North Canton, Ohio
  • RITEK Corporation of Taiwan
  • Advanced Media, Inc. dba RITEK U.S.A. of Diamond Bar, California
  • Sakar International, Inc. of Edison, New Jersey
  • Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of South Korea
  • Samsung Electronics America of Ridgefield, New Jersey
  • Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. of Japan
  • Sanyo North America Corporation of San Diego, California
  • Silicon Power Computer and Comm., Inc. of Taiwan
  • Silicon Power Computer and Comm. USA, Inc. of Cupertino, California
  • Supersonic, Inc. of Commerce, California
  • Super Talent Technology Corporation of San Jose, California
  • Toshiba Corporation of Japan
  • Toshiba America, Inc. of New York, New York
  • ViewSonic Corporation of Walnut, California
  • VOXX International Corporation of Hauppauge, New York
  • Audiovox Accessories Corporation of Carmel, Indiana
  • Yamaha Corporation of Japan
  • Yamaha Corporation of America of Buena Park, California
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to a novel thumb drive incorporating a retractable USB connector used to connect to a computer appliance.  In particular, the ‘210 patent relates to an extension/retraction mechanism coupled to a USB connector for extending the connector from an enclosure of the drive and for retracting the connector when not in use.  The ‘515 patent relates to the same invention and shares the same specification as the ‘210 patent, but its claims are specifically directed to a spring loaded extension/retraction mechanism coupled to a USB connector for extending the connector from an enclosure of the drive. In the complaint, Anu states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically identifies a number of infringing products associated with the various Proposed Respondents. Regarding domestic industry, Anu states that its licensees and/or its predecessor’s licensees have made substantial investments in the U.S. in the exploitation of the inventions claimed in the asserted patents.  According to the complaint, these investments relate to engineering, research, development, testing, marketing, and servicing activities.  Anu states that there are at least nine licensees to the asserted patents, including HopeLab Foundation, Inc., Zamzee Company, Sony Electronics, Inc. (“Sony”), and Philips Electronics North America Corporation (“Philips”).  The complaint states that Sony’s Micro Vault USB Drive incorporates the technology claimed in the ‘210 patent and that Sony’s Bloggie incorporates the technology claimed in the ‘515 patent.  The complaint also states that Philips’s Qvida HD Camcorder incorporates the technology claimed in the ‘515 patent.  Additionally, Anu states that it and its predecessor have made, and continue to make, substantial investments in the U.S. with respect to licensing activities relating to the asserted patents.  As to related litigation, Anu states that on January 23, 2008, its predecessor filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that various entities infringe the ‘210 patent.  On March 31, 2010, this case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  The case was resolved after each of the defendants was dismissed by reason of settlement or other agreement. With respect to potential remedy, Anu requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.

Read More

Boart Longyear Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Drill Bits

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
26
On April 25, 2012, Boart Longyear Company and Longyear TM, Inc. (collectively, “Boart Longyear”)—both of South Jordan, Utah—filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Boyles Bros Diamantina S.A. of Peru, Christensen Chile S.A. of Chile, Diamantina Christensen Trading Inc. of Panama, and Intermountain Drilling Supply Corp. of West Valley City, Utah (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain drill bits and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,828,090 (the ‘090 patent), 7,874,384 (the ‘384 patent), and 8,051,929 (the ‘929 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to drill bit technology.  In particular, the ‘090 patent relates to drill bits with enclosed fluid slots.  The ‘384 patent relates to drill bits with increased crown height.  Lastly, the ‘929 patent relates to core drill bits with enclosed fluid slots. In the complaint, Boart Longyear states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically names the “HQOSDB-9C” and “HQOSDB-10A” drill bits as infringing products.  The complaint further states that the accused drill bits may be imported into the U.S. as part of a drill bit assembly. Regarding domestic industry, Boart Longyear states that its “HQ10UMX” drill bit practices at least one claim of each of the asserted patents.  As to the economic prong, Boart Longyear refers to its facility in Salt Lake City, Utah, where it engages in engineering, design, research and development, and manufacturing of products protected by the asserted patents.  Boart Longyear also refers to testing, repair, and service activities in the U.S. that relate to products protected by the asserted patents. As to related litigation, Boart Longyear states that concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it is also filing a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against the Proposed Respondents. With respect to potential remedy, Boart Longyear requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order directed at each domestic Proposed Respondent.

Read More

Rovi Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Control Technology

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
03
On May 1, 2012, Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc., Rovi Technologies Corporation, Starsight Telecast, Inc., and United Video Properties, Inc.—all of Santa Clara, California—and Index Systems, Inc. of the British Virgin Islands (collectively, “Rovi”) 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 products containing interactive program guide (IPG) technology and related features, including televisions and media players, that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,523 (the ‘523 patent), 6,898,762 (the ‘762 patent), 7,065,709 (the ‘709 patent), 7,103,906 (the ‘906 patent), 7,225,455 (the ‘455 patent), 7,493,643 (the ‘643 patent), and 8,112,776 (the ‘776 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):
  • LG Electronics, Inc. of South Korea
  • LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
  • Mitsubishi Electric Corp. of Japan
  • Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc. of Cypress, California
  • Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc. of Vernon Hills, Illinois
  • Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc. of Irvine, California
  • Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Inc. of Irvine, California
  • Netflix Inc. of Los Gatos, California
  • Roku, Inc. of Saratoga, California
  • Vizio, Inc. of Irvine, California
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to IPG, video-on-demand, and parental controls technology.  In particular, the ‘523 patent relates to a system and method for restricting access to television programs.  The ‘762 patent relates to a client-server interactive television program guide system implemented on user televisions and other user equipment.  The ‘709 patent relates to interactive program guide systems and methods for providing personalized viewing recommendations based on a user’s preference profile.  The ‘906 patent relates to methods for providing multi-device media-on-demand systems.  The ‘455 patent relates to a system and method for using an electronic program guide application to provide access to a non-program guide application.  The ‘643 patent relates to a system and method for providing an interactive program guide with video-on-demand browsing capabilities.  Lastly, the ‘776 patent relates to media guidance systems and methods for providing program listings based on a user’s selection of a program. In the complaint, Rovi states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to various televisions, tablets, and streaming media players associated with the Proposed Respondents. Regarding domestic industry, Rovi states that a domestic industry exists by virtue of Rovi’s substantial investment in the exploitation of the asserted patents in the U.S., including engineering, research and development, and licensing efforts.  Rovi states that it licenses its patent portfolio to many of the leading consumer electronics and television service provider companies in the U.S., including Toshiba Corporation, Sharp Corporation, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., and Sony Corporation.  Rovi further states that it employs full-time legal and technical staff in the U.S. to perform market analysis, identify potential licensing activities, and engage in licensing and enforcement activities.  Rovi also refers to its own Rovi Entertainment Store platform.  In addition, Rovi states that a domestic industry exists because several licensees of the asserted patents have made investments in labor and capital in the U.S. and have sold products in the U.S. that practice the asserted patents. As to related litigation, Rovi states that the ‘906, ‘709, ‘776, and ‘762 patents are the subject of litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California involving Netflix, Inc.  Rovi further states that the ‘906 patent is the subject of litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware involving Hulu LLC.  Additionally, Rovi states that the ‘643 patent was the subject of a previous ITC investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-801) and litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia involving Sharp Corporation and related entities (collectively, “Sharp”).  According to the complaint, Sharp agreed to take a license to settle these matters.  See our October 5, 2011 post for more details on the termination of the 801 investigation.  Rovi also states that the ‘523 patent was the subject of another previous ITC investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-747) and litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware involving Toshiba Corporation and related entities (collectively, “Toshiba”).  According to the complaint, Toshiba agreed to take a license to settle these matters.  See our July 12, 2011 post for more details on the termination of the 747 investigation.  Rovi further states that the ‘643 patent is the subject of litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware involving, inter alia, Amazon.com, Inc.  Rovi further states that the ‘643 and ‘523 patents are the subject of an ongoing ITC investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-820).  See our December 16, 2011 post for more details on the 820 investigation.  Rovi additionally states that the ‘643 patent is the subject of litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware involving Vizio, Inc.  Rovi also states that the ‘523 patent is the subject of litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware involving, inter alia, Haier Group Corp.  Lastly, Rovi states that the ‘523 patent is currently the subject of two reexamination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. With respect to potential remedy, Rovi requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.

