Commission Finds Inducement of Infringement Satisfied Based on Knowledge of Asserted Patents Obtained After Filing of Complaint; Issues General Exclusion Order

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.”

Commission Finds Inducement of Infringement Satisfied Based on Knowledge of Asserted Patents Obtained After Filing of Complaint; Issues General Exclusion Order

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.”

Parties File Joint Motion To Terminate Respondent Hard Candy Cases

Complainant Otter Products, LLC and Respondent Hardy Candy Cases LLC d/b/a/ Gumdrop LLC ("Hard Candy") filed a joint motion to terminate Respondent Hard Candy on the basis of a consent order in Inv. No. 337-TA-780, Certain Protective Cases and Components Thereof.  In the consent order stipulation filed with the parties' motion, Hard Candy stipulated and agreed that it would not import the protective cases and components thereof accused of infringement.

Ogma Files Joint Motion to Terminate Investigation as to LEGO A/S and LEGO Systems, Inc.

 Ogma and Respondents LEGO A/S dba LEGO Group and LEGO Systems, Inc. (“LEGO”) filed a joint motion under Rule 210.21(a)(1) to terminate Investigation No. 337-TA-773, Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices and Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing Same (“773 Investigation”) as to LEGO based Ogma’s withdrawal of its complaint with respect to LEGO.  Ogma’s withdrawal of its complaint against LEGO is based on LEGO’s representations that it does not import the LEGO NXT Accelerometer Sensor into the United States.  Ogma had accused LEGO’s combination of its NXT Accelerometer Sensor with LEGO’s Mindstorm NXT 2.0 product of infringing the asserted patent.

eInstruction Files Motion to Terminate Inv. No. 337-TA-728 Based on Consent Agreement

Complainant eInstruction Corp. filed a motion to terminate the Investigation based on a settlement agreement between eInstruction and Promethean Inc., Promethean Technology Shenzhen Ltd., and Promethean Ltd. (collectively "Promethean") in In the Matter of Certain Collaborative System Products and Components Thereof (II), Inv. No. 337-TA-728.  The specific terms of the settlement agreement were redacted from the public version of eInstruction's motion.

Commission Declines Review of Final ID Finding Violation of Section 337, Requests Submissions Regarding Remedy, Bonding, and Public Interest

The ITC issued notice that it will not review a final ID of finding a violation of section 337 in Inv. No. 337-TA-669, In the Matter of Certain Optoelectronic Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, and requested written submissions regarding remedy, bonding, and the public interest.
The complaint alleges violations of section 337 by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,359,447 and 5,761,229. Complainants are Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. of Singapore; Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. of Singapore; and Avago Technologies Ltd. of San Jose, California. The sole Respondent is Emcore Corporation.
In his final ID, dated March 12, 2010, the ALJ found that Emcore violated section 337 by infringing one or more of claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the ‘447 patent. The ALJ found no violation of section 337 with respect to the ‘229 patent. Emcore and the IA filed petitions for review of the final ID on March 29, 2010. The Commission determined not to review the final ID, but requested written submissions from parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Any such submissions should address the recommended determination on remedy and bonding provided by the ALJ.

Commission Decision Not to Review (.PDF)