Quinn emanuel trial lawyers

International Trade Commission Proceedings

Introduction Print

Increasingly a Forum of Choice in Multi-National IP Disputes

It is a fact of life today that high stakes, international IP disputes almost invariably include one or more so-called Section 337 investigations at the ITC.  Sophisticated companies have realized that the ITC’s accelerated time to hearing and resolution and potentially far-reaching remedies provide an effective alternative or supplement to U.S. District Court proceedings.  The result is that growing numbers of domestic and foreign companies now choose to litigate their disputes at the ITC in unprecedented numbers. 

Quinn Emanuel is one of a relatively small number of law firms that has a dedicated ITC team, led by nationally-ranked ITC specialists Paul Brinkman and Alex Lasher.  The team was named as Managing IP’s “ITC Firm of the Year” in two consecutive years. 

ITC proceedings are often just one front in large intellectual property disputes that involve related actions in many different  jurisdictions.  A huge advantage that our ITC team has over others is that it is supported by Quinn Emanuel’s 250+ IP litigators in the U.S., EU and Asia.  Quinn Emanuel is the leading firm for “bet the company” litigations at the ITC.  It can take on any intellectual property dispute no matter the size or the level of technical complexity. 

Knowledge Is Power

Nowhere does this statement ring truer than at the ITC.  While the ITC adjudicates IP disputes involving patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets much like a district court, Section 337 investigations require more than a command of IP law.  Successfully litigating at the ITC also requires an understanding of the ITC’s unique procedural rules, body of law, evidentiary hearings, administrative law judges, and its interaction with other agencies such as U.S. Customs. It also requires knowledge of the unwritten ways of getting business done.  It is not a place for amateurs or part time practitioners.      

No ITC team has more knowledge and experience in navigating the unique and complex procedural and technical issues that arise in Section 337 litigation.  Quinn Emanuel has successfully represented complainants, respondents and third parties in all aspects of Section 337 investigations, including initiating counter-investigations or actions in other venues, working with engineers to develop design-arounds, formulating public interest and FRAND arguments, coordinating with U.S. Customs, and enforcing exclusion orders.