Read More

Nokia Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones And Tablet Computers

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
03
On May 2, 2012, Nokia Corporation of Finland, Nokia Inc. of Sunnyvale, California, and Intellisync Corporation of Sunnyvale, California (collectively, “Nokia”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that HTC Corporation of Taiwan, HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington, and Exedea, Inc. of Houston, Texas (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain electronic devices, including mobile phones and tablet computers, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,570,369 (the ‘369 patent), 5,884,190 (the ‘190 patent), 6,141,664 (the ‘664 patent), 6,393,260 (the ‘260 patent), 6,728,530 (the ‘530 patent), 7,106,293 (the ‘293 patent), 7,209,911 (the ‘911 patent), 7,366,529 (the ‘529 patent), 7,415,247 (the ‘247 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, “Intellisync Corporation owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in and to the ‘911 and ‘644 patents,” while “Nokia Corporation owns the entire right, title, and interest in and to the remainder of the asserted patents.”  The ‘911 and ‘644 patents are directed to “technology that allows mobile devices to synchronize select types of information with high storage computers.”  The ‘530 patent is directed to “technology that allows the maintenance of a local calendar on a mobile device as well as on a network-based calendar… .”  The ‘369 patent is directed to “technology that optimizes power consumption of a mobile phone by providing sufficient power to receive a portion of a message that is necessary to reconstruct the entire incoming message.”  The ‘260 patent is directed to “a method for attenuating [ ] spurious signals in radio transceivers that use [ ] direct conversion technology.”  The ‘247 patent is directed to “technology for mobile phone compatibility across distinct and differing signals systems and for varying frequency ranges using fewer hardware elements.”  The ‘293 patent is directed to “a method and device that measures the ambient light and adjusts the illumination of the device’s display accordingly.”  The ‘529 patent is directed to “technology that enables a device to receive a message having information relating to one or more of the device’s applications and address and store the received data for that particular application.”  Lastly, the ‘190 patent is directed to “a method for making a data transmission connection from a computer to a mobile communication network through a telecommunication terminal.” In the complaint, Nokia states that the Proposed Respondents import into the U.S., manufacture and/or sell for importation into the U.S., and sell after importation into the U.S. HTC smartphones and/or tablet computers that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically names ten mobile phones and two tablet computers as infringing devices. Regarding domestic industry, Nokia states that its Lumia 710 and/or Lumia 900 Windows-based mobile phones practice at least one claim of each of the asserted patents.  As to the economic prong, Nokia refers to its facility in San Diego, California where it developed the Lumia 710 and Lumia 900 mobile phones, and to its facilities in Burlington, Massachusetts, Bellevue, Washington, and Sunnyvale, California where it provides support activities related to these devices.  Nokia also refers to research and development activities in the U.S., including significant domestic employment, that relate to the Lumia 710 and Lumia 900 devices. With respect to related litigation, the complaint states that Nokia is concurrently filing civil actions for patent infringement against the Proposed Respondents in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.  Nokia also states that the ‘911 and ‘664 patents have been asserted against Apple Inc. before the Commission in Inv. No. 337-TA-771, and before the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in Nokia Corp. v. Apple Inc., 1:11-cv-259.  Both actions were terminated by settlement in June 2011.  Furthermore, Intellisync Corporation, f/k/a Pumatech Inc., has asserted the ‘664 patent against multiple third parties before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Pumatech, Inc. v. Synchrologic, Inc., Case No. 02-cv-5708 and in Pumatech, Inc. v. Extended Systems, Inc., Case No. 02-cv-1916.  Both cases were terminated by settlement in September 2003 and March 2004, respectively.   As to potential remedy, Nokia requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents and their allegedly infringing devices.

Read More

California Institute of Technology Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain CMOS Image Sensors

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
04
On May 1, 2012, the California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) 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 complementary metal oxide semiconductor (“CMOS”) image sensors and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,841,126 (the ‘126 patent), 6,606,122 (the ‘122 patent) and 5,990,506 (the ‘506 patent):
  • STMicroelectronics NV of Switzerland
  • STMicroelectronics Inc. of Coppell, Texas
  • Nokia Corp. of Finland
  • Nokia, Inc. of White Plains, New York
  • Research in Motion Ltd. of Canada
  • Research in Motion Corp. of Irving, Texas
According to the complaint, Caltech is the assignee of the asserted patents, related to semiconductor chips known as CMOS image sensors.  The ‘126 patent relates to CMOS image sensors “which capture light reflected from an input scene and generate a digital image thereof.”  The ‘122 patent describes CMOS sensors having a completely digital interface with timing and control electronics and other control systems.  The ‘506 patent discloses a semiconductor imaging system having a CMOS image sensor with color filters that “integrate color-filtering elements…with the image sensor.” The complaint describes the activities of the Proposed Respondents alleged to be both directly and indirectly infringing the asserted patents.  Caltech identifies accused products for each of the asserted patents, listing numerous model numbers of CMOS image sensors for each Proposed Respondent.  Caltech also asserts that it purchased several different mobile telephones imported into the United States containing chips alleged to infringe the asserted patents, including, among others, several Blackberry models. With regard to related litigation, the complaint describes a declaratory judgment case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California filed against Caltech in relation to the ‘506 and ‘126 patents, among other patents.  This suit was dismissed based on stipulation by the parties.  Caltech and another plaintiff also filed another Section 337 case against different respondents based on a group of patents including the ‘506 patent and the ‘126 patent, terminated after the parties reached a settlement.  Caltech filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against multiple defendants (including some of the Proposed Respondents) for infringement of a group of patents that included the ‘506 and ‘122 patents.    Some of the patents from this group (though none asserted in the present complaint) were the basis of a second suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.  Both these cases were dismissed after the parties reached settlements.  A group of related patents was the basis of an ongoing suit filed by Caltech and its exclusive licensee in the field of dental radiography in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and this case is currently pending.  Also pending is another suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California filed by Caltech based on the ‘122 patent, among other patents.  Caltech asserts that it meets both the economic and technical prongs of the domestic industry requirement, arguing that it “operates and maintains a licensing program for the intellectual property developed at Caltech” and that the asserted patents are “key patents in Caltech’s CMOS image sensor portfolio.”  The complaint alleges that this particular portfolio has been licensed to various companies and generated substantial revenue for Caltech through licensing and enforcement via litigation. With respect to potential remedy, the complaint requests the Commission to issue permanent exclusion and cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents and their allegedly infringing devices.

