Source: http://www.itcblog.com/component/tags/tag/federal-circuit-cases-involving-the-itc?start=60
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:17:53+00:00

Document:
On January 10, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in Motorola Mobility LLC v. ITC (2012-1666). This was an appeal from the International Trade Commission’s (“the Commission”) determination that Apple Inc. (“Apple”) did not violate Section 337 in Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-745) with regard to claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,272,333 (the ‘333 patent). By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Motorola Mobility, LLC (formerly Motorola Mobility, Inc., “Motorola”) and the Respondent is Apple. On May 16, 2012, ALJ Pender issued the public version of an initial determination (“ID”) finding a violation of Section 337 as to U.S. Patent No. 6,246,697, but no violation of Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,272,333, 6,246,862, and 5,636,223. See our May 31, 2012 post for more details on the ID. On September 17, 2012, the Commission issued the public version of its opinion affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, and remanding-in-part the findings in the ID. In relevant part, the Commission found that the accused mobile devices did not infringe the ‘333 patent and that Motorola failed to establish the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with regard to the ‘333 patent. See our September 20, 2012 post for more details on the Commission’s decision. The ’333 patent is directed to a method and apparatus for controlling a delivery of data from a fixed portion of the wireless communication system to a subscriber unit, and insures that subscriber units are sent information over the network that can be utilized by the subscriber unit, even if the subscriber unit has been customized. According to the Federal Circuit’s opinion, the parties’ infringement dispute centers around a dispositive claim construction issue concerning “the correlation between ‘a change in accessibility’ and what must be programmed to occur in response to ‘a change in accessibility,’” an element not explicitly construed by the Commission. Apple’s position was that the claim requires every change in accessibility to trigger an update to the registry and a communication to the network. Motorola argued that not every change required communication, as long as the mobile device communicates in response to some changes in accessibility. The Federal Circuit agreed with Apple, and explained that the disputed claim limitation requires both an update to the application registry and a communication of that specific change in accessibility to the fixed portion of the wireless network. The Court relied on antecedent basis in the claim and use of the term “and” rather than “or” to come to this conclusion. According to the Federal Circuit, Apple’s products include two different functionalities, covering situations (i) where an update is made, but no communication is sent to the network, and (ii) where a communication is sent to the network, but no update is made. As such, Apple’s products do not infringe the ‘333 patent. The Federal Circuit also considered whether or not Motorola met the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. Since Motorola’s Droid 2 devices were determined to have the same relevant features as the accused Apple devices, the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement was found not to be met under the Court’s claim construction. As such, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s finding of no violation of Section 337 with respect to the ‘333 patent.
On July 7, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n (2013-1340). This was an appeal by X2Y Attenuators, LLC (“X2Y”) from the International Trade Commission’s (the “Commission”) final determination in Certain Microprocessors, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-781).
In the opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s final determination of no violation of Section 337 by Intel Corp., Intel Americas, Inc., Componentes Intel De Costa Rica S.A., Intel Technology Sdn. Bhd, Intel Products (Chengdu) Ltd., Apple Inc., and Hewlett-Packard Co. (collectively, “Respondents”) with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,609,500, 7,916,444, and 8,023,241 (collectively, the “asserted patents”). In particular, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s claim construction and thus affirmed the Commission’s finding that X2Y’s asserted patents do not cover Respondents’ accused products.
On July 18, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Align Technology, Inc. v. ITC (2013-1240, 1363). This was an appeal from the International Trade Commission’s (“the Commission”) decision that it could review the ALJ’s Order determining that the accused devices were within the scope of the Consent Order issued in Certain Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment Appliances and Methods of Producing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-562).
By way of background, the Commission instituted the underlying investigation on September 11, 2007 based on a complaint filed by InterDigital Communications Corp. and InterDigital Technology Corp. (collectively, "InterDigital"). The complaint, as amended, alleged violations of Section 337 by Nokia in the importation and/or sale of certain 3G mobile handsets and components thereof. On August 14, 2009, former Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued his Initial Determination ("ID") finding no violation of Section 337 on the grounds that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit were not invalid and not infringed. See our September 23, 2009 post for more details on the ID. The Commission reviewed the ID and on October 16, 2009 issued a notice affirming the ALJ's finding of no violation with modified reasoning. See our October 19, 2009 post for more details.
