New 337 Complaints

Safe Skies Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Dual Access Locks

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
17
On September 15, 2009, Safe Skies, LLC of Brooklyn, New York and David Tropp of Brooklyn, New York (collectively, “Safe Skies”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that the following proposed respondents (collectively, “Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain dual access locks and products containing same, which allegedly infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,021,537 and 7,036,728:
  • C&C Luggage Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of China
  • Diplomat of Taiwan
  • Hangzhou Gema Suitcases & Bags Co. Ltd of China
  • La Pearl Luggage and Leather Goods Co., Ltd. of China
  • Hinomoto Jomae, Ltd. of Japan
  • Sinox Company, Ltd. of Taiwan
  • Yi Feng Manufacturing, Co., Ltd. of China
  • Jin Tay Industries Co., Ltd. of Taiwan
  • FULLYEAR-Brother Enterprise, Co., Ltd. of Taiwan
  • Zhuhai SkyGood Tech. Industrial Corp., Ltd. of China
  • Ningbo Xianfeng Art & Craft Co., Ltd. of China
  • Paloma Enterprises Co., Ltd. of Taiwan
  • Tekraft Industrial Co., Ltd. of Taiwan
  • Hangzhou Travelsky Co., Ltd. of China
  • The Sun Lock Company Ltd. of Hong Kong
  • Alloy Metal Manufactory, Ltd. of Hong Kong
  • Cometform, Ltd. of England
  • Design Go Ltd. of England
  • Franzen International of Germany
  • M-Power Lock Manufactory of Hong Kong
According to the complaint, the asserted patents relate generally to methods of improving airline luggage inspection.  Further “[w]ith the invention of the [asserted patents], an airline passenger can lock their luggage and have the luggage inspected, if necessary, without the need to have the TSA Lock clipped or broken.  Likewise, the TSA or luggage screening authority can inspect locked baggage without the need to clip or break open the TSA Lock, which ordinarily would result in the lock being rendered ‘unlockable’ or damaged after the inspection process.” In the complaint, Safe Skies alleges that Respondents unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation locks, luggage, and baggage containing such locks, that are especially adapted and designed to be used in an infringing manner.  Specifically, Safe Skies alleges that Respondents make and sell locks, luggage, and baggage containing such locks under license from Travel Sentry, Inc. of Florida. Regarding domestic industry, Safe Skies alleges that “Complainants are an industry in the United States relating to the articles used in the methods protected by the patents-in-suit, or are an industry in the process of being established.” In the complaint, Safe Skies alleges that the asserted patents are subject to pending suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Regarding potential remedy, Safe Skies asks that the Commission issue a general exclusion order and a cease and desist order directed to all of the Respondents.
Share

Read More

Ricoh Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Printing And Imaging Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
21
On September 18, 2009, Ricoh Company, Ltd of Japan, Ricoh Americas Corporation of West Caldwell, New Jersey, and Ricoh Electronics, Inc. of Tustin, California (collectively, “Ricoh”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Oki Data Corporation of Japan and Oki Data Americas, Inc. of Mount Laurel, New Jersey (collectively, “Oki Data”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain printing and imaging devices, including multifunction printers (“MFP”), and components thereof, including at least image drums and fuser units, which allegedly infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,764,866 (the ‘866 patent); 6,388,771 (the ‘771 patent); 6,209,048 (the ‘048 patent); 6,212,343 the ‘343 patent); and 5,863,690 (the ‘690 patent). According to the complaint, (i) the ‘866 patent “relates generally to a document scanning device that connects directly to a network and can receive scan conditions from and send image data to the network”; (ii) the ‘771 patent “relates generally to image input devices, such as scanners, that read images and transfer the image data to a host computer via an interface, without the need for a user to input instructions to the host computer”; (iii) the ‘048 patent “relates generally to a peripheral printing or imaging device (e.g., MFP, scanner, copier, or camera) that contains an internal server that allows the printing or scanning device to communicate directly over a network without an intermediate server or computer”; (iv) the ‘343 patent “relates generally to a printer cartridge containing internal components that prevent toner from leaking out of the cartridge or into unwanted regions of the cartridge”; and (v) the ‘690 patent “relates generally to a method of affixing toner to a document using a fixing roller that has specific adhesion characteristics.” In the complaint, Ricoh alleges that Oki Data unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and sells within the U.S. after importation certain printing and imaging devices and components thereof, including Oki Data product C3530n.  According to the complaint, Oki Data product C3530n is made for Oki Data in Thailand and the image drums and fuser units for this Oki Data product are made for Oki Data in Thailand and China. Regarding related litigation, the complaint asserts that                         “[c]ontemporaneous with this filing, Ricoh filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Oki [Data] in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on the same five patents asserted in this investigation.” With respect to domestic industry (technical prong), Ricoh asserts that certain of its products  practice certain claims of each asserted patent.  Further, Ricoh asserts that it satisfies the domestic industry (economic prong) requirement through “Ricoh’s significant investment in plant, labor, capital, research & development, and licensing with respect to such articles protected by the asserted patents.” Regarding potential remedy, Ricoh asks that the Commission to “[s]et a target date of no more than fourteen (14) months”, issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed to all of the proposed respondents.
Share