Read More

SI Group Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Rubber Resins

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
22
On May 21, 2012, SI Group, Inc. of Schenectady, New York (“SI Group”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that the following entities unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain rubber resins made using misappropriated SI Group trade secrets:
  • Sino Legend (Zhangjiagang) Chemical Co., Ltd. of China
  • Sino Legend Holding Group, Inc. of the British Virgin Islands
  • Sino Legend Holding Group Ltd. of Hong Kong
  • HongKong Sino Legend Group Ltd. of Hong Kong
  • Red Avenue Chemical Co. Ltd. of the British Virgin Islands
  • RedAvenue Chemical Corp of America of Rochester, New York
  • Thomas R. Crumlish, Jr. of Rochester, New York
  • Ning Zhang of Canada
  • Quanhai Yang of China
  • Shanghai Lunsai International Trading Company of China
  • Precision Measurement International LLC of Westland, Michigan
According to the complaint, the technology at issue relates to improved techniques for manufacturing rubber resins with tackifier (“tackifiers”) and other rubber resins.  The complaint states that, in the manufacture of natural or synthetic rubber articles, it is often necessary to add tackifiers to provide improved uncured ply adhesion for assembling and improved knitting of contact areas.  In particular, since these tackifiers are oil soluble and compatible with various synthetic rubbers, they are ideally suited for plied-up construction of tires and mechanical rubber goods which require high tack levels.  According to the complaint, these tackifiers are used primarily to produce tack in the underside and skin coat of tires. In the complaint, SI Group refers to its tackifier manufacturing process for making its SP-1068 tackifier resin (the “SP-1068 Process”), as well as other manufacturing processes based on the same basic process as the SP-1068 Process (the “SP-1068 Related Processes”).  According to the complaint, SI Group owns the intellectual property embodied in or relating to the SP-1068 Process  (the “SP-1068 Technology”), as well as the intellectual property embodied in the SP-1068 Related Processes (the “SP-1068 Related Technology”).  SI Group further states that certain SP-1068 Technology comprises trade secret information that provided SI Group with significant economic value and competitive advantage from not being generally known to other people or readily ascertainable by proper means (the “SP-1068 Trade Secrets”).  According to the complaint, the SP-1068 Trade Secrets include or relate to:  (a) innovative SP-1068 manufacturing processes, materials, intermediates, and related control parameters; and (b) tackifier manufacturing equipment, and other equipment used for the SP-1068 Process.  The complaint also states that the SP-1068 Related Technology comprises certain trade secret information (the “SP-1068 Related Trade Secrets”).  The complaint additionally refers to secret manufacturing processes for making other rubber resin products, including C&R Rubber Resin. According to the complaint, a Mr. Xu Jie, a.k.a. Jack Xu (“Xu”), was employed by SI Group (Shanghai) beginning on April 14, 2004, and SI Group started manufacturing SP-1068 tackifier in Shanghai shortly thereafter.  The complaint states on information and belief that, by virtue of his employment and position, Xu was the only employee at the SI Group (Shanghai) plant who had access to the entire trade secret processes for making SP-1068 and other resins.  On April 30, 2007, Xu resigned from SI Group (Shanghai).  While Xu apparently denied that he was leaving to join a competitor, SI Group alleges in the complaint that Xu in fact joined Sino Legend (Zhangjiagang) Chemical Co., Ltd., Sino Legend Holding Group, Inc., Sino Legend Holding Group Ltd., HongKong Sino Legend Group Ltd., Ning Zhang, and Quanhai Yang (collectively, “Sino Legend”).  According to the complaint, shortly after Xu joined Sino Legend, Sino Legend started to market its SL-1801 resin, which has specifications substantially the same as those for SI Group’s SP-1068 tackifier.  The complaint therefore alleges that Sino Legend misappropriated SI Group’s trade secrets through hiring Xu (or otherwise) to develop SL-1801 and other rubber resins corresponding to SI Group rubber resins. The complaint further states that SI Group has recently announced plans to expand into North America and Europe and that RedAvenue Chemical Corp. of America is expected to serve as Sino Legend’s North American market representative.  The complaint further states that Sino Legend has already begun importing tackifier embodying SI Group’s trade secrets into the U.S. Regarding domestic industry, SI Group states that it has made substantial investments in the U.S. in connection with its trade secrets.  According to the complaint, these investments include plant and equipment, labor and capital, manufacturing, engineering, research and development, and other domestic exploitation by virtue of distribution and sales in the U.S. of tackifiers made by the SI Group trade secrets.  SI Group specifically refers to its facilities in Rotterdam Junction, Niskayuna, and Schenectady, New York.  SI Group further states that it has continuously employed approximately 450 people in the U.S. from 2009 through the first quarter of 2012. As to related litigation, SI Group states that on November 26, 2008, it contacted the Shanghai Public Security Bureau (the “PSB”) to initiate a criminal investigation against Xu.  The complaint states that the PSB eventually terminated its investigation without SI Group’s consent, issuing only a perfunctory statement that there was a “lack of evidence.”  According to the complaint, as a result of PSB’s decision to terminate the criminal investigation, SI Group filed two civil actions against Sino Legend and Xu before the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court in early February 2010.  SI Group re-filed these cases on March 24, 2011.  The complaint states that no court has rendered a judgment in these Chinese actions. With respect to potential remedy, SI Group requests that the Commission issue an exclusion order—including but not limited to a general exclusion order and in the alternative a limited exclusion order—and a permanent cease and desist order. We note that while SI Group initially sought relief in Chinese court for Sino Legend’s alleged trade secret misappropriation, SI Group now asserts that “[t]he Commission has jurisdiction because, inter alia, Respondents have imported into the United States, sold for importation into the United States and/or sold within the United States after importation, tackifiers that Sino Legend has manufactured and is manufacturing in China using misappropriated SI Group Trade Secrets, and Respondents are likely to imminently further engage in such activities.”  We further note that the facts alleged in this complaint are similar to the facts at issue in the Federal Circuit’s 2011 decision in Tianrui Group Co. Ltd. v. ITC, 661 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2011).  See our November 7, 2011 post for more details.

Read More

FlashPoint Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Imaging Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
25
On May 23, 2012, FlashPoint Technology, Inc. of Peterborough, New Hampshire (“FlashPoint”) 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 electronic imaging devices that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,400,471 (the ‘471 patent), 6,222,538 (the ‘538 patent), 6,504,575 (the ‘575 patent), and 6,223,190 (the ‘190 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):
  • HTC Corporation of Taiwan
  • HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington
  • Pantech Co., Ltd. of South Korea
  • Pantech Wireless, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia
  • Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. of China
  • FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) of Plano, Texas
  • ZTE Corporation of China
  • ZTE (USA) Inc. of Richardson, Texas
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to technology used in connection with electronic imaging devices.  In particular, the ‘471 patent relates to a flexible architecture for image processing.  The ‘538 patent relates to directing image capture sequences in a digital imaging device using scripts.  The ‘575 patent relates to a method and system for displaying overlay bars in a digital imaging device.  Lastly, the ‘190 patent relates to a method and system for producing an internet page description file on a digital imaging device. In the complaint, FlashPoint states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to the HTC Radar 4G, the HTC Vivid, the Pantech Burst, the Huawei Impulse, and the ZTE Fury as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, FlashPoint states that a domestic industry exists by virtue of FlashPoint’s licensees’ significant investment in plant equipment, significant employment of labor and capital, and substantial investment in the exploitation of the asserted patents, including engineering and research and development with respect to articles protected by the asserted patents.  According to the complaint, FlashPoint’s licensees under the asserted patents include Apple Inc. (“Apple”), Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. (“Motorola”), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and related entities (collectively, “Samsung”), and Sony Corporation and its subsidiary Sony Mobile Communications (collectively, “Sony”).  The complaint states that Apple’s iPhone products, Motorola’s smartphone products, Samsung’s smartphone products, and Sony’s smartphone products incorporate technology protected by at least one of the asserted patents. As to related litigation, FlashPoint states that it is currently involved in litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. involving the ‘471, ‘538, ‘575, and ‘190 patents.  FlashPoint also states that it has asserted the ‘575 and ‘190 patents against Pantech Co., Ltd. and Pantech Wireless, Inc. (collectively, “Pantech”) in that litigation.  FlashPoint further states that it has asserted infringement claims against multiple other defendants in that litigation.  According to the complaint, the litigation was stayed on December 17, 2009 pending reexamination activity, and the last of the reexaminations concluded on November 22, 2011.  FlashPoint also states that the ‘538 and ‘190 patents have been asserted in other litigations against multiple third parties in the District of Delaware, and that these other litigations terminated in 2002.  FlashPoint further states that the ‘190 patent has been asserted against additional third parties in the District of Delaware.  FlashPoint additionally states that contemporaneously with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it also intends to file complaints in the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the ‘471, ‘575, and ‘190 patent against Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., FutureWei Technologies, Inc., ZTE Corporation, and ZTE (USA) Inc.  Moreover, FlashPoint intends to file a complaint in the District of Delaware alleging that Pantech infringes the ‘538 and ‘471 patents.  With respect to potential remedy, FlashPoint requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order directed at the domestic Proposed Respondents.

