On April 6, 2016, Rovi Corp. and Rovi Guides, Inc. (collectively, “Rovi”)—both of San Carlos, California—filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.
The complaint alleges that the following entities (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell or lease within the U.S. after importation certain digital video receivers and hardware and software components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,006,263 (the ‘263 patent), 8,578,413 (the ‘413 patent), 8,046,801 (the ‘801 patent), 8,621,512 (the ‘512 patent), 8,768,147 (the ‘147 patent), and 8,566,871 (the ‘871 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):
- Comcast Corp. of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Comcast Cable Communications, LLC of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Comcast Business Communications, LLC of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Comcast Holdings Corp. of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Comcast Shared Services, LLC of Chicago, Illinois
- Humax Co., Ltd. of South Korea
- Humax USA, Inc. of Irvine, California
- Technicolor SA of France
- Technicolor USA, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana
- Technicolor Connected Home USA LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana
- Pace Ltd. of England
- Pace Americas, LLC of Boca Raton, Florida
- Arris International plc of Suwanee, Georgia
- Arris Group Inc. of Suwanee, Georgia
- Arris Technology, Inc. of Horsham, Pennsylvania
- Arris Enterprises Inc. of Suwanee, Georgia
- Arris Solutions, Inc. of Suwanee, Georgia
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to Interactive Program Guide (“IPG”) technology. In particular, the ‘263, ‘413, and ‘801 patents relate to a local IPG implemented on interactive television program guide equipment (e.g., a receiver) that allows, for example, a user of an IPG implemented on a remote access device (e.g., a mobile phone) to schedule a recording by the local IPG. The ‘512 patent relates to an IPG system comprising multiple tuners that, for example, permits a user to watch a live program using one tuner while simultaneously recording another program using another tuner without interrupting the viewing or recording processes of either tuner, and where, when the user requests to tune to a program and neither tuner is available to perform the requested tuning operation, an alert is displayed that provides the user an option to cancel a function of the second tuner so that the second tuner can perform the requesting tuning operation, enhancing control over and flexibility of the system as a result. The ‘147 patent relates to a system that, for example, enables a user to watch multiple live programs without having to permanently record either by, for example, buffering a first program on a first channel when tuned to by a first tuner, and buffering a second program on a second channel when tuned to by a second tuner, so that both programs are buffered in parallel, and providing the user increased control over the system by, for example, providing an indicator that shows the availability of at least one buffered program for playback, in addition to the current play position, so that the user can adjust the indicator to access other play positions in at least one of the buffered programs. Lastly, the ‘871 patent relates to a system that enables a user to display first and second IPGs that are accessible from multiple receivers located in a household such that, for example, a user can schedule a recording from the first IPG and another recording from the second IPG, and both recordings are stored and aggregated so that they can be displayed in a list of scheduled recordings accessible from both IPGs.
In the complaint, Rovi states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically refers to the XGI DVR receiver operating with Comcast Xfinity X1 software and the Motorola DCX3400 receiver operating with Comcast Xfinity software as exemplary infringing products.
Regarding domestic industry, Rovi states that its i-Guide, Passport Guide, and TotalGuide xD software products practice the asserted patents. Rovi further states that it and its licensees have made significant and substantial investments in plant and equipment, labor and capital, and engineering and research and development in the U.S. relating to domestic industry products. Rovi states that its various Guide products have been licensed by more than 450 entities. Rovi further states it has made substantial investments in the U.S. in licensing and enforcing its patent portfolio, including the asserted patents. In particular, Rovi states that it employs a full-time legal and technical staff in the U.S. to perform market and technical analysis, identify potential licensing opportunities, and engage in licensing and enforcement activities.
As to related litigation, Rovi states that on April 1, 2016, it filed a complaint against the Proposed Respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of the asserted patents.
With respect to potential remedy, Rovi requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents and related entities.