ITC Litigation

Represented Nikon against complainants Carl Zeiss and ASML in several ITC investigations involving lithography machines, semiconductor lithography systems, and digital cameras and related software. The digital camera matter settled favorably after trial; the others all settled favorably pre-trial. (Certain Semiconductor Lithography Systems and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1137; Certain Lithography Machines and Systems and Components Thereof (I) and (II), 337-TA-1128 and -1129; Certain Digital Cameras, Software, and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1059)

Advised respondents BlackBerry Ltd. and the BlackBerry Corporation against complainants Creative Technology Ltd. and Creative Labs, Inc., who alleged that certain Android devices manufactured and sold by BlackBerry (and a number of others) infringed a creative patent directed to methods of organizing and displaying music tracks in hierarchical categories on a portable media player. Under the 100-Day Program, the Administrative Law Judge issued a final initial determination finding the asserted patent invalid under Section 101 as covering patent-ineligible subject matter. The commission declined to review the judge’s determination, leaving it as the final determination of the ITC and making this a complete win for our client. (Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Components Thereof, 337-TA-994)

Represented automaker Honda and infotainment manufacturer Fujitsu Ten and related affiliates as respondents against Advanced Silicon Technologies LLC, in an investigation involving graphics and display system technologies for automobiles. Approximately one month before trial before the ITC, we settled the case on favorable terms. (Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof and Vehicles Containing Same, 337-TA-984)

Achieved a win for Kyocera after a two-week bench trial and a favorable ruling from the ALJ when Technology Properties Limited (TPL) accused Kyocera and several other companies of importing wireless electronic devices that allegedly infringed a microprocessor patent. In the ITC’s initial determination, the ALJ found that none of Kyocera’s 14 accused products infringed the claims of the patent asserted by TPL. Relying heavily on our expert’s testing of the accused devices, which established that the devices did not meet certain features of the asserted claims, the judge found multiple grounds to support his decision that the Kyocera products do not infringe. (Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components Thereof, 337-TA-853)