Read More

ITRI Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Integrated Circuit Packages Provided With Multiple Heat-Conducting Paths

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
04
On May 31, 2012, Industrial Technology Research Institute of Taiwan and ITRI International of San Jose, California (collectively, “ITRI”) 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 Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (collectively, “LG”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain integrated circuit packages provided with multiple heat-conducting paths and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,710,459 (the ‘459 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘459 patent generally relates to an apparatus for providing multiple heat-conducting paths for enhancing heat dissipation and wrapping around caps in order to improve integrity and reliability.  In particular, the ‘459 patent is directed toward packaging that includes an array of metal balls, also known as a “ball grid array” or “BGA.”  Some of these metal balls serve as electrical connections between the integrated circuit chip and surrounding electrical circuitry.  Other metal balls are connected to conduits or “vias” filled with thermally conductive material but electrically insulated from the metal balls.  Thus, the packaging according to the ‘459 patent’s ball grid array serves both goals of increasing the number of electrical connections and improving heat dissipation.  The complaint states that apparatuses like those of the ‘459 patent are used in Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) televisions. In the complaint, ITRI states that LG imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patent.  The complaint specifically names products that incorporate the LGE35230 chip and similar chips, including various LG televisions, as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, ITRI states that it has licensed the ‘459 patent to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Samsung”), and that Samsung conducts significant activities in the U.S. relating to products that practice at least one claim of the ‘459 patent.  According to the complaint, Samsung exploits the technology protected by the ‘459 patent in several products, including, but not limited to, certain LCD televisions.  Further, Samsung provides domestic support for these televisions in the U.S.  ITRI cites to Samsung’s complaint in Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing the Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-782) as further support for its domestic industry allegations.  See our June 2, 2011 postfor more details on Samsung’s complaint. As to related litigation, ITRI states that concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it is also filing an action against LG in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging infringement of the ‘459 patent.  Additionally, ITRI refers to Certain Devices for Improving Uniformity Used in a Backlight Module and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-805), where it is alleging that LG infringes a different patent.  See our September 12, 2011 post for more details. With respect to potential remedy, ITRI requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at LG and related companies.

Read More

ObjectVideo Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Video Analytics Software

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
28
On June 27, 2012, ObjectVideo, Inc. of Reston, Virginia (“ObjectVideo”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Pelco, Inc. of Clovis, California (“Pelco”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain video analytics software, systems, components thereof, and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,696,945 (the ‘945 patent), 6,970,083 (the ‘083 patent), 7,868,912 (the ‘912 patent), and 7,932,923 (the ‘923 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to video analytics software and systems.  In particular, the ‘912 and ‘923 patents relate to the way in which information is extracted from video for use in later applications for video analysis or detection of events in the video.  The ‘945 and ‘083 patents relate to more specific video analysis techniques, including, e.g., techniques related to detecting a particular event or action in the video. In the complaint, ObjectVideo states that Pelco imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically names Pelco cameras having Pelco Video Analytics software and capabilities—including various Pelco Sarix model cameras—as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, ObjectVideo states that a domestic industry exists based on ObjectVideo’s licensing program for the asserted patents.  In particular, ObjectVideo states that it maintains an in-house licensing capability that implements all critical licensing functions for its intellectual property.  ObjectVideo further states that it employs a staff that includes three attorneys who provide legal support in connection with the licensing and enforcement of ObjectVideo’s intellectual property, including the asserted patents.  In addition, ObjectVideo states that a domestic industry exists based on ObjectVideo’s own use of the asserted patents.  In particular, ObjectVideo states that it engages in the manufacturing and sale of video analytics systems that practice the asserted patents and that are used in a variety of applications, including security, public safety, business intelligence, and process improvement.  According to the complaint, ObjectVideo designs these products—including its OnBoard, FAST, and VEW products—at its facilities in Reston, Virginia, and the products are incorporated into the security systems of many companies and institutions, including Boston University and The Kroger Co.  As to related litigation, ObjectVideo states that on April 6, 2011, it filed a complaint against Robert Bosch GmbH and Bosch Security Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Bosch”), Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd. and Samsung Opto-Electronics America, Inc. (d/b/a Samsung Techwin America, Inc.) (collectively, “Samsung”), and Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics, Inc. (collectively, “Sony”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  In that complaint, ObjectVideo alleged infringement of, inter alia, the ‘945, ‘083, and ‘912 patents.  The ‘923 patent was added to the litigation through an amended complaint filed on May 11, 2011.  ObjectVideo additionally states that on June 29, 2011, it filed an ITC complaint against Bosch, Samsung, and Sony alleging a violation of Section 337 in connection with the infringement of, inter alia, the ‘945, ‘083, ‘912, and ‘923 patents.  Seeour July 5, 2011 post for more details.  The ITC instituted an investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-795) based on ObjectVideo’s complaint on July 27, 2011.  See our August 1, 2011 post for more details.  ObjectVideo further states that on February 29, 2012, Bosch Security Systems, Inc. filed requests for inter partesreexamination of the ‘912, ‘923, ‘945, and ‘083 patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  Lastly, ObjectVideo states that on May 11, 2012, it filed a complaint against Pelco in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleging infringement of the ‘945, ‘083, ‘912, and ‘923 patents.  With respect to potential remedy, ObjectVideo requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Pelco and its successors and assigns.

Read More

TPL Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
26
On July 24, 2012, Technology Properties Limited LLC of Cupertino, California (“TPL”), Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC of Cupertino, California, and Patriot Scientific Corporation of Carlsbad, California (collectively, the “Complainants”) 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 wireless consumer electronics devices and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 (the ‘336 patent):
  • Acer Inc. of Taiwan
  • Acer America Corporation of San Jose, California
  • Amazon.com, Inc. of Seattle, Washington
  • Barnes & Noble, Inc. of New York, New York
  • Garmin Ltd. of Switzerland
  • Garmin International, Inc. of Olathe, Kansas
  • Garmin USA, Inc. of Olathe, Kansas
  • HTC Corporation of Taiwan
  • HTC America of Bellevue, Washington
  • Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. of China
  • Huawei North America of Plano, Texas
  • Kyocera Corporation of Japan
  • Kyocera Communications, Inc. of San Diego, California
  • LG Electronics, Inc. of South Korea
  • LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
  • Nintendo Co., Ltd. of Japan
  • Nintendo of America, Inc. of Redmond, Washington
  • Novatel Wireless, Inc. of San Diego, California
  • Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of South Korea
  • Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey
  • Sierra Wireless, Inc. of Canada
  • Sierra Wireless America, Inc. of Carlsbad, California
  • ZTE Corporation of China
  • ZTE (USA) Inc. of Richardson, Texas
According to the complaint, the ‘336 patent generally relates to devices that incorporate microprocessors, memory, and/or input/output interfaces that enable connectivity.  In particular, the ‘336 patent relates to the use of two independent clocks in a microprocessor system:  (1) an on-chip clock to time the CPU; and (2) a second independent clock to time the input/output (I/O) interface.  The complaint states that decoupling the system clock from the I/O clock allows the clocks to run independently or “asynchronously,” which is fundamental to the increased speed and efficiency of modern microprocessors. In the complaint, the Complainants state that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to various electronic devices associated with the Proposed Respondents. Regarding domestic industry, the Complainants state that a domestic industry exists by virtue of TPL’s substantial investments in the development and enforcement of the ‘336 patent through its significant licensing activities, which have resulted in numerous licensees that practice the inventions claimed in the ‘336 patent.  In particular, the complaint states that TPL employs multiple executives and experts who have worked to analyze and license a portfolio of patents that includes the ‘336 patent.  According to the complaint, the majority of these employees are based at TPL’s headquarters in Cupertino, California.  The complaint further states that TPL has made extensive use of the inventions claimed in the ‘336 patent to develop microprocessor products that, when integrated into systems with relevant features such as an external memory bus and an input/output interface, enable products to practice the ‘336 patent. As to related litigation, the Complainants state that, concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, they are also filing civil actions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California accusing the Proposed Respondents (other than the Acer and HTC entities) of infringing the ‘336 patent.  Additionally, the Complainants state that Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation, and Gateway, Inc.; HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.; and Barco NV have filed declaratory judgment actions involving the ‘336 patent in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  According to the complaint, these three declaratory judgment actions remain pending.  The complaint also refers to thirteen previous district court actions involving the ‘336 patent that are no longer pending. With respect to potential remedy, the Complainants request that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.