Read More

Hewlett-Packard Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
24
On September 23, 2009, Hewlett-Packard Co. (“HP”) of Palo Alto, California filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to section 337. The complaint alleges that the following proposed respondents (collectively, “Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain inkjet ink supplies and components thereof, which allegedly infringe HP’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,959,985; 7,104,630; 6,089,687; and 6,264,301 (“the asserted patents”):
  • Zhuhai Gree Magneto-Electric Co., Ltd. of China
  • InkPlusToner.com of Canoga Park, California
  • Mipo International Ltd. of Hong Kong
  • Mipo America of Miami, Florida
  • Shanghai Angel Printer Supplies Co. Ltd. of China
  • SmartOne of Hayward, California
  • Shenzhen Print Media Co., Ltd. of China
  • Comptree of City of Industry, California
  • Zhuhai National Resources & Jingjie Imaging Products Co., Ltd. of China
  • Tatrix International of China
  • Ourway Image Co., Ltd. of China
According to the complaint, the asserted patents relate to specialized printing fluid containers.  In particular, the inventions relate to printing fluid containers that have enhanced alignment and latching features, the ability to hold different volumes of ink, and the ability to electronically communicate with the overall printing system regarding the amount of ink remaining in the container. HP discloses in the complaint that simultaneously with the filing of its ITC complaint, HP filed a complaint against Respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging infringement of the same four asserted patents. HP further discloses in the complaint that on August 1, 2006, HP asserted two of the four patents that are asserted in the current complaint against parties other than Respondents, both at the ITC (Inv. No. 337-TA-581), and also in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  The ITC investigation and the district court litigation both settled. Regarding potential remedy, HP requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order, or in the alternative, a permanent limited exclusion order.  Additionally, HP requests that the Commission issue cease and desist orders directed to all Respondents.
Share

Read More

Murata Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Ceramic Capacitors

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
02
On October 1, 2009, Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd of Japan and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. of Smyrna, Georgia (collectively, “Murata”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. of South Korea and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc. of Irvine, California (collectively, “SEMCO”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain ceramic capacitors and products containing same which allegedly infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,266,229 (the ‘229 patent); 6,014,309 (the ‘309 patent); 6,377,439 (the ‘439 patent); and 6,243,254 (the ‘254 patent). According to the complaint, “[t]hree of Murata’s asserted patents relate specifically to ceramic capacitors and the fourth of Murata’s asserted patents relates to a low equivalent series inductance.”  Specifically, the complaint describes the asserted patents as follows: (i) “the ‘229 patent is generally directed to a multilayer capacitor that is better adapted for high frequency circuit applications because it can have a lower equivalent series inductance (ESL)”; (ii) “the ‘309 patent describes ceramic parts such as a multilayer ceramic capacitor or a multilayer ceramic varistor” and further describes “how to select characteristics of the internal electrodes and of the ceramic layers to avoid manufacturing and reliability problems”; (iii) “the ‘439 patent is directed to a multilayer ceramic component, such as a multilayer ceramic capacitor, which is less susceptible to the cracking or delamination and has high thermal shock resistance and high reliability”; and (iv) “the ‘254 patent is directed to certain dielectric ceramic compositions and multilayer ceramic capacitors that use that ceramic as a dielectric.” In the complaint, Murata alleges that SEMCO unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and sells within the U.S. after importation SEMCO ceramic capacitors that embody the inventions disclosed and claimed in the asserted patents.  Murata further alleges that SEMCO manufactures ceramic capacitors in foreign facilities in Korea, China, and the Philippines. With respect to domestic industry (technical prong), Murata asserts that certain of its products practice certain claims of each asserted patent.  Further, Murata alleges that it satisfies the domestic industry (economic prong) requirement through Murata’s “significant investment in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor and capital, and substantial investment in the exploitation of the patents-in-suit through engineering, research and development, testing and quality assurance.” Regarding potential remedy, Murata asks that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed to SEMCO.
Share

Read More

B&R Plastics Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Foldable Stools

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
10
On November 6, 2009, B&R Plastics, Inc. of Denver, Colorado (“B&R”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that the following proposed respondents unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain foldable stools, including foldable stools under various trade names such as the “Easy Fold Step Stool” which allegedly infringe the design claimed in U.S. Patent No. D460,566 (the ‘566 patent):
  • Ningbo ZhongTian Co., Ltd. of China
  • Ningbo Ningfeng Import and Export Co., Ltd of China
  • Kikkerland Design, Inc. of New York, New York
  • abc Distributing Inc. of Bannockburn, Illinois
  • Always Something Brilliant of Denver, Colorado
  • Amazon.com, Inc. of Seattle, Washington
  • Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. of Union, New Jersey
  • Buy.com Inc. of Aliso Viejo, California
  • Crate & Barrel, Inc. of Northbrook, Illinois
  • Home Depot Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia
  • The Afternoon of Omaha, Nebraska
  • The Container Store, Inc. of Coppell, Texas
  • QVC, Inc. of West Chester, Pennsylvania
According to the complaint, the “technology-at-issue relates to a unique and proprietary design for foldable stools.  B&R manufactures and sells a product using its proprietary foldable stool design under the trade name ‘EZ Foldz Folding Step Stool.’” In the complaint, B&R alleges that “[t]he proposed [r]espondents were and are competitors of B&R with regard to foldable stools, and have been marketing, distributing, and selling foldable stools to unfairly compete with the B&R Stool ….”  B&R further alleges that the accused products are manufactured in China. With respect to technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, B&R asserts that its product practices the asserted ‘566 patent.  Further, B&R alleges that it satisfies the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement “by virtue of B&R’s activities within the United States, including B&R’s manufacture, research and development, repair and service of its injection molded household items including foldable stools.” In the complaint, B&R alleges that the patent-in-suit has been previously asserted in numerous actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Regarding potential remedy, B&R asks that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed to the proposed respondents.
Share

Read More

Knowles Electronics Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Silicon Microphone Packages

