Source: http://www.itcblog.com/component/tags/tag/new-337-complaints?start=200
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:17:29+00:00

Document:
On December 20, 2012, Nuance Communications, Inc. (“Nuance”) of Burlington, Massachusetts filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Shanghai HanXiang (CooTek) Information Technology Co., Ltd of China and Personal Communications Devices, LLC of Hauppauge, New York (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain mobile handset devices and related touch keyboard software that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,750,891 (the ‘891 patent); 7,453,439 (the ‘439 patent); 7,098,896 (the ‘896 patent); 7,075,520 (the ‘520 patent); and 6,286,064 (the ‘064 patent). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to user interfaces of mobile handset devices such as smartphones. For example, the ‘891 patent relates generally to a selective input system that tracks motion of an input device (such as a finger) over a keyboard to select a character. Detecting different parameters of motion such as changes in velocity, location, etc. allows the system to improve the accuracy of the user’s inputs. The ‘439 patent describes a text input system that allows prediction of complete words based on initial inputs and frequency of usage, and the ‘896 and ‘064 patents encompass similar technology, where possible matching words are presented to a user for selection. The ‘520 patent describes methods of distinguishing two possible characters associated with a single key, where a user indicates one of the two possible desired inputs. The complaint asserts that the Proposed Respondents infringe the asserted patents through the use of various pieces of software on the line of Venture mobile handset devices. Nuance stated that the same patents have been asserted against the Proposed Respondents in the District of Delaware in Nuance Communications, Inc. v. Personal Communication Devices, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-01722. Nuance asserts that it meets both the economic and technical prongs of the domestic industry requirement, emphasizing that it makes “extensive use” of the inventions claimed in the asserted patents by virtue of its research, design, manufacture, and testing in the United States of products related to its Swype touch keyboard technology software, currently authorized to be incorporated into and run on “millions of mobile devices across the United States, including mobile phones sold by Samsung, LG Electronics, Nokia, HTC and others.” Nuance indicates it has spent approximately $179.4 million in research and development expenses in relation to the Swype platform in the United States. To meet the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, Nuance provided claim charts comparing Nuance’s software running on exemplary Samsung devices to claims from the asserted patents. With respect to potential remedy, Nuance requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.
According to the complaint, the intellectual property at issue relates to the development and testing processes and engineering know-how necessary to manufacture Fellowes shredders. In particular, Fellowes refers to trade secrets embodied in its shredder development processes, bill of specifications, design tools, drawings, specifications, tolerances, manufacturing molds and tooling, quality control tests, “key learnings,” and training materials. Fellowes also refers to the ‘859 and ‘048 patents, which cover various design features of Fellowes’s shredders. The complaint alleges the following facts. In 2007, a Fellowes affiliate, Fellowes Hong Kong Ltd., acquired a fifty-percent ownership stake in an existing Chinese joint venture, Changzhou Jinsen Office Supplies Co. Ltd. (“Changzhou”). The other fifty-percent was owned by Jiangsu Shinri Machinery Co. Ltd. (“Shinri”), a company owned and controlled by an individual named Zhou Licheng (“Zhou”). Thereafter, Changzhou also conducted business under the name Fellowes Manufacturing (Changzhou) Co. Ltd. (“Jinsen”). The purpose of Jinsen was to manufacture shredders exclusively for Fellowes. Fellowes provided Jinsen with its trade secrets, know-how, and all of the tooling, molds, and other processes needed to manufacture its shredders. According to the complaint, Jinsen operated smoothly for three years. However, in August 2010, Zhou allegedly made a series of demands on Fellowes, including a demand that Fellowes assign all of its trade secrets and other intellectual property rights and engineering capabilities to Jinsen. When Fellowes refused, Zhou allegedly blockaded the entrances and exits to Jinsen’s facility, thereby halting all production and shipments. When Jinsen subsequently failed as an ongoing concern, Zhou allegedly manipulated the Chinese legal process and took physical control of Jinsen’s facility and inventory, including 70,000 packaged Fellowes shredders. The complaint further alleges that Zhou, along with Randall Graves—the former operations manager of Jinsen—then formed Jiangsu New United Office Equipments Co. Ltd. (“New United”), which is presently operating out of the Jinsen facility, manufacturing shredders for importation into the U.S., and utilizing the tooling, molds, and other equipment and information that embody Fellowes’s trade secrets. The complaint also alleges that the Proposed Respondents hired away former Jinsen employees and engineers who themselves were privy to, and had knowledge of, Fellowes’s trade secrets and know-how and who were obligated not to disclose them. The complaint further alleges that New United is now profiting from its wrongdoing by importing into the U.S. and selling shredders that utilize Fellowes’s trade secrets to compete directly with Fellowes and other domestic shredder manufacturers. In addition, the complaint alleges that certain New United shredders infringe the ‘859 and ‘048 patents. The complaint specifically refers to New United’s Model Nos. S4-06MP, ST-10C, and ST-6M shredders as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Fellowes states that it employs 580 full-time employees in the U.S. and that it is the leading manufacturer and seller of home and office paper shredders in the U.S. Fellowes states that, with regard to its trade secrets, a domestic industry exists based on Fellowes’s substantial investments in engineering, research and development, and marketing within the U.S. of shredders incorporating its trade secrets, Fellowes’s significant employment of labor and capital in the U.S. relating to the development and manufacture of its shredders, Fellowes’s manufacturing-related and other value-added activities in the U.S., and Fellowes’s significant investment in utilizing other U.S. businesses in the development and manufacture of its shredders. Fellowes further alleges that the Proposed Respondents’ alleged trade secret misappropriation has resulted in substantial and irreparable injury to a domestic industry, and threatens a domestic industry, pursuant to Section 337(a)(1)(A)(i). Fellowes also states that it has invested substantial resources