Posts Tagged: "International Trade Commission"

The final decision in the ITC case brought by Kodak is expected by May 23, 2011, after deliberation of the full ITC Commission. As we wait for the full ITC Commission decision we are left to wonder. The patent at issue relates to a technology invented by Kodak for previewing images on a digital camera-enabled device and the claims of this particular Kodak patent were recently confirmed as valid by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). So it would seem that the ITC may be poised to issue a ruling contrary to the determination of the Patent Office during reexamination proceedings.

On Wednesday, October 6, 2010, Motorola, Inc. announced that its subsidiary, Motorola Mobility, Inc., filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging that Apple’s iPhone, iPad, iTouch and certain Mac computers infringe Motorola patents. Motorola Mobility also filed concurrent patent infringement complaints against Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) in the Northern District of Illinois (see complaint 1:10-cv-06381 and complaint 1:10-cv-06385) and the Southern District of Florida (see complaint 1:10-cv-23580-UU). The complaints filed in the two federal district courts do little other than identify the patents owned by Motorola that are believed to be infringed by Apple, specifically identifying the following Apple products that might be infringed: Apple iPhone, the Apple iPhone 3G, the Apple iPhone 3GS, the Apple iPhone 4, the Apple iPad, the Apple iPad with 3G, each generation of the Apple iPod Touch, the Apple MacBook, the Apple MacBook Pro, the Apple MacBook Air, the Apple iMac, the Apple Mac mini and the Apple Mac Pro. This type of naked patent infringement complaint has become the standard and seems to directly contradict the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, which required the recitation of specific facts and prohibited mere speculation.

Put simply, Section 337 requires that an ITC complainant show that, as of the time of filing, (a) it maintains a certain level of economic activity within the United States in connection with the asserted intellectual property right, and (b) this economic activity is devoted to exploiting the intellectual property right at issue (in the case of a patent, at least one claim of the asserted patent). Alternatively, the complainant may show that a domestic industry “is in the process of being established.” This standing requirement is called the “domestic industry requirement,” and the two sub-requirements listed above are called respectively the “economic prong” and the “technical prong” of the domestic industry requirement. “Domestic industry” is a term of art that refers to the entity or entities exploiting the asserted intellectual property in the United States – the rights holder, plus its licensees, if any.

The latest Apple complaint continues to allege direct infringement of Apple patents, this time four separate patents. The complaint also alleges indirect infringement; specifically contributory infringement and inducement to infringe. The patent asserted by Apple are US Patent No. 7,282,453 (Count I); US Patent No. 7,657,849 (Count II); US Patent No. 6,282,646 (Count III) and US Patent No. 7,380,116 (Count IV). The ‘453 patent and the ‘849 patent were both asserted previously by Apple (see what I have previously referred to as the second complaint filed March 2, 2010). It appears as if they are added here due to recently issued Certificates of Correction. The ‘646 patent and the ‘116 patent were not previously asserted in either of the two complaints filed March 2, 2010 in the District of Delaware.

In the end, Ajinomoto, and especially the ‘698 and ‘160 patents, were unable to outrun the “best mode” patentraptor. And like the sequels to Jurassic Park, there are likely to be future instances where this patentivour devours other U.S. patents, including those of foreign applicants who may even be ignorant of this patent monster. But ignorance of the “best mode” patentraptor is equivalent to not being aware that the bioengineered dinosaurs were multiplying in dangerous numbers in Jurassic Park. The message is now clear in the Ajinomoto case: be aware or be eaten by the “best mode” patentraptor.

On March 2, 2010, Apple filed two lawsuits against High Tech Computer Corp. (aka HTC Corp.), HTC (B.V.I.) Corp, HTC America, Inc. and Exeda, Inc in the US District Court for the District of Delaware, and a concurrent ITC proceeding. Speculation has already started to rise, not surprisingly, that the real target of Apple is none other than Google, who is the creator of the Android operating system that seems to be the foundation of the allegedly infringing technologies. Given that Apple has sold over 40 million iPhones worldwide, if they do believe there is infringement they can hardly let Google muscle in on this lucrative technology turf.

This case comes to light courtesy of the Docket Report daily e-mail newsletter. On Tuesday, January 26, 2010, the United States Federal District Court for the Middle District of Florida, per Magistrate Pizzo, granted summary judgment against Solomon Technologies, Inc. and in favor of Toyota Motor Corporation relating to claims of infringement relative to U.S. Patent No. 5,067,932. The case…

PRESS RELEASE: Rambus Inc., one of the world’s premier technology licensing companies specializing in high-speed memory architectures, today announced it has filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) requesting the commencement of an investigation pertaining to NVIDIA products. The complaint seeks an exclusion order barring the importation, sale for importation, or sale after importation of products that…