IPR Enforcement Actions on Polymers, Satellite Communication Devices
Potential IPR Probe of Opaque Polymers Evaluated for Public Interest Issues. The International Trade Commission is requesting comments no later than June 3 on any public interest issues raised by a Section 337 intellectual property rights infringement complaint filed on behalf of Rohm and Haas Company, Rohm and Haas Chemicals LLC and The Dow Chemical Company against certain opaque polymers. Comments should address whether the issuance of exclusion orders and/or cease and desist orders pursuant to this complaint would affect the public health and welfare in the U.S., competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the U.S., or U.S. consumers. In particular, the ITC is interested in comments that:
- explain how the articles potentially subject to the orders are used in the U.S.;
- identify any public health, safety or welfare concerns in the U.S. relating to the potential orders;
- identify like or directly competitive articles that the complainant, its licensees or third parties make in the U.S. that could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
- indicate whether the complainant, the complainant’s licensees and/or third-party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested orders within a commercially reasonable time; and
- explain how the requested orders would impact U.S. consumers.
Enforcement Proceeding on Satellite Communication Devices. The International Trade Commission has instituted a formal enforcement proceeding to determine whether a consent order issued in patent infringement investigation 337-TA-854 of certain two-way global satellite communication devices, systems and components thereof is being violated. This order prohibits the importation, sale for importation or sale within the U.S. after importation of any such goods that infringe one or more of certain claims of a patent owned by complainant BriarTek IP Inc. BriarTek alleged that the respondent subject to the consent order was violating it just five days after the order was upheld by the ITC.