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
13
On November 12, 2009, Knowles Electronics LLC of Itasca, Illinois (“Knowles”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Analog Devices Inc. of Norwood, Massachusetts (“ADI”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and sells within the U.S. after importation certain silicon microphone packages and products containing the same which allegedly infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,781,231 (the ‘231 patent) and 7,242,089 (the ‘089 patent). According to the complaint, “[s]ilicon microphones are a unique type of microphone using processes like silicon etching that are normally used to create microchips” and the “technology-at-issue relates to a unique and proprietary package for a silicon microphone that consists of a microphone diaphragm made of silicon produced using the Microelectromechanical Systems (‘MEMS’) process, a substrate, and a cover.” In the complaint, Knowles alleges that “ADI manufactures and imports into the United States and/or sells for importation into the United States a variety of silicon microphone packages that infringe the [asserted] Knowles [p]atents.”  Knowles further alleges that “ADI or one of its affiliates sells its silicon microphone packages to overseas manufacturers including Apple into downstream products such as Apple’s iPod Nano product line.” With respect to domestic industry (technical prong), Knowles asserts that it “domestically practices at least one claim of the Knowles ‘231 Patent and the Knowles ‘089 Patent.”  Further, Knowles alleges that it satisfies the domestic industry (economic prong) requirement through “Knowles’s activities within the United States, including Knowles’s manufacture, research and development, repair and service of its MEMS Silicon Microphone Technology and its SiSonic Microphone Package.”  Knowles also alleges that the “existence of the economic prong of a domestic industry with respect to both of the ‘231 and ‘089 patents was adjudicated and affirmed in investigation 337-TA-629.” Regarding other legal proceedings involving the asserted patents, Knowles alleges in its complaint that the ITC issued an opinion and limited exclusion order in investigation 337-TA-629.  Knowles further discloses that it filed a complaint on October 6, 2009 against ADI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  Additionally, Knowles discloses that both ADI and Wolfson Microelectronics Plc have recently requested that the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office re-examine the ‘231 and ‘089 patents. Regarding potential remedy, Knowles asks that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed to ADI.
Share

Read More

Pioneer Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices And Systems

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
17
On November 13, 2009, Pioneer Corporation of Japan and Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. of Long Beach, California (collectively “Pioneer”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Garmin International, Inc. of Olathe, Kansas, Garmin Corporation of Taiwan (collectively, “Garmin”), and Honeywell International Inc. of Morristown, New Jersey (“Honeywell”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain multimedia display and navigation devices and systems, components thereof, and products containing the same which allegedly infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,365,448 (the ‘448 patent), 6,122,592 (the ‘592 patent), and 5,424,951 (the ‘951 patent). According to the complaint, the “technology and products at issue concern multimedia display and navigation devices and systems, components thereof, and products containing such devices and systems, such as portable GPS navigation systems…that are capable of processing, organizing, and displaying information in a manner that comes within the scope of the asserted patents’ claims.”  Specifically, the (i) “‘448 patent generally covers improvements to the way navigation systems display navigation information, including the distance and direction from the present location of the system to a destination”; (ii) “‘592 patent generally covers improvements to the map display system associated with a navigational system”; and (iii) “‘951 patent generally covers improvements to the way in which navigation systems allow users to register information associated with a service facility.” In the complaint, Pioneer asserts that the portable GPS navigation systems and products of Garmin and Honeywell that are designed for use in a vehicle are accused of infringement.  While Pioneer identifies in the complaint a number of specific Garmin and Honeywell models as accused products, it also asserts that the “identification of a specific model or type of product is not intended to limit the scope of the Investigation, and any remedy should extend to all infringing products.” Regarding domestic industry, Pioneer alleges in the complaint that it satisfies 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(C) based on “an extensive in-house licensing capability that implements all necessary licensing functions for its intellectual property portfolio.”  Pioneer further asserts that it “employs licensing professionals in Japan and the United States to work on projects involving Pioneer’s extensive patent portfolio.  These licensing professionals work alongside intellectual property counsel in evaluating licensing opportunities, including opportunities involving Pioneer’s multimedia display and navigation system patent portfolio.” With respect to potential remedy, Pioneer asks that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed to each proposed respondent.
Share

Read More

Matthew Bullock and Walnut Industries File New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Restraining Systems For Transport Containers

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
27
On November 24, 2009, Matthew Bullock of Mclean, Virginia and Walnut Industries, Inc. of Bensalem, Pennsylvania (collectively, “Walnut”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Qingdao Auront Industry & Trade Co., Ltd of China (“Auront”) unlawfully imports into the U.S. and sells for importation certain restraining systems for transport containers, components thereof, and methods of using same which allegedly infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,227,779 (the ‘779 patent), 6,981,827 (the ‘827 patent), 6,089,802 (the ‘802 patent), and Copyright Registration Nos. TX-6-990-095 and TX-6-996-765.  The complaint further alleges that Auront “falsely advertises its cargo restraint system through the Internet and other electronic communications” and Auront’s “misuse of Walnut’s registered materials and false advertising for the purpose of selling or offering for sale products that are imported into the United States is a violation of Section 337.” According to the complaint, “each of the patents-in-suit relate to a restraint system used in cargo transport containers”: (i) the “‘802 patent is directed at the system of reinforced load restraining strips with sections for self-adherence to a container wall surface”, (ii) the “‘779 patent is directed to a method for using the ‘802 load reinforcing system to secure cargo”, and (iii) the “‘827 patent is directed at a set of tools used to implement the ‘802 load restraining system in accordance with the ‘779 process.”  In addition, the complaint alleges that the asserted copyrights register materials and information on Walnut’s website as first implemented in 2000 and as of its modification in 2007. In the complaint, Walnut alleges that Auront “manufactures its infringing cargo restraint systems in China, and offers them for sale to customers outside the United States for use in restraining goods within containers destined for importation into the United States.”  Walnut further alleges “[a]t least 12 instances of direct replication” from Walnut’s website that “appear on the Auront website promoting the product that infringes one or more claims of the patents-in-suit.” Regarding domestic industry, Walnut alleges that the “Walnut website copyright and patents-in-suit are embodied in and cover certain of Complainants’ cargo restraint systems sold in the United States” and the “activities which constitute this requisite U.S. industry include significant U.S. investment in plant and equipment and U.S. employment of labor and significant capital with respect to the manufacture and sale of flexible strip cargo restraint systems of Complainants which conform to the Walnut copyright and practice the Bullock/Walnut patents-in-suit.” With respect to potential remedy, Walnut asks that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed to Auront.
Share

