The International Trade Commission said it decided to...
The International Trade Commission said it decided to review the final initial decision of the presiding administrative law judge that found no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in investigation No. 337-TA-800, involving wireless devices with…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
3G capabilities and components thereof. The ITC began the investigation Aug. 31, 2011, based on a complaint filed by InterDigital Communications alleging violations of the act in the import and sale of wireless devices with 3G capabilities and components. The gear allegedly infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7,349,540 (terminated from the investigation); 7,502,406; 7,536,013; 7,616,970; 7,706,332; 7,706,830; and 7,970,127. Named respondents included Huawei Technologies, Nokia and ZTE. Later-added respondents included LG Electronics. On June 28, the ALJ issued his final initial decision, finding no violation by respondents, saying the accused products don’t infringe most of the various patents. The ALJ, however, said the respondents failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted claims of the ‘830, ‘406 or ‘332 patents were invalid in light of the cited prior art references. The ALJ also said they failed to prove they hold licenses under the asserted patents and failed to prevail on their equitable/fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory defenses. On July 15, InterDigital filed a petition for review of the initial decision, as did the commission investigative attorney and respondents. In connection with its review, the ITC is particularly interested in responses to the following question, it said in a notice to appear in Tuesday’s Federal Register: “Discuss, in light of the statutory language, legislative history, the Commission’s prior decisions, and relevant court decisions ... whether establishing a domestic industry based on licensing under 19 U.S.C. 1337 (a)(3)(C) requires proof of “articles protected by the patent.” Written submissions on the issue are due Sept. 27 and are limited to 15 pages, said the notice (http://bit.ly/1akA8TU). Replies are due by Oct. 4, and are limited to 10 pages.