DTV Patent War Watch (5)

ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-617 continues to be the case to watch.

On September 4, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued a notice instituting a formal enforcement proceeding relating to the limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders issued in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-617 (Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same).

This ITC notice is in response to Funai’s complaint filed on August 14, 2009, alleging that Respondents have violated the limited exclusion order and/or the cease and desist orders and seeking enforcement proceedings under Commission Rule 210.75.

DTV Patent War Watch (4)

Following recent US Customs’ rulings on the scope of the exclusion orders issued in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-617 that allows importation of redesigned DTV products, Funai, the Complainant in the ITC investigation, sued US Customs on September 1, 2009 in the US Court of International Trade, seeking to enjoin US Customs from allowing the importation of the redesigned DTV products.

See also DTV Patent War Watch (1).

Section 271(f) Does Not Apply to Method Patents

Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., Nos. 2007-1296, -1347 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2009) (en banc):

Holding:

“Section 271(f) does not apply to method patents.” Slip op. at 29.

Notes:

“In sum, the language of Section 271(f), its legislative history, and the provision’s place in the overall statutory scheme all support the conclusion that Section 271(f) does not apply to method patents.” Slip op. at 29.

Section 271(f):

(1) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.

(2) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States any component of a patented invention that is especially made or especially adapted for use in the invention and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, where such component is so made or adapted and intending that such component will be combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.

Chief ALJ Luckern Issues Initial Determination Finding No Violation Of Section 337 In Certain 3G Mobile Handsets (337-TA-613)

On August 14, 2009, Chief ALJ Luckern issues Initial Determination finding no violation Of Section 337 In Certain 3G Mobile Handsets (337-TA-613). Specifically, InterDigital's asserted patents were found valid, but not infringed by Nokia. In addition, a domestic industry exists.

Click here for the notice.

DTV Patent War Watch (3)

On August 12, 2009, British Telecom, CIF Licensing, GE, Fujitsu, LG, Mitsubishi, Samsung, Thomson, Columbia University, Philips, and Victor Co. of Japan sued Haier America, Haier Group, and HAIM LLC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting 37 patents related to MPEG-2 and digital television technology.

Haier is one of the largest Chinese consumer electronics company.

Click here to view the complaint.

DTV Patent War Watch (2)

On August 12, 2009, LG Electronics, Inc. filed a new ITC complaint, requesting that the International Trade Commission conduct an investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended regarding Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same. The proposed respondents are: Funai Electric Company, Ltd., Osaka, Japan; Funai Corporation, Inc., Rutherford, New Jersey; and P & F USA, Inc., Alpharetta, Georgia.

Click here to view the complaint.

DTV Patent War Watch (1)

Patent disputes involving digital TV (DTV) have entered the center stage in the world of patent dispute and international trade in recent years. Because so many big players are involved in DTV patent disputes, the complexity of the simmering DTV patent war is unprecedented, and will get worse.

We have been tracking the DTV patent disputes for the last 2-3 years on behalf of some of our clients. Even in this blog, we have posted in two separate occasions regarding DTV patent disputes:

VIZIO Wins U.S. Customs Ruling (July 10, 2009)

US Customs Continues to Rule in favor of Redesigned Products in 337-TA-617 (DTV) (Aug. 11, 2009)

We at Mei & Mark LLP have decided to blog the DTV patent war and track the recent development in the DTV patent war, focusing on the public information. If you are interested in our confidential analysis, please contact Mr. Lei Mei, partner at Mei & Mark LLP, at mei@meimark.com.