Posts Tagged: "International Trade Commission"

Universal Electronics sues Peel Technologies over remote control patents —– GigOptix and MACOM settle patent infringement and trade secret/employment disputes —– Nintendo prevails at ITC on Wii patent infringement complaint —– E-commerce video technology at center of patent infringement lawsuit —– MGT Capital asserts newly granted patent in infringement lawsuit —– Blonder Tongue prevails over K Tech on Summary Judgment —– OurPet’s files patent infringement lawsuit against Go Fetch —– Freescale settles with Tessera

Cypress intends to vigorously pursue its two pending district court lawsuits against GSI, which include three of the patents asserted in the ITC investigation and seven additional patents. Those cases are No. 11-cv-00789, filed March 30, 2011, before Judge Patrick J. Schiltz in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, and No. 13-cv-02013, filed May 1, 2013, before Judge Jon. S. Tigar in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Cypress has asserted that GSI’s SigmaQuad-II™, SigmaQuad-III™, SigmaDDR™, standard Synchronous, and NBT SRAMs infringe multiple Cypress patents.

Today the White House announced major steps to improve incentives for future innovation in high tech patents, a key driver of economic growth and good paying American jobs. The White House issued five executive actions and seven legislative recommendations designed to protect innovators from frivolous litigation and ensure the highest-quality patents in our system. Additionally, the National Economic Council and the Council of Economic Advisers released a report, Patent Assertion and U.S. Innovation, detailing the challenges posed and necessity for bold legislative action.

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet on March 14, 2013, heard from six witnesses that the business of “patent assertion entities” (PAEs) is inflicting severe harm on a broad range of technology users. The witnesses at the hearing agreed that, when confronted PAE demand letters on frivolous claims, settlements by and large are economically unavoidable.

On Friday, March 22, 2013, Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw of the United States International Trade Commission issued a remand determination relating to the investigation instituted by the Commission to investigate patent infringement allegations leveled against Microsoft’s Xbox console. Judge Shaw determined that the Xbox does not infringe the remaining patent involved in the ITC investigation, which is a complete reversal of his earlier determination that the Xbox did infringe (see below).

After examining the record of the investigation the Commission decided to review the ALJ’s determination with respect to the claim construction of the phrase “touch sensitive input device,” which appears in claim 1 of the ‘862 patent. The Commission will also review: (1) the finding that the accused products literally infringe claim 1 of the ‘862 patent; (2) the finding that Harris ‘464 anticipates claim 1 of the ‘862 patent; and (3) the finding of non-obviousness. In connection with the Commission’s review, the parties have been requested to brief their positions these discrete issues.  The Commission will review no other issues.

One of the requirements of finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is that the Complainant must establish that “an industry in the United States, relating to the articles protected by the [intellectual property right] … concerned, exists or is in the process of being established.

Something a bit out of the ordinary occurred earlier this month in the ITC investigation Certain Devices for Mobile Data Communication, 337-TA-809. There, Unwired Planet had accused Apple and Research-In-Motion of infringing four patents related to data transmission with cellular phones. A trial before the ITC’s Administrative Law Judge Gildea was scheduled to begin October 15, but shortly before that date, Unwired withdrew its Complaint and filed a motion with the Judge Gildea to terminate the investigation. Unwired’s problem was that the Judge had previously construed the asserted claims to require that the mobile devices do not contain “a computer module,” thereby precluding a finding of infringement by the accused devices that do contain module computers. Unwired, however, has not entirely given up on its infringement allegations against Apple and RIM – rather, Unwired continues to pursue those claims in a parallel infringement action in Delaware.

In order for one to file a statement of the patent owner in Federal court the submissions must: (1) Identify the forum and proceeding in which patent owner filed each statement, and the specific papers and portions of the papers submitted that contain the statements; and (2) explain how each statement is a statement in which patent owner took a position on the scope of any claim in the patent. See Section 1.501(a)(3). The required explanation must include discussion of the pertinence and manner of applying any prior art submitted to at least one claim of the patent. See Section 1.501(a)(b)(1). The explanation may also include discussion of how the claims differ from any prior art submitted or any written statements and accompanying information submitted under paragraph.

Last month, both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives held hearings related to patent disputes, the ITC, SSOs and FRAND licensing – no doubt precipitated by the smart phone patent wars. On July 11, 2012, the full Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing entitled “Oversight of the Impact on Competition of Exclusion Orders to Enforce Standard-Essential Patents.” Witnesses at the Senate hearing included the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, and the Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). A week later, on July 18, 2012, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet held a hearing entitled “The International Trade Commission and Patent Disputes.” Witnesses at the House hearing included Professor Colleen Chien of Santa Clara University School of Law, IP Counsel for Ford, VP of Litigation for Cisco, the General Counsel of Tessera Technologies, and the President of The American Antitrust Institute (AAI).

On Thursday, July 25, 2012, the International Trade Commission (ITC) terminated an investigation into whether certain Rambus patents were being infringed by Garmin International, Cisco Systems, Seagate Technologies and others. It seems that Rambus cannot shake the mistakes of the past. The Barth patents being unenforceable due to the destruction of documents relates to the Rambus’ choice to destroy documents rather than have them discoverable during litigation proceedings.

Reasonable minds may disagree about how significant the gap is. Indeed, it could fairly be said that the investigation figure I report is 50% higher than the ITC’s (28% v. 19%), and that the sample size is too small to draw any statistical conclusions. Still, reporting the results together, the ITC and I agree that: (1) 43-47% of respondents at the ITC in the last 15-18 months are respondents named in NPE/PAE investigations; and (2) 19-28% of investigations at the ITC in the last 15-18 months are NPE/PAE-initiated investigations.

Anyone who is even casually interested in patents and innovation has to know that over the past few years there have been massive patent battles surrounding the major innovators, copy-cats and manufacturers involved in the smart phone industry. According to the ITC, “Smartphone companies involved in Section 337 investigations during the first half of FY 2012 include: Apple (14), HTC (8), Motorola (4), Samsung (3), RIM (3), Nokia (3), and LG (1).” This has required the ITC to increase staff, and has been a burden on the Commission. But none of those companies are NPEs, are they? It seems the patent infringer lobby is using increases in ITC filings to support their preferred policy position despite the lack of a causal connection.