Read More

Motorola Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Wireless Communication Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
21
On August 17, 2012, Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility Ireland, and Motorola Mobility International Limited (collectively “Complainants”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Apple Inc. (“Apple”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain wireless communication devices, portable music and data processing devices, computers, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,883,580 (“the ‘580 patent”), 5,922,047 (“the ‘047 patent”), 6,425,002 (“the ‘002 patent”), 6,493,673 (“the ‘673 patent”), 6,983,370 (“the ‘370 patent), 7,007,064 (“the ‘064 patent”), and 7,383,983 (“the ‘983 patent”). According to the complaint, the ‘580 patent is directed to messaging devices that logically process messages for a user in the context of space and time. The ‘047 patent is broadly directed to communications and control systems for multimedia where the control functions for various applications operate at more than one designated node or location.  The ‘002 patent covers a message manager program that ensures applications receive messages that are of interest.  The ‘673 patent discloses interactive services in a device such as reading announcements to a user or converting audible input into text.  The ‘370 patent generally covers messaging systems which provide continuity between messaging clients, providing the ability to sync the messaging capabilities of various devices.  The ‘064 patent is broadly described as covering wireless communications stems for obtaining and managing wireless content on a wireless communications device.  The ‘983 patent is directed to managing content between different wireless devices and covers systems and methods for pausing content on one device and resuming playback on another device. As to related litigation, the complaint states that all seven asserted patents are the subject of a complaint alleging infringement against Apple that was filed concurrently in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.  Furthermore, the ‘370 patent was involved in a patent infringement case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington naming different defendants.  That case is still pending. The complaint alleges that Apple directly infringes the asserted patents because significant portions of Apple’s products are manufactured in Asia and later imported for sale into the United States.  The accused products are various models of the iPhone and iPad, although several computer products, including the Mac Pro, iMac, Mac mini, and MacBook devices are also accused of infringing the ‘370 patent.  The complaint also asserts that Apple indirectly infringes the asserted patents, arguing that Apple induces infringement because it has knowledge of the ‘580 and ‘983 patents through discussions with Complainants and has knowledge of the ‘370 patent based on its monitoring of the related litigation.  Thus, Apple knowingly encourages infringement through its continuing publication of marketing documents and user manuals.  The complaint also states that Apple is liable for contributory infringement because there is a lack of substantial non-infringing uses of the accused products. Complainants assert that they meet both the economic and technical prongs of the domestic industry requirement based on representative products including the Droid Razr, Droid Razr Maxx, Droid 4, and Motorola Xoom Wifi together with claim charts demonstrating that all limitations of an exemplary claim from each asserted patent are met by their representative products.  Complainants also assert they have made “made substantial investments in the United States in the exploitation of the asserted patents” including research and development, testing, repair, and service, pointing out that thousands of individuals are employed in Complainants’ facilities throughout the United States. With respect to potential remedy, Complainants request that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed against Apple, its subsidiaries, related companies, and agents.  Complainants also request that a bond be imposed during the Presidential review period.

Read More

BriarTek Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
21
On August 17, 2012, BriarTek IP, Inc. of Alexandria, Virginia (“BriarTek”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Delorme Publishing Company, Inc. and Delorme InReach LLC d/b/a InReach LLC (collectively, “Delorme”)—both of Yarmouth, Maine—and Yellowbrick Tracking Ltd. of the United Kingdom (“Yellowbrick”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain two-way global satellite communication devices, systems, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,991,380 (the ‘380 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘380 patent generally relates to a monitoring and reporting system comprised of a user unit and a monitoring system.  The complaint states that this arrangement allows for both the transmission and reception of data between the user and a monitoring system through a satellite infrastructure.  The data—transferrable as short text messages—may include the nature of an emergency, the type of assistance required, or early warnings about impending dangers such as inclement weather. In the complaint, BriarTek states that Delorme and Yellowbrick import and sell products that infringe the ‘380 patent.  The complaint specifically names the Delorme InReach, Delorme Earthmate, Yellowbrick 3, and Yellowbrick Messenger as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, BriarTek states that a related company, BriarTek, Inc., licenses the ‘380 patent and practices the patent in the U.S.  BriarTek specifically refers to the Cerberus system manufactured by BriarTek, Inc. at its facility in Alexandria, Virginia.  According to the complaint, the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement is satisfied because many claims of the ‘380 patent read on the Cerberus system.  As to the economic prong, the complaint states that BriarTek and BriarTek, Inc. have made substantial investments in the U.S. in labor, capital, R&D, manufacturing, plant and equipment, sales, and marketing relating to devices that practice the ‘380 patent. With respect to potential remedy, BriarTek requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Delorme and Yellowbrick.

Read More

Hitachi Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
22
On August 17, 2012, Hitachi Metals, Ltd. and Hitachi Metals North Carolina, Ltd. (collectively “Hitachi”) 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 sintered rare earth magnets and products containing the same or practice methods of making sintered rare earth magnets that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,461,565 (“the ‘565 patent”), 6,491,765 (“the ‘765 patent”), 6,527,874 (“the ‘874 patent”), and 6,537,385 (“the ‘385 patent”):

• Yantai Zhenghai Magnetic Material Co., Ltd. of China • Ningbo Jinji Strong Magnetic Material Co., Ltd. of China • Earth-Panda Advance Magnetic Material Co., Ltd. of China • Skullcandy, Inc. of San Clemente, California • Beats Electronics, LLC of Santa Monica, California • Monster Cable Products, Inc. of Brisbane, California • Bose Corp. of Framingham, Massachusetts • Callaway Golf Co. of Carlsbad, California • Taylor Made Golf Co. of Carlsbad, California • Adidas America, Inc. of Portland, Oregon • Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. of Brookfield, Wisconsin • Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd. of Hong Kong • DeWALT Industrial Tool Corp. of Towson, Maryland • Electro-Voice, Inc. of Burnsville, Minnesota • Shure, Inc. of Niles, Illinois • AKG Acoustics GmbH of Austria • Harman International Industries of Stamford, Connecticut • Maxon Precision Motors, Inc. of Fall River, Massachusetts • Dr. Fritz Faulhaber GmbH & Co., KG of Germany • Micromo Electronics, Inc. of Clearwater, Florida • TELEX Communications, Inc. of Burnsville, Minnesota • Bosch Security Systems, Inc. of Burnsville, Minnesota • Electro-Optics Technology, Inc. of Traverse City, Missouri • Nexteer Automotive Corp. of Saginaw, Missouri • Bunting Magnetics Co. of Newton, Kansas • Viona Corp. of Syosset, New York • Allstar Magnetics LLC of Vancouver, Washington • Dura Magnetics, Inc. of Sylvania, Ohio • Integrated Magnetics, Inc. of Culver City, California

According to the complaint, Hitachi is a pioneer in the field of sintered rare earth magnets, relatively small and light but extremely powerful magnets useful in a wide range of applications from power steering motors to speakers.  The ‘565 patent is directed to a method of pressing rare earth allow magnetic powder to make green compacts that are processed further into sintered rare earth magnets.  The ‘765, ‘874, and ‘385 patents are broadly directed to methods for manufacturing alloy powder of a specific type of rare earth magnets. The complaint divides the Proposed Respondents into groups based on the general category of product they produce.  The general categories include sintered rare earth magnets (one of the largest groups), audio devices (also a large group), and smaller groups including power tools, motors, electronic circuitry components, automobile component assemblies, and sporting accessories and apparel.  The complaint describes the allegedly infringing activity of each Proposed Respondent and lists accused products for each together with comprehensive claim charts matching infringement activity for each respondent to claims from each asserted patent. The complaint indicates that none of the asserted patents have been the subject of any other litigation proceeding. Hitachi asserts that it meets both the economic and technical prongs of the domestic industry requirement, emphasizing that it has been at the forefront of the development of sintered rare earth magnets and magnetic materials and the resulting industries for many years.  Hitachi notes it has “made significant investments to ensure it will have sufficient sources of rare earth materials” in order to meet increasing global and domestic demand and has entered into a supply agreement with the “Western hemisphere’s larges producer of rare earth materials.”  With these investments, Hitachi “expects to begin producing sintered rare earth magnets covered by the asserted patents starting in 2013,” meeting the requirement of a domestic industry that is “in the process of being established.” With respect to potential remedy, Hitachi requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents in relation to products including sintered rare earth metal magnets.

