On April 20, 2021, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version (Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V) of his final initial determination (“ID”) finding a violation of section 337 in Certain High-Density Fiber Optic Equipment and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-1194).

By way of background, this investigation was based on a February 21, 2020 complaint filed by Corning Optical Communications LLC (“Corning”) alleging violations of section 337 by thirteen respondents, including Remaing Respondents FS.com Inc. (“FS”), Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. (“Leviton”), Panduit Corp. (“Panduit”), The Siemon Company (“Siemon”), and The LAN Wirewerks Research Laboratories Inc. d/b/a Wireweriks (“Wirewerks”) (collectively, “Remaining Respondents”) through the importation and/or sale of certain high-density fiber optic equipment that infringes one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,020,320 (“the ’320 patent”); 8,712,206 (“the ’206 patent); 10,120,153 (“the ’153 patent”); 10,094,996 (“the ’996 patent”); and 10,444,456 (“the ’456 patent”). The accused products are chassis with sliding trays that fit within the standardized racks used in data centers, removable modules that are inserted into the sliding trays of the chassis and terminate large numbers of fiber-optic cables using standardized connectors, and combinations thereof.

According to the ID, ALJ Shaw determined that there is a violation of section 337 with respect to the ’320, ’456, ’156 and ’206 patents based on the following conclusions of law:

  • The accused products infringe claims 1 and 3 of the ’320 patent.
  • The accused products infringe claims 11, 12, 14-16, 19, 21, 27, and 28 of the ’456 patent.
  • The accused products infringe claims 9, 16, 23, and 26 of the ’153 patent.
  • With respect to the ’206 patent, (a) the accused products of FS and Wirewerks infringe asserted claims 22 and 23; (b) the accused products of Siemon infringe claim 22; and (c) the accused products of Panduit do not infringe claim 22 or claim 23.
  • The domestic industry requirement has been satisfied with respect to all asserted patents.
  • It has not been shown by clear and convincing evidence that any of the asserted claims are invalid.

As a result of his finding of a violation of section 337, and subject to any public interest determination that the Commission may make, ALJ Shaw recommended that a limited exclusion order should issue directed to the Remaining Respondents, with an exception for service and repair of any products sold before the effective date of any remedial order. The ALJ also determined that Corning has met its burden of establishing that a pattern of violation exists with respect to the asserted patents and that it is difficult to identify the source of infringing products, a thus recommended issuance of general exclusion. ALJ Shaw also recommended issuance of cease-and-desist order against FS, Leviton, and Panduit, and as to defaulting respondents Huber + Suhner, Inc., Huber + Suhner AG, Shanghai TARLUZ Telecom Tech. Co., Ltd. d/b/a TARLUZ, Shenzhen Anfkom Telecom Tech. Co., Ltd. d/b/a Anfkom Telecom, and Wulei Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a Bonelinks.