Read More

Samsung Electronics Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
03
On December 1, 2009, 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 Sharp Corporation of Japan, Sharp Electronics Corporation, and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc. (collectively, “Sharp”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain liquid crystal display (“LCD”) devices and products containing the same which allegedly infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,844,533 (the ‘533 patent), 6,888,585 (the ‘585 patent), and 7,436,479 (the ‘479 patent). According to the complaint, the “technologies at issue relate generally to various aspects of liquid crystal displays.”  Specifically, (i) the “‘533 patent relates to a liquid crystal display device, and more particularly to generating high quality gray scale images in an LCD device,” (ii) the “‘585 patent relates to a control signal unit in an LCD device that overcomes problems in the prior art caused by discharge of static electricity,” and (iii) the “‘479 patent relates generally to improving image quality in an LCD device.” In the complaint, Samsung alleges that “the accused products are manufactured, assembled and/or packaged and tested outside of the United States, specifically, at least in Mexico.”  Samsung further alleges that the accused products include at least the Sharp AQUOS LC40E77UN 40” 1080p LCD HDTV and the Sharp AQUOS LC46E77UN 46” 1080p LCD HDTV. With respect to domestic industry (technical prong), Samsung asserts that “Samsung-branded consumer digital display products, including, but not limited to, LCD televisions and LCD monitors” are covered by the asserted patents.  Further, Samsung alleges that it satisfies the domestic industry (economic prong) requirement through the activities in the United States of Samsung’s subsidiaries, including “significant employment of labor or capital in the United States.” Regarding potential remedy, Samsung asks that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed to Sharp.
Share

Read More

Analog Devices Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Surface Mount MEMS Microphones

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
03
On December 1, 2009, Analog Devices, Inc. of Norwood, Massachusetts (“Analog”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Knowles Electronics LLC of Itasca, Illinois (“Knowles”) and Mouser Electronics, Inc. of Mansfield, Texas (“Mouser”) (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain surface mount MEMS (Micro-Electro-Mechanical System) microphones, as well as certain products that incorporate those microphones which allegedly infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,220,614 (the ‘614 patent) and 7,364,942 (the ‘942 patent). According to the complaint, the “patents-in-suit relate generally to forming durable anti-stiction surfaces on micromachined structures.”  Further, Analog alleges in its complaint that the asserted patents (i) “provide a solution to the problem of stiction, including in MEMS devices,” (ii) “disclose and claim processes and devices that utilize vapor deposition of a material having anti-stiction properties to produce a low stiction surface on a MEMS device,” and (iii) “disclose and claim chemicals that are effective in imparting the anti-stiction property to a surface for a MEMS device.” In the complaint, Analog alleges that “the Accused Products are manufactured entirely outside of the United States in China and/or Japan and are then imported into the United States, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation, in the United States by Knowles and its U.S. distributors, including Mouser.”  Analog further alleges that a “representative of Analog purchased, in the United States, a Nokia 3600 cell phone containing a Knowles surface mount MEMS microphone, bearing identification number ‘S310 3745 V11’” and such Knowles surface mount MEMS microphone “was manufactured, at least in part, in China.” With respect to related litigation, Analog asserts in its complaint that it filed suit on November 3, 2009 against Knowles in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the same patents asserted in the instant action.  In addition, Analog notes that Knowles filed a Section 337 complaint against Analog on November 12, 2009 and the ITC has not yet determined whether it will institute an investigation.  See our November 13 post for more details.  According to the complaint, there is “substantial overlap between Knowles’ Proposed Investigation and Analog’s Complaint” since “[b]oth investigations involve the same products – Analog’s MEMS microphones and Knowles’ surface mount MEMS microphones.”  Analog therefore seeks “consolidation of the investigations pursuant to Commission Rule 201.7(a)” in an effort to “save Commission resources, as well as those of the parties.” Regarding domestic industry, Analog asserts that a “domestic industry as defined by 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3) exists with respect to Analog’s activities in the United States that exploit the ‘614 Patent and ‘942 Patent and that relate to articles protected by the patented methods by reason of Analog’s significant investment in plant and equipment and significant employment of labor and capital.” With respect to potential remedy, Analog asks that the Commission issue permanent limited and general exclusion orders and permanent cease and desist orders directed to the Proposed Respondents.
Share

Read More

Richtek Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain DC-DC Controllers

