ITC Blog: ITC 337 Update

On January 14, 2011, ALJ Gildea released the public version of two orders dated January 4, 2011 denying motions for summary determination filed by respondent in Inv. No. 337-TA-712, Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof. In the first motion, respondent alleged that a single claim of an asserted patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by a prior U.S. patent. The complainant and staff attorney opposed the motion. The dispute centered on the scope of the allegedly novel step of "transforming the data processing network information from the network format … to a television format" and which components perform that step. ALJ Gildea, confirming that he would not construe claims prior to the hearing on the merits, found that genuine material issues of disputed fact prevented a finding of summary determination.

In the second motion, respondent sought a summary determination that complainants failed to satisfy the importation requirement of section 337 and failed to tie any importation to alleged acts of infringement. Regarding importation, respondent argued that it contracted with a third-party for the manufacture and importation of the accused product, and thus it does not import the products. Regarding nexus, respondent argued that there can be no nexus because infringement requires end-use, and, according to respond, no evidence of use had been submitted. Complainant and the staff attorney opposed the motion. The ALJ found that genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute such that a trial on the merits is warranted.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On December 23, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers issued an initial determination of infringement of claims 2-6 and 8 of U.S. Pat. No. 7,364,942 by respondents Knowles Electronics LLC.  ALJ Rogers also determined that there was non-infringement of claim 1 of the '942 patent, as well as non-infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 7,220,614. In the Matter of Certain MEMS Devices and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-700. The complainant is Analog Devices, Inc.

• Email This
• 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.

• Email This
• 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.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Senators Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) Chairman and Ranking Member (respectively) of the United States Senate Committee on Finance requested that the United States International Trade Commission institute an investigation into intellectual property rights infringement in China in Inv. No. 332-2729.  The request, filed today, asks that the Commission investigate the effect on the U.S. economy and U.S. jobs of infringement occurring in China pursuant to Section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930.  The request is currently pending institution.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On September 24, 2009, the Commission issued a notice that it would review in part the final initial determination of ALJ Gildea in Inv. No. 337-TA-636, In the Matter of Certain Laser Imageable Lithographic Printing Plates. The Commission determined to modify the ALJ’s claim construction analysis, but to affirm the ALJ’s determination of violation of section 337. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-685, In the Matter of Certain Flash Memory and Products Containing Same. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed a complaint on August 21, 2009 alleging that section 337 was violated by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,930,050 and 5,740,065. The complaint names as respondents: Spansion, Inc., Spansion LLC, Spansion Japan Ltd., Alpine Electronics, Inc., Alpine Electronics of America, Inc., D-Link Corp., D-Link Systems, Inc., Slacker Inc., Synology Inc., Synology North America Corp., Shenzhen Egreat Co., and Ltd., Appro International, Inc. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-684, In the Matter of Certain Articulated Coordinate Measuring Arms and Components Thereof. In response to a complaint filed on July 28, 2009 on behalf of Hexagon Metrology, AB of Sweden and Hexagon Metrology, Inc. of North Kingstown, Rhode Island the commission decided to institute an investigation concerning whether section 337 is violated by the importation of certain articulated coordinate measuring arms and components thereof by reason of infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 5,829,148. The named respondents are: Metris N.V., Metris U.S.A., Inc., Mitutoyo Corp., and Mitutoyo America Corp. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-683, In the Matter of Certain MLC Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same. BTG International Inc. filed a complaint on July 27, 2009 (supplemented by letter dated August 18, 2009) alleging that section 337 was violated by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,394,362, 5,764,571, 5,872,735, 6,104,640, and 6,118,692. The complainant names as respondents: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Apple, Inc., ASUStek Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer International, Dell, Inc., Lenovo Group Ltd., Lenovo (United States) Inc., PNY Technologies, Inc., Research In Motion, Ltd., Research In Motion Corp., Sony Corp., Sony Electronics, Inc., and Transcend Information, Inc. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On July 20, 2009, ALJ Bullock issued the public version of his June 29, 2009, Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond in Inv. No. 337-TA-621, In the Matter of Certain Probe Card Assemblies, Components Thereof and Certain Tested DRAM and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same. ALJ Bullock concluded that respondents’ accused products did not infringe the asserted claims of the patents-at-issue and that no domestic industry existed with respect to some of the asserted claims. ALJ Bullock also concluded that one asserted claim was invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102.  (PDF-1) (PDF-2)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On July 17, 2009, ALJ Charneski granted one motion in limine filed by complainants and one filed by respondents in Inv. No. 337-TA-648, In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same. With respect to complainants’ motion, ALJ Charneski precluded testimony and exhibits relating to prior litigations and proceedings. ALJ Charneski also granted respondents’ motion in limine to preclude complainants from asserting any claims of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. ALJ Charneski noted that complainants failed to include an analysis of DOE in the expert report of its technical witness and in interrogatory responses. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On July 16, 2009, the Commission issued its Opinion supporting its June 11, 2009, final determination of violation of section 337, entry of a limited exclusion order, and termination of the investigation in Inv. No. 337-TA-629, In the Matter of Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing Same. The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s determinations that the asserted claims of the patents-at-issue were infringed and not invalid. The Commission further affirmed findings of domestic industry. The Commission determined that the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order, the public interest will not be adversely affected by the entry of such order and there should be no bond during the period of Presidential Review. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On July 14, 2009, the Commission issued an opinion affirming the ALJ’s determination of violation as to one patent but reverses as to another in Inv. No. 337-TA-631, In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing Same. For purposes of the violation, the Commission determined that the appropriate form of relief is a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link