Apple v. Samsung: Showdown at the ITC

As reported in the ITC Blog, on August 2, 2011, the ITC instituted an investigation concerning Samsung's alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,479,949, RE 41,922, 7,863,533, 7,789,697, 7,912,501, D558,757 and D618,678.  This investigation is the result of a complaint filed on July 5, 2011, and a supplemental letter filed on July 22, 2011, by Apple.

Figs. 1 and 2 of U.S. D558,757 (left) and D618,678 (right) are reproduced below.

This follows the ITC instituting an investigation on July 27, 2011, concerning Apple's alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,706,348, 7,486,644, 6,771,980, 6,879,843 and 7,450,114.  This investigation is also reported in the ITC Blog, and is the result of a complaint filed on June 27, 2011, and supplemental letters filed on July 7 and 15, 2011, by Samsung.

Apple files ITC complaint against Samsung

As reported in the ITC blog, Apple filed an ITC complaint against Samsung on July 8, 2011, alleging certain portable electronic devices and related software infringe claims of U.S. 7,844,915, 7,469,381, 7,084,859, 7,920,129 and 6,956,564.  This ITC complaint follows the ITC complaint Samsung filed against Apple on June 28, 2011.  As in that complaint, this complaint also presumably relates to the ongoing dispute we have been covering between Samsung and Apple.

Samsung files ITC complaint against Apple

As reported in the ITC blog, Samsung filed an ITC complaint against Apple on June 28, 2011, alleging certain electronic devices, including wireless communication devices, portable music and data processing devices, and tablet computers infringe one or more claims of U.S. 7,706,348, 7,486,644, 6,771,980, 6,879,843, and 7,450,114.

Presumably, this ITC complaint relates to the ongoing dispute we have been covering between Samsung and Apple.

ITC Investigates Certain Protective Cases and Components Thereof

As reported on Oblon’s ITC blog, the U.S. International Trade Commission  (“ITC”) has instituted an investigation in response to a complaint filed by Otter Products, LLC alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain protective cases and components thereof that infringe certain U.S. patents and trademarks.  The complaint identifies twenty-nine respondents, including Alibaba.com and other Chinese and American companies.

The asserted design patents are U.S. Design Patent Nos. D600,908, D617,784, D615,536, D617,785, D634,741, and D636,386.  According to the complaint, these design patents “protect the ornamental features of Otter Products’ unique protective case designs for handheld electronic devices, including smart phones, tablet computers, and other mobile devices.”  Some of the figures from these patents are reproduced below.

The following were identified in the complaint as some of the respondents’ protective cases and components thereof:

Chrysler’s ITC Complaint alleging Design Patent Infringement of a Concept Vehicle Results in Settlement, Cease and Desist Orders

Chrysler’s ITC Complaint alleging Design Patent Infringement of a Concept Vehicle Results in Settlement, Cease and Desist Orders and Limited Exclusion Orders

See our posting on the ITC 337 Law Blog of March 16, 2011.

The Jeep Hurricane is a 4x4 concept vehicle which was unveiled at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Michigan in 2005, by Jeep, a division of Chrysler Group LLC.  Chrysler obtained U.S. Design Patent No. D513,395 (the ‘395 patent) on January 3, 2006, which is directed to an automobile body corresponding to the Jeep Hurricane.

Chrysler filed a 337 complaint in the ITC regarding certain automotive vehicles on May 14, 2010 (see our ITC 337 Law Blog posting of May 18, 2010), and the ITC instituted an investigation (337-TA-722) regarding certain automotive vehicles on June 11, 2010 (see our ITC 337 Law Blog posting of June 15, 2010).

On October 12, 2010, Chrysler and respondents including Xingyue Group Co., Ltd. filed an amended joint motion to terminate the pending investigation on the basis of a consent order, and the ALJ issued an order on October 27, 2010, granting the joint motion for termination.  The joint motion to terminate was based on a settlement agreement these respondents will not import, sell, etc. the accused XYJK800 vehicle manufactured by Xingyue, which was alleged to infringe the ‘395 patent.

On October 29, 2010, Chrysler filed declarations requesting immediate relief against the then defaulting respondents (Vehicles Online, Inc. and Shanghai Tandem).  Having determined that the statutory requirements were met, the ITC issued a notice ordering relief on March 10, 2011. 

The relief included (1) cease and desist orders against Vehicles Online, Inc. and Shanghai Tandem concerning automotive vehicles and designs therefor that infringe the ‘395 patent, and (2) a limited exclusion order prohibiting unlicensed entry of automotive vehicles and designs therefor that infringe the ‘395 patent, which are manufactured abroad or imported by or on behalf of Shanghai Tandem (namely, the accused Tandem TDUV800-2).  Since no other issues remained pending, the ITC terminated the investigation.

Figure 1 of U.S. D513,395

Jeep Hurricane (www.jeep.com)

Alleged Infringer Xingyue XYJK800 (source)

Alleged Infringer Tandem TDUV800-2 (source)