ITC Patent Docket Update: One genuinely useful Section 337 complaint and some others not so much
New Complaint: Electronic Shavers and Components and Accessories Thereof
On October 13, the ITC received a new Section 337 alleging infringement of a patent describing an electric shaver that “fits the user’s hand.” The complaint, Skull Shaver, names 11 different respondents, accusing two of those of also infringing a design patent. This case appears to fit the description of a genuinely useful Section 337 investigation in which a trade remedy can serve the public interest instead of merely providing an avenue to circumvent federal court. Due to the agency’s broad (and growing) jurisdiction, cases like this make up only a small portion of the ITC’s patent docket.
In urging the ITC to issue a general exclusion order, Skull Shaver notes:
There are numerous entities located outside the United States that offer for sale on the Internet various Electric Shavers that infringe Skull Shaver’s ’528 patent. Although Skull Shaver has succeeded in building a market for premium shaver electric shaver products, the nature of these products and the components from which they are assembled lend themselves to foreign manufactures being able to quickly and easily configure their factories to produce lower quality, infringing products.
Request for Early Disposition: Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems, Robots, and Components Thereof
Earlier this month, Norway-based AutoStore filed a Section 337 complaint against UK-based Ocado asserting a series of patents that describe “a robot for transporting storage bins.” On October 15, Ocado submitted a request for non-institution or early disposition arguing that AutoStore’s domestic industry arguments are inadequate and suspiciously vague.
The complainant’s “domestic industry product” was developed abroad and is manufactured abroad. And domestic investments related to that product are limited to the sales and service operations of complainant’s U.S. subsidiary and unnamed “partners” in the United States. Respondents argue:
Here, where there is no evidence that AutoStore’s own activities related to the alleged DIPs are significant/substantial, or that the third parties on which AutoStore relies for the bulk of its domestic industry case will produce the information AutoStore needs, the issues presented are precisely what the Commission envisioned in creating the 100-Day Program.
Termination due to Settlement: Rotating 3-D LiDar Devices, Components Thereof, and Sensing Systems Containing the Same (Inv. 1173)
This investigation was terminated on October 15 due to settlement. The parties’ patent dispute (which involved not only this ITC action but also litigation in U.S. federal court and abroad) was settled after complainant Velodyne secured global cross-licensing agreements from competitors Hesai and Robosense.
One curious facet of this case was that neither respondent appears to have sold any of its products in the United States. But because they imported a handful of those products for display at trade shows, Velodyne was able to secure rapid adjudication on claim construction and validity. The availability of relief under Section 337 merely shifted that adjudication from a court of a law to a trade agency.
