New Complaints
| Title | Dkt. No. | Complainant(s) | Proposed Respondent(s) | IP Asserted |
| High-Potency Sweeteners, Processes for Making Same, and Products Containing Same | 3180 | Celanese International Corporation
Celanese IP Hungary Bt |
Suzhou Hope Technology Co., Ltd.
Anhui Jinhe Industrial Co., Ltd. Vitasweet Co., Ltd. |
9,024,016 |
Commission Determinations
- Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan And Sidescan Devices, Products Containing The Same, And Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-921 (Modification Proceeding): The Commission issued the public version of its opinion denying Respondents’ Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal. On December 1, 2015, the Commission issued a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist orders prohibiting Respondents from importing into the United States or selling or distributing within the United States products that infringe the asserted patents. On August 18, 2016, the Commission modified the LEO to cover certain components of products that infringe the asserted patents. On August 24, 2016, Respondents filed a motion requesting that the Commission stay enforcement of the modified LEO, pending appeal to the Federal Circuit. On October 14, 2016, the Commission issued an order denying Respondents’ request. On October 21, 2016, the Commission issued the public version of its opinion explaining that Respondents did not meet the heavy burden of establishing the need for a stay under the Commission’s four-prong analysis.
- Certain Electric Skin Care devices, Brushes and Chargers Therefore, and Kits Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-959. The Commission issued a notice extending the target date for its decision on review until November 15, 2016. Judge Lord held in her ID that expenditures for research and development must be excluded from the domestic industry analysis under subsections (A) and (B) of 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3). On May 26, 2016, the Commission determined to review the ID in part, including Judge Lord’s findings on domestic industry. The Commission, however, did not request any briefing on domestic industry topics.
The following two tabs change content below.
Jones Day's ITC trial lawyers located around the world represent both complainants and respondents in these fast-paced, high-stakes cases. Please see our contacts page for more information.
Latest posts by Jones Day's ITC Team (see all)
- ALJ Finds Violation in Mobile Device Holders Investigation - October 18, 2017
- ITC Denies Request to Modify Protective Order - October 16, 2017
- Instructional Materials Not Always Sufficient to Show Induced Infringement - October 11, 2017