in the U.S. towards the development of shredders covered by the ‘859 and ‘048 patents. As to related litigation, the complaint states that Fellowes, Inc. filed suit against Jinsen in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in September 2011, alleging that Jinsen breached Fellowes’s purchase orders by refusing to ship certain products. The complaint also states that Zhou, acting on behalf of Jinsen, filed suit in Chinese court seeking payment for the unshipped products. According to the complaint, the district court in Illinois granted Fellowes’s request for an antisuit injunction barring Jinsen from pursuing its lawsuit in China. The ruling granting the injunction was subsequently appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, but the appeal has been stayed by agreement of the parties. The complaint also states that Fellowes Office Products (Suzhou) Co. Ltd. is engaged in additional litigation against Jinsen and others in China. With respect to potential remedy, Fellowes requests that the Commission issue permanent limited exclusion orders and permanent cease and desist orders. Fellowes further requests that the Commission issue orders to immediately and verifiably destroy all paper shredders and components thereof and to immediately and verifiably turn over all documents and things in the possession, custody, or control of the Proposed Respondents that incorporate Fellowes’s misappropriated trade secrets. We note that this appears to be the third Section 337 Complaint since the Federal Circuit’s decision in TianRui Group Co. v. ITC, 661 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2011) that alleges the importation of articles manufactured using misappropriated trade secrets where the acts of misappropriation occurred in China. For a discussion of this growing trend, see our June 22, 2012 post.
On December 21, 2012, Covidien LP of Mansfield, Massachusetts (“Covidien”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Pajunk Medizintechnik GmbH of Germany, Pajunk Medizintechnologie GmbH of Germany, and Pajunk Medical Systems L.P. of Norcross, Georgia (collectively, “Pajunk”) unlawfully import and/or sell certain balloon dissection devices and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,312,442 (the ‘442 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘442 patent relates generally to a method for performing laparoscopic hernia repair by developing a cavity within a body with a dissection balloon. Covidien asserts that Pajunk imports and sells dilatation balloon products that infringe the ‘442 patent. Regarding domestic industry, Covidien states that it employs significant personnel to manufacture the patented dissection balloon products at a plant in Ponce, Puerto Rico. As to related litigation, Covidien alleges that the ‘442 patent has not been asserted in any litigation in court. Covidien notes, however, that the ‘442 patent was the subject of an interference proceeding before the USPTO. With respect to potential remedy, Covidien requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist orders directed at Pajunk.
On December 21, 2012, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of South Korea and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC of Richardson, Texas (collectively, “Samsung”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Ericsson Inc. of Plano, Texas and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson of Sweden (collectively, “Ericsson”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, sell within the U.S. after importation, service, and/or repair certain wireless communications systems and equipment used in those systems, such as wireless communication base stations, that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,782,749 (the ‘749 patent), 8,165,081 (the ‘081 patent), 8,208,438 (the ‘438 patent), 8,228,827 (the ‘827 patent), 6,617,929 (the ‘929 patent), 6,767,813 (the ‘813 patent), and 6,865,682 (the ‘682 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to wireless communications base stations for use with LTE applications, including certain Doherty amplifiers, semiconductors, and/or microprocessor modules as components. In particular, the ‘749 patent relates to a method and apparatus for mapping the physical downlink control channels to resources in a wireless communications system to achieve improved interference diversity. The ‘081 patent relates to a method and apparatus for control and data multiplexing in communication systems. The ‘438 patent relates to a method and apparatus for mapping the physical downlink control channels to resources in a wireless communications system to achieve improved transmission and reception properties. The ‘827 patent relates to a method and apparatus for performing a random access procedure in a mobile communication system. The ‘929 patent relates to a Doherty amplifier, which is a well-known type of radio frequency amplifier that uses a combination of carrier and peaking amplifiers. The ‘813 patent relates to an integrated circuit device having active regions with expanded effective widths. Lastly, the ‘682 patent relates to a microprocessor module with integrated voltage regulators. In the complaint, Samsung states that Ericsson imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically refers to Ericsson’s RBS 6000 series base stations as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Samsung states that it makes extensive use of the inventions claimed in the asserted patents in numerous products, including base stations and mobile stations. Samsung further states that it has made a significant investment in plant and equipment in the U.S. with respect to Samsung products that practice the asserted patents. Samsung states that Samsung employees in the U.S. have engaged in substantial research, development, design, engineering, and testing of Samsung products that practice the asserted patents. Samsung also states that it invests in U.S.-based personnel who provide technical support, warranty service, and repair to customers in the U.S. who have purchased Samsung products that practice the asserted patents. Samsung specifically refers to various facilities in Texas and California where activities related to the asserted patents take place. As to related litigation, Samsung refers to two previous Section 337 investigations (Inv. Nos. 337-TA-577 and 337-TA-583) involving Samsung and Ericsson. Samsung was the Complainant and Ericsson was a Respondent in the 577 investigation. Ericsson was a Complainant and Samsung was a Respondent in the 583 investigation. According to the complaint, both of these prior investigations were terminated in August 2007 based on a confidential settlement agreement between Samsung and Ericsson. In addition, Samsung refers to Ericsson’s November 30, 2012 Section 337 complaint against Samsung (see our December 4, 2012 post for more details) and related litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. With respect to potential remedy, Samsung requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Ericsson and others acting on Ericsson’s behalf.
