Complainants often must rely on indirect infringement to prove a violation of Section 337. Indirect infringement may be in the form of induced or contributory infringement. In a recent opinion, the Commission clarified issues relating to post-importation inducement and distinctions between induced and contributory infringement. Certain Digital Video Receivers And Hardware And Software Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1001, Commission Opinion (December 6, 2017).
The Commission has determined to review an initial determination finding that Respondent Ford is estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting certain invalidity defenses previously adjudicated by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles And Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1042, Notice (Dec. 8, 2017). The underlying initial determination raises nuanced issues regarding the application of IPR estoppel in Section 337 investigations.
ALJ McNamara recently confirmed and tightened her previous order compelling depositions of certain Japanese witnesses in the United States. Certain Digital Cable And Satellite Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-1049, Order No. 14.
In a recent Order, ALJ McNamara clarified that while diagrams drawn by an expert depicting the interplay and hierarchy of relevant code modules, inputs, and outputs of source code are to be treated as confidential business information under the protective order, such diagrams are not considered source code under the ALJ’s Source Code Addendum.
In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. ITC, No. 16-2563 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s exclusion order entered in Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (I), Inv. No. 337-TA-944.
ALJ Pender’s initial determination in Certain Mobile Device Holders and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1028 (Sept. 12, 2017), finding a violation of Section 337, provides important guidance on what investments count toward the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. Although Respondents provided no counterarguments because they had defaulted, ALJ Pender analyzed and challenged each of Complainant’s proofs, ultimately finding that the domestic industry requirement had been met.