Back to Top

Recent Representations Print

  • Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-1002 (2016): We represent U.S. Steel against a host of Chinese steel manufacturers and importers in an action based on price-fixing, false designation of origin, and trade secret misappropriation.
  • Certain Woven Textile Fabrics and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-976 (2015): We represent AAVN in a patent infringement action against 15 respondents.  Most respondents have settled and/or taken a consent order.  The trial is set for August 2016.
  • Certain Radiotherapy Systems and Treatment Planning Software, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-968 (2015): We represent Varian in a patent infringement action against Elekta and a variety of subsidiaries.  The trial took place in June 2016.
  • Certain Standard Compliant Electronic Devices, Including Communication Devices and Tablet Computers, Inv. No. 337-TA-953 (2015): We represent third party Samsung in a patent infringement action between Apple and Ericsson.
  • Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Computers, Tablet Computers, Digital Media Players, and Cameras, Inv. No. 337-TA-952 (2015): We represent third party Samsung in a patent infringement action between Apple and Ericsson.
  • Certain Light-Emitting Diode Products and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-947 (2015):  We were hired by Cree to bring patent infringement and false advertising claims against Feit Electric Company, Inc. and Unity Opto Technology, Ltd.  The case went to trial in October 2015.  We were able to obtain monetary and non-monetary sanctions against Respondent Feit for its discovery misconduct.
  • Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-946 (2015):  We are representing Seiko Epson as complainant against nearly 20 respondents for patent infringement.  We obtained an initial determination of violation, which was affirmed by the ITC.    
  • Certain Integrated Circuits and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-920 (2014):  We defended MediaTek and Sony against patent infringement allegations brought by Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.  The case settled favorably only a few months after institution.
  • Certain Set-Top Boxes, Gateways, Bridges, and Adapters and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-915 (2014):  We defended DIRECTV against patent infringement allegations brought by ViXS Systems, Inc. of Canada.  We obtained a walk-away settlement for DIRECTV during early discovery.
  • Certain Navigation Products, Including GPS Devices, Navigation and Display Systems, Radar Systems, Navigational Aids, Mapping Systems and Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-900 (2014):  We represented Furuno as complainant against Garmin, Navico and Raymarine for patent infringement.  We settled on very favorable terms against all three respondents prior to the hearing.
  • Certain Optical Disk Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-897 (2014):  We defended MediaTek in a Section 337 investigation brought by Optical Devices, LLC alleging patent infringement.  The case settled favorably.
  • Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities, Inv. No. 337-TA-884 (2013):  We defended Toshiba against allegations of patent infringement from non-practicing entity Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. (formerly Silicon Graphics).  We obtained summary determination of invalidity on one patent.  The case was tried as to the remaining patents in April 2014 and settled after trial.
  • Certain Opaque Polymers, Inv. No. 337-TA-883 (2013):  We successfully represented The Dow Chemical Company and Rohm and Haas as complainants against Turkish producer Organik Kimya for patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation on hollow-sphere polymers used in paints.  The ALJ hearing the case found the respondent in default for document spoliation and ordered it to pay millions of dollars in Dow’s legal fees.
  • Certain Media Devices, Including Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets and Mobile Phones, Components Thereof and Associated Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-882 (2013):  We defended Toshiba as respondent against allegations of patent infringement from non-practicing entity Black Hills Media.  The case went to trial in February 2014,  and we obtained a complete win for Toshiba with a finding of no violation.
  • Certain Microelectromechanical Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-876 (2013): We represented complainant ST Microelectronics against InvenSense for patent infringement of gyroscopes and accelerometers contained in consumer electronics products. After a successful Markman ruling and several important pre-trial rulings the case settled favorably for ST Microelectronics on the second day of trial.
  • Certain Wireless Electronic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-853 (2012): We represented Barnes & Noble as respondent against allegations of patent infringement from non-practicing entity TPL. The case was terminated with a finding of no violation.
  • Certain Radio Frequency Integrated Circuits and Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-848 (2012): We represented respondents RF Micro Devices, Motorola Mobility and HTC in responded to a Section 337 investigation relating to five semiconductor patents asserted by Peregrine Semiconductor. Shortly after the ITC Staff adopted our claim construction positions on the asserted patents, Peregrine filed a motion to voluntarily withdraw its complaint, leading to termination of the ITC proceedings.
  • Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-837 (2014): We successfully defended respondents MediaTek, Ralink and Funai in an investigation brought by LSI and Agere alleging infringement of, among other patents, two patents purportedly relating to 802.11 wi-fi technology: U.S. Patent No. 6,452,958, which Complainants argued disclosed the “complementary code keying” modulation system used in the 802.11b physical layer, and U.S. Patent No. 6,707,867, which Complaints argued disclosed the timestamp-based synchronization protocol used in the 802.11 MAC layer. After a trial in April 2013, the ALJ issued an initial determination finding that, as a matter of claim construction, neither patent read on the 802.11 standard. Accordingly, the ALJ found no infringement of any the 38 asserted claims from these patents. The Commission terminated the investigation with a finding of no violation.
  • Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions, Inv. No. 337-TA-822 (2012): We represented MediaTek in responding to serial-patent infringement complaints filed by Freescale. The ITC dismissed Freescale’s complaint based on res judicata.
  • Certain Projectors with Controlled-Angle Optical Retarders, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-815 (2012). We represented Sony in an ITC Investigation regarding ultra-high resolution LCD projectors, including those used in movie theaters throughout the U.S. Two weeks before trial and for nothing in return, Complainants requested that the investigation be terminated in its entirety, securing a total defense victory on behalf of Sony.
  • Certain Automotive GPS Navigation Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-814 (2012): We represented Ford, Nissan, Clarion, e-Ride and Mitsubishi Electric in wideranging patent infringement litigation brought by Swiss NPE Beacon Navigation. The complaint was withdrawn in the middle of discovery and the section 337 investigation was terminated.
  • Certain GPS Navigation Products, Components Thereof, and Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-810 (2011): We represented Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. and Furuno U.S.A., Inc. against Honeywell International, Inc. in a 337 action where Furuno was accused of importing GPS products alleged to infringe four patents. The case settled favorably.
  • Certain Portable Electronic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-797 (2012): We represented HTC in an ITC investigation initiated by Apple involving five patents covering multi-finger gestures, sensor-based rotation of user interface, and touch panel sensor design. One of the patents was dismissed by Apple prior to trial, following Markman hearing. Shortly before the initial determination was due, Apple settled with HTC, resulting in a 10-year cross license with HTC reporting no material financial impact on its business. This was the first major settlement involving Apple’s claims against Android-based smartphone and tablet manufacturers.
  • Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof, Investigation, Inv. No. 337-TA-796 (2013). We represented Samsung against Apple in the U.S. International Trade Commission in an investigation based on 7 Apple patents. After a trial in June 2012, the Commission issued its Final Determination on August 9, 2013, finding violations of Section 337 based on old designs but permitting importation of newer Samsung products that use designs adjudicated by the Commission to be non-infringing.
  • Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers, Inv. No. 337-TA-794 (2013): We represented Samsung against Apple in an International Trade Commission Investigation involving a Samsung patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348, which had been declared as potentially essential to the ETSI UMTS (3G) standard. The ITC found that Apple violated Section 337 through the importation and/or sale of UMTS-compliant products that infringe that patent. After a trial and extensive rounds of briefing on technical and public interest issues, the Commission issued an exclusion and cease and desist order against Apple, that will prevent the importation of the iPhone 3G, 3GS (UMTS versions), 4 (UMTS versions), iPad 3G, and iPad 2 3G (UMTS versions) into the United States after a 60 day Presidential Review Period. In finding a violation, the ITC rejected all of Apple’s defenses including its assertion that Samsung had allegedly violated certain FRAND obligations with respect to its assertion and licensing of its declared essential patents. Although Apple has been named a respondent in the ITC a number of times, this is first ITC exclusion order to be issued against Apple, and the first exclusion order obtained by Samsung at the ITC.
  • Certain Hydroxyprogesterone Caproate and Products Containing Same (2012): KV Pharmaceutical filed a complaint with the ITC alleging that Wedgewood Pharmacy and others were unlawfully importing and selling compounded Hydroxyprogesterone Caproate in the United States, allegedly in violation of KV's exclusive rights to market this product for certain indicated uses under FDA's orphan drug program. We successfully argued that KV had failed to state a cognizable claim under Section 337 and, in particular, that the FDA, rather than the ITC, has jurisdiction to enforce the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
  • Certain Handheld Electronic Computing Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-769 (2011). We represented Barnes & Noble in defending its popular Nook e-readers from claims of patent infringement by Microsoft. The case was tried in February 2012 and settled favorably prior to the judge’s final determination.
  • Certain Digital Television and Components Thereof, and Certain Electronic Devices Having a Blu-Ray Disc Player and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337TA-764/765 (2011): We represented Sony in 337 actions filed against LG Electronics. The cases were settled favorably.
  • Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337TA-753 (ITC): We served as lead counsel for a large group of chip suppliers (MediaTek, Broadcom, nVidia, Freescale, and STMicrolectronics) and certain of their customers (including Cisco, Motorola, and Oppo Digital) in an ITC investigation initiated by Rambus. The ITC action involves six patents. Three of the patents are owned by Rambus and concerning methods of writing data to a DRAM. The other three patents are owned by MIT, exclusively licensed by Rambus. Rambus is asserting the MIT patents infringe the use of a certain chipto-chip SerDes (serialization-deserialization) equalization technique in a wide range of standardized interfaces including PCIe, SATA, SAS, and Displayport. We tried the case in October 2011 and prevailed on all patents.
