On September 26, 2011, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice determining to review in part an Initial Determination (“ID”) issued by former Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern on July 27, 2011 finding no violation of Section 337 in Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-726).
By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is FlashPoint Technology, Inc. (“Flashpoint”) and the remaining Respondents are HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”). The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,262,769 (the ‘769 patent) and 6,163,816 (the ‘816 patent). According to the ID, ALJ Luckern determined that no violation of Section 337 occurred by HTC. Specifically, ALJ Luckern determined, inter alia, that (i) Flashpoint failed to show that the asserted claims of the ‘796 and ‘816 patents are infringed, (ii) it has been established that the asserted claims of the ‘816 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (on sale bar), (iii) it was not established that the asserted claims of the ‘769 and ‘816 patents are invalid in view of prior art, (iv) Flashpoint’s rights under the ‘816 and ‘769 patents were not exhausted with respect to HTC’s accused Windows Phone 7 products, and (v) Flashpoint did not establish a domestic industry with respect to either of the ‘769 or ‘816 patents. See our August 1, 2011 post for more details.
After examining the record of the investigation, the Commission determined to review the ID in part. In particular, the Commission determined to review (1) infringement of the asserted claims of the ‘769 patent by the accused HTC Android smartphones, (2) infringement of the asserted claims of the ‘769 patent by the accused HTC WP7 smartphones, (3) the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the ‘769 patent with respect to the licensed Motorola smartphones, (4) the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the ‘769 patent with respect to the licensed Apple smartphones, and (5) the enforceability of the asserted patents under the doctrines of implied license and exhaustion. The Commission also determined to review and take no position on (a) anticipation of the asserted claims of the ‘816 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102 in view of the prior art references, and (b) obviousness of the asserted claims of the ‘816 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the prior art references.
The notice states that the parties are requested to submit briefing on the issues under review and on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. The notice further states that the Commission is particularly interested in responses to 19 specific questions listed in the notice.
Written submissions are due by October 10, 2011, with reply submissions due by October 17, 2011.