IPR Enforcement: Microfluidic Devices, Audio Processing Equipment
Microfluidic Devices. The International Trade Commission received Jan. 11 on behalf of 10X Genomics Inc. a petition requesting that it institute a Section 337 investigation regarding microfluidic systems and components thereof and products containing same. The proposed respondent is located in the U.S.
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 ITC is requesting comments no later than Jan. 25 on any public interest issues raised by the complaint. Comments should address whether the issuance of the limited exclusion order and/or cease and desist order requested by the complainant 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, its 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.
Audio Processing Equipment. In patent infringement investigation 337-TA-1026 of audio processing hardware, software, and products containing the same, the ITC has determined to review in part the final initial determination issued by the presiding administrative law judge that complainant Andrea Electronics Corp. does not have standing to assert the patent at issue, the accused products do not infringe that patent, and the complainant has not met the domestic industry requirements. The ITC is seeking written comments from interested parties on specific issues by Jan. 24.