  • Certain Mobile Devices and Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-750 (2011): We represented Motorola Mobility, Inc. against Apple Inc., in an action brought by Apple alleging infringement of three patents. After a two week hearing, ALJ Essex issued an initial determination finding no violation of any of the asserted patents for various reasons. The Commission affirmed the initial determination and found no violation, terminating the investigation.
  • Certain Mobile Devices, Associated Software, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-744 (2010): We are currently representing Motorola, Inc. in several patent actions brought by Microsoft Corp. According to Microsoft, the asserted patents allegedly describe features that “are essential to the smartphone user experience, including synchronizing email, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power.” In the ITC case, filed on October 1, 2010, Microsoft seeks an Exclusion Order barring Motorola’s importation of Android smartphone devices, prohibiting further sales of such products that have already been imported, and halting the marketing, advertising, demonstration and warehousing of inventory and use of such imported products in the United States. The ITC case was tried in August 2011; a final determination is pending. In the District Court actions in the Western District of Washington (also filed on October 1, 2010), Microsoft seeks damages for Motorola’s alleged infringement of Microsoft’s patents.
  • Certain Digital Set Top Boxes and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-712 (2011): On behalf of Cablevision, we successfully obtained a finding of no violation with respect to all patents asserted by Verizon against Cablevision in the ITC. Verizon originally filed its complaint with the ITC in March 2010, asserting one claim from each of five patents against digital set-top boxes (“STBs”) that Cablevision acquires from third-party vendors, as well as software that is downloaded by customers in connection with their use of certain services on those STBs. After a 7-day hearing, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Determination finding no violation with respect to four of the five asserted patents, but finding a violation of the fifth asserted patent. Although the Commission initially determined not to review the ALJ’s determination, Cablevision persuaded the Commission to reconsider that decision. On reconsideration, the Commission found no violation by Cablevision and terminated the investigation, thereby giving Cablevision a complete victory.
  • Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software (2010-2011): We represented HTC Corp., HTC America, Inc. and Exedea, Inc., in patent litigation brought by Apple. HTC Corp., HTC America, Inc., and Exedea manufacture and supply mobile communication devices and components to customers in the United States. The case was tried in April 2011, and the Commission found no violation on all patents for which Quinn Emanuel was responsible. The dispute was later settled while on appeal.
  • Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-565 (enforcement) (2011): We represent Complainants Epson Portland Inc., Epson America, Inc. and Seiko Epson Corporation against Ninestar Technology Co., Ltd. and its U.S. distributor Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd. in the ITC. In 2007, during the Violation Phase of the ITC Investigation, Epson showed widespread infringement of its patents resulting in the ITC’s issuance of a general exclusion order, a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders stopping the importation and sale of infringing ink cartridges by the Ninestar respondents and others. The investigation involved 31 claims from 11 patents against 24 respondents and more than one thousand infringing products. The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s orders in a per curiam decision. In 2008, Epson brought an Enforcement action against Ninestar and others for continued infringing imports in violation of the ITC’s remedial orders. After a hearing in the ITC, the ITC imposed penalties of over $20 million. On December 13, 2010, the Ninestar respondents sought an advisory opinion that (1) certain of their products did not violate the remedial orders and (2) the remedial orders should be modified. Epson responded by requesting that the remedial orders be modified to exclude from entry components of infringing cartridges. The ITC has consolidated the proceedings. The case was tried November 2011.
  • Certain Ink Cartridges, Inv. No. 337-TA-565 (ITC 2007 and 2009): On behalf of Seiko Epson, we brought one of the largest patent infringement cases ever filed with the ITC, asserting 11 patents and 31 claims against more than 1,000 different cartridge models sold by 25 manufacturers, importers and distributors of aftermarket ink cartridges. After a 7-day hearing, we prevailed on every asserted patent against every accused product that was adjudicated and every respondent that had not entered into a consent order. The ITC then prohibited all companies, whether or not they were parties, from importing and selling infringing cartridges in the U.S. After a three-day trial in January 2009, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) at the ITC issued an Initial Determination ruling that several foreign respondents and their U.S. subsidiaries violated certain ITC orders that bar imports and sales of infringing inkjet cartridges. The ITC has affirmed the ALJ’s findings that the ITC orders were violated and has imposed penalties of $11.1 million against one group of related respondents, $9.7 million against another group and $700,000 against another group. The penalties are among the largest penalties ever imposed in an ITC enforcement proceeding.