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
04
On December 2, 2009, Richtek Technology Corp. of Taiwan and Richtek USA, Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively, “Richtek”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that the following proposed respondents unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain DC-DC controllers and products containing such controllers which allegedly infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,315,190 (the ‘190 patent), 6,414,470 (the ‘470 patent), and 7,132,717 (the ‘717 patent):
  • uPI Semiconductor Corp. of Taiwan (“uPI”)
  • Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California (“AMD”)
  • Sapphire Technology Limited of Hong Kong
  • Diamond Multimedia, Inc. of Chatsworth, California
  • XFX Technology, Inc. of Ontario, California
The complaint further alleges violations of Section 337 “arising from the unfair act of misappropriating Richtek’s proprietary and trade secret information relating to at least Richtek’s DC-DC controllers.” According to the complaint, the “products involved in this investigation are certain DC-DC controllers and products containing them used to regulate power in many modern electronic devices.  More specifically, DC-DC controllers are typically placed on a printed circuit board (PCB), e.g., a graphics card or a board inside a computer, and regulate DC power typically derived from an external power supply connected to a wall socket to provide lower power for components on the PCB, e.g., graphics processing units (‘GPUs’) or microprocessors.”  According to Richtek’s non-technical description of the asserted patents, (i) the ‘190 patent “relates to a PWM IC controller that regulates a voltage output at a load using two control switches,” (ii) the ‘470 patent “relates to a multi-phase PWM DC-DC controller,” and (iii) the ‘717 patent “relates to power metal oxide transistor layouts.” With respect to related litigation, Richtek asserts in its complaint that it has previously filed various infringement actions against uPI in Taiwan.  In addition, Richtek alleges that it “filed criminal charges with the Taipei District Court prosecutor’s office against eleven former Richtek employees, regarding, inter alia, misappropriation of trade secrets.” Regarding the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, Richtek asserts that its products practice the asserted patents.  Further, Richtek alleges that it satisfies the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement through “substantial investments in the United States in the exploitation of the [asserted patents].  These investments include research, design, engineering, product development, testing, quality control and providing technical support in connection with the ‘design-in’ of DC-DC controllers that practice the asserted patents.”  Richtek further alleges that the “effect of uPI and AMD’s unfair practices…have been to substantially injure and threaten substantial injury to the domestic industry that exists by virtue of Richtek’s investments and activities in the United States relating to Richtek’s proprietary and trade secret information.” With respect to potential remedy, Richtek asks that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed to the proposed respondents.
Share

Read More

Prism Technologies Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Authentication Systems

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
04
On December 2, 2009, Prism Technologies LLC of Omaha, Nebraska (“Prism”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Research In Motion, Ltd. of Canada and Research In Motion Corp. of Irving, Texas (collectively, “RIM”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain authentication systems, including software and handheld electronic devices which allegedly infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,290,288 (the ‘288 Patent). According to the complaint, the ‘288 Patent “covers an innovative way of controlling access to protected electronically stored data and information requested by a device using an Internet Protocol network.”  Specifically, “the method and system disclosed by the ‘288 Patent controls access to protected electronically stored data and information using an authentication server.” In the complaint, Prism alleges that RIM’s BlackBerry Desktop Enterprise Activation and BlackBerry Administrator Enterprise Activation configurations of the BlackBerry Enterprise Solution infringe certain claims of the ‘288 Patent.  According to Prism, the “BlackBerry Enterprise Solution (consisting of a BlackBerry device, BlackBerry Device Software, BlackBerry Desktop Software, and the BlackBerry Enterprise Server) is designed to protect a company’s important confidential data and information.”  Prism further asserts that “[u]nlike BlackBerry devices sold to consumers, those sold to Enterprise customers (which upon information and belief constitutes approximately 68 percent of BlackBerry’s sales of BlackBerry devices) require Enterprise Activation” and such activation “must occur before a BlackBerry device can be used to access an Enterprise user’s Calendar entries, Address Book entries, Tasks, Memos and Email messages.”  Prism also alleges that “Enterprise Activation occurs when the BlackBerry device is connected to a personal computer running the BlackBerry Desktop Manager software” and when connected “the BlackBerry Desktop Manager software communicates with the BlackBerry Enterprise Server (BES) to perform the activation.”  Lastly, Prism alleges that “BlackBerry smartphone devices, including the BlackBerry Curve 8330 smartphone device, have been and continue to be used in conjunction with BES software in a manner that infringes claims of the ‘288 Patent.” With respect to related litigation, Prism asserts in its complaint that it filed suit on December 29, 2008 against RIM and Microsoft Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska alleging infringement of the ‘288 Patent.  Prism further asserts that Microsoft was dismissed from the case based on a settlement agreement, however, the action is currently pending against RIM.  Prism also identifies in its complaint other district court litigation it has initiated against third party companies involving a patent related to the ‘288 Patent. Regarding domestic industry, Prism asserts that a “domestic industry exists through substantial investment in the ‘288 Patent through licensing by Prism Technologies, and substantial research and development by Prism Technologies’ predecessor, Prism Resources.” With respect to potential remedy, Prism asks that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order directed to RIM.
Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
29
On December 29, 2009, Nokia Corporation of Finland and Nokia Inc. 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 the proposed respondent, Apple, Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”), unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the United States after importation certain electronic devices, including mobile phones, portable music players, and computers which allegedly infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,714,091 (the ‘091 patent), 6,834,181 (the ‘181 patent), 6,895,256 (the ‘256 patent), 6,518,957 (the ‘957 patent), 6,073,036 (the ‘036 patent), 6,262,735 (the ‘735 patent), and/or 6,924,789 (the ‘789 patent) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). According to the complaint, Nokia asserts that certain Apple products, including the iPhone, iPhone 3G, and iPhone 3GS mobile phones, iPod Nano, iPod Touch, and iPod Classic portable music players, and iMac, Mac Mini, Mac Pro, MacBook, MacBook Pro, and MacBook Air computers directly infringe, contribute to infringement and induce infringement of the Asserted Patents, which are sometimes referred to as “implementation patents.”  These “implementation patents,” which are not essential to any relevant wireless communication standards, “permit Nokia to differentiate its products from those of its competitors.”  According to Nokia, the Asserted Patents relate to the following inventions as follows: (i) the ‘091 patent “relates to a programmable voltage controlled oscillator (“VCO”) that increases the efficiency of the wireless device and uses less power than traditional VCOs, thereby increasing battery life”; (ii) the ‘181 patent relates to combining the antenna and speaker assemblies of mobile phones to reduce the mobile phone’s size and increase its performance; (iii) the ‘256 patent relates to “reducing the overall chip count on a printed circuit board,” which reduces the overall size and power consumption of a device; (iv) the ‘957 patent relates to deactivating the touch screen of a mobile phone during phone calls; (v) the ‘036 patent relates to “magnifying or expanding the portion of the screen pressed by the user’s fingertip”; (vi) the ‘735 patent relates to “a way to link other applications on electronic devices through an electronic message”; and (vii) the ‘789 patent relates to “a way to both press a key to enter data, and to use a touch sensitive input to navigate through applications . . . to provide a more advanced user interactive experience.” With respect to related litigation, Nokia asserts in its complaint that “concurrent with the filing of this complaint, Nokia Corporation will file a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware accusing Apple of infringement of the Asserted Patents.” Regarding the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, Nokia asserts that many of its mobile phones practice the Asserted Patents.  Further, Nokia alleges that it satisfies the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement through “substantial investments in the United States in the exploitation of the Asserted Patents.  These investments include at least domestic engineering, research and development, testing, and repair and service relating to articles protected by the 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 to Apple.
Share