Read More

SAMSF, Merck, and Pamlab File New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Reduced Folate Nutraceutical Products and L-methylfolate Raw Ingredients Used Therein

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
11
On September 10, 2012, South Alabama Medical Science Foundation of Mobile, Alabama (“SAMSF”), Merck & Cie of Switzerland (“Merck”), and Pamlab LLC of Covington, Louisiana (“Pamlab”) (collectively, the “Complainants”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Gnosis SpA of Italy, Gnosis Bioresearch SA of Switzerland, and Gnosis USA Inc. of Doylestown, Pennsylvania (collectively, “Gnosis”) and Macoven Pharmaceuticals LLC of Magnolia, Texas (“Macoven”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain reduced folate nutraceutical products and/or L-methylfolate raw ingredients used therein that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,997,915 (the ‘915 patent), 6,673,381 (the ‘381 patent), 7,172,778 (the ‘778 patent), and/or 6,011,040 (the ‘040 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the ‘915 patent relates to compositions comprising reduced folates and other nutrients, and methods for administering the same.  The ‘381 patent relates to a method for treating and/or preventing vascular disease through administration of a composition that comprises a reduced folate.  The ‘778 patent relates to compositions comprising reduced folates for the treatment and/or prevention of various ailments.  The ‘040 patent relates to, inter alia, methods of decreasing homocysteine levels in the human body and methods for preventing or treating disease associated with increased homocysteine levels by administering at least one tetrahydrofolate in natural stereoisomeric form to a human subject. In the complaint, the Complainants state that Gnosis and Macoven import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to Macoven’s Vitacirc-B, ALZ-NAC, and L-Methylfolate Calcium (all of which incorporate Gnosis’s Extrafolate-S) as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, the Complainants state that Pamlab’s Metanx, CerefolinNAC, and Deplin products practice at least one claim of each of the asserted patents.  As to the economic prong, the Complainants state that Pamlab has made and continues to make substantial investments in the U.S. to support its products that practice the asserted patents.  According to the complaint, these investments include expenditures for domestic plant and equipment, labor and capital, and the exploitation of the asserted patents through engineering and R&D activities.  The complaint specifically refers to facilities in Covington, Lousiana and Shreveport, Louisiana. As to related litigation, the Complainants state that a case involving overlapping parties and patents is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. With respect to potential remedy, the Complainants request that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Gnosis and Macoven (and related entities).

Read More

VirnetX And SAIC File New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Devices With Secure Communication Capabilities

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
17
On September 14, 2012, VirnetX, Inc. of Zephyr Cove, Nevada  (“VirnetX”) and Science Applications International Corporation of McLean, Virginia (“SAIC”) (collectively, the “Complainants”) 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 devices with secure communication capabilities, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,051,181 (the ‘181 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘181 patent generally relates to a method for establishing and/or using a secure communications link between two computer devices.  In particular, the ‘181 patent relates to a secure name service that helps establish secure communications while allegedly overcoming disadvantages associated with conventional domain name servers. In the complaint, the Complainants state that Apple imports and sells products that infringe the ‘181 patent.  The complaint specifically refers to Apple’s iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPad 2, new iPad, iPod Touch, and Macs running the “Lion” and “Mountain Lion” operating systems as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, the Complainants state that VirnetX’s GABRIEL Connection Technology practices certain claims of the ‘181 patent.  The complaint states that VirnetX has made a significant investment in plant and equipment and a significant employment of labor and capital in the U.S. with respect to technology protected by the ‘181 patent, including the GABRIEL Connection Technology.  The complaint specifically refers to VirnetX’s current facility in Zephyr Cove, Nevada and its prior facility in Scotts Valley, California.  In the alternative, the complaint states that VirnetX is taking necessary tangible steps to establish a domestic industry.  The complaint also refers to VirnetX’s engineering and research and development activities.  In addition, the complaint refers to the activities and investments of VirnetX’s licensees, including Microsoft Corporation, Aastra USA Inc., Mitel Networks Corporation, NEC Corporation, and NEC Corporation of America.  Lastly, the complaint refers to VirnetX’s licensing activities. As to related litigation, the Complainants state that on August 11, 2010, VirnetX filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that Apple and others infringe certain patents other than the ‘181 patent.  The complaint also states that on November 1, 2011, VirnetX filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that Apple infringes the ‘181 patent.  Further, on November 4, 2011, VirnetX filed an ITC complaint that led to the institution of ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-818.  See our December 10, 2011 post for more details.  The 818 investigation was terminated due to the absence of an indispensible party—SAIC—who is named as a co-complainant in the instant ITC complaint.  See our August 28, 2012 post for more details.  The complaint also states that Apple has filed an inter partes reexamination of the ‘181 patent at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which is currently pending. With respect to potential remedy, the Complainants request that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Apple.

Read More

Realtek Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Integrated Circuit Chips With Bond Pad Structures

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
20
On September 19, 2012, Realtek Semiconductor Corporation of Taiwan (“Realtek”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that LSI Corporation of Milpitas, California (“LSI”) and Seagate Technology of Cupertino, California (“Seagate”) (collectively, “Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain integrated circuit chips that include bond pad structures or level shifter circuitry and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,787,928 and 6,963,226. According to the complaint, the ‘928 patent generally relates to bond pad structures that may be incorporated into integrated circuit chips.  In particular, the ‘928 patent relates to a bond pad that prevents detachment during the bonding process and is insulated from noise transferred from the active components at the substrate level of the chip.  The ‘226 patent generally relates to a voltage level shifter implemented in integrated circuits, and more specifically to a voltage level shifter that includes a pull-down circuit, a pull-up circuit and a clamping circuit that permits the shifting of a lower voltage signal to a higher voltage signal in an improved manner. Realtek alleges in the complaint that LSI and Seagate import and sell products that infringe the ‘928 and ‘226 patents.  The complaint refers to various LSI chips and a certain Seagate hard disk drive as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Realtek asserts that it has made significant investments in plant, equipment, labor and capital in the U.S. with respect to the asserted patent in terms of research and development, and design and engineering through its domestic subsidiary, Real Communications, Inc., located in San Jose, California (“Realcom”).  The complaint states that Realcom houses employees and equipment “devoted towards” products practicing the bond pad structures and level shifter circuitry of the asserted patents, and supports the design, engineering, marketing and sales, project management, business operations and planning, and administrative services relating to the articles that incorporate the patented technology.  Realtek also submitted confidential exhibits with its complaint that allegedly describe representative domestic industry products it currently manufactures, including the layout of the bond pads and a circuit diagram showing a low-to-high level shifter.  The complaint specifically states that “Realtek does not base its support for finding domestic industry on any licensing activities.” As to related litigation, the complainant states that on June 29, 2012, Realtek filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that LSI infringes the asserted patents (Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. LSI Corp., Case No. 5:12-cv-03437-EJD (N.D. Cal.)). With respect to potential remedy, Realtek requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders directed at LSI and Seagate.