On December 26, 2012, Speculative Product Design, LLC of Mountain View, California, d/b/a Speck, (“Speck”) filed a complaint requesting that the U.S. International Trade Commission ( the “Commission”) commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that En Jinn Industrial Co. Ltd. of Taiwan, Shengda Huanqiu Shijie of China, Global Digital Star Industry, Ltd. of China, JWIN Electronics Corp., d/b/a iLuv of Port Washington, New York, Project Horizon, Inc. d/b/a InMotion Entertainment of Jacksonville, Florida, Superior Communications, Inc. d/b/a PureGear of Irwindale, California, and Jie Sheng Technology of Taiwan (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import and/or sell certain one-piece protective cases for portable handheld electronic devices that infringe one or more of claims 1–16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,204,561 (the ‘561 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘561 patent relates generally to protective cases for handheld portable electronic devices such as mobile phones, laptops, tablets, personnel digital assistants and portable digital media players. Speck asserts that the Proposed Respondents import and sell certain cases for portable electronics products that infringe the ‘561 patent. Regarding domestic industry, Speck states that it has made “substantial investments in its plant, equipment, labor and capital and substantial investments in the exploitation of the asserted patent and its products covered by the asserted patent in the United States.” Speck further asserts “that [it] has become one of the world's leading designers and manufacturers of protective cases for portable handheld electronic devices,” offering over 250 products in over 75 countries. As to related litigation, the complaint states that Speck filed suit against Superior Communications, Inc., d/b/a PureGear, BodyGlove International (adding Fellowes, Inc. as a defendant on December 14, 2012), and JWIN Electronics Corp. in the Northern District of California, on September 25, 2012, alleging infringement and willful infringement of the ‘561 patent. Additionally, the complaint states that the Commission ordered an investigation concerning the ‘561 patent against Anbess Electronics Co. Ltd, BodyGlove International, LLC, Fellowes, Inc., ROCON Digital Technology Corp., SW-box.com, aka Cellphonezone Limited, Trait Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Limited, and Hongkong Wexun Ltd. With respect to potential remedy, Speck requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, or alternatively, a limited exclusion order, and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents.
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to wireless devices and systems with 3G and/or 4G capabilities—including LTE—and components thereof. In particular, the ‘966 and ‘847 patents relate to improvements to the way a mobile device gains access to a cellular CDMA system. The ‘970 patent relates to a technique for communication between user equipment and one or more wireless networks. The ‘151 patent relates to an improvement in the provision of control information to devices operated in a wireless communications environment, such as on an LTE-based wireless communications network. The ‘830 and ‘636 patents relate to improvements to the way a subscriber unit gains access to a cellular CDMA system. Lastly, the ‘406 patent relates to improved automatic power control for a CDMA system. In the complaint, InterDigital states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically refers to the Samsung ATIV S, Galaxy Note, Galaxy Note II, Galaxy Note 10.1, Galaxy S III, Galaxy Stellar, Galaxy Tab II (10.1), SCH-LC11, and 4G LTE Mobile Hotspot; the Nokia Lumia 820, Lumia 822, and Lumia 920; the ZTE 4G Hotspot, Avail, Flash, and JetPack 890L; and the Huawei Activa 4G, E368 USB Connect Force 4G, MediaPad (S7 Pro), Unite, and HUA U8680 MYTOUCH as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, InterDigital states that it has made substantial U.S. investments in licensing the asserted patents through investments in personnel and resources to monitor the market, identify potential manufacturers and users of its wireless communications technology, establish contacts with these potential manufacturers and users, provide pre-licensing technical services, negotiate licenses, monitor licensee compliance with the licensing program, and enforce and litigate InterDigital’s rights when necessary. InterDigital states that its licensing program was previously considered by the Commission in Inv Nos. 337-TA-601 and 337-TA-613, and that the Commission found a domestic industry in both of those investigations. InterDigital further states that it has continued to invest in its licensing activities since the decisions in the 601 and 613 investigations. In addition, InterDigital states that it has invested steadily and substantially in research and development designed to exploit the inventions of the asserted patents. As to related litigation, InterDigital states that, concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it also filed complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Proposed Respondents infringe the asserted patents. InterDigital further states that there have been several proceedings in the past that involved one or more patents related to the asserted patents. InterDigital also refers to the 601 and 613 investigations at the ITC, which involved, inter alia, the ’847 and ‘966 patents. InterDigital further refers to Inv. No. 337-TA-800, which involves the ‘636, ‘830, ‘970, and ‘406 patents and includes as Respondents many of the same entities listed as Proposed Respondents in the instant complaint. See our August 29, 2011 post for more details. According to the complaint, the evidentiary hearing in the 800 investigation is set for February 22, 2013. With respect to potential remedy, InterDigital requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.
