On July 27, 2021, the ITC issued the public version of its opinion finding no
violation of section 337 in Certain Mobile Devices with
Multifunction Emulators (Inv. No. 337-TA-1170).
By way of background, this investigation was instituted on August
12, 2019 based on a complaint filed by Dynamics Inc. of Cheswick,
Pennsylvania ("Dynamics") alleging violations of section
337 by Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of South Korea and
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey
(collectively, "Samsung") through the importation and/or
sale of certain mobile devices with multifunction emulators that
infringement one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,827,153
("the '153 patent"); 10,032,100 ("the '100
patent"); 10,223,631 ("the '631 patent"); and
10,255,545 ("the '545 patent").
On March 16, 2021, ALJ Cameron Elliot issued a notice of initial
determination ("ID") finding no violation of section 337
on the grounds that, inter alia, Dynamics had not
been shown to practice any claims of the '153 patent or the
'631 patent; the domestic industry requirement was not
satisfied with respect to the '153 patent, the '631 patent,
or the '545 patent; claims 1, 8, 12, and 18 of the '100
patent had been shown to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and
claims 1, 6, and 12 had been shown to be invalid under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103; claims 1, 4, 6, and 22 of the '631 patent had been
shown to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103; and claims 1, 3,
and 5 of the '545 patent had been shown to be invalid under 35
U.S.C. § 102. See our March 17, 2021 post for
more details regarding the ID.
On review, the Commission construed the term "analog
waveform" in the '153 patent to mean "a wave shape
whose amplitude changes in a continuous fashion" that includes
so-called real-world square waveforms," and affirmed the
ID's finding that the accused Samsung products infringe the
asserted claims of the '153 patent. The Commission also
affirmed the ID's finding that Dynamics failed to adduce
sufficient evidence to establish that its domestic industry
products practice any claims of the '153 patent. The Commission
reversed the ID's finding that the combination of the Shoemaker
and Gutman references failed to render the asserted '153 patent
claims obvious. Regarding the '100 patent, the Commission
reversed the finding that Samsung failed to show that the Doughty
reference in combination with the VivoTech reference rendered claim
4 obvious. The Commission also clarified that claims 4 and 6 of the
'100 patent are infringed. Further, the Commission found the
domestic industry requirement was not met with respect to the
'100 patent because the domestic industry claim had been found
invalid. Regarding the '545 patent, the Commission took no
position on the ID's domestic industry findings.
Having found no violation of section 337, the Commission terminated
the investigation.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
