On February 19, 2014, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice terminating the investigation with a finding of no violation of Section 337 in Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-853).
By way of background, this investigation is based on a July 24, 2012 complaint filed by Technology Properties Limited LLC and Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC, both of Cupertino, California, and Patriot Scientific Corporation of Carlsbad, California (collectively, “Complainants”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless consumer electronics devices and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 (the ‘336 patent). See our July 26, 2012 and August 24, 2012 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively. On September 6, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued his initial determination (“ID”) finding no violation of Section 337 with respect to all of the named Respondents. Specifically, ALJ Gildea found that (1) none of the accused products directly or indirectly infringed the asserted claims of the ‘336 patent, (2) the asserted claims of the ‘336 patent were not invalid, (3) the Respondents had not shown the accused LG product is covered by a license to the ‘336 patent, and (4) the Complainants had satisfied the domestic industry requirement. See our November 5, 2013 post for more details on ALJ Gildea’s ID. On September 23, 2013, Complainants filed a petition for review of certain aspects of the final ID concerning asserted claims 6 and 13 of the ‘336 patent. The Commission determined to review the final ID in part with respect to the claim construction and infringement of claims 6 and 13 of the ‘336 patent, as well as domestic industry. See our December 2, 2013 post for more details on the Commission’s determination to review the ID.
According to the February 19, 2014 notice, the Commission determined that there was no violation of Section 337 with respect to the ‘336 patent. Specifically, the Commission found that the Complainants satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. Further, the Commission affirmed the ID’s claim constructions as to claims 6 and 13 of the ‘336 patent. The Commission also affirmed, with modification, ALJ Gildea’s finding that the accused products do not satisfy certain limitations of claims 6 and 13, and affirmed ALJ Gildea’s finding that Complainants failed to prove indirect infringement because they failed to prove direct infringement. As such, the Commission terminated the investigation.