On May 2, 2012, Nokia Corporation of Finland, Nokia Inc. of Sunnyvale, California, and Intellisync Corporation of Sunnyvale, California (collectively, “Nokia”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.
The complaint alleges that HTC Corporation of Taiwan, HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington, and Exedea, Inc. of Houston, Texas (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain electronic devices, including mobile phones and tablet computers, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,570,369 (the ‘369 patent), 5,884,190 (the ‘190 patent), 6,141,664 (the ‘664 patent), 6,393,260 (the ‘260 patent), 6,728,530 (the ‘530 patent), 7,106,293 (the ‘293 patent), 7,209,911 (the ‘911 patent), 7,366,529 (the ‘529 patent), 7,415,247 (the ‘247 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”).
According to the complaint, “Intellisync Corporation owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in and to the ‘911 and ‘644 patents,” while “Nokia Corporation owns the entire right, title, and interest in and to the remainder of the asserted patents.” The ‘911 and ‘644 patents are directed to “technology that allows mobile devices to synchronize select types of information with high storage computers.” The ‘530 patent is directed to “technology that allows the maintenance of a local calendar on a mobile device as well as on a network-based calendar… .” The ‘369 patent is directed to “technology that optimizes power consumption of a mobile phone by providing sufficient power to receive a portion of a message that is necessary to reconstruct the entire incoming message.” The ‘260 patent is directed to “a method for attenuating [ ] spurious signals in radio transceivers that use [ ] direct conversion technology.” The ‘247 patent is directed to “technology for mobile phone compatibility across distinct and differing signals systems and for varying frequency ranges using fewer hardware elements.” The ‘293 patent is directed to “a method and device that measures the ambient light and adjusts the illumination of the device’s display accordingly.” The ‘529 patent is directed to “technology that enables a device to receive a message having information relating to one or more of the device’s applications and address and store the received data for that particular application.” Lastly, the ‘190 patent is directed to “a method for making a data transmission connection from a computer to a mobile communication network through a telecommunication terminal.”
In the complaint, Nokia states that the Proposed Respondents import into the U.S., manufacture and/or sell for importation into the U.S., and sell after importation into the U.S. HTC smartphones and/or tablet computers that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically names ten mobile phones and two tablet computers as infringing devices.
Regarding domestic industry, Nokia states that its Lumia 710 and/or Lumia 900 Windows-based mobile phones practice at least one claim of each of the asserted patents. As to the economic prong, Nokia refers to its facility in San Diego, California where it developed the Lumia 710 and Lumia 900 mobile phones, and to its facilities in Burlington, Massachusetts, Bellevue, Washington, and Sunnyvale, California where it provides support activities related to these devices. Nokia also refers to research and development activities in the U.S., including significant domestic employment, that relate to the Lumia 710 and Lumia 900 devices.
With respect to related litigation, the complaint states that Nokia is concurrently filing civil actions for patent infringement against the Proposed Respondents in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Nokia also states that the ‘911 and ‘664 patents have been asserted against Apple Inc. before the Commission in Inv. No. 337-TA-771, and before the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in Nokia Corp. v. Apple Inc., 1:11-cv-259. Both actions were terminated by settlement in June 2011. Furthermore, Intellisync Corporation, f/k/a Pumatech Inc., has asserted the ‘664 patent against multiple third parties before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Pumatech, Inc. v. Synchrologic, Inc., Case No. 02-cv-5708 and in Pumatech, Inc. v. Extended Systems, Inc., Case No. 02-cv-1916. Both cases were terminated by settlement in September 2003 and March 2004, respectively.
As to potential remedy, Nokia requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents and their allegedly infringing devices.