The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned an International Trade Commission decision to end a Section 337 patent investigation of infringement by LG so that the case could go to arbitration with patent holder InterDigital. LG had said it held a license for the patented technology at issue, and the commission found that a plausible basis for arbitration. Both the ITC and LG argued that the appeals court had no jurisdiction to hear the case, because termination for arbitration is not listed as subject to appeal under the governing statute, 19 USC 1337. But the appeals court found that termination of a Section 337 investigation for arbitration is in effect an appealable final determination, even though it isn’t enumerated in the statute. Turning to whether LG had grounds to request arbitration, the appeals court found that the portion of the agreement governing the license on 3G technology had expired, so LG had no right to assert a right to arbitration over the license.
President Barack Obama directed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to begin creating rules to require patent applicants and patent owners to “regularly” update the ownership information on file at PTO when they are involved in PTO proceedings. The rules are targeted at making “real party in interest” (RPI) disclosure a default action. Obama also directed PTO to develop strategies over the next six months to improve patent claim clarity, particularly in software-related patent applications, and train patent examiners on scrutinizing functional claims. The White House said it will build on the roundtables and workshops that PTO, the Department of Justice and the FTC held last year, announcing it would hold a series of “high-profile events” over the next six months aimed at outreach on patent-related issues and policy updates. PTO will also expand its Edison Scholars Program, which brings in scholars to