On January 4, 2013, Innovation First International, Inc., Innovation First, Inc., and Innovation First Labs, Inc. (collectively, “Innovation First”)—all of Greenville, Texas—filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that CVS Pharmacy Inc. of Woonsocket, Rhode Island (“CVS”) imports into the U.S. and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain robotic toys and components thereof that were made in China using Innovation First’s misappropriated trade secrets. In particular, the complaint states that CVS is a reseller of robotic toy fish manufactured by or for Zuru Inc. (“Zuru”), a corporation based in Shenzhen, China. According to the complaint, certain of the trade secrets at issue relate to a design for a miniature robotic toy fish. Additional trade secrets at issue specifically relate to Innovation First’s innovative steering apparatus technology, Innovation First’s proprietary techniques for creating a seal for a battery door of a water toy, and Innovation First’s miniaturization know-how. The complaint alleges the following facts. In November 2009, a Mr. Xiaoping Lu (“Lu”) began working for Innovation First International China, an Innovation First subsidiary. During his employment, Lu was privy to confidential and proprietary information regarding Innovation First’s miniaturization know-how and new technologies that were under development for Innovation First, including technical information, schematics, and designs. Specifically, Lu’s team was working to develop a future generation HEXBUG® water toy with a battery door seal that kept the battery compartment dry when the toy was in water. Lu also worked on a new miniature steering apparatus. According to the complaint, on August 25, 2011, Lu resigned from his position at Innovation First. Shortly thereafter, Lu began working with Zuru, where he has been and is now responsible for the design of Zuru’s robotic toy fish products. The complaint alleges that Lu misappropriated Innovation First’s trade secrets and has shared these trade secrets with Zuru for use in Zuru’s robotic toy fish products. The complaint further alleges that CVS has sold and is currently selling Zuru’s robotic toy fish products in the U.S. after importation despite knowing that Zuru wrongfully acquired Innovation First’s trade secrets and incorporated them into Zuru’s robotic toy fish products. In particular, the complaint alleges that one selling point of Zuru’s robotic toy fish products to customers like CVS is that the products are developed by the same individuals who designed and developed Innovation First’s HEXBUG® toys. Regarding domestic industry, Innovation First states that it has made and continues to make significant investments in plant and equipment in the U.S. dedicated to research, development, design, manufacturing, and distribution for products directed to the robotic toy industry. Innovation First specifically refers to its facilities in Greenville, Texas. Innovation First also refers to significant U.S. investments in labor and capital related to the robotic toy industry. In addition, Innovation First alleges that CVS’s past and continuing sales of articles incorporating Innovation First’s misappropriated trade secrets have caused and threaten to cause substantial injury to Innovation First’s overall domestic robotic toy industry—as well as its embryonic robotic toy fish industry. Innovation First alleges injury through at least (a) price erosion; (b) reduction in sales; (c) reduction in revenue; and (d) lost market position. As to related litigation, Innovation First states that on October 6, 2011, it filed suit against Zuru in Texas state court alleging trade secret misappropriation and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. According to the complaint, Innovation First sought and received a temporary restraining order against Zuru. Zuru then had the case removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. In the district court, the case was subsequently dismissed for forum non conveniens in part because the controversy allegedly arose in China and the trade secrets at issue were allegedly misappropriated in China. The district court also dissolved the state court’s temporary restraining order. Innovation First then appealed the district court’s dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That appeal is currently pending. With respect to potential remedy, Innovation First requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order directed at CVS. Innovation First also requests that the Commission issue an order instructing CVS to immediately and verifiably destroy all robotic toys in its possession, custody, or control that were manufactured by, through, or with one or more of Innovation First’s misappropriated trade secrets. Innovation First further requests that the Commission issue an order instructing CVS to immediately and verifiably turn over to Innovation First all documents and things in its possession, custody, or control that contain or embody one or more of the misappropriated trade secrets and/or any information derived from the misappropriated trade secrets. We note that this appears to be the fourth Section 337 complaint since the Federal Circuit’s decision in TianRui Group Co. v. ITC, 661 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2011) that alleges the importation of articles manufactured using misappropriated trade secrets where the acts of misappropriation occurred in China. For a discussion of this growing trend, see our June 22, 2012 post.
On January 14, 2013, Radio Systems Corporation of Knoxville, Tennessee (“RSC”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. RSC also filed a motion for preliminary relief with the complaint. The complaint alleges that Sunbeam Products, Inc. d/b/a Jarden Consumer Solutions of Boca Raton, Florida (“Sunbeam”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain electronic bark control collars that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,927,233 (the ‘233 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘233 patent generally relates to a bark control system that includes a vibration sensor and a microphone either operating independently or in tandem, with the vibration gating the microphone. The output of the vibration sensor and the microphone are processed to discriminate the target dog’s (that is, the dog wearing the collar) bark from other noises (such as another dog’s bark). When the discrimination result indicates that the sound is a bark, a stimulus delivery device applies a corrective stimulus (e.g., electrostatic shock, ultrasonic pulse, spray, or vibration). Each bark sampled replaces the bark previously stored, permitting the bark control system to adapt to any repetitive bark sequence of the target dog. Lastly, a stimulus intensity selection circuit provides a variable intensity for the corrective stimulus. In the complaint, RSC states that Sunbeam imports and sells products that infringe the ‘233 patent. The complaint specifically refers to Sunbeam’s Advanced Bark Control Collar – Static, Advanced Bark Control Collar – Ultrasonic, and Mini Bark Control Collar – Static as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, RSC states that many of its bark control collars sold under the PetSafe® and SportDOG® brands practice the ‘233 patent. RSC further states that it has made substantial investments in the U.S. in the exploitation of the ‘233 patent, including engineering, research and development, testing, and repair and service relating to products protected by the ‘233 patent. RSC specifically refers to its facility in Knoxville, Tennessee, where it employs the majority of its 481 U.S. employees. As to related litigation, RSC states that on December 14, 2012, it filed a civil action against Sunbeam in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee alleging infringement of the ‘233 patent. RSC further states that it is seeking a preliminary injunction against Sunbeam in the district court. With respect to potential remedy, RSC requests that the Commission issue a preliminary exclusion order, a permanent exclusion order, a preliminary cease and desist order, and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Sunbeam, its affiliates, and other acting on its behalf. In the motion for preliminary relief filed with the complaint, RSC argues that (A) it is more likely than not to succeed on the merits of its claims; (B) Sunbeam’s actions will likely cause irreparable harm to RSC, its domestic industry, and its exclusive rights in the ‘233 patent; (C) the balance of harms in granting preliminary relief weighs in RSC’s favor; and (D) the public interest weighs in favor of granting preliminary relief. RSC accordingly requests that the Commission set a procedural schedule for the temporary relief phase of the investigation and a date for a preliminary evidentiary hearing, which is expected to last approximately two days. RSC further requests that the Commission issue a preliminary exclusion order and a preliminary cease and desist order. RSC also requests that the Commission waive the requirement of a bond.