Read More

Sharp Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Liquid Crystal Display Modules

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
11
On January 8, 2010, Sharp Corporation of Japan (“Sharp”) 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, and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively, “Samsung”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain liquid crystal display (“LCD”) modules and products containing the same, and methods for making the same which allegedly infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,379,140 (the ‘140 Patent), 6,141,075 (the ‘075 Patent), 7,283,192 (the ‘192 Patent), 5,670,994 (the ‘994 Patent), and 7,408,588 (the ‘588 Patent). According to the complaint, (1) the ‘140 and ‘075 Patents generally relate to a “Vertically Aligned (‘VA’) LCD device that provides improved viewing angle and better contrast,” (2) the ‘192 Patent generally relates to an “LCD device having improved γ characteristics at wide viewing angles,” (3) the ‘994 patent generally relates to an “LCD device having improved weight, reliability, size, and cost,” and (4) the ‘588 Patent generally relates to “image processing circuitry.” In the complaint, Sharp alleges that the accused Samsung LCD modules and products are manufactured abroad in Mexico, China, and/or Korea and sold in the United States through various retailers. With respect to related litigation, Sharp identifies in the complaint a number of district court actions and Section 337 investigations currently pending between Samsung and Sharp involving LCD technology.  Sharp notes, however, that none of these matters involve the same patents asserted in the instant complaint. Regarding domestic industry, Sharp asserts that “[a]lthough Sharp does not manufacture LCD modules or products containing such modules in the United States, a domestic industry exists based upon the substantial investment of Sharp’s subsidiaries in research and development, testing, repair, refurbishment, customer support and other after-market activities in the United States related to the patents-in-suit.” With respect to potential remedy, Sharp asks that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order directed to Samsung.
Share

Read More

Kodak Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Mobile Telephones And Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
15
On January 14, 2010, Eastman Kodak Company of Rochester, New York (“Kodak”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that the proposed respondents, Apple, Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”), Research in Motion, Ltd. of Canada, and Research In Motion Corporation of Irving, Texas (collectively, “RIM”) unlawfully import into the United States, sell for importation, and/or sell within the United States after importation certain mobile telephones and wireless communication devices featuring digital cameras, and components thereof which allegedly infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,292,218 (the ‘218 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘218 patent “describes and claims an image capture and processing device with certain components for ‘previewing’ the scene to be captured.” In the complaint, Kodak asserts that certain Apple products, including the iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS (“Apple accused devices”) and certain RIM products, including the BlackBerry Tour; BlackBerry Storm 9530; BlackBerry Storm 2 9550; BlackBerry Bold 9000, 9700; BlackBerry Curve 8300, 8310, 8320, 8330, 8350i, 8520, 8530, 8900; BlackBerry Pearl 8100, 8110, 8120, 8130; and BlackBerry Pearl Flip 8220, 8230 (“RIM accused devices”) directly infringe, contribute to infringement and induce infringement of the ‘218 patent. Kodak further alleges in the complaint that the Apple accused devices are manufactured abroad in China and are sold in the United States through its own retail and online stores, and “to cellular network carriers’ distribution channels and third-party resellers.”  Similarly, Kodak alleges that the RIM accused devises are manufactured abroad in Mexico and sold in the United States through “wireless communication carriers” and “third-party distribution channels, including resellers.” With respect to related litigation, Kodak identifies in the complaint a number of district court actions and a Section 337 investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-663) regarding the ‘218 patent that have resulted in settlement agreements or are otherwise pending.  In this respect, Kodak asserts in the complaint that the 663 Investigation resulted in an Initial Determination of violation issued by ALJ Carl C. Charneski on December 17, 2009. Regarding the domestic industry requirement, Kodak asserts that “[a]ll of Kodak’s digital cameras embody the invention of at least independent claim 15 of the ‘218 patent” and that “[a]lthough Kodak does not presently manufacture its digital cameras in the United States, Kodak employees in the United States have continuously developed advanced technologies to support the digital cameras that incorporate the inventions claimed in the ‘218 patent.”   Kodak also alleges that it “has invested significant amounts of capital in the United States in licensing the ‘218 patent.”  Further, Kodak points out that in his “Initial Determination in the 663 Investigation, ALJ Charneski found that Kodak satisfied the domestic industry requirement for the ‘218 patent.” With respect to potential remedy, Kodak requests that the Commission issue permanent exclusion orders and permanent cease and desist orders directed to Apple and RIM.
Share

Read More

Apple Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Mobile Communications And Computer Devices

