IPR Enforcement: DRAMS, Glucose Monitoring Systems, Metal, Electronic Devices, Motors
New Petitions Filed. The International Trade Commission has received petitions requesting that it institute separate Section 337 investigations regarding the following products.
- dynamic random access memory devices (petition filed Sept. 18 on behalf of Wen T. Lin; respondents located in South Korea and the U.S.)
- electrochemical glucose monitoring systems (petition filed Sept. 18 on behalf of Dexcom Inc.; respondent located in the U.S.)
- amorphous metal (petition filed Sept. 19 on behalf of Metglas Inc. and Hitachi Metal Ltd.; respondents located in China and Japan)
Section 337 investigations primarily involve claims regarding intellectual property rights violations by imported goods, including the infringement of patents, trademarks, and copyrights. Other forms of unfair competition involving imported products, such as misappropriation of trade secrets or trade dress and false advertising, may also be asserted.
The primary remedy available in Section 337 investigations is an exclusion order that directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection to stop infringing imports from entering the U.S. In addition, the ITC may issue cease and desist orders against named importers and other persons engaged in unfair acts that violate Section 337, including selling infringing imported articles out of U.S. inventory.
Mobile Electronic Devices. The ITC has terminated patent infringement investigation 337-TA-1065 of mobile electronic devices and radio frequency and processing components thereof with respect to one patent based on complainant Qualcomm Incorporated’s withdrawal of its allegations pertaining to that patent.
Electric Motors. The ITC has terminated without the imposition of import restrictions patent infringement investigation 337-TA-1052 of thermoplastic-encapsulated electric motors, components thereof, and products and vehicles containing same. This termination follows Intellectual Ventures II LLC’s withdrawal of its complaint after the presiding administrative law judge found that the company does not own the asserted patents.