Posts Tagged: "ITC"

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday affirmed an International Trade Commission (ITC) final determination that said Google infringed five of Sonos, Inc.’s patents but which also found three proposed redesigns did not infringe. Sonos owns U.S. Patent Nos. 10,439,896 (“’896 patent”), 9,195,258 (“’258 patent”), 9,219,959 (“’959 patent”), 10,209,953 (“’953 patent”), and 8,588,949 (“’949 patent”). Sonos filed a complaint with the ITC alleging certain Google audio players and controllers infringed the patents and the ITC agreed, issuing a limited exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order (CDO) preventing Google from marketing the infringing products in the United States.

For the second year in a row, we pulled and analyzed data on the number of women who appeared in International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations. This year’s data confirms what we saw last year: that women are underrepresented at the ITC. While research shows women make up about 50% of the population, 50% of associates, and 39% of the profession generally, they only made up 27% of the ITC advocates in both 2022 and 2023. The difference in years of experience between male and female advocates is even starker, with men having on average nearly 7 more years of experience than women. This year’s statistics are examined in detail below and compared to what we found in our article published last year.

In a pending case, the Federal Circuit is primed to provide much-needed clarity on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement at the United States International Trade Commission (ITC). In ruling, the court will likely resolve a long-running dispute between individual commissioners regarding how to apply the so-called “mere importer” test when determining whether the domestic industry requirement is met. If the complainant, Lashify, prevails, it could make the ITC a more appealing forum for patent infringement suits involving entities that have under-utilized the ITC, including inventors, universities, and start-ups. The case at issue is Lashify, Inc. v. ITC, No. 23-1245.

Masimo’s legal team told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a January 15 filing that the Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch (EOE) of U.S. Customs and Border Protection has cleared a redesigned version of the Apple watches that were banned by the International Trade Commission (ITC) in late October. The CBP’s decision has not been made public. According to the filing, the redesigned watches do not contain pulse oximetry technology, which was the subject of the ITC exclusion order. The decision, which has not been made public, removes any danger of irreparable harm alleged by Apple, according to the filing.

The intellectual property regime of the International Trade Commission (ITC) made mainstream news this year with its ban on Apple Watch importation and sales in the dispute between Masimo Corporation and Apple. While that dispute is ongoing and the subject of much coverage already, here are five other key IP cases with a variety of important rulings for parties at the ITC—particularly some outside of the typically patent-centric docket.

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) stayed the International Trade Commission’s (ITC’s) October 26 Limited Exclusion Order (LEO) against certain Apple Watches that the ITC found infringed on two Masimo patents that covered technology related to reading blood-oxygen levels. The CAFC does not appear to have published the order on its public website but it is widely available online.

Apple confirmed to media outlets on Monday that it will halt sales of certain Apple watches following the October International Trade Commission (ITC) ruling issuing a limited exclusion (LEO) order against the products. In its October ruling, the ITC found Apple violated section 337 by importing Apple Watches that infringed on two Masimo patents that covered technology related to reading blood-oxygen levels.

On Thursday, October 26, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued a limited exclusion order (LEO) and cease and desist order against Apple, potentially barring the technology company from importing Apple Watches into the United States. The ITC found Apple violated section 337 by importing Apple Watches that infringed on two Masimo patents that covered technology related to reading blood-oxygen levels.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today denied a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Realtek Semiconductor Corporation seeking to direct the International Trade Commission (ITC) to vacate its ruling granting Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD)’s motion to strike Realtek’s witness from testifying at an upcoming evidentiary hearing.

Famously, section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) are fast. By statute, the ITC must conclude section 337 investigations “at the earliest practicable time . . .” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(b)(1). Investigations institute within 30 days after the Commission receives a complaint, evidentiary hearings (akin to trial) regularly occur within 8–9 months, and the ITC’s target dates for completing investigations routinely land at 14–16 months.

The period following the filing of a section 337 complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) can be chaotic. During this period, the Commission “examine[s] the complaint for sufficiency and compliance with” its rules, 19 C.F.R. § 210.9(a), routinely asks the complainant to provide additional information, and typically decides whether to institute an investigation within 30 days after the complaint is filed, see 19 C.F.R. § 210.10(a)(1). The complainant must address the Commission’s requests for additional information while preparing for the coming investigation. The named respondents must scramble to find counsel, assess the allegations, and ready for battle. And all section 337 litigants confront a series of strategic decisions that can send them on the path to success or failure in the investigation.

Your company (or your client’s company) is an American company. All your offices and employees are here in the United States, likely in the same location. You assemble your products or devices here. You purchase all the parts and components that you don’t make yourself from other American companies, probably by calling or emailing their American salespeople that you have a longtime relationship with. And you sell your products to other American companies. Surely your company thus cannot be sued for patent infringement in the International Trade Commission (ITC), whose mission is to “investigate and make determinations in proceedings involving imports claimed to injure a domestic industry or violate U.S. intellectual property rights.” Not so fast.

On July 7, 2023, Administrative Law Judge Cameron Elliot issued a Notice of Initial Determination in favor of computer and graphics processor maker AMD. See In the Matter of Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Digital Televisions Containing the Same (No. 337-TA-1318). This puts AMD one step closer to preventing TCL and Realtek from importing smart TVs and components containing infringing graphics processors in its patent infringement case at the International Trade Commission (ITC).

On April 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential opinion in FS.com v. International Trade Commission affirming the ITC’s determination that fiber optic cable distributor FS.com violated 19 U.S.C. § 1337 by importing goods infringing upon patent claims owned by Corning Optical Communications. This relatively short Federal Circuit decision dealt mainly with FS.com’s enablement arguments on appeal, which the appellate court nixed after finding that skilled artisans would understand an inherent upper limit to allegedly open-ended claims on fiber optic connection densities.