On August 29, 2017, Sharp Corp. of Japan and Sharp Electronics Corp. of Montvale, New Jersey (collectively, “Sharp”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.
The complaint alleges that Hisense Co., Ltd. of China, Hisense Electric, Co. Ltd. of China, Hisense International (Hong Kong) Co. Ltd. of Hong Kong, Hisense USA Corp. of Suwanee, Georgia, Hisense Electronics Manufacturing Co. of America Corp. of Suwanee, Georgia, Hisense USA Multimedia R&D Center, Inc. of Suwanee, Georgia, and Hisense Inc. of Huntington Beach, California (collectively, “Hisense”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain Wi-Fi enabled devices and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,325,838 (the ’838 patent) and 8,279,809 (the ’809 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”).
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to various aspects of wireless communication by consumer electronic devices such as televisions. In particular, the ’838 patent relates to a wireless communication system on a frequency band having a plurality of frequency channels with a terminal capable of receiving or transmitting only part of the plurality of the frequency channels. The ’809 patent relates to a wireless communication system on a frequency band with a terminal capable of receiving or transmitting only part of the frequency band.
In the complaint, Sharp states that Hisense imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically refers to Hisense 50-inch and 43-inch televisions as infringing products.
Regarding domestic industry, Sharp states that its own professional and commercial displays, interactive display systems, and multi-function printers practice at least one claim of each of the asserted patents. Sharp further states that it conducts relevant product development, marketing, sales, customer support, and after-sales service activities relating to its domestic industry products in the U.S. Sharp specifically refers to facilities in New Jersey and Tennessee where it conducts relevant activities.
As to related litigation, Sharp states that, while it is not engaged in any other litigation involving the asserted patents, it is involved in several ongoing disputes with Hisense on unrelated matters.
With respect to potential remedy, Sharp requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at Hisense.