Opinion ID: 2799778
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: u.s. domestic industry

Text: Standard Innovation filed a § 337 complaint alleging that LELO imported kinesiotherapy devices and components thereof that infringed its ’605 Patent. An ITC Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued an Initial 2 We refer to these components in general terms be- cause Standard Innovation has requested that detailed information about the components remain confidential. 4 LELO INC. v. ITC Determination in which he construed three claim terms of the ’605 Patent and determined that all of the accused devices meet at least one claim of the ’605 Patent. Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-823, Initial Determination at 50 (Jan. 8, 2013) (“Initial Determination”). The ALJ rejected LELO’s arguments that the independent claims of the ’605 Patent are invalid as anticipated, obvious, or indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112. Id. at 79. Despite its findings on infringement and validity, the ALJ determined that a violation of § 337 had not occurred because Standard Innovation failed to satisfy the § 337 domestic industry requirements. Id. The ALJ rejected Standard Innovation’s arguments that its U.S. purchase of the four components constituted a “significant investment in plant and equipment,” or a “substantial investment in its exploitation, including engineering, research and development, or licensing,” under prongs (A) and (C), respectively, of the § 337 domestic industry requirement. Id. at 71. Specifically, the ALJ concluded that Standard Innovation’s U.S. purchases were not relevant to a prong (A) analysis because Standard Innovation failed to establish what portion, if any, the purchase price actually contributed towards a domestic investment in plant or equipment. Id. at 73–74. The ALJ also decided that the components were off-the-shelf items and not relevant to prong (C) because there was no proof that the components were developed specifically for Standard Innovation’s devices, or what portion, if any, of the purchase price was allocable to research and development costs incurred in the development of the components. Id. at 74–75. Further, the ALJ determined that even if the pur- chases were relevant, they were neither “substantial” nor “significant” under prongs (A) or (C). Id. at 75. The total LELO INC. v. ITC 5 purchase prices accounted for less than five percent of the total raw cost of the devices. Id. at 76. 3