Read More

Avago Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Optoelectronic Devices For Fiber Optic Communications

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
26
On September 25, 2012, Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. of Singapore, Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. of Singapore, and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively, “Avago”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that IPtronics A/S of Denmark and IPtronics Inc. of Menlo Park, California (collectively, “IPtronics”), FCI USA, LLC of Etters, Pennsylvania, FCI Deutschland GmbH of Germany, and FCI SA of France (collectively, “FCI”), and Mellanox Technologies, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California and Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. of Israel (collectively, “Mellanox”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain optoelectronic devices for fiber optic communications, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,947,456 (the ‘456 patent) and 5,596,595 (the ‘595 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to certain aspects of fiber optic communications.  In particular, the ‘456 patent is directed to improving the operation of semiconductor lasers, such as vertical cavity surface-emitting lasers (VCSELs), within optoelectronic devices, such as transmitters and transceivers.  The ‘595 patent is directed to certain VCSELs that include layers for improving the heat spreading and current spreading capabilities of the laser. In the complaint, Avago states that IPtronics, FCI, and Mellanox import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to IPtronics’s VCSEL drivers and evaluation boards, FCI’s transceivers and active optical cables, and Mellanox’s transceivers and active optical cables as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Avago states that it currently makes and sells optoelectronic products that practice the asserted claims of the asserted patents.  Avago also states that it has made substantial investments in the U.S. relating to the exploitation—including R&D and technical support—of products covered by the asserted patents.  Avago specifically refers to its domestic research and development facility in San Jose, California and an office in Fort Collins, Colorado.  Avago also refers to a significant employment of labor at its U.S. facilities and a significant investment in research and development in the U.S. As to related litigation, Avago states that the ‘456 patent has been subject to ex parte reexamination at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).  According to the complaint, the PTO confirmed the patentability of the original claims (with minor typographical corrections) and granted new claims.  Avago also states that IPtronics filed a request for inter partes reexamination of the ‘456 patent, but the PTO denied the request.  In addition, Avago states that its predecessor filed lawsuits against E2O and E2O Communications Pte. Ltd. and Method Electronics, Inc. and Stratos Lightwave, Inc. alleging infringement of the ‘595 patent.  The complaint states that these cases were dismissed pursuant to settlement agreements.  Lastly, Avago states that on June 29, 2010, Avago Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against IPtronics alleging infringement of, inter alia, the ‘456 patent.  The complaint states that that case is currently pending. With respect to potential remedy, Avago requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at IPtronics, FCI, and Mellanox.

Read More

Speck Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Cases For Portable Electronic Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
27
On September 26, 2012, Speculative Product Design, LLC d/b/a Speck of Mountain View, California (“Speck”) 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 one-piece protective cases for portable handheld electronic devices that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,204,561 (the ‘561 patent):
  • Anbess Electronics Co. Ltd. of China
  • Alibaba.com, Ltd. of China
  • Alibaba.com, Inc. of Santa Clara, California
  • Aliexpress, Ltd. of Santa Clara, California
  • Biying Trading Co., Ltd. of Santa Clara, California
  • BodyGlove International, LLC of Redondo Beach, California
  • Fellowes, Inc. of Itasca, Illinois
  • Jie Sheng Technology of China
  • JWIN Electronics Corp., d/b/a iLuv of Port Washington, New York
  • Project Horizon, Inc. d/b/a InMotion Entertainment of Jacksonville, Florida
  • ROCON Digital Technology Corp. of China
  • Shenzhen Huafeng Technology Co., Ltd. of China
  • Superior Communications, Inc. d/b/a PureGear of Irwindale, California
  • SW-Box.com a/k/a Cellphonezone Limited of Hong Kong
  • Trait Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. d/b/a Trait-Tech of China
  • Wexun Tech (HongKong) Co., Ltd. of China
According to the complaint, the ‘561 patent generally relates to the mobile electronics accessory market and more specifically to protective cases for handheld portable electronic devices such as mobile phones, laptops, tablets, personal digital assistants, and portable digital media players.  In particular, the ‘561 patent relates to a one-piece case that uniquely combines flexible and hard materials to both overcome the limitations of these materials and realize their attributes. In the complaint, Speck states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to various cases associated with the Proposed Respondents. Regarding domestic industry, Speck states that its CandyShell products are covered by the ‘561 patent.  Speck states that it designed and developed these products in the U.S.  Speck further states that it has made and is continuing to make substantial investments in plant, equipment, labor, and capital in the U.S., and that it has made substantial investments in the exploitation of the ‘561 patent and products covered by the ‘561 patent in the U.S. As to related litigation, Speck states that on September 25, 2012, it filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Superior Communications, Inc. d/b/a PureGear, BodyGlove International, and JWIN Electronics Corp. for infringement of the ‘561 patent. With respect to potential remedy, Speck 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.

Read More

KV Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Hydroxyprogesterone Caproate And Products Containing Same

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
24
On October 23, 2012, K-V Pharmaceutical Company of St. Louis, Missouri (“KV”) 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 use imported 17α hydroxyprogesterone caproate (“HPC”) to unlawfully manufacture copies of the drug Makena®:
  • New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc. of Framingham, Massachusetts
  • Alwan Pharmacy & Compounding Center of West Peoria, Illinois
  • Avella Specialty Pharmacy of Phoenix, Arizona
  • Bellevue Pharmacy of St. Louis, Missouri
  • Betapharma (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. of China
  • Boudreaux’s Specialty Compounding of Shreveport, Louisiana
  • California Pharmacy & Compounding Center of Newport Beach, California
  • College Pharmacy of Colorado Springs, Colorado
  • Compound Care Pharmacy of Louisville, Kentucky
  • Compounding Solutions of Birmingham, Alabama
  • Daniel Drug of Fort Worth, Texas
  • Five-Star Compounding Pharmacy of Clive, Iowa
  • Fagron, Inc. of Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Hawthorne Pharmacy of Columbia, South Carolina
  • Health Dimensions Compounding Pharmacy of Farmington Hills, Michigan
  • Hopewell Pharmacy & Compounding Center of Hopewell, New Jersey
  • Hubei Gedian Humanwell Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. of China
  • Hubei Saibo Chemical Co., Ltd. of China
  • Jinan Haohua Industry Co., Ltd. of China
  • Kelley-Ross & Associates, Inc. of Seattle, Washington
  • Lacey Drug Company/Marietta Medical Center of Marietta, Georgia
  • Letco Medical of Decatur, Illinois
  • Medisca, Inc. of Las Vegas, Nevada
  • Owens Healthcare Compounding Pharmacy of Redding, California
  • Partners In Care, Inc. of Gainesville, Georgia
  • People’s Custom Rx of Memphis, Tennessee
  • Pharmerica Corporation of Louisville, Kentucky
  • Prescription Compounds of Baton Rouge, Louisiana
  • Rye Beach Pharmacy of Rye, New York
  • Sherry’s Drug Compounding and Natural Pharmacy of Edmond, Oklahoma
  • Shanghai Jinhong Biopharmaceutical, Ltd. of China
  • Stark Pharmacy of Overland Park, Kansas
  • The Compounder Pharmacy of Aurora, Illinois
  • The Compounding Shoppe of Homewood, Alabama
  • The Medicine Shoppe Pharmacy of Springfield, Illinois
  • Triangle Compounding Pharmacy of Cary, North Carolina
  • Trinity Healthcare Medical Center of Ocala, Florida
  • Universal Arts Pharmacy of Hialeah, Florida
  • Village Compounding of Houston, Texas
  • Wedgewood Pharmacy of Swedesboro, New Jersey
  • Westmoreland Pharmacy & Compounding of New Albany, Indiana
  • Williams Bros. Healthcare Pharmacy of Bloomington, Indiana
  • Wilson Pharmacy, Inc. of Johnson City, Tennessee
  • Women’s International Pharmacy of Madison, Wisconsin
  • Wuhan Xianghe Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. of China
  • Xianju Hongyan Pharmaceutical Chemicals Co., Ltd. of China
According to the complaint, KV’s Makena® has been designated an “orphan drug” by the FDA (a drug developed to treat a condition affecting fewer than 200,000 people per year) and is the only FDA-approved HPC drug that may be marketed in the United States to reduce the risk of preterm birth in women with a singleton pregnancy who have a history of singleton spontaneous preterm birth until February 2018.  Thus, KV has exclusive marketing rights, akin to patent exclusivity, for a period of seven years.  KV asserts that the Proposed Respondents’ importation, sale and/or use of imported HPC is intended to support an unlawful drug manufacturing and distribution enterprise that proceeds under the fiction of individualized drug “compounding” (the process by which a pharmacist combines or alters ingredients to create a medication customized to the particular needs of individual patients).  As alleged in the complaint, this unlawful enterprise is not only substantially injuring the lawful domestic HPC pharmaceutical industry (such as “greatly contribut[ing] to KV’s decision to seek protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code”), but also subjecting women at risk of premature delivery to treatment with unapproved new drug products whose ingredients are manufactured in foreign facilities not under FDA-mandated Good Manufacturing Practice standards and not subject to routine FDA inspection. Regarding domestic industry, KV states in the complaint that it is the owner of Makena®, the Makena® orphan drug designation, and the Makena® NDA.  KV also asserts that it advertises, sells and distributes its drugs nation-wide through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Ther-Rx Corporation.  KV further states that it employs personnel in the United States in positions ranging from specialized technical research and development staff to marketing and administrative staff.  In addition, KV asserts that its Makena® is manufactured in the United States by an unaffiliated third party, Hospira, Inc.  KV maintains that “[g]iven the status of Makena®’s orphan drug designation and market exclusivity, KV constitutes the entire domestic [HPC] pharmaceutical industry.” As to related litigation, KV states that the following four actions relate indirectly to the “unfair methods of competition and substantial injury arising from” importation of HPC:  (1) K-V Pharmaceutical Co., et al. v. Cook, et al., No. 1:12-cv-02491-CAP (N.D. Ga.), filed on July 17, 2012 by KV against the Georgia Department of Community Health challenging the latter’s formal prior authorization policy favoring compounded HPC formulations over Makena® (ongoing; preliminary injunction granted in favor of KV on August 9, 2012); (2) K-V Pharmaceutical Co., et al. v. Keck, et al., No. 3:12-cv-02088 (D.S.C.), filed on July 25, 2012 by KV against the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services challenging the latter’s prior authorization policy favoring compounded HPC formulations over Makena® (ongoing); (3) K-V Pharmaceutical Co., et al. v. Hamos, et al., No. 1:12-cv-06697-CAP (N.D. Ill.), filed on August 21, 2012 by KV against the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services challenging the latter’s formal prior authorization policy favoring compounded HPC formulations over Makena® (parties reached settlement); and (4) K-V Pharmaceutical Company v. FDA, No. 1:12-cv-01105 (D.D.C.), filed on July 5, 2012 by KV against the FDA and other parties seeking injunctive relief, including restoration of KV’s rights to marketing exclusivity for Makena® as an orphan drug (complaint dismissed). With respect to potential remedy, KV requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order and a cease and desist order barring imports of HPC.

