International Trade Commission

Subscribe to International Trade Commission via RSS

ITC LogoYesterday, InterDigital filed its opposition to Huawei & ZTE’s motion (later joined by another respondent, Nokia) to stay Inv. No. 337-TA-868, which is the ITC’s investigation into InterDigital’s 3G/4G standard-essential patent infringement-based Section 337 complaint.  Much as it did in its prior opposition to Huawei/ZTE’s attempts to seek an expedited FRAND determination in Delaware district court, InterDigital here claims that nothing in the motion to stay counsels staying the investigation pending a determination of FRAND terms in Delaware — in fact, InterDigital attached its opposition to expedite the Delaware proceedings as an exhibit to its ITC stay opposition.  After the jump, we’ll provide a brief summary of InterDigital’s arguments against staying the ITC case.

InterDigital wasn’t the only one filing papers in this case yesterday, though — Samsung also filed a response to the motion to stay.  Samsung’s position is, succinctly, that “[w]hile Samsung does not join the Motion, Samsung does not oppose the requested stay.” (You may recall that Samsung has its own motion to terminate some of InterDigital’s infringement claims pending in this case).Continue Reading InterDigital opposes Huawei/Nokia/ZTE’s efforts to stay ITC investigation, saying motion is “based on speculation upon speculation”

Last week, it was reported that Apple won a decision against Samsung in Tokyo, Japan, where a judge ruled that Samsung failed to negotiate in good faith with Apple before bringing patent infringement claims over its standard-essential patents.  Until today, the court’s actual ruling was not publicly available.  But yesterday, Apple submitted a “Notice of New Facts” and a redacted copy of a translation of the Tokyo court’s decision to the U.S. International Trade Commission in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-794, and this submission hit the ITC’s docket this morning.

Recall that the -794 case is the ITC’s investigation over Apple’s alleged infringement of several Samsung patents (including two 3G cellular standard-essential patents), and that a Final Determination by the Commission is due no later than this Thursday, March 7 — and that the issue of the propriety of issuing an exclusion order for standard-essential patent infringement has been hotly debated here.  Apple argues that the Tokyo court’s decision and factual findings “underscore that it would be against the public interest to issue an exclusionary remedy to Samsung on declared-essential patents.”Continue Reading Apple cites recent Japanese court ruling as evidence against standard-essential patent exclusion order (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-794)

ITC LogoYesterday the U.S. International Trade Commission announced that it has instituted a Section 337 investigation titled Certain Wireless Communications Base Stations and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-871.  This investigation is based on a complaint filed on January 24, 2013 by Adaptix, Inc. (a subsidiary of noted publicly-traded non-practicing entity Acacia Research) against Ericsson.  The…

On Friday we posted about the Answers filed by the respondents in In the Matter Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-868) — the case better known as InterDigital’s ITC action against Huawei, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE.  And we’ve previously discussed how Huawei and ZTE are currently seeking an expedited determination of FRAND terms in Delaware district court, where they also expalined that they would seek to stay the ITC action.  Today, Huawei and ZTE’s motion to stay the ITC investigation hit the docket (it was actually filed on Friday).  Huawei and ZTE seek to halt the ITC investigation pending (1) the outcome of Inv. No. 337-TA-800 (involving the same parties and some of the same patents); and (2) a determination in Delaware of the terms of a FRAND license to InterDigital’s patents.
Continue Reading Huawei, ZTE seek stay of InterDigital 3G/4G ITC investigation

Lately, there’s been a lot of activity in InterDigital-related cases, both in district courts and the ITC.  Aside from the hearing in Inv. No. 337-TA-800 (scheduled to wrap up today), the respondents named in InterDigital’s latest complaint (Inv. No. 337-TA-868) — Huawei, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE — filed their answers yesterday.  Given InterDigital’s assertion of 3G/4G cellular standard-essential patents here, it comes as no surprise to see that in addition to customary patent infringement defenses, the respondents have asserted several FRAND-specific defenses.  Below is a quick rundown of the FRAND-specific defenses asserted by the individual respondents.


Continue Reading Huawei/Samsung/ZTE answer InterDigital’s ITC complaint, assert FRAND-related defenses

In early January, InterDigital filed a Section 337 complaint in the U.S. International Trade Commission against Huawei, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE, accusing those companies’ 3G/4G-compliant smartphones and tablets of infringing several InterDigital patents (this is now ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-868).  Because the ITC cannot award monetary relief, it’s common for complainants to also file corresponding infringement actions in district court, which InterDigital did here in the District of Delaware.  In order to relieve ITC respondents from the burden of litigating in multiple venues simultaneously, 28 U.S.C. § 1659 allows respondents to seek a mandatory stay of the district court action pending the outcome of the ITC case.  Generally, respondents seek such a stay.  But here, neither Huawei nor ZTE have sought a stay — in fact, they have asked the Delaware district court to expedite discovery on FRAND issues.  It’s an interesting strategic move in which they leverage recent guidance from government agencies and other pending litigation, and it’s a strategy that (if successful) may be followed by many more ITC respondents in the future.
Continue Reading Huawei, ZTE seek expedited FRAND determinations in InterDigital 3G/4G standard-essential patent dispute

ITC LogoAs we noted earlier this week, the ITC is currently holding the evidentiary hearing in its investigation surrounding InterDigital’s 3G standard-essential patent infringement complaint against Nokia, Huawei, and ZTE (Inv. No. 337-TA-800).  As with many ITC hearings, much of the information is kept out of the public record (and that’s particularly true for FRAND-related issues, where sensitive licensing data is often discussed).  But today, the ITC just released the public version of Order No. 70, the confidential version of which originally issued way back in September 2012.  In this order, ALJ David P. Shaw ordered InterDigital and Nokia to both produce various information relating to the FRAND affirmative defenses raised by Nokia in the case, including license agreements, license negotiation documents, and other documents relating to FRAND.
Continue Reading InterDigital, Nokia ordered to produced FRAND-related and licensing documents in ITC case (337-TA-800)

ITC LogoWe’ve previously covered the bilateral standard-essential patent battle brewing between Ericsson and Samsung in the U.S. International Trade Commission (as well as the Eastern District of Texas).  The ITC has instituted two investigations surrounding the parties’ claims: Inv. No. 337-TA-862 (based on Ericsson’s complaint) and Inv. No. 337-TA-866 (based on Samsung’s complaint).  Yesterday, Samsung filed the public version of its Response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation (essentially, an answer to Ericsson’s complaint) in the -862 investigation.  Below is an overview of this filing, in which (surprise!) F/RAND-related issues and defenses have a starring role.
Continue Reading Samsung responds to Ericsson’s ITC complaint, accuses Ericsson of violating F/RAND obligations (337-TA-862)

ITC LogoThis morning, at the U.S. International Trade Commission, the hearing commenced in In the Matter of Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-800) before presiding Administrative Law Judge David. P. Shaw.  This case involves the ITC’s investigation into allegations brought by InterDigital that respondents Huawei, Nokia, and ZTE…

ITC LogoThe statute that governs the U.S. International Trade Commission’s jurisdiction over patent infringement complaints requires the ITC to resolve its investigations into such complaints “at the earliest practicable time”  Typically, ITC investigations will take anywhere from 12-18 months (depending on complexity, number of patents, etc.) from the institution of the investigation until the “target date,”…