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
19
On January 15, 2010, Apple Inc. (formerly known as Apple Computer, Inc.) of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Nokia Corporation of Finland and Nokia Inc. of White Plains, New York (collectively, “Nokia”) unlawfully import into the United States, sell for importation, and sell within the United States after importation certain mobile communication devices and computer devices and components thereof which allegedly infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,379,431 (the ‘431 patent), 5,455,599 (the ‘599 patent), 5,519,867 (the ‘867 patent), 5,915, 131 (the ‘131 patent), 5,920,726 (the ‘726 patent), 5,969,705 (the ‘705 patent), 6,343,263 (the ‘263 patent), 6,424,354, and RE 39,486 (the RE ‘486 patent). According to the complaint, the “technologies at issue relate generally to hardware and software used in a variety of devices, including mobile communications equipment.”  Specifically, the technologies at issue (1) in the ‘431, ‘867, ‘131, ‘705, ‘354, and RE ‘486 patents “relate to software used to implement operating systems,” (2) in the ‘599 patent “relate to a graphic system and corresponding management of graphic processing,” and (3) in the ‘726 and ‘263 patents “relate to hardware interfaces and power management techniques.” In the complaint, Apple alleges that certain Nokia products, such as computing and mobile communication devices, including computers, cellular phones, and PDAs, as well as “software and Nokia devices (such as Nokia N900 and others) that incorporate such software including operating systems (such as the Symbian OS), user interfaces” infringe the asserted Apple patents. With respect to related litigation, Apple alleges in the complaint that the ‘131, ‘431, RE ‘486, and ‘263 patents “are the subject of counterclaims by Apple (filed on December 11, 2009) to a patent infringement complaint brought by Respondent Nokia in Nokia Corporation v. Apple Inc. (on October 22, 2009), Civil Action 09-791-GMS, currently pending in the District of Delaware.” Regarding the domestic industry requirement, Apple asserts that it meets such requirement through its "significant investments in physical operations, employment of labor and capital, and exploitation of the Asserted Patents.” As to potential remedy, Apple requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed to Nokia.
Share

Read More

Toshiba Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Notebook Computer Products

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
20
On January 19, 2010, Toshiba Corporation of Japan (“Toshiba”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Wistron Corporation of Taiwan, Wistron InfoComm (Texas) Corporation of Grapevine, Texas, and Wistron InfoComm Technology (America) Corporation of Flower Mound, Texas (collectively “Wistron”) unlawfully import into the United States, sell for importation, and/or sell within the United States after importation certain notebook computer products which allegedly infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,156,693 (the ‘693 patent) and 5,430,867 (the ‘867 patent). According to the complaint, the “accused products and the Toshiba products that practice the Asserted Patents are notebook computer products that include certain touchpad and security features.”  Specifically, the ‘693 patent “is directed to an electronic pointing device that is disposed entirely inside the housing of an electronic apparatus, such as a notebook computer.”  Further, the ‘867 patent “is directed to systems and methods for saving the contents of a computer when the power is switched off and for protecting the saved contents of the computer from unauthorized used when the power is switched on again.” In the complaint, Toshiba alleges that certain Wistron products, including the Aspire 4810 notebook computer products, infringe the asserted patents.  Toshiba further alleges that the Wistron accused products “are manufactured, assembled, and/or packaged outside of the United States.” Regarding related litigation, Toshiba alleges that the ‘867 patent was previously asserted in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Trigem Computer, Inc.  According to the complaint, the Trigem litigation ended in a settlement.  Toshiba further asserts that both the ‘867 and ‘693 patents (as well as two other patents) are the subject of a concurrently filed complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Wistron. With respect to the domestic industry requirement, Toshiba asserts that certain Toshiba-branded notebook computer products are covered by one or more claims of the asserted patents.  Toshiba further alleges that an “indirect subsidiary” of Toshiba “conducts significant domestic industry activities in the United States relating to products practicing the Asserted Patents” including “significant employment of labor and/or capital in the United States.” As to potential remedy, Toshiba requests that the Commission “issue orders pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)” and “issue orders pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(f)” directed to Wistron.
Share

Read More

Motorola Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Wireless Communication System Server Software, Wireless Handheld Devices And Battery Packs

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
25
On January 22, 2010, Motorola, Inc. of Schaumburg, Illinois (“Motorola”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that the proposed respondents, Research in Motion, Ltd. of Canada, and Research In Motion Corp. of Irving, Texas (collectively, “RIM”) unlawfully import into the United States, sell for importation, and/or sell within the United States after importation certain wireless communication system server software, wireless handheld devices and battery packs which allegedly infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,319,712 (the ‘712 patent), 5,359,317 (the ‘317 patent), 5,569,550 (the ‘550 patent), 6,232,970 (the ‘970 patent), and 6,272,333 (the ‘333 patent). According to the complaint, (i) the ‘712 patent relates to “cryptographic protection of a data stream in the Open Systems Interconnection (‘OSI’) network architecture,” (ii) the ‘317 patent relates to “selective call receivers,” (iii) the ‘550 patent relates to “protecting batteries against over-charging and over-discharging,” (iv) the ‘970 patent relates to “devices for processing information,” and (v) the ‘333 patent relates to “controlling of data in wireless communication systems.” In the complaint, Motorola asserts that certain communication system server software, including the BlackBerry Enterprise Server (all versions 4.0 or later) along with certain RIM products, including the BlackBerry Pearl, Curve, Bold, and Storm wireless handheld devices as well as the lithium-ion battery packs used by such devices infringe the asserted Motorola patents. Motorola further alleges in the complaint that the RIM accused products are manufactured outside of the United States, for example, in Canada, Mexico, Japan, and China. Regarding related litigation, Motorola identifies in the complaint a number of district court actions and a pending patent revocation proceeding in the United Kingdom between RIM and Motorola. With respect to the domestic industry requirement, Motorola alleges that it satisfies the economic prong in light of its (i) “extensive domestic licensing program”, (ii) significant investment in plant, labor and equipment, and (iii) engineering, research and development, marketing, licensing and service activities.  As to the technical prong, Motorola asserts that many of its products “practice the Asserted Patents, including, for example, the Motorola Rival A455, Cliq and Droid products, including their integrated software and accessory products, such as battery packs.” Regarding potential remedy, Motorola requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed to RIM.
Share