On January 18, 2013, E.J. Brooks Company of Farmington Hills, Michigan (“Brooks”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Mao Dah Enterprise Co., Ltd. of Taiwan (“Mao Dah”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain utility meter sealing rings and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,851,038 (the ‘038 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘038 patent generally relates to a sealing ring for utility meters. In the complaint, Brooks states that Mao Dah imports and sells products that infringe the ‘038 patent. Regarding domestic industry, Brooks states that its Handi-Ring® product employs technology covered by the ‘038 patent. Brooks further states that a domestic industry exists based on its significant investment in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor and capital, and substantial exploitation of the ‘038 patent through engineering and research and development in the U.S. Brooks specifically refers to its facility in Farmington Hills, Michigan. With respect to potential remedy, Brooks requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order—or in the alternative, a limited exclusion order—and a cease and desist order directed at Mao Dah.
On January 24, 2013, Adaptix, Inc. (“Adaptix”) filed a complaint requesting that the U.S. International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson, Inc. (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully manufacture, import, sell for importation, and sell after importation certain wireless communications base stations and components thereof used in those systems that infringe at least claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 13–16, 20, 21, 31, 32, 34, and 41 of U.S. Patent No. 6,870,808 (the ‘808 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘808 patent relates generally to techniques for increasing the amount of data that may be transmitted per time period for a given frequency band between a base station and mobile-subscriber units. Adaptix states that the approaches embodied in the ‘808 patent were adopted by the wireless-communication industry when the 4G LTE standard was released. Adaptix asserts that the Proposed Respondents unlawfully manufacture, import, sell for importation, and sell after importation certain wireless communications base stations and components thereof used in those systems that infringe the ‘808 patent. Specifically, Adaptix states that the RBS 6000 family of base stations infringe the ‘808 patent. Regarding domestic industry, Adaptix avers that Adaptix and its licensees have made “significant investments in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor or capital, and substantial investments in exploitation of the patent including engineering, research and development, and licensing.” Adaptix acknowledges that “[its] business has changed over the years, from developing and manufacturing wireless-communications access technology to licensing and enforcing patents in that technology.” As to related litigation, the complaint states that Adaptix has asserted the ‘808 patent in seven related litigations. All seven related litigations were filled in the Eastern District of Texas between January 13, 2012 and January 10, 2013. Included in the seven related litigations is a pending case against the Proposed Respondents, and others, which was filed on January 10, 2013. With respect to potential remedy, Adaptix requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents.
According to the complaint, Mr. Bobel is the owner of the ‘540 patent, directed to reflector lamps with a florescent light source that are “electrically, mechanically, and optically compatible with incandescent or tungsten-halogen incandescent lamps.” Neptun, a company founded by Mr. Bobel in 2002 that manufactures reflector CFLs, is the sole licensee to the ‘540 patent. The complaint describes the activities of the Proposed Respondents alleged to directly infringe the asserted patents and identifies representative products for each Respondent by model number. The complaint asserts that the packaging for the representative products for each of the Proposed Respondents illustrates that the products were made in China and imported into the United States for sale. The complaint states that there is no related litigation. Complainants assert that they meet both the economic and technical prongs of the domestic industry requirement, arguing that they have made “significant investment in plant and equipment,” “significant employment of labor and capital,” and “substantial investment in the exploitation of the ‘540 patent.” The complaint alleges that Neptun was established to market and sell energy efficient electric lamps including the reflector CFLs encompassed by the ‘540 patent. The complaint includes a claim chart matching the elements of the independent claims of the ‘540 patent to a representative product sold by Neptun, demonstrating that Complainants practice the invention. With respect to potential remedy, the complaint requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and cease and desist orders directed to the Proposed Respondents and their allegedly infringing devices.
