Posts Tagged: "§ 337"

The U.S. International Trade Commission has issued a final determination finding a violation of section 337 in a matter dealing with infringement of patents owned by Rovi Corporation. As a result of the investigation the ITC issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting importation of certain digital video receivers and hardware and software components, and also issued cease and desist orders directed to the Comcast respondents. This final determination concludes the matter at the ITC and the investigation is now terminated, with this final determination submitted to President Trump for his review.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) announced that it was investigating potential patent infringement committed by Cupertino, CA-based consumer tech giant Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL)… Aqua Connect said that Apple gave the ACTS terminal server product its “full support” when released to industry praise in 2008. To attract enterprise and government customers, Apple worked closely with Aqua Connect on development and sales of its terminal server service. “In early 2011, however, Apple—-abruptly and without explanation—stopped cooperating with Aqua Connect,” Aqua Connects alleges. By July of that year, Apple released a macOS update known as “Lion” which included a Screen Sharing remote desktop and terminal server solution.

On Wednesday, September 27th, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) announced that it had decided to institute a patent infringement investigation against Chinese electronics manufacturer Hisense (SHA:600060). The investigation, which follows from a Section 337 complaint filed by Japanese electronics firm Sharp (TYO:6753), will seek to determine whether certain Wi-Fi enabled devices and their components, specifically televisions which are capable of wireless Internet connectivity, which are imported into the U.S. by Hisense infringe upon two patents covering similar technologies held by Sharp.

Toomey’s comments appear to argue against an exclusion order for TiVo, which at first glance probably is hardly surprising to anyone. Senator Toomey is supporting a large constituent, which is to be expected. However, by doing so in this case Senator Toomey but seems to be directly at odds with a letter he sent just three years ago expressing “strong support of the protections afforded by 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (Section 337)” for a different constituent. Back in 2014, Senator Toomey wrote to the ITC to support a proposed exclusion order because the patent holder in that case “had made considerable financial investments into developing these technologies and without adequate remedies for imported goods that use their patents without paying for them, our de facto policy will be one that encourages this type of activity.” He argued that “[t]his will only deter companies . . . from taking bets on future research and development. That cannot be good for American innovation and job creation.”

The Qualcomm complaint alleges Section 337 violations of patent infringement caused by the importation and sale of certain mobile electronic devices and radio frequency and processing components facilitated by Cupertino, CA-based consumer mobile electronics giant Apple, Inc… “Qualcomm’s inventions are at the heart of every iPhone and extend well beyond modem technologies or cellular standards,” Dan Rosenberg, executive VP and general counsel at Qualcomm, is quoted as saying. “The patents we are asserting represent six important technologies, out of a portfolio of thousands, and each is vital to iPhone functions.”

Garmin Ltd. (NASDAQ:GRMN) will likely be the target of a $37 million fine levied by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The fines result from Garmin’s business activities in marketing marine sonar imaging devices in violation of a cease-and-desist order resulting from a Section 337 patent infringement investigation.

Arista Networks (NYSE:ANET) was recently successful in its attempts to overturn the validity of a patent held by San Jose, CA-based tech multinational Cisco Systems (NASDAQ:CSCO). The recent ruling of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) clears the way for Arista to overturn a ruling of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which has prevented Arista from importing and selling networking equipment in the U.S. due to patent infringement violations.

An ITC administrative law judge issued a final initial determination finding Section 337 patent infringement violations committed by various entities, including Philadelphia-based telecom firm Comcast Corporation (NASDAQ:CMCSA), in light of two patents asserted by TiVo… News reports indicate that a final ruling on this Section 337 investigation is expected on September 26th after a full investigation, at which point the ITC could decide to block infringing products being imported by Comcast and others in the investigation from entering the U.S. market. In the first full day of trading after TiVo filed that 8-K with the SEC, shares of the company rose by about 17 percent.

The highest federal court in the United States declines to hear an appeal from tech giants on applying common sense to patent validity challenge proceedings. A group of pharmaceutical giants duke it out in a patent battle over a topical ointment for treating acne. The capital’s district court hears arguments in a case about compulsory copyright licenses. Also, President Trump signs a bill authorizing billions in funding for the nation’s space agency.

Judge McNamara explained that domestic industry is not limited to the activities of the patentee and may be satisfied based on a licensee’s activities alone… Judge McNamara explained that the Commission does not require third-party licensees to participate as co-complainants… Judge McNamara explained that the appropriate date for determining domestic industry is the date a complaint is filed even though, in cases where evidence shows a dwindling industry, the Commission may consider activities beyond the complaint date.

In 2016, the ITC had its busiest year since 2011–which was the peak of the “smartphone wars”–in terms of new investigations instituted. In 2016, 55 complaints were filed, notably, 16 of these complaints were filed by foreign companies. The ITC had an above average settlement rate of 60%; normally the settlement rate is approximately 50%. Last year also had a slight growth in nonpatent investigations which includes antitrust, trade secret, copyright and Lanham Act violations. Despite the increased workload, the average target date was 15.8 months from institution date to final Commission opinion.

On Wednesday, January 18th, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) began a probe into a Section 337 patent infringement complaint involving graphics processors and memory controllers against a collection of 17 firms, according to Reuters. These firms include some tech giants in the world of semiconductors and electronics, including Qualcomm, Inc. (NASDAQ:QCOM), Sony Corp. (NYSE:SNE), LG Electronics (KRX:066570), Lenovo Group (HKG:0992), Motorola Mobility LLC and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (NASDAQ:AMD) The Section 337 complaint was filed on December 16th by ZiiLabs Ltd., a Bermuda subsidiary of Hong Kong’s Creative Technology Asia Limited.

In early October, mobile hardware developer Nite Ize of Boulder, CO, filed a Section 337 patent infringement complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The complaint alleges that 32 Chinese respondents, some of which are in Hong Kong’s jurisdiction, and eight U.S. entities are infringing upon patents held by Nite Ize in the field of mobile electronic device holders… The accused products are generally sold through e-commerce website portals like eBay.com, Amazon.com and Wish.com. In at least some cases, the accused products, which are sold by entities other than Nite Ize, are inscribed with the Steelie brand name.

In late 2014, Nike Converse Inc. launched an aggressive attack in the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn against companies including Walmart, Under Armour and Ralph Lauren for infringing upon Converse’s signature Chuck Taylor shoe. Nike Converse sued a total of 31 companies for copying the rubber “bumper” running around the front, a “toe cap” on the top of the shoe above the bumper, and lines or stripes running around the sides of the classic kick. Many of us have either owned or seen the Chuck Taylor and can identify these unique traits.