ITC Blog: ITC 337 Update

On August 27, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion on the appeal from Inv. No. 337-TA-615, General Protecht Corp. v. ITC.  The Court affirmed certain portions of the Commission's decisions and disagreed with others.  The Commission determined that  that Respondents General Protecht Corp., Wenzhou Trimone Science and Technology Electric Co. Ltd., and Shanghai ELE Mfg. Corp.'s importation into the United States, sale for importation or sale within the United States of certain ground fault circuit interrupters (GFCIs) violated section 337.  According to the Commission, devices manufactured by the Respondents infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7,283,340; 5,594,398 and 7,164,564 and a limited exclusion order was an appropriate remedy.

The Federal Circuit determined that the Commission erred in three respects: (1) General Protecht Group's 2003 and 2004 GFCIs and ELE's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '340 Patent, because they do not have a "detection circuit" as claimed in the patent; (2) Trimone's 2006 GFCIs and ELE's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '340 patent, because the "load terminals" of the patent do not include receptacle outlets; and (3) General Protecht Group's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '398 patent because General Protecht Group performs the function of the "latching means" in a different way than described in the patent.  The Court remanded for further proceedings in these three areas, but affirmed the Commission's determination in all other respects.
 

• Print
• Share Link

On August 27, 2010 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the holding of the International Trade Commission in Inv. No. 337-TA-615, that certain accused products produced by Respondents General Protecht Group, Wenzhou Trimone Science and Technology Electric Co. Ltd. and Shanghai ELE Manufacturing Corporation do not infringe the asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 5,594,398 and 7,212,386, held by Complainant Pass & Seymour, Inc.

For the '398 patent, Pass & Seymour appealed the Commission's construction of claim terms "mounting means for said conducting member to permit movement thereof between a first position wherein said pair of contacts are in respective circuit making engagement with said pair of terminals and a second position, wherein both of said pair of contacts are in spaced, circuit breaking relation to said pair of terminals."  The Court agreed with the Commission that this claim requires that each of the contacts moves from its first position into a spaced, circuit breaking relationship with respect to each of the respective terminations, and affirmed the Commission's finding that the accused products did not meet this claim requirement.  The Court further agreed with the Commission that General Protecht Group's 2003 devices do not include "a unitary electronically conducting member" and thus do not infringe the '398 patent.

For the '386 patent, Pass & Seymour challenged the Commission's finding that the claim at issue required that the claimed circuit interrupter had to be configured to trip in response to the actuator signal in the reset state, arguing that instead the claim at issue does not require that the accused device be configured to provide a wiring state detection signal in both the tripped and reset states. The Court adopted the Commission's construction of the term, rejecting Pass & Seymour's arguments and finding that the plain language of the claim at issue and the intrinsic evidence in the record provided support for the Commission.

• Print
• Share Link

Thomson Licensing SAS and Thomson Licensing LLC filed a letter and complaint requesting that the Commission conduct an investigation under section 337 regarding Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, and Modules, and Components Thereof.  The proposed respondents are: Chimei Innolux Corporation, Innolux Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc. and MStar Semiconductor.  Complaint not publicly available yet.

• Print
• Share Link

On August 26, 2010, American GNC filed a letter requesting that the Commission conduct an investigation under section 337 regarding Certain Components for Installation of Marine Autopilots with GPS or IMU.   The proposed respondents are Furuno Electronics Co., Ltd., Furuno USA, Navico Holding AS, Navico UK Ltd., Navico, Inc., Flir Systems, Inc., Raymarine UK Ltd., and Raymarine Inc.

• Print
• Share Link

In Inv. No. 337-TA-701, Certain Electronic Products, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, and Computers, ALJ Charneski issued an order denying complainants Nokia Corp. and Nokia Inc.'s motion seeking an order requiring respondent Apple, Inc. to show cause why it should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with orders relating to Apple's production of source code files and other documentation relating to Nokia's infringement claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,073,036.  ALJ Charneski found that Nokia failed to show that sanctions were warranted, due to its failure to show which request for production addressed the unproduced items. 

• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Bullock issued two orders denying summary determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-704, Certain Mobile Communication Devices and Components Thereof.  ALJ Bullock denied complainant Nokia's motion for summary determination that respondent Apple, Inc. had failed to satisfy the domestic industry requirement for U.S. Patent No. 5,920,726.  ALJ Bullock also denied respondent Apple Inc.'s motion for summary determination that Nokia is not licensed to practice U.S. Patent Nos. 5,379,431, 5,455,599, or 6,424,354 because genuine issues of material fact remained in the investigation.
 

• Print
• Share Link

On August 23, Chimei-Innolux Corporation, Chimei Optoelectronics USA, Inc. and Innolux Corporation filed a letter requesting that the Commission conduct an investigation under section 337 regarding Certain Liquid Crystal Devices and Products Interoperable with Same.   The proposed respondents are Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, Sony Electronics Corporation, and Sony Computer Entertainment America.  Complaint is not publicly available at this time.

• Print
• Share Link

On August 24, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an order granting appellant Amsted Industries' motion to dismiss its appeal of the Commission's determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-655, Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Certain Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same.

• Print
• Share Link

On August 25, ALJ Charneski issued an order setting September 8, 2010 as the date for a prehearing conference in Inv. No. 337-TA-602, Certain GPS Devices and Products Containing Same.  The complainant is Global Locate, Inc.; the respondents are SIRF Technology, Inc., E-Ten Corporation, Pharos Science & Applications, Inc., Mitac International Corporation, and Mio Technology Limited, USA

• Print
• Share Link

On August 19, 2010, complainant Rambus, Inc. filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit challenging the Commission’s determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-661, Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Products Containing Same.  The appeal is Federal Circuit Docket No. 2010-1483, Rambus v. ITC.   The Commission found that respondents infringed three of the five patents asserted by Rambus, but that two of the asserted patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,117,998 and 7,210,016, were invalid.  Additionally, the Commission entered a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order against Respondents NVIDIA, Hewlett-Packard, ASUS Computer International, Palit Multimedia, MSI Computer Corp., Microstar International, EVGA Corp., DiabloTek, Inc., Biostar Microtech and BFG Technologies.

• Print
• Share Link

On August 18, 2010, complainants O2 Micro, Inc. and O2 Micro Int’l, Ltd. filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit challenging the Commission’s determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-666, Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp Inverter Circuits and Products Containing the Same.  The appeal is Federal Circuit Docket No. 2010-1482, O2 Micro Int’l, Ltd. v. ITC.  On July 19, 2010 the Commission held that none of the products manufactured by respondents Monolithic Power Systems, ASUSTek Computer, Asus Computer International, and Microsemi infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,417,382.

• Print
• Share Link

Chief ALJ Luckern issued an order setting a 16-month target date of December 4, 2011 for completion of Inv. No. 337-TA-732, Certain Elastomeric Gel and Components Thereof. Complainant Interactive Life Forms requested a 16-month target date, while respondents California Exotic Novelties, Inc., Nanma Mfg. Co., Tenga Co. Ltd. and WES Consulting argued for an earlier target date given the related nature of the two asserted patents. Chief ALJ Luckern further ordered the parties to submit revised procedural schedules.

• Print
• Share Link

The Commission issued a notice that it has determined not to review a July 29, 2010 initial determination by Chief ALJ Luckern granting a joint motion to terminate two respondents in Inv. No. 337-TA-698, Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same.  The joint motion to terminate respondents Micro-Star International Co., Ltd (Taiwan) and MSI Computer Corp. (City of Industry) was based on a settlement agreement with complainants Richtek Technology Corp. (Taiwan) and Richtek USA, Inc.  The Commission investigative attorney did not oppose the motion.  No petitions for review of the ID were filed.

• Print
• Share Link

Panasonic Corporation filed an amended complaint to substitute parties in Inv. No. 337-TA-716, Certain Large Scale Integrated Circuit Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing the Same.  The amended complaint names as proposed respondents Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., Freescale Semiconductor Japan Ltd., Freescale Qiangxin (Tianjin), Freescale Semiconductor (China) Limited, Freescale Semiconductor Malaysia Sdn. Bhd., Freescale Semiconductor Taiwan Ltd., Freescale Semiconductor Singapore Pte. Ltd., Mouser Electronics, Inc., Newark Electronics Corporation, Newark Corporation, and Motorola Inc.  The complaint alleges violations of section 337 through the importation, sale for importation, and/or sale within the United States after importation of certain large scale integrated semiconductor chips that allegedly infringe claims of Panasonic’s U.S. Patent Nos. 5,933,364 and 6,834,336.

• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Rogers issued an order denying respondent Microjet Technology Co.’s motion for termination and entry of a consent order in Inv. No. 337-TA-723, Certain Inkjet Cartridges with Printheads and Components Thereof.  ALJ Rogers denied the motion because Microjet’s consent order stipulation did not include the statements required by Commission Rule 210.21(c) and failed to comply with multiple procedural requirements for filing motions with the Commission

• Print
• Share Link

Chief ALJ Luckern issued a confidential initial determination terminating Inv. No. 337-TA-698, Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same, as to the sole remaining respondent VisionTek Products LLC.  The investigation was instituted on December 29, 2009, on the basis of a complaint filed by Richtek Technology Corp. and Richtek USA.  Chief ALJ Luckern’s determination follows a joint motion to terminate the investigation based on settlement filed by Richtek and Respondent VisionTek on August 5, 2010.

• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Bullock issued a scheduling order setting the procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-727, Certain Underground Cable and Pipe Locators.  The hearing is set to begin April 15, 2011 with the initial determination by June 17, 2011 and a target date of October 19, 2011.

• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Gildea issued an order suspending all scheduling dates and resetting the target date  to December 30, 2011 and the initial determination date to August 30, 2011 in Inv. No 337-TA-718, Certain Electronic Paper Towel Dispensing Devices and Components Thereof.  ALJ Gildea also ordered the parties to jointly file a proposed procedural schedule by September 19, 2010.  ALJ Gildea ordered the scheduling modifications because several new respondents were added to the investigation on July 29, 2010.  In addition, it appeared that proceedings against the original respondents will be resolved within two weeks through settlement or default proceedings.

• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Charneski issued an order extending the initial determination date to August 19,  2011 and the target date to December 19, 2011 in Inv. No. 337-TA-728, Collaborative System Products and Components Thereof (II).

• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Rogers issued a scheduling order setting the procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-729, Certain Semiconductor Products Made by Advanced Lithography Techniques and Products Containing Same.  The hearing is set to begin on May 9, 2011 with the initial determination by July 26, 2011 and a target date of November 28, 2011.

• Print
• Share Link

The Commission has issued its public opinion supporting its finding of no violation of Section 337 in Inv. No. 337-TA-670, Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof.  The complainant in the case was Humanscale Corp., and the respondents were CompX International and Waterloo Furniture Components Ltd.  On February 23, 2010, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding that the complainants’ “Wedge-Brake” products did not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,292,097, but that their “Brake-Shoe” products did infringe the asserted claims.  The ALJ further found certain asserted claims invalid.  On June 23, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its decision to reverse the ALJ’s finding and terminate the investigation with a finding of no violation due to no infringement and invalidity.  The Commission determined that the “Brake-Shoe” products did not infringe under its construction of “frictionally interengagable.”  The Commission affirmed that claim 7 was invalid and further found that claim 34 was invalid as obvious.

• Print
• Share Link

The ITC has instituted an investigation based on a complaint filed by Vizio, Inc. (US).  LG Electronics, Inc. (South Korea) and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (US) have been identified as respondents in this investigation.  No ALJ has been assigned to the case yet.

• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Charneski issued the initial determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-680, Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same.  ALJ Charneski found that Complainants Cognex Corp. and Cognex Technology and Investment Corp. failed to establish that Respondents MVTec Software GmbH, MVTec LLC, Omron Corp., Resolution Technology, Inc., Visics Corp., Daiichi Jitsugyo Viswill Co., Ltd, and Daiichi Jitsugyo (America) infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7, 016,539 (‘539 patent) and 7,065,262 (‘262 patent).  ALJ Charneski further held that ‘539 patent was not anticipated by the prior art, that the ‘262 patent was anticipated by the prior art, and that both the ‘539 and ‘262 patents were invalid for failing to claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.

• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Charneski has entered a scheduling order and target date order in Inv. No. 337-728, Collaborative System Products and Components Thereof (II). The hearing is scheduled for May 26- June 8, 2011. The Initial Determination is due on June 14, 2011 and the target date for completion of the investigation is October 14, 2011.

• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Gildea has set the target date in Inv. No. 337-TA-731, Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof. The initial determination will be due by July 29, 2011 and the target date for completion of the investigation is November 30, 2011.

• Print
• Share Link

The Commission has issued an opinion affirming ALJ Essex’s finding that a section 337 violation occurred, and provided further findings on invalidity, in Inv. No. 337-TA-661, Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers And Products Containing Same. As described in our July 26, 2010 entry, ALJ Essex found that the respondents violated Section 337 by infringing three of the five remaining patents asserted by complainant Rambus, Inc. (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,405; 6,591,353; 7,287,109; 7,117,998; and 7,210,016). The Commission reviewed four issues: the obviousness and anticipation rulings on the '016 and '998 patents; the obviousness-type double patenting ruling on the '405, '353 and '109 patents; the obviousness analysis of the '405, '353 and '109 patents; and the issue of patent exhaustion. The Commission's ruling upholds ALJ Essex's January 22, 2010 initial determination that Rambus Inc.’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,117,998 and 7,210,016 are invalid, and additionally finds that the respondents failed to demonstrate the invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,405, 6,591,353 and 7,287,109. The Commission also determined that Respondents' arguments regarding patent exhaustion failed because there was no showing that the relevant sales of memory controllers occurred in the United States.

On remedy, the Commission rejected Rambus' request for a general exclusion order, finding instead that a limited exclusion order was sufficient.  The Commission also issued a cease and desist order against Respondents NVIDIA, Hewlett-Packard, ASUS Computer International, Palit Multimedia, MSI Computer Corp., Microstar International, EVGA Corp., DiabloTek, Inc., Biostar Microtech and BFG Technologies, following the ALJ's determination on this issue. Finally, the Commission declined to issue a stay of the limited exclusion order and cease and desist order pending reexamination of the asserted patents, and entered a bond of 2.65 percent of the value of the accused products.

• Print
• Share Link

The Commission issued notice on August 6, 2010 that Spansion LLC has filed a Section 337 ITC complaint, naming as proposed respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (South Korea), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (USA), Samsung International Inc. (USA), Samsung Semiconductor Inc. (USA), Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (USA), Apple, Inc. (USA), BenQ Corp. (Taiwan), BenQ America Corp. (USA), Qisda Corp. (Taiwan), Kingston Technology Company Inc. (USA), Kingston Technology Co., Ltd. (China), Kingston Technology Far East Co. (Taiwan), Kingston Technology Far East Sdn Bhd (Malaysia), MiTAC Digital Corporation (aka Magellan) (USA), MiTAC International Corp. (Taiwan), Nokia Corp. (Finland), Nokia Inc. (USA), PNY Technologies Inc. (USA), Research In Motion Ltd. (Canada), Research In Motion Corporation (USA), Sirius XM Radio, Inc (USA), Transcend Information Inc. (Taiwan), Transcend Information Inc. (USA), and Transcend Information Inc. (China). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 through the importation, sale for importation, and/or sale within the United States after importation of certain allegedly infringing flash memory chips. The complaint has been docketed as number 2749 and is pending institution.

• Print
• Share Link

The Commission issued notice on August 6, 2010 that Duggal Dimensions, LLC, Duggal Energy Solutions LLC and Duggal Visual Solutions Inc. has filed a Section 337 ITC complaint, naming as proposed respondents Gus Power Inc. (Canada), Efston Science Inc. (Canada), King Luminaire Inc. (USA), and The StreetCrete Group (Canada). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 through the importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain LUMI SOLAIR light posts which are alleged to infringe U.S. Design Patent No. D610,732 S. The complaint has been docketed as number 2748 and is pending institution.

• Print
• Share Link

On August 5, 2010 Chief ALJ Luckern issued an initial determination granting uPI Semiconductor (uPI) and Sapphire Technology Ltd.'s (Sapphire) opposed motion to terminate the investigation via consent order in Inv. No. 337-TA-698, Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same. In its proposed consent order stipulations uPI and Sapphire, while not admitting to infringement, agreed not to import any DC-DC controllers or products containing the same which infringe the patents asserted by complainants Richtek Technology Corporation and Richtek USA, Inc. Chief ALJ Luckern went on to hold that there is no "customary language" required for consent orders and dismissed Richtek's arguments that the motion to terminate should be denied for failing to include such language.

