ITC Blog: ITC 337 Update

On April 22, the Commission issued a final determination of no violation in Inv. No. 337-TA-692, Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same, and terminated the investigation.  The Commission's final determination resulted from a February 23 determination to review ALJ Gildea's December 22, 2009 initial determination finding no violation of Section 337 by Respondents Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics, Inc. with respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,266,229.  The Commission did not review the ALJ's determination that there was no violation of the remaining two patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,014,309 and 6,243,254.

In its final determination, the Commission reversed the ALJ's finding that the '229 patent was not obvious over the asserted prior art, and found that the applicant admitted prior art did constitute prior art against the '229 patent.  A public version of the Commission's determination will be published shortly.  

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Federal Circuit reversed the Commission’s determination of violation under section 337 and vacated the corresponding exclusion orders and cease-and-desist orders today in its opinion Lucky Litter LLC v. ITC. As Inv. No. 337-TA-625, Certain Self-Cleaning Litter Boxes And Components Thereof, the Commission had previously ruled in favor of complainants Applica Consumer Products, Inc. and Waters Research Company, that respondents Lucky Litter LLC and OurPet’s Company’s self-cleaning letter boxes violated section 337.

At issue in the case is U.S. Patent No. RE 36,847 (‘847 patent). The Commission held that the respondent’s product infringed claim 33 of the ‘847 patent. The Federal Circuit held that the Commission erred in construing claim 33 to include a “cat exit,” which was contrary to the plain meaning of the claim. The court further held that when properly construed without this limitation, Claim 33 would have been obvious. Intervenor Applica proffered additional grounds to uphold the exclusion order, which the court rejected as without merit.
 

• 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

The Commission has found no violation of Section 337 in Inv. No. 337-TA-670, Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof, and terminated the investigation.  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 U.S. Patent No. 5,292,097, but that their "Brake-Shoe" products did infringe the asserted claims.  However, the ALJ further found that the asserted claims of the patent were invalid.  The Commission, after reviewing the parties submissions, agreed with the ALJ that the asserted claims were invalid, but found that both the "Wedge-Brake" and "Brake-Shoe" products also did not infringe the asserted claims.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Gildea has released the public version of his denials of a summary determination that one of the claims at issue in 337-TA-692, Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing The Same, is invalid.  Both the respondents and the OUII Staff had moved, based on different pieces of prior art, that the claims at issue in the investigation were invalid based on either anticipation or obviousness.  In the two denials the ALJ disagreed, finding that the Staff's motion contained a number of factual statements that were either wrong, or at the least established the existence of a genuine dispute concerning a material fact.  The ALJ also found that the complainant's response to the respondents' motion either failed to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard, or established there was a genuine dispute concerning the references set forth by respondents.

Denial of Motion for Summary Determination of Invalidity #1 (.PDF)

Denial of Motion for Summary Determination of Invalidity #2 (.PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link