According to the complaint, the ‘351 patent generally relates to a krill extract comprising omega-3 fatty acids, including eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), attached to phospholipids wherein the extract is suitable for human consumption. In particular, the phospholipids carry the EPA and DHA directly into cells, allowing the human body to absorb them very easily. The complaint states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the ‘351 patent, and specifically refers to various products associated with the Proposed Respondents. Regarding domestic industry, Neptune asserts that it has invested heavily in engineering, manufacturing, sales, and marketing to commercialize its marine-based phospholipid technology in the U.S. Neptune states that its NKO product practices the ‘351 patent, and that it has partnered with U.S. companies to manufacture and distribute the NKO product. In particular, Neptune states that it ships bulk krill oil to the U.S. where it is encapsulated into softgels by one of Neptune’s domestic contractors. Neptune also states that Acasti advances a range of bioactive proprietary phospholipid ingredients through pharmaceuticals, including prescription medical foods, over-the-counter products, and prescription drugs. Neptune specifically refers to Acasti’s Onemia product, which it alleges practices the ‘351 patent. According to the complaint, Acasti partners with U.S.-based companies to manufacture and distribute the Onemia product in the U.S. As to related litigation, Neptune states that on October 2, 2012, it filed two lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that certain of the Proposed Respondents and others infringe the ‘351 patent. Those cases are currently pending. Neptune also states that it is involved in other litigations (not involving the ‘351 patent) with some of the Proposed Respondents. Neptune further states that a request for ex parte reexamination of the ‘351 patent was filed with the USPTO on October 2, 2012, and that that request has been assigned to an Examiner for determination. With respect to potential remedy, Neptune requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed to the Proposed Respondents, their subsidiaries, related companies, and agents.
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to integrated circuit designs and the physical implementation of integrated circuit designs. In particular, the ‘049 patent relates to an integrated circuit, method, and data storage device, each of which comprises conductive gate level features within adjacently positioned gate electrode feature channels. The ‘044 patent relates to a semiconductor device and layout for a semiconductor device. The ‘550 patent relates to a semiconductor device, a computer readable medium having program instructions for a semiconductor device layout, and a method for creating the layouts for semiconductor devices. The ‘547 patent relates to a restricted layout region of a semiconductor device. The ‘428 patent relates to an integrated circuit, method, and layout for making an integrated circuit. The ‘552 patent relates to an integrated circuit, method, and layout thereof. Lastly, the ‘689 patent relates to an integrated circuit and layout of the same. In the complaint, Tela states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically refers to the HTC One X, the LG Spectrum 2, the Motorola Atrix HD, the Nokia Lumia 920, and the Pantech Flex as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Tela refers to its significant and continuous investment in plant and equipment, significant and continuous employment of labor and capital, and substantial and ongoing investment in engineering and research and development in the U.S. Tela specifically states that it performs various integrated circuit design activities at its facility in Los Gatos, California, and that these activities relate to products protected by the asserted patents. As to related litigation, Tela states that, contemporaneously with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, Tela intends to file complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Proposed Respondents infringe the asserted patents. With respect to potential remedy, Tela requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order directed at the domestic Proposed Respondents.
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to paper laminates such as boxes and folding containers that are comprised of unbleached and bleached layers, and which provide for packaging that has a high stiffness and strength but is also more environmentally friendly. In particular, the ‘242 patent relates to a laminated composite sheet glued in the shape of a box and having a fiberboard base layer, an inner ply of cellulose fibers on the inner surface of the base layer, an outer layer with printed graphics, and an adhesive layer between the base layer and the outer layer. The ‘067 patent relates to a laminate composite sheet having a two-ply base layer with certain specified properties and an additional layer attached to the top ply of the base layer also having certain specified properties. As to the allegedly infringing products, the complaint identifies specific products from each of the Proposed Respondent, ranging from popular alcohol products to toys and headphones. Regarding domestic industry, Lamina states that its licensees have made substantial investments in the United States in the exploitation of the inventions claimed in the asserted patents with respect to engineering, research, development, testing, marketing, and servicing activities. According to the complaint, these licensees produce, market, and sell in the U.S., among other things, luxury home goods, fragrances, cosmetics, and wine products. Lamina also states that it has made substantial investments with respect to these and other licensing activities and that it is also in the process of arranging for a manufacturing partnership relating to products that practice the asserted patents. As to related litigation, Lamina states that in June and July of 2012 it asserted the ‘242 patent in four separate litigations against Sara Happ, Inc. (Lamina Packaging Innovations LLC. v. Sara Happ, Inc., No. 2:2012-cv-00310, M.D. Fla.); Francis Ford Coppola Presents, LLC (Lamina Packaging Innovations LLC. v. Francis Ford Coppola Presents, LLC et al., No. 2:12-cv-00311-UA-SPC, M.D. Fla.); Monsieur Touton Selection, Ltd. (Lamina Packaging Innovations LLC. v. Monsieur Touton Selection, Ltd., No. 1:12-cv-05039-PAE, S.D.N.Y.); and Lafco Enterprises Inc. (Lamina Packaging Innovations LLC. v. Lafco Enterprises Inc., No. 1:2012-cv-05225, S.D.N.Y). The case against Monseiur Touton Selection, Ltd. remains pending. All other cases have been terminated by settlement. With respect to potential remedy, Lamina requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed to the Proposed Respondents.