OTHER REPRESENTATIONS INVOLVING OUR LAWYERS:

  • Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Mobile Tablets, Portable Music Players, and Computers, Inv. No. 337-TA-701/704/771 (2011): Some of our partners represented a global telecommunications company in high-stakes patent litigation against Apple, which spanned three separate ITC investigations and resulted in an extraordinarily large settlement in the client’s favor.
  • Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA777 (2011): Some of our partners defended a Spanish manufacturer of black powder rifles in a patent suit brought by Smith & Wesson. The case is in discovery.
  • Certain Automated Media Library Device, Inv. No. 337-TA-746 (2011): Some of our partners represented one of the world’s largest computer makers in litigation relating to media libraries. The case was tried in September 2011 and settled before the judge issued his final determination.
  • Certain Components for Installation of Marine Autopilots with GPS or IMU, Inv. No. 337-TA-738 (2011): Some of our partners represented a marine navigation company in patent litigation involving autopilot systems. The case settled favorably before trial.
  • Certain Flash Memory Chips, Inv. No. 337-TA-735 (2011): Some of our partners represented a global telecommunications company in a patent dispute regarding NAND and NOR flash memory.
  • Certain Electronic Imaging Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-726 (2011): Some of our partners represented a global telecommunications company in a camera-related patent dispute brought by Flashpoint. The case was settled prior to trial.
  • Certain Electronic Paper Towel Dispensing Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-718 (2011): Some of our partners represented a global paper products company in a patent dispute against numerous manufacturers and importers of infringing paper towel dispensers. After a finding of infringement on summary determination, the client obtained a general exclusion order prohibiting importation of all infringing devices from any source.
  • Certain Display Devices, Including Digital Televisions and Monitors, Inv. No. 337-TA-713 (2010): We represented a global electronics manufacturer against multiple respondents for infringement of patents relating to display devices. The cases settled favorably.
  • Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communications Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, Inv. No. 337-TA-703 (2010): Some of our partners represented the most well-known photography company in the world against Apple and RIM.
  • Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-698 (2010): Some of our partners represented a Taiwanese semiconductor company in seeking relief for patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation. Respondents filed a consent order agreeing not to import accused products on the eve of trial.
  • Certain Welding Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire, Inv. No. 337-TA-686 (2010): Some of our partners represented a European welding wire supplier against allegations of infringement. The case was tried in 2010, and the Commission found no infringement and terminated the investigation.
  • Certain Non-Shellfish Derived Glucosamine, Inv. No. 337-TA-668 (2010): Some of our partners represented a Chinese health products company accused of patent infringement by Cargill. The investigation was settled favorably very early in the litigation.
  • Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-673 (2009): Some of our partners represented a global telecommunications company in an investigation brought by licensing entity Saxon Innovations. The case settled favorably early during discovery.
  • Certain Unified Communications Systems, Products Used with such Systems, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-598 (2008): One of our partners successful defended a respondent in an ITC action against Microsoft alleging infringement of 4 patents involving unified communication systems. After trial, the Commission found none of the patents infringed and one of the patents invalid.
  • Certain Catheters, Consoles, and Other Apparatus for Cryosurgery, Inv. No. 337TA-642 (2008): Some of our partners represented a small, Canadian medical products company in a bet-the-company litigation brought by its market rival CryoCor, Inc., which settled favorably prior to trial. Immediately thereafter, our client was acquired by Medtronic.
  • Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines, Inv. No. 337-TA-641 (2008): Some of our partners represented a Spanish alternative energy utility in third party practice. The Commission terminated the investigation after finding no violation.
  • Certain Short-Wavelength Light Emitting Diodes, Laser Diodes and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-640 (2008): Some of our partners represented a global telecommunications company in responding to allegations that certain LEDs infringe a patent owned by a former university professor who seeks exclusion of products containing those LEDs from the United States. The investigation was settled favorably.
  • Certain R-134a Coolant (otherwise known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluroethane), Inv. No. 337-TA-623 (2008): Our of our partners represented a global chemical company in an investigation brought against SinoChem for infringement of a patented process of producing an ozone-friendly refrigerant. The investigation was settled favorably on appeal.
  • Certain Hard Disk Drives, Inv. No. 337-TA-616 (2008): Some of our partners represented a California-based hard disk drive manufacturer in an investigation brought against hard drives and computers that contain them. Complainant withdrew its case prior to trial.
