Hacked By Elite 6-27

We are a hacktivist organization

HackerCloud ~ Unknown_404 ~ D14bl0

Commission Affirms Finding Of Violation Of Section 337 In Certain Electronic Devices (337-TA-1200) – Intellectual Property

United States: Commission Affirms Finding Of Violation Of Section 337 In…

United States:

Commission Affirms Finding Of Violation Of Section 337 In Certain Electronic Devices (337-TA-1200)

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On November 10, 2021, the ITC issued a 
notice of its final determination finding a violation of
section 337 in Certain Electronic Devices, Including
Streaming Players, Televisions, Set Top Boxes, Remote Controllers,
and Components Thereof 
(Inv. No. 337-TA-1200)

By way of background, this investigation was instituted on May
22, 2020 based on a complaint filed by Universal Electronics, Inc.
of Scottsdale, Arizona (“UEI”) against 18 respondents,
including Roku Inc. (“Roku”), alleging violations of
section 337 through the importation and/or sale of certain
electronic devices, including streaming players, televisions, set
top boxes, remote controllers, and components thereof that infringe
one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,911,325 (“the
‘325 patent”); 7,589,642 (“the ‘642
patent”); 7,969,514 (“the ‘514 patent”);
10,600,317 (“the ‘317 patent”); 10,593,196 (“the
‘196 patent”); and 9,716,853 (“the ‘853
patent”). Roku was the only remaining respondent when ALJ
Cameron Elliot held an evidentiary hearing in April 2021. Roku had
previously moved for summary determination that UEI lacked standing
to assert the ‘196 patent. ALJ Elliot granted Roku’s
motion, but the Commission reversed his decision.
See our 
February 10, 2021 and 
March 25, 2021 posts for more details regarding these
rulings. By the time the ALJ issued his final initial determination
(“ID”) on July 9, 2021, the only asserted claims
remaining in the investigation were claim 19 of the ‘642
patent; claims 3, 6, 9, and 11 of the ‘317 patent; and claims
1, 3, 11, and 13-15 of the ‘196 patent. The ID found a
violation of section 337 as to the ʼ196 patent because: (i)
UEI has standing to assert the ‘196 patent; (ii) the accused
Roku Ultra and Soundbar products infringe claims 1, 3, 11, and
13-15 of the ‘196 patent, but Roku’s revised Ultra and
Soundbar products do not infringe any asserted claims; (iii) the
asserted claims are not invalid as obvious; and (iv) UEI satisfied
the technical and economic prongs of the domestic industry
requirement with respect to the ‘196 patent. The ID, however,
found no violation with respect to the ‘642 patent or the
‘317 patent because the asserted claims of those patents,
though infringed, are invalid. See our 
August 7, 2021 post for more details regarding the ID.

According to the notice, the Commission affirmed the ID’s
finding that Roku violated section 337 with respect to its original
Ultra and Soundbar products that infringe claims 1, 3, 11, and
13-15 of the ʼ196 patent, but that its updated models of these
products do not infringe. The Commission also affirmed the IDs
finding of no violation with respect to the ʼ317 patent and
ʼ642 patent. Accordingly, the Commission issued a limited
exclusion order and cease-and-desist order against Roku with
respect to the products that infringe claims 1, 3, 11, and 13-15 of
the ‘196 patent.

We will post the public version of the Commission’s opinion
when it becomes available.

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.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Intellectual Property from United States

Trademarks Comparative Guide

Obhan & Associates

Trademarks Comparative Guide for the jurisdiction of India, check out our comparative guides section to compare across multiple countries

Trademark Classification Changes For 2022

Klein Moynihan Turco LLP

On October 6, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ruled to incorporate the international trademark classification changes adopted by the Nice Agreement Concerning the …

Location, Location, Location

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

As in real estate, as in law. A recent ruling in the USDC for the District of Colorado demonstrates that procedural considerations of where to file may often have substantive consequences.