On February 22, 2013, Neology, Inc. of Poway, California (“Neology”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Federal Signal Corporation of Oakbrook, Illinois, Federal Signal Technologies, LLC of Irvine, California, and Sirit Corp. of Irvine, California (collectively, “Federal Signal”) and 3M Company of St. Paul, Minnesota (“3M”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain radio frequency identification (“RFID”) products and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,081,819 (the ‘819 patent), 7,671,746 (the ‘746 patent), and 6,690,264 (the ‘264 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to RFID technology. In particular, the ‘819 and ‘746 patents relate to novel aspects of systems and methods to securely store, track, and/or verify identification information using short range RFID transponders. The ‘264 patent relates to improvements to the circuitry of RFID devices that improve or assist in the “read” operations of such devices. In the complaint, Neology states that Federal Signal and 3M import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically refers to, inter alia, various products in the IDentity and INfinity product lines as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Neology states that it conducts activities and makes investments in the U.S. relating to researching, developing, manufacturing, marketing, testing, customizing, maintaining, and supporting RFID transponders and readers that employ and exploit technology covered by the asserted patents. Neology specifically refers to its Model 104 Sticker Tags, Model 106 Sticker Tags, Model 90 Hardcase Tags, Model 250 Exterior-Mount Tags, and TR-711M Desktop RFID readers as products that practice the asserted patents. Neology also specifically refers to its facility in Poway, California, where it alleges that it has the capability to manufacture nearly 90 million RFID transponders per year. As to related litigation, Neology states that it sued Federal Signal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the asserted patents, and that that case is currently pending. Neology further states that it sued Federal Signal in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, but that that case has since been transferred to Delaware and consolidated with the Delaware district court action. With respect to potential remedy, Neology requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Federal Signal, 3M, and related entities.
On March 11, 2013, STMicroelectronics, Inc. of Coppell, Texas (“STM”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that InvenSense, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California (“InvenSense”), Roku, Inc. of Saratoga, California (“Roku”), and Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. of New Britain, Connecticut (“Black & Decker”) (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain microelectromechanical systems (“MEMS devices”) and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,450,332 (the ‘332 patent), 7,409,291 (the ‘291 patent), 6,928,872 (the ‘872 patent), 6,370,954 (the ‘954 patent), and 6,034,419 (the ‘419 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to MEMS devices. In particular, the ‘332 patent relates to MEMS devices that are capable of detecting free-fall and are suitable for incorporation into a portable electronic device. The ‘291 patent relates to a MEMS device that detects states of motion and rest using a motion sensor. The ‘872 patent relates to an integrated gyroscope, which includes driving assemblies, sensitive masses and sensing electrodes, that provides more precise motion detecting and greater reliability over prior technology. The ‘954 patent relates to MEMS devices that sense movement. Lastly, the ‘419 patent relates to semiconductor devices, such as MEMS devices, that incorporate tungsten contacts. In the complaint, STM states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically refers to various products associated with each of the Proposed Respondents. Regarding domestic industry, STM states that many of its MEMS devices—including the L3G4200D and LIS331DLH—practice the asserted patents. STM further states that it has made and continues to make significant investments in the U.S. in plant, equipment, labor, and capital, as well as substantial investments in the U.S. in research and development and engineering relating to articles protected by the asserted patents. According to the complaint, these activities include domestic research, engineering (including design-in engineering), testing, technical marketing, and repair and service relating to STM’s MEMS devices protected by the asserted patents. STM specifically refers to its facilities in Texas, California, and Colorado. As to related litigation, STM states that it sued InvenSense for infringement of the ‘332, ‘291, and ‘872 patents in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. However, that case is currently stayed pursuant to a court order. In addition, STM states that it is suing InvenSense, Roku, and Black & Decker for infringement of the ‘954 and ‘419 patents in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. With respect to potential remedy, STM requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents, their subsidiaries, related companies, and agents.
On March 12, 2013, Sling Media, Inc. of Foster City, California (“Sling Media”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Belkin International, Inc. of Playa Vista, California (“Belkin”), Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. of San Mateo, California (“Monsoon”), and C2 Microsystems, Inc. of San Jose, California (“C2”) (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain electronic devices having placeshifting or display replication functionality and products containing same that infringe one more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,877,776 (the ‘776 patent), 8,051,454 (the ‘454 patent), 8,060,909 (the ‘909 patent), 7,725,912 (the ‘912 patent), 8,266,657 (the ‘657 patent), and 8,365,236 (the ‘236 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to placeshifting and/or display replication functionality. In particular, the ‘776, ‘909, ‘454, and ‘236 patents relate to a personal media broadcasting system that enables media distribution over a computer network and allows a user to view and control media sources over a computer network from a remote location. The ‘912 patent relates to an apparatus and method for effectively implementing a wireless television system that includes a communications processor and a transmitter device that combine at least one of a local-area network interface, a wide-area network interface, and one or more television data interfaces for effectively performing a wireless network transmission process. Lastly, the ‘657 patent relates to a method for effectively implementing a multi-room television system that includes a digital base station that processes and combines various program sources to produce a processed stream. In the complaint, Sling Media states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically refers to, inter alia, the Belkin @TV Plus and @TV Premium, the Monsoon Vulkano Flow, Vulkano Flow LC, Vulkano Lava, and Vulkano Blast, and the C2 CC1203 System on Chip as infringing products. Regarding domestic industry, Sling Media states that it has made significant investments in plant and equipment and engaged in a significant employment of labor and capital in the U.S. in connection with electronic devices that practice the asserted patents. Sling Media specifically refers to its facilities in California, New York, and Georgia. Sling Media also states that it has made substantial investments in the exploitation of the asserted patents in the U.S., including engineering and research and development. As to the technical prong, Sling Media states that its Slingbox 350, Slingbox 500, Slingbox SOLO, and Slingbox Pro-HD multimedia products and its DISH Network Hopper with Sling DVR set-top box practice the asserted patents. As to related litigation, Sling Media states that on January 7, 2013, it filed a complaint against Belkin and Monsoon in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging infringement of the ‘776, ‘909, ‘454, ‘912, and ‘657 patents. Sling Media further states that it filed an amended complaint in the district court litigation on February 14, 2013, in which it added an allegation that Belkin and Monsoon infringe the ‘236 patent With respect to potential remedy, Sling Media requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents.