  • Certain 3G Mobile Handsets, Inv. No. 337-TA-613 (2008): Some of our partners represented a global telecommunications company in an investigation brought by Interdigital Communications LLC. The ITC found non-infringement of any of InterDigital's patents and terminated the investigation.
  • Certain Nitrile Rubber Gloves, Inv. No. 337-TA-612 (2008): Following trial, some of our partners obtained a finding of no violation on behalf of a global medical equipment supplier and its affiliates in an investigation regarding medical examination gloves. The victory was confirmed by the Federal Circuit.
  • Certain Magnifying Loupe Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-611 (2008): Some of our partners represented a respondent in this investigation. The case settled favorably.
  • Certain Digital Cameras, Inv. No. 337-TA-593 (2007): Some of our partners represented complainant in this investigation. The case was settled favorably.
  • Certain Stringed Instruments, Inv. No. 337-TA-586 (2007): Some of our partners represented one of the respondents in this investigation. The case settled favorably.
  • Certain Mobile Telephone Handsets, Inv. No. 337-TA-578 (2007): In one of the largest global intellectual property wars ever, we represented a global telecommunications company in multiple cases in the United States, including an I.T.C. action, and coordinated cases in the U.K., France, Italy, Germany, Finland, Holland, and China. The Administrative Law Judge denied the plaintiff’s request to enjoin our client from importing its handsets into the United States. It also held that none of the three asserted patents were infringed and that one was invalid under KSR Int'l v. Teleflex. This provided a complete defense victory—allowing our client to continue importing hundreds of millions of handsets into the United States—and set the stage for a global settlement on the eve of trial in another case in Delaware.
  • Certain NAND and NOR Flash Memory Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-560 (2006): Some of our partners represented a global telecommunications company in third party discovery. The investigation was terminated with a finding of no violation.
  • Certain NAND Flash Memory Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-553 (2006): Some of our partners represented a global flash memory company against Toshiba. The case settled favorably.
  • Certain Automotive Grilles, Inv. No. 337-TA-540 (2005): Some of our partners defended the principal importer of aftermarket automotive body parts from Taiwan in an investigation brought by one of the big three US automakers. Early in the investigation, we found a public disclosure that rendered the asserted patent invalid and the case was withdrawn.
  • Certain Automotive Fuel Caps, Inv. No. 337-TA-532 (2005): Some of our partners represented the respondent in this investigation. The case was terminated when the complainant withdrew the complaint.
  • Certain Electric Robots and Component Parts Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-530 (2005): Some of our partners represented a German paint robot manufacturer who was sued by its Japanese rival. Following trial, the case was terminated with a finding of no infringement and invalidity.
  • Certain NAND Flash Memory Circuits, Inv. No. 337-TA-526 (2005): Some of our partners represented a third party in an investigation relating to flash memory.
  • Certain Point of Sale Terminals, Inv. No. 337-TA-524 (2004): Some of our partners defended an Irish manufacturer of credit and debit card processing machines against a claim filed by a non-practicing entity. In November 2004, we won a final determination that the ITC lacked jurisdiction over the client or its products.
  • Certain Injectable Implant Compositions, Inv. No. 337-TA-515 (2004): Some of our partners represented multiple respondents in an investigation regarding injectable implants. The case settled favorably.
  • Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-501 (2004): Some of our partners represented a global semiconductor company in a case brought by a competitor. The case was terminated with a finding of no violation.
  • Certain Insect Traps, Inv. No. 337-TA-498 (2004): Some of our partners represented the lead respondent in an investigation involving propane-based insect traps. In a novel move, we succeeded in terminating the investigation as to one of the patents and certain of the accused products during the discovery period without a hearing and without any findings of a Section 337 violation. We tried the remaining case in late May 2004 and won a final determination of noninfringement.
  • Certain Universal Transmitters for Garage Door Openers, Inv. No. 337-TA-497 (2004): Some of our partners represented one of the largest garage door manufacturers in an investigation against its competitors under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
  • Certain Zero-Mercury-Added Alkaline Batteries, Inv. No. 337-TA-493 (2003): Some of our partners represented a global battery company in an investigation against multiple respondents.
  • Certain Machine Vision Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-484 (2003): Some of our partners represented a respondent in an investigation for patent infringement. The case settled favorably.
  • Certain Electronic Educational Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-475 (2003): Some of our partners represented a respondent in an investigation for patent infringement. The case settled favorably.
  • Certain Two-Handle Centerset Faucets, Inv. No. 337-TA-422 (2000): Some of our partners represented one of America’s largest plumbing products companies and obtained a rare “general exclusion order” instructing U.S. Customs to seize or deny entry to any imported infringing faucets. The victory was highlighted by the ITC Bar Association as the most significant ITC patent litigation of the year and resulted in detentions and seizures by U.S. Customs of many competitive products.
Back to Top

Partners

Partners