On September 25, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in uPI Semiconductor Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n (2013-1157, 1159). This was an appeal by Respondent uPI Semiconductor Corp. ("uPI") and the companion appeal of Complainants Richtek Tech. Corp. and Richtek USA, Inc. (collectively, "Richtek") from the International Trade Commission's (the "Commission") rulings in an enforcement proceeding, Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-698).
By way of background, Richtek filed a complaint in 2010 alleging that uPI misappropriate Richtek's trade secrets and violated Section 337 through the importation and/or sale of DC-DC controllers and downstream products containing same that infringed Richtek's U.S. Patent Nos. 7,315,190 ("the '190 patent"), 6,414,470 ("the '470 patent") and 7,132,717 ("the '717 patent"). Shortly before the evidentiary hearing, uPI moved to terminate the investigation by unilaterally offering to enter into a consent order whereby uPI would cease importation of all products produced using or containing Richtek's trade secrets or infringing Richtek's patents. Over Richtek's objection, the ALJ agreed to enter the consent order substantially as drafted and proposed by uPI. The Commission declined to review the ALJ's grant of uPI's motion, and terminated the investigation and entered the consent order.
On November 25, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential order granting the International Trade Commission's (the "Commission") motion to dismiss the appeal as premature in A&J Manufacturing, LLC et al. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n (2014-1742). This was an appeal by Complainants A&J Manufacturing, LLC and A&J Manufacturing, Inc. (collectively, "A&J") from the Commission's decision affirming-in-part the ALJ's Initial Determination ("ID") of non-infringement of certain products in Certain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills and Parts Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-895).
By way of background, A&J filed a complaint in August 2013 alleging violation of Section 337 by over 20 proposed respondents in the importation and sale of certain multiple mode outdoor grills and parts thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,381,712 ("the '712 patent"), D660,646 and D662,773. See our August 22, 2013 and September 23, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.
On December 19, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential decision affirming the International Trade Commission's (the "Commission") final determination of no violation of Section 337 in Creative Kingdoms, LLC et al. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n (2014-1072). This was an appeal by Complainants Creative Kingdoms, LLC and New Kingdoms, LLC (collectively, "CK") in connection with Certain Video Game Systems and Wireless Controllers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-770).
On February 18, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming the International Trade Commission's ("the Commission") final determination of no violation of Section 337 in InterDigital Commc'ns, Inc. et al. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n (2014-1176). This was an appeal by Complainants InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, and IPR Licensing, Inc. (collectively, "InterDigital") in connection with Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-800).
By way of background, this investigation is based on a July 26, 2011 complaint filed on behalf of InterDigital alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondents Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA), ZTE Corp., ZTE (USA) Inc., and Nokia (collectively, "Respondents") in the importation and/or sale of certain wireless devices with 3G capabilities and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of several U.S. patents. See our July 28, 2011 and August 29, 2011 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.
On March 20, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential decision affirming the International Trade Commission's ("the Commission") final determination of no violation of Section 337 in LSI Corp. et al. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n (2014-1410). This was an appeal by Complainants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems LLC (collectively, "LSI") in connection with Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-837).
By way of background, this investigation is based on a March 2, 2012 complaint filed by LSI alleging violation of Section 337 with regard to certain audiovisual components and products containing the same including certain digital televisions, Blu-ray disc players, home theater systems, DVD players and/or recorders that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,870,087 (the '087 patent), 6,982,663 (the '663 patent), 6,452,958 (the '958 patent), and 6,707,867 (the '867 patent). See our April 15, 2014 post for more details on the investigation.
On May 11, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion reversing the International Trade Commission's (the "Commission") final determination finding a violation of Section 337 in Lelo Inc., et al v. Int'l Trade Comm'n (2013-1582). This was an appeal by Respondents Lelo Inc. and Lelo AB (collectively, "Lelo") in connection with Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-823).