On March 19, 2013, MAKO Surgical Corp. of Fort Lauderdale, Florida (“MAKO”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Stanmore Implants Worldwide of the United Kingdom and Stanmore Inc. of Plymouth, Massachusetts (collectively, “Stanmore”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain computerized orthopedic surgical devices, software, implants, and components thereof that infringe one more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,010,180 (the ‘180 patent) and 7,831,292 (the ‘292 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to computerized orthopedic surgical devices, software, and implants. In particular, the ‘180 patent is directed to a surgical system and method for orthopedic joint replacement. The surgical system includes a computer system and a surgical device configured to be manipulated by a user, such as a surgeon, to perform a procedure on a patient. The ‘292 patent is directed to a computer-assisted surgical system and method for providing tactile feedback during a medical procedure to facilitate accurate tissue cutting. In the complaint, MAKO states that Stanmore imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically refers to the Stanmore Sculptor RGA as an infringing product. Regarding domestic industry, MAKO states that it has researched, designed, developed, manufactured, assembled, tested, sold, distributed, serviced, and supported products that practice the asserted patents in the U.S. According to the complaint, the bulk of MAKO’s activities with respect to its RIO Platform—which practices the ‘180 and ‘292 patents—occur in the U.S. MAKO specifically refers to its headquarters in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. As to related litigation, MAKO states that it expects to file a complaint for infringement of the asserted patents in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. With respect to potential remedy, MAKO requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Stanmore and its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and assigns.
On March 28, 2013, ResMed Corp. of San Diego, California, ResMed Inc. of San Diego, California, and ResMed Ltd. of Australia (collectively, “ResMed”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Apex Medical Corp. of Taiwan and Apex Medical USA Corp. of Brea, California (collectively, “Apex”) and Medical Depot Inc. d/b/a Drive Medical Design & Manufacturing of Port Washington, New York (“Drive”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain sleep-disordered breathing treatment systems and components thereof that infringe one more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,159,587 (the ‘587 patent), 7,487,772 (the ‘772 patent), 7,997,267 (the ‘267 patent), 7,743,767 (the ‘767 patent), 6,216,691 (the ‘691 patent), 6,935,337 (the ‘337 patent), and 7,614,398 (the ‘398 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to sleep-disorder breathing treatment systems. In particular, the ‘587 patent relates to a vent assembly for use with a respiratory mask of the type used in a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) machine. The ‘772, ‘267, and ‘767 patents relate to a respiratory mask assembly for delivering breathable air to a patient. The ‘691 patent relates to a mounting body for mounting a flow generator assembly inside an external housing. Lastly, the ‘337 and ‘398 patents relate to a humidifier for humidifying air in a CPAP system. In the complaint, ResMed states that Apex and Drive import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically refers to the Apex WiZARD 210, WiZARD 220, XT Fit, iCH Auto, and XT Humidifier as infringing products. Additionally, the complaint states that Drive imports the Apex WiZARD 210 and WiZARD 220 and rebrands them as the Freedom 210 and Freedom 220, respectively. Regarding domestic industry, ResMed states that various components of its SDB treatment systems are protected by the asserted patents. ResMed further states that it conducts significant domestic industry activities in the U.S. relating to products that practice the asserted patents. According to the complaint, these activities include research and development, packaging, education, training, sales, customer support, and warranty and repair services. ResMed also refers to significant investments in U.S. facilities where work relating to products that practice the asserted patents is performed, including facilities in California and South Carolina. As to related litigation, ResMed states that, concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it is also filing a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that Apex and Drive infringe the asserted patents. With respect to potential remedy, ResMed requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Apex and Drive.
On April 3, 2013, Okin America, Inc. of Frederick, Maryland and Dewert Okin GmbH of Germany (collectively, “Okin”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The complaint alleges that Changzhou Kaidi Electrical Co. Ltd. of China and Kaidi LLC of Eaton Rapids, Michigan (collectively, “Kaidi”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain linear actuators (also known as “drives”) for adjusting parts of seating and reclining furniture that infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,927,144 (the ‘144 patent). According to the complaint, the ‘144 patent generally relates to a linear actuator in which an electric motor using a worm gear drives a spindle on which a spindle nut is mounted, which converts the rotary movement of the spindle to linear movement of the nut. A clevis at the end of the actuator is connected to parts of a chair; moveable parts of the chair are connected to a spindle nut. The small fitting dimensions make it ideal for recliner chairs with lifting assistance. In the complaint, Okin states that Kaidi imports and sells products that infringe the ‘144 patent. The complaint specifically refers to the Kaidi KDPT005 actuator as an infringing product. Regarding domestic industry, Okin states that its Betadrive product practices the ‘144 patent. Okin further states that, since 2012, it has been manufacturing a significant number of Betadrives at its plant in Shannon, Mississippi, where it has made substantial investments in manufacturing equipment and where it employs a significant number of workers. With respect to potential remedy, Okin requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Kaidi, its affiliates, and others acting on its behalf.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.