On the same day, Richtek and respondent VisionTek Products LLC (VisionTek) filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation as to VisionTek based on a settlement agreement. The public version of the settlement agreement, executed August 5, 2010, includes a covenant that Richtek will not "assert any cause of action, claim or demand against VisionTek under any of the [patents and trade secrets in suit] for infringement or misappropriation based on the [importation, sale for importation, and sale, or offer for sale, after importation into the United States] any of the Authorized Products." The definition of 'authorized products' was redacted in the public copy.

• Print
• Share Link

The Commission has issued notice that a Section 337 Complaint has been filed by Invacare Corporation, naming as proposed respondents Medical Depot (d/b/a Drive Medical Design and Manufacturing) (USA) and Shanghai Shunlong Physical Therapy Equipment Co. Ltd. (China). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 through the importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain adjustable height beds alleged to infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,983,495, 6,997,082, 7,302,716, and 7,441,289. The complaint has been docketed as number 2747 and is pending institution.

• Print
• Share Link

In an opinion dated August 3, 2010, the Commission has determined not to modify the existing limited exclusion order, or impose a bond against respondent Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc. (AATI), in Inv. No. 337-TA-564, Certain Voltage Regulators, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same. ALJ Charmeski in an Initial Determination dated March 18, 2010 found that AATI's redesigned product still infringed complainant Linear Technology Corp.'s patent. Upon review, the Commission found that AATI did not act in disregard of the Limited Exclusion Order and that AATI does not maintain a commercially significant domestic inventory of accused products. Because of these facts, the Commission decided not to issue a cease-and-desist order and imposed no bond because the parties agreed that the existing limited exclusion order should remain in place.

• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Gildea has set the target date in Inv. No. 337-TA-731, Certain Toner Cartridges And Components Thereof. The initial determination will be due no later than July 29, 2011 and the target date for completion of the investigation is November 30, 2011.  The ALJ scheduled a technology tutorial for May 26, 2011.  The hearing was scheduled to take place between May 27, 2011 and June 3, 2011.  Finally,the parties were also directed to submit a discovery statement by September 3, 2010.

• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Gildea issued an initial determination today granting a joint motion to terminate Inv. No. 337-TA-718, Certain Electronic Paper Towel Dispensing Devices and Components Thereof, with respect to Respondent NetPak Electronic Plastic and Cosmetic, Inc.  The ALJ noted that the parties had agreed to a consent order by which NetPak agreed not to import, sell for importation or sell in the United States products that infringed the asserted claims of the patents at issue in the investigation.

• Print
• Share Link

On July 30, 2010, the Commission instituted an investigation entitled Certain Devices Having Elastomeric Gel And Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-732, based on a complaint filed June 30, 2010. The complainant is Interactive Life Forms, LLC.  The respondents are California Exotic Novelties, Inc.; Direct Advantage Values Enterprise, Inc.; Nanma Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Shaki Industrial Co., Ltd.; Pipedream Products, Inc.; Tenga Co., Ltd.; Vast Resources, Inc. d/b/a Topco Sales; Convergence, Inc.; E.T.C, Inc. d/b/a Eldorado Trading; Gigglesworld Corp.; Honey's Place, Inc.; Joe Enterprises, Inc.; Liberator, Inc.; Nalpac Enterprises, Ltd. d/b/a Nalpac, Ltd.; Satistec, LLC; Universal Distributor; Williams Trading Co., Inc.; W.T.F.N. Inc. d/b/a Holiday Products; Barnaby Ltd., LLC; L.F.P., Inc.; LFP Internet Group, LLC; PHE, Inc.; Polydigitech, Inc.; Sawhorse Enterprises, Inc.; TEG, LLC; and Web Merchants Inc.  According to the notice, the complaint involves allegations of violations of section 337 based upon infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,782,818 and 5,807,360.  The investigation has been assigned to ALJ Luckern.

• Print
• Share Link