By way of background, the investigation is based on a December 2, 2011 complaint filed by Standard Innovation Corporation and Standard Innovation (US) Corp. (collectively, "Standard Innovation") alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain kinesiotherapy devices and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,931,605 (the '605 patent) and U.S. Patent No. D605,779 (the D'779 patent). Standard Innovation withdrew the D'779 patent from the investigation. An evidentiary hearing was held in August 2012. On February 8, 2013, ALJ Pender issued an Initial Determination ("ID") construing the terms of the asserted claims and finding the '605 patent valid and infringed, but finding no violation of Section 337 on the grounds that Standard Innovation did not satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. See our February 11, 2013 post for more details.
On August 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in Suprema Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n(2012-1170). In the opinion, the Federal Circuit determined to uphold the U.S. International Trade Commission's (the "Commission" or "ITC") position that allegations of induced infringement are actionable at the ITC even where the underlying direct infringement does not occur until after importation.
By way of background, this was an appeal from the Commission's final determination in Certain Biometric Scanning Devices, Components Thereof, Associated Software, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-720) finding a violation of Section 337 by Suprema, Inc. and Mentalix, Inc. In reaching its final determination, the Commission had held that the statutory language making unlawful the importation of "articles that... infringe a valid and enforceable United States patent" covered the importation of goods that, after importation, are used by the importer to directly infringe at the inducement of the goods' seller. On appeal, a Federal Circuit panel disagreed with the Commission's conclusion on this issue, reasoning that there are no "articles that infringe" at the time of importation when direct infringement does not occur until after importation. See our December 19, 2013 post for more details. The Federal Circuit subsequently granted rehearing en banc and vacated the panel decision.
On November 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its precedential opinion in ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. ITC (2014-1527). This was an appeal from the International Trade Commission’s (“the Commission”) determination finding a violation of Section 337 in Certain Digital Models, Digital Data, and Treatment Plans for Use In Making Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment Appliances Made Therefrom, and Methods of Making the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-833).
By way of background, the International Trade Commission instituted this investigation on March 20, 2012 based on a complaint filed by Complainant Align Technology, Inc. (“Align”). In the Complaint, Align alleged that Respondents ClearCorrect Operating, LLC and ClearCorrect Pakistan (Private), Ltd. (collectively, “ClearCorrect”) violated Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain digital models, digital data, or treatment plans for use in making incremental dental positioning adjustment appliances that infringe—or are made, produced, or processed by means of a process that infringes—one or more claims of various U.S. patents. See our March 2, 2012 and April 6, 2012 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation.
On November 12, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) issued its precedential opinion in DeLorme Publ’g Co., Inc. v. ITC (2014-1572). This was an appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (“the Commission”) determination finding a violation of the consent order entered in Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices, System and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-854).
By way of background, the Commission instituted the underlying investigation on September 18, 2012 based on BriarTek IP, Inc.’s (“BriarTek”) complaint of August 17, 2012. See our September 19, 2012 post for more details. On March 15, 2013, former ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. granted a motion by DeLorme Publishing Co., Inc. and DeLorme InReach, LLC (collectively, “DeLorme”) to terminate the investigation and for entry of a proposed consent order (“the Consent Order”). See our March 19, 2013 post for more details. In the consent order, DeLorme agreed that it would not import or sell two-way global satellite communication devices, systems, or components thereof that infringe BriarTek’s U.S. Patent No. 7,991,380 (the ’380 patent) after April 1, 2013. On April 10, 2013, BriarTek filed an enforcement complaint alleging that DeLorme violated the Consent Order. See our April 11, 2013 post for more details. On July 2, 2014, the Commission issued the public version of its opinion in the enforcement proceeding determining that DeLorme violated the Consent Order and imposed a civil penalty of $6,242,500. See our July 9, 2014 post for more details.
On February 15, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Organik Kimya, San. Ve Tic. A.S. v. ITC (2015-1774, 2015-1833). This was an appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (“the Commission”) final determination imposing a default judgment against Respondents Organik Kimya San. ve Tic., A.S., Organik Kimya Netherlands B.V., and Organik Kimya US, Inc. (collectively, “Organik Kimya”) and issuing a 25-year limited exclusion order and cease and desist order in Certain Opaque Polymers (Inv. No. 337-TA-883).