Read More

Infineon Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
22
On February 19, 2010, Infineon Technologies AG of Germany and Infineon Technologies North America Corp. of Milpitas, California (collectively, “Infineon”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to section 337. The complaint alleges that the following proposed respondents (collectively, “Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain dynamic random access memory semiconductors (“DRAMs”) and downstream goods containing the same, which allegedly infringe Infineon’s U.S. Patent Nos. 5,480,051, 5,422,309, 5,397,664, and 7,071,074 (“the asserted patents”):
  • Elpida Memory Inc. of Japan
  • Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. of Sunnyvale, California
  • Rexchip Electronics Corp. of Taiwan
  • Kingston Technology Co. Inc. of Fountain Valley, California
  • Kingston Technology (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. of China
  • Kingston Technology Far East Co. Ltd. of Taiwan
  • Kingston Technology Far East (M) Sdn. Bhd. of Malaysia
  • Payton Technology Corp. of Fountain Valley, California
  • A-Data Technology Co. Ltd. of Taiwan
  • A-Data Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. of Hacienda Heights, California
  • Apacer Technology Inc. of Taiwan
  • Apacer Memory America Inc. of Milpitas, California
  • Buffalo Inc. of Japan
  • Buffalo Technology (USA), Inc. of Austin, Texas
  • Corsair Memory of Fremont, California
  • Corsair Memory (Taiwan) of Taiwan
  • Mushkin Inc. of Englewood, Colorado
  • Mushkin APAC of Malaysia
  • Transcend Information Inc. of Taiwan
  • Transcend USA of Orange, California
According to the complaint, the asserted patents relate to semiconductor memory chips. In particular, the inventions relate to methods for anisotropically etching aluminum layers during the fabrication of integrated circuits, producing a metallization level having contacts and interconnects that connect the contacts, manufacturing a phase mask for projection lithography, and placing, sizing, and shaping dummy structures within integrated circuits. In the complaint, Infineon alleges that Elpida Memory Inc., Elpida Memory (USA) Inc., and Rexchip Electronics Corp. (collectively, “Elpida”) manufacture, import, sell for importation, and sell after importation into the U.S. certain DRAM modules that infringe the asserted patents, and that all Respondents manufacture, import, sell for importation, and sell after importation into the U.S. downstream goods containing Elpida DRAM modules that infringe the asserted patents. Regarding domestic industry, Infineon states that it has made significant investments in plant, equipment, labor, and capital in the U.S. with respect to Infineon products protected by the asserted patents.  In particular, Infineon points to its large manufacturing facilities in California, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.  Additionally, Infineon states that it has made substantial investments in the exploitation of the asserted patents in the U.S. through research and development, engineering, licensing, product development, testing, and quality control, particularly pointing to its strategic alliances with third party U.S. technology companies and its substantial investments in research and development activities in upstate New York. Regarding potential remedy, Infineon requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, a limited exclusion order “specifically directed to each named Respondent and its subsidiaries and affiliates,” and a cease-and-desist order prohibiting the sale and distribution within the U.S. of Elpida DRAMs and all downstream goods containing the same that infringe the asserted patents.
Share

Read More

Freescale Semiconductor Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Integrated Circuits

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
02
On March 1, 2010, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (“Freescale”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that the following proposed respondents unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain integrated circuits, chipsets, and products including same that allegedly infringe claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,467,455 (the ‘455 patent); 5,715,014 (the ‘014 patent); and 7,199,306 (the ‘306 patent).:
  • Panasonic Corporation;
  • Panasonic Semiconductor Discrete Devices Co. Ltd.;
  • Panasonic Corporation of North America;
  • Funai Corporation, Inc.;
  • Funai Electric Co., Ltd.;
  • JVC Kenwood Holdings, Inc.;
  • Victor Company of Japan, Limited;
  • JVC Americas Corp.;
  • Best Buy Co., Inc.;
  • B & H Foto & Electronics Corp.;
  • Huppin's Hi-Fi Photo & Video, Inc.;
  • Buy.com Inc.;
  • Liberty Media Corporation;
  • QVC, Inc.;
  • Crutchfield Corporation;
  • Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; and
  • Computer Nerds International, Inc.
The complaint describes the ‘455 patent as relating to “circuitry designed to reduce unwanted signal reflection on a communication bus between two integrated circuits,”  the ‘014 patent as relating to providing a picture-in-picture video channel on a television, and the ‘306 patent as relating to a method for assembling an integrated circuit packaging to protect the circuit and mechanically and electrically connect the circuit to a larger system. As set forth in the complaint, the accused products include:  (1) Panasonic integrated circuits that either incorporate Freescale’s patented technology or were packaged using Freescale’s patented methods; (2) chipsets and end-products such as televisions and media players containing such integrated circuits, and (3) televisions employing Freescale’s patented television technology. Freescale asserts that it satisfies the domestic industry requirement based on its substantial licensing program and operation of facilities in the United States engaging in engineering and research and development related to the asserted patents.  Freescale also points to its investment of substantial sums of money to enforce the asserted patents.  These efforts include both licensing and at least four patent lawsuits Freescale has filed relating to at least one of the asserted patents. Regarding potential remedy, Freescale requests a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed to the proposed respondents.
Share

Read More

www.xxx-clips-online.com