On September 19, 2016, Andrea Electronics Corporation of Bohemia, New York (“Andrea”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.
The complaint alleges that Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. of Korea, and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield, New Jersey (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain audio processing hardware, software, and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,049,607 (“the ’607 patent”), 6,363,345 (“the ’345 patent”), and 6,377,607 (“the ’607 patent”) (collectively, “the asserted patents”).
According to the complaint, the asserted patents relate to methods and apparatus for processing audio signals, and specifically focus on reducing or cancelling noise and interference. The accused products are desktop computers, notebook/laptop computers, tablets, smartphones, headsets, headphone, earbuds, and wearables (e.g., watches) that allegedly implement the patented technology. In particular, the complaint includes charts demonstrating how the asserted independent claims apply to the Apple iPhone 6S and the Samsung Galaxy S7 products.
Regarding domestic industry, Andrea states that its own “Digital Signal Processing (DSP) Microphone and Audio Software Products” (which it refers to as the “Segment 300” business unit) practice claims 1-37 of the ’607 patent, claims 1-47 of the ’345 patent, and claims 1-14 of the ’637 patent. Andrea further states that it maintains significant and continuous investment in plant and equipment, significant and continuous employment of labor, and substantial and ongoing investment in engineering, research, and development with respect to such products.
As to related litigation, Andrea states that it has filed complaints concurrently against the Proposed Respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging infringement of the asserted patents in a similar manner. Further, the asserted patents were previously asserted by Andrea in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-949, as well as numerous parallel cases in the Eastern District of New York against respondents in that investigation. See, e.g., our March 23, 2015 post for more details regarding the 949 investigation.
With respect to potential remedy, Andrea requests that the Commission issue limited exclusion orders and cease-and-desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.