Read More

Ericsson Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices And Components Thereof

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
04
On November 30, 2012, Ericsson Inc. of Plano, Texas and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson of Sweden (collectively, “Ericsson”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.  Due to its size, we have broken the complaint into part 1 and part 2. The complaint alleges that Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, Samsung Telecommunications America LLC of Richardson, Texas, and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of South Korea (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import and/or sell certain electronic devices, including wireless communication devices, tablet computers, media players and televisions, and components thereof that directly or indirectly infringe one or more claims of the following U.S. patents: 6,029,052; 6,058,359; 6,278,888; 6,301,556; 6,418,310; 6,445,917; 6,473,506; 6,519,223; 6,624,832; 6,772,215; and 8,169,992. According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to electronic devices that allow for wireless communications and data transfer over networks and include: (i) RF receiver technology; (ii) hardware and software design of wireless communication devices; (iii) user interface technology; (iv) modulation technology; and (v) in some cases, standardized communication protocols, including GSM, GPRS, EDGE, W-CDMA, LTE and/or 802.11 standards.  Ericsson asserted that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents, such as the Samsung Galaxy S III, the Samsung Captivate Glide, and the Samsung Galaxy Note. Regarding domestic industry, Ericsson stated that base stations and media gateways protected by at least the ‘359, ‘506, ‘556, ‘917, ‘223, ‘215 and ‘992 patents are configured, programmed, tested, customized and maintained at facilities across the U.S. for which Ericsson made significant investments in plant and equipment and significant employment of labor or capital.  Specifically, Ericsson identified its Mobile Broadband group in Plano, Texas; Boulder, Colorado; Seattle, Washington; Pleasanton, California and Atlanta, Georgia.  Ericsson also identified its Radio Access Network and Customer Network Support groups in Parsippany, New Jersey; Plano, Texas; Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; Kansas City, Kansas; Pleasanton, California; Irvine, California and Seattle, Washington.  Ericsson further identified substantial investment in the exploitation of the asserted patents through research and development at its engineering facilities in Plano, Texas; Seattle, Washington and Atlanta, Georgia.  Additionally, Ericsson pointed to research and development efforts in Overland, Kansas related to the operation and maintenance of Sprint’s national wireless network.  In particular, Sprint Nextel allegedly outsourced its U.S. network operations and maintenance to Ericsson in a seven-year deal valued at $4.5 billion to $5 billion in July 2009, part of which included Sprint transferring 6,000 employees to Ericsson.  According to the complaint, Sprint sells mobile cellular devices (e.g., Motorola Admiral) used on the Sprint Network that are licensed under some or all of the asserted patents.  Ericsson also stated that investments in research and development at its San Jose, California facility are used to develop mobile cellular devices and Ericsson’s base stations that are used across the AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile networks and around the world.  Infrastructure equipment sold by Ericsson allegedly comprises a significant portion of these networks, and AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile sell mobile cellular devices (e.g., Apple iPhone 4, RIM Bold 9900, Motorola Droid RAZR M, and Motorola Atrix 2) used on these networks that are licensed under some or all of the asserted patents.  Other products sold by AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile that allegedly practice at least one claim of some or all of the asserted patents under a license include the Apple iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4S, iPad and iPad 2, the Motorola Tundra, Droid 4, Droid RAZR and Droid RAZR Maxx, RIM Bold 9780, and the Blackberry Curve, Pearl and Torch.  Moreover, Ericsson pointed to substantial licensing activities in the U.S., including employees who have negotiated royalty bearing license agreements to the ‘052, ‘359, ‘888, ‘556, ‘310, ‘917, ‘506, ‘223, ‘832, ‘215 and ‘992 patents.  Ericsson also asserted that it has expended substantial sums on litigation in connection with its licensing efforts, discussed below.  Finally, Ericsson identified various activities of its licensees Motorola, Apple and Research In Motion in support of the domestic industry requirement. As to related litigation, Ericsson stated that it filed the action titled Ericsson Inc. et al. v. D-Link Corp. et al., Case No. 6:10-cv-473, on September 14, 2010 in the Eastern District of Texas.  That case is pending and involves products practicing the IEEE 802.11 standards that were accused of infringing the ‘223 and ‘215 patents.  Ericsson identified two other district court litigations it filed against the Proposed Respondents in the Eastern District of Texas in 2006, both of which settled: (1) Ericsson Inc. et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et. al., Case No. 2:06-cv-0063, which involved, inter alia, the ‘359, ‘556 and ‘506 patents; and (2) Ericsson Inc. et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et. al., Case No. 2:06-cv-0306, which involved, inter alia, the ‘052 patent.  Ericsson also filed a Section 337 complaint against the Proposed Respondents in 2006 which was instituted as Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 334-TA-583) and involved, inter alia, the ‘052 patent.  That investigation was terminated based on a settlement agreement.  Finally, Ericsson stated that it filed two infringement actions against the Proposed Respondents on November 27, 2012 in the Eastern District of Texas -- the first action involves all the same patents asserted in the attached complaint; the second action involves different asserted patents. With respect to potential remedy, Ericsson requested that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed to the Proposed Respondents.

Read More

Copyright © Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. | Disclaimer
The opinions, commentary and characterizations provided to this online forum by the authors and moderators are provided for encouraging discussion, thought and debate on important ITC issues. These postings are in no way representative of the opinions of the Oblon firm, or its clients, but rather the personal views of the individual authors.