On August 16, 2011, HTC Corp. of Taiwan (“HTC”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain electronic devices with communication capabilities, components thereof, and related software that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,765,414 (the ‘414 patent), 7,417,944 (the ‘944 patent), and 7,672,219 (the ‘219 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”).

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to electronic devices with communication capabilities.  In particular, the ‘414 patent relates to systems and methods using a circuit or an integrated interface for integrating systems in a portable device, such as a smartphone or other portable electronic devices.  The circuit or integrated interface of the ‘414 patent allows multiple systems to communicate with each other such that, for example, one system can control certain operations of the other system.  The ‘944 and ‘219 patents relate to enhanced communications systems with improved network reliability and minimized interference or other degradation to the quality of service.

In the complaint, HTC states that Apple imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically names the Apple Mac computer product line and the Apple iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch mobile product lines as infringing products.

Regarding domestic industry, HTC states that it makes extensive use of the inventions claimed in the asserted patents in numerous products including the HTC Thunderbolt, Evo 3D, Incredible 2, Holiday, Ruby, Vigor, and Evo Shift smartphones.  HTC further states that, through its subsidiaries, it has made significant investments in plant and equipment and labor and capital in the U.S. in connection with HTC products that practice the asserted patents.  HTC cites to ALJ Charles E. Bullock’s Initial Determination (“ID”) finding that HTC satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement in Inv. No. 337-TA-721 as additional support for HTC’s domestic industry allegations with respect to the ‘944 and ‘219 patents — both of which are allegedly practiced by the HTC products cited in the 721 investigation.  See our March 31, 2011 post for more details on the ID in the 721 investigation.

As to related litigation, HTC states that the asserted patents are also being asserted against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

With respect to potential remedy, HTC requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Apple.