On September 12, 2014, the International Trade Commission (the "Commission") issued a notice determining to review in part the Initial Determination ("ID") issued by ALJ David P. Shaw in Certain Digital Media Devices, Including Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets and Mobile Phones, Components Thereof and Associated Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-882).
By way of background, this investigation was instituted on June 12, 2013 and is based on a May 13, 2013 complaint filed by Black Hills Media, LLC ("BHM") alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain digital media devices that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,028,323; 8,214,873 (the '873 patent); 8,230,099; 8,045,952; 8,050,652 (the '652 patent) and 6,618,593 (the '593 patent). See our May 16, 2013 and June 20, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and the notice of investigation, respectively.
In the ID, ALJ Shaw determined that no violation of Section 337 has been found in this investigation, since the accused products of the remaining Respondents (Samsung, LG, and Toshiba entities) do not infringe the asserted patents and the domestic industry requirement has not been satisfied with respect to any asserted patent. For additional details, please see our July 10, 2014 post.
According to the notice, BHM filed a petition for review of the final ID only with respect to the '873 and '652 patent, although the Respondents and the Commission Investigative Staff ("OUII") filed petitions for review of the additional patents.
After examining the relevant portions of the record of the investigation, including the ID and the parties' submissions, the Commission determined to review the ID in part, and upon review, determined to modify a specific portion of the ID to include reference to the recent commission opinion in Certain Integrated Circuit Chips and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-859, and vacate all portions of the ID that reference Suprema, Inc. v. ITC, 742 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2013), reh'g en banc granted and vacated. The Commission determined not to review the remainder of the ID, but noted that several issues were considered to be waived or abandoned by BHM for failing to set forth these arguments in detail in its pre- and/or post-hearing briefing and thus terminated the investigation, affirming the finding of no violation of Section 337.
The Commission also determined to grant a joint motion filed by BHM and Panasonic based on a settlement agreement between BHM and Panasonic.