Posts Tagged: "ITC"

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.

On Monday, September 4th, a South Korean court denied a request made by San Diego, CA-based semiconductor developer Qualcomm Inc. to rescind a fine levied last December by the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) over alleged unfair business activities in patent licensing and chip sales. According to reports, the South Korean court decision keeps in place a $912 million in the latest blow to Qualcomm’s corporate intellectual property strategy.

John Thorne was VP and deputy general counsel for Verizon during its legal battle against former American cable television company Cablevision where Verizon asserted a series of patents it owned… A closer look into the patents renders some interesting information about the patents Verizon asserted and the company’s legal strategy in the case. Two of the eight patents asserted by Verizon in the District of Delaware weren’t originally invented by Verizon, Bell Atlantic or other any other of Verizon’s predecessor companies; they were acquired from outside entities… And haven’t we been told by the likes of Unified Patents that all patent owners who enforce their patents are patent trolls? One would have to assume if Unified is being logically consistent they would have extraordinary problems with Verizon’s activities particularly here where the patents used to sue Cablevision were acquired and not the subject of in-house innovation.

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.”

Boulder, CO-based shoe manufacturer Crocs, Inc. (NASDAQ:CROX) had a design patent rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The patent struck by the USPTO is U.S. Patent No. D517789. Issued in March 2006 and assigned to Crocs, it protected the ornamental design of footwear. The design patent illustrations attached to the ‘789 design patent showcase the well-known Crocs design featuring holes in the footwear material around the front of the foot and a strap behind to hold the footwear in place against a person’s heel… The Examiner refused to recognize a priority claims of earlier filed applications dating back to June 23, 2003. According to the Examiner, the shoe that is the subject of the ‘789 design patent was not adequately disclosed prior to May 28, 2004, making an earlier priority date claim impossible to recognize.

Orrick announced that L. Scott Oliver has joined the firm, adding another seasoned first-chair trial lawyer to Orrick’s top-ranking IP bench. Scott, who joins from K&L Gates, will be based in Orrick’s Silicon Valley office.

On Tuesday, August 8th, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) announced that it was opening up an investigation on claims that Cupertino, CA-based consumer electronics behemoth Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) is infringing upon patented technologies, specifically baseband processor modems, in its mobile electronic devices. The investigation follows a Section 337 patent infringement complaint filed on July 7th with the ITC by…

Intel’s claims are interesting, to say the least. If you actually look at the complaint filed by Qualcomm there is no admission, as Intel would have you believe, that infringing products would still be allowed entry into the U.S. just with a Qualcomm processor modem. Qualcomm is very upfront about what they are requesting, however. They are requesting the exclusion of products because those products do not incorporate a Qualcomm processor modem, but that is because Qualcomm owns the patents the cover that component so without using a Qualcomm processor modem there is patent infringement.

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.

ITC Commissioner F. Scott Kieff has publicly announced that he will be leaving the International Trade Commission and returning to his academic posts as a Professor at George Washington University Law School and a senior fellow at Standford University’s Hoover Institution. Kieff’s last day at the ITC will be June 30, 2017.

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 current extraterritorial reach of U.S. trade secret law may seem ironic given trade secret law’s “local” roots. In the United States, common law trade secret principles emerged through a diverse patchwork of state court decisions addressing local commercial disputes. These local common law principles were first distilled in the Restatement of Torts and the Restatement of Unfair Competition and then codified in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 1979. Underscoring the local prerogative of trade secret law, state legislatures modified and tailored the Uniform Trade Secrets Act to reflect their state-specific concerns and needs. For many years, despite a push for national uniformity, a number of states chose not to adopt a statutory scheme at all (some still haven’t).

This different approach—a commercialization approach—has been embraced across the American political spectrum, including both the Carter administration and the Reagan administration,[4] as well as by celebrated jurists of the last century coming from diverse philosophical perspectives, including Circuit Judges Learned Hand, Jerome Frank, and Giles Rich,[5] who saw it as important to helping the economy and society.[6] The roots of a commercialization approach to patents, in particular, reach back even further into American history, including Abraham Lincoln’s view that the patent system “added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius, in the discovery and production of new and useful things.”[7] Its study has also long extended far beyond our nation… A commercialization approach to IP views IP more in the tradition of private law, rather than public law. It does so by placing greater emphasis on viewing IP as property rights, which in turn is accomplished by greater reliance on interactions among private parties over or around those property rights, including via contracts.