On July 20, 2012, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice determining to review in part ALJ Thomas B. Pender’s May 21, 2012 Remand Initial Determination (“RID”) finding no violation of Section 337 in Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-703). On review, the Commission determined to affirm ALJ Pender’s finding of no violation of Section 337.
By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”). The Respondents are Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and Research in Motion, Ltd. and Research in Motion Corp. (collectively, “RIM”). On January 24, 2011, former Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) finding no violation of Section 337. See our March 18, 2011 post for more details. On June 30, 2011, the Commission issued a notice determining to affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand-in-part the ID. See our July 6, 2011 and August 8, 2011 posts for more details. After remand, former Chief ALJ Luckern retired, and the investigation was reassigned to ALJ Pender. On May 21, 2012, ALJ Pender issued the RID finding no violation of Section 337. Specifically, ALJ Pender determined that (1) the accused Apple iPhone 3G infringes claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,292,218 (the ‘218 patent); (2) the accused Apple iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 do not infringe claim 15 of the ‘218 patent; (3) the accused RIM products infringe claim 15 of the ‘218 patent; and (4) claim 15 of the ‘218 patent is invalid as obvious in view of a Japanese patent application to Mori and a U.S. patent to Parulski. See our July 2, 2012 post for more details.
According to the July 20 notice, Kodak, Apple, RIM, and the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) each filed petitions for review of the RID. OUII, Apple, and RIM each filed responses to Kodak’s petition for review. OUII and Kodak each filed responses to Apple’s and RIM’s petitions for review.
After examining the record of the investigation, including the parties’ petitions for review and responses thereto, as well as the parties’ submissions to the ALJ—both before and after the remand—and the transcripts of the hearing conducted by the ALJ, the Commission determined to review the RID in part. In particular, the Commission determined to review: (1) ALJ Pender’s finding of infringement of the ‘218 patent by the accused RIM products and the iPhone 3G; and (2) the ALJ’s finding that claim 15 is invalid as obvious in view of the Mori and Parulski references.
The notice states that upon review, the Commission determined to (1) find that the accused RIM products and the Apple iPhone 3G infringe claim 15; and (2) affirm the ALJ’s invalidity findings regarding the Mori and Parulski combination on modified grounds. Accordingly, the Commission upheld ALJ Pender’s ultimate finding of no violation of Section 337, and terminated the investigation.