CAFC Rules on ITC Patent Infringement Cases
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued the following recent decisions on patent issues involving the International Trade Commission (ITC).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
CAFC Upholds ITC: “Orange Book” CD Patents of Phillips/Sony are Enforceable
Princo Corporation, a licensee of CD-R and CD-RW technology developed by Phillips and Sony, as codified in the “Orange Book” of CD standards, contested the ITC’s finding that Phillips’ patents related to this technology were enforceable. Princo argued that Phillips engaged in patent misuse by improperly forcing its licensees to license more patents than necessary to make CDs. However, the CAFC sustained the ITC’s finding that Phillips is entitled to enforce its patent rights against Princo. CAFC 2007-1386, dated 08/30/2010
Pass & Seymour Gain Partial Enforcement Judgments in Dual GFCI Cases
In two tandem appeals of ITC patent infringement rulings at the CAFC, U.S patent holder Pass & Seymour Inc. gained and lost some patent enforceability challenges. In the first case, Pass & Seymour v. ITC et al., Pass & Seymour successfully appealed an ITC ruling which had denied its infringement suit against three foreign producers: General Protecht Group, Inc., Wenzhou Trimone Science & Technology Electric Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Ele Manufacturing Corporation. The appeals court found infringement by the General Protecht’s for its 2006 ground fault circuit interrupters (GFCIs) and Wenzhou Trimone’s 2006 GFCIs. CAFC 2009-1338-1369, dated 08/27/2010
In the second case, brought by the same three foreign manufacturers against the ITC and Pass & Seymour, the appeals court partially confirmed infringement and enforceability findings by the ITC in favor of the U.S. company, but also determined that several of the foreign-made devices at issue did not in fact infringe on the U.S. patents. In particular, the CAFC ruled that General Protecht’s 2003 and 2006 GFCIs, Shanghai Ele’s 2006 GFCIs, and Wenzhou Trimone’s 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the U.S. company’s patents. The court remanded the case to the ITC to modify its limited exclusion order accordingly. CAFC 2009-1378-1387-1434, dated 08/27/2010