By way of background, the Commission instituted this investigation on June 18, 2013 based on a complaint filed by Rohm and Haas Co., Rohm and Haas Chemicals LLC, and Dow Chemical Co. (collectively, “Dow”). In the complaint, Dow alleged that Organik Kimya violated Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain opaque polymers that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,020,435; 6,252,004; 7,435,783; and 7,803,878. See our May 22, 2013 and June 20, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively. Dow subsequently filed an amended complaint alleging that Organik Kimya had misappropriated Dow trade secrets. During the investigation, it was uncovered that Organik Kimya had intentionally destroyed evidence responsive to Dow’s discovery requests and violated explicit discovery orders by the presiding Administrative Law Judge, Thomas B. Pender. See our May 26, 2015 post for more details.
On June 13, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its non-precedential opinion in Navico Inc. v. ITC, 2016-1533. This was an appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (“the Commission”) final determination in Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan and Sidescan Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-921).
By way of background, the underlying investigation is based on a June 9, 2014 complaint filed by Navico, Inc. and Navico Holding AS (collectively, “Navico”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain marine sonar imaging devices that allegedly infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,305,840 (the ’840 patent), 8,300,499 (the ’499 patent), and 8,605,550 (the ‘550 patent). See our July 11, 2014 post for more details on the underlying investigation. On December 1, 2015, the Commission issued its final determination reversing the Initial Determination’s primary claim construction and finding a violation of Section 337 by Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. (collectively, “Garmin”) and others based on infringement of certain claims of the ’840 and ’550 patents. The Commission issued a limited exclusion order and CDOs directed at Garmin. On August 18, 2016, the Commission issued a modified limited exclusion order clarifying that certain components being imported by Garmin are covered by the original limited exclusion order. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s Final Determination on the issues of (1) contributory infringement, (2) invalidity of the ’550 patent, and (3) claim construction in the ’499 patent.
On May 23, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its precedential opinion in Adrian Rivera et al. v. ITC (2016-1841). This was an appeal from the International Trade Commission’s (“the Commission”) determination finding no violation of Section 337 in Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-929).
By way of background, the investigation is based on an August 4, 2014 complaint filed by ARM Enterprises, Inc. and Adrian Rivera (“Rivera”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain beverage brewing capsules, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,720,320 (“the ’320 patent”). See our August 6, 2014 and September 11, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.
On June 13, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its nonprecedential opinion in Garmin Int’l., Inc. v. ITC (2016-1572). This was an appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (“the Commission”) final determination finding, inter alia, that Garmin International, Inc., Garmin USA, Inc., and Garmin Corp. (collectively, “Garmin”) infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,305,840 (the ’840 patent) and 8,605,550 (the ’550 patent) and that such claims are not invalid. The underlying investigation is Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan and Sidescan Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-921). See our July 11, 2014 post for more details on the underlying investigation.
By way of background, the underlying investigation is based on a June 9, 2014 complaint filed by Navico, Inc. and Navico Holding AS (collectively, “Navico”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain marine sonar imaging devices that allegedly infringe one or more claims of the ’840 patent, the ’550 patent, and U.S. Patent No. 8,300,499. On December 1, 2015, the Commission issued its final determination finding that Garmin’s DownVü products infringe certain claims of the ’840 and ’550 patents. The Commission further found that many of the asserted claims of the ’840 and ’550 patents are not invalid as obvious over a 1960 article by Tucker entitled “Narrow-beam echo-ranger for fishery and geological investigations” (“Tucker”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,652,952 to Betts (“Betts”).
On September 11, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) issued a judgment without opinion affirming the decision of the International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) in Viraj Profiles Limited v. ITC (2016-2482). This was an appeal from the Commission’s issuance of an exclusion order against Respondent Viraj Profiles Ltd. (“Viraj”). The underlying investigation is Certain Stainless Steel Products, Certain Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same, and Certain Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-933).
By way of background, this investigation was based on a complaint filed by Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc., Valbruna Stainless Inc., and Acciaierie Valbruna S.p.A. (collectively, “Valbruna”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain stainless steel products manufactured using Valbruna’s allegedly stolen trade secrets. See our September 8, 2014 and October 9, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

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