ITC Blog: ITC 337 Update

On December 6, Chief ALJ Bullock terminated Inv. No. 337-TA-738, Certain Components For Installation of Marine Autopilots With GPS or IMU, on the basis of a settlement agreement between complainant and the remaining respondents, Navico AS, Navico UK, Ltd., and Navico Inc. The Chief ALJ denied as moot the parties' request that the full terms of the settlement agreement not be disclosed to other parties in the investigation, based on the fact that no additional respondents remained in the investigation.

• Print
• Share Link

On December 6, ALJ Rogers issued three orders in Inv. No. 337-TA-807, Certain Digital Photo Frames and Image Display Devices and Components Thereof.  In two separate rulings, ALJ Rogers granted Complainant Technology Properties, Ltd.'s motion for default against respondents Nextar Inc., Win Accord Ltd, and WinAccord U.S.A., Inc., but denied a motion for default against respondents Curtis International, Ltd. and Aiptek International, Inc., While ALJ Rogers found that Nextar, the Win Accord respondents, Curtis and Aiptek had all been properly served with the complaint and had failed to respond, Nextar and the Win Accord respondents further failed to respond to ALJ Rogers' November 18 order to show cause.  Curtis and Aiptek, however, both responded to the order to show cause and represented to the ALJ that they were in the process of negotiating a settlement agreement with the complainant.  Based on these representations, ALJ Rogers granted Curtis and Aiptek an additional two weeks to either respond to the complaint and notice of investigation or file a motion for termination based upon a settlement agreement or consent order. 

Separately, ALJ Rogers granted a joint motion to terminate respondent Circus World Displays Ltd. from the investigation based on a settlement agreement which grants Circus World a non-exclusive license to a group of patents and trademarks in exchange for a running royalty.  ALJ Rogers found the settlement to be in the public interest, and terminated Circus World from the investigation.

• Print
• Share Link

On December 5, 2011 Walker Digital LLC filed a complaint requesting that the International Trade Commission open an investigation into the importation, sale for importation, and sale after importation of Certain Blu-Ray Disc Players, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same.  The sole patent at issue in the proposed investigation is U.S. Patent No. 6,263,505.  The proposed respondents are D&M Holdings, Inc.; D&M Holdings US, Inc.; Denon Electronics (USA) LLC; Funai Electric Co., Ltd.; Funai Corporation, Inc.; Haier Group Corporation; Haier America Trading, LLC; Harman International Industries, Inc.; Inkel Corporation; LG Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.; Marantz America LLC; Onkyo Sound & Vision Corporation; Onkyo USA Corporation; Orion America, Inc.; Orion Electric Co., Ltd.; Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; P&F USA, Inc.; Philips Electronics North America Corp.; Pioneer Corporation; Pioneer Electronics(USA) Inc.; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Sharp Corporation; Sharp Electronics Corporation; Sherwood America, Inc.; Sony Corporation; Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc.; Sony Corporation of America; Sony Electronics, Inc.; Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC; Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.; VIZIO, Inc.; Yamaha Corporation; Yamaha Corporation of America; and Yamaha Electronics Corporation USA.

• Print
• Share Link

The public version of Chief ALJ Bullock's November 23 order denying Vizio, Inc.'s motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation in Inv. No. 337-TA-789, Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof, has been released.  Vizio sought to amend the motion to add two new respondents, Coby Electronics Co., Ltd. of China and Coby Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of Hong Kong.  Chief ALJ Bullock found that Vizio had failed to show good cause to amend the complaint and notice of investigation because Vizio was aware of the third parties' relationship with a current respondent, Coby Electronics Corp., no later than August 2011 and Vizio's delay of two months before requesting the amendment would be prejudicial to the Coby parties given the current procedural schedule. 

• Print
• Share Link

On December 2, the International Trade Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-818, Certain Devices With Secure Communication Capabilities, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, based on a complaint filed on November 4, 2011 by VirnetX, Inc.  The proposed respondent is Apple Inc.

• Print
• Share Link

On December 2, 2011, Digitude Innovations LLC filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission alleging a violation of Section 337 by importation, sale for importation, or sale after importation of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,926,636; 5,929,655; 6,208,879; and 6,456,841.  The proposed respondents are Research In Motion Ltd.; Research In Motion Corp.; HTC Corporation; HTC America, Inc.; LG Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.; Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc.; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications America LLC; Sony Corporation; Sony Corporation of America; Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB; Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc.; Amazon.com, Inc.; Nokia Corporation; and Nokia, Inc.  

• Print
• Share Link

On December 2, the International Trade Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-817, Certain Communication Equipment, Components Thereof, And Products Containing The Same, Including Power Over Ethernet Telephones, Switches, Wireless Access Points, Routers and Other Devices Used in LANs, And Cameras, based on a complaint filed on November 1, 2011 by ChriMar Systems, Inc. The proposed respondents are Cisco Systems, Inc.;Cisco Consumer Products LLC; Cisco Systems International B.V.; Cisco-Linksys LLC; Hewlett-Packard Co.; 3Com Corporation; Avaya Inc.; and Extreme Networks, Inc.

• Print
• Share Link

On November 30, 2011 Freescale Semiconductor filed a complaint at the International Trade Commission alleging a violation of Section 337 based on the importation, sale before importation, or sale after importation of U.S. Patent No. 5,467,455.  The proposed respondents are MediaTek Inc.; Zoran Corporation; Vizio, Inc.; Amtran Tech. Co., Ltd.; Amtran Logistics, Inc.; Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.; Sanyo North America Corp.; Sanyo Manufacturing Corp.; TPV Technology Ltd.; TPV International (USA) Inc.; Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co., Ltd.; Top Victory Electronics (Fujian) Co., Ltd.; AOC International (USA) Ltd.; and Envision Peripherals, Inc.

• Print
• Share Link

On December 1, 2011, the Commission issued the public version of its opinion in Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges with Printheads and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-723. In that opinion, the Commission reversed the presiding ALJ’s finding that Complainants Hewlett-Packard Company and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (collectively, “HP”) failed to establish that Respondents Asia Pacific Microsystems, Inc. (“APM”) induced infringement of the asserted patents. The Commission held that the intent element required for an inducement of infringement claim was satisfied because “prior to obtaining actual knowledge of the asserted patents, APM willfully blinded itself to the asserted patent and to the infringing conduct, and that even after obtaining actual knowledge of the asserted patent, APM continued to induce infringement of the patents.” Additionally, even though the ALJ found that HP failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that APM had knowledge of the asserted patent prior to the investigation, the Commission held that knowledge requirement was satisfied because “APM certainly had knowledge of the asserted patents and the allegations of infringement against its ICs once it was served with HP’s Complaint.” The Commission further held that APM waived any argument that there was insufficient proof of post-complaint direct infringement.

Based on its finding of induced infringement, the Commission determined to issue a general exclusion order directed to infringing articles in this investigation because the evidence established that it is difficult to identify the source of infringing products, making a general exclusion order necessary to prevent circumvention of a limited exclusion order. For instance, the Commission found that “foreign manufacturers package their products in unmarked, generic or reseller branded packaging that lacks any markings to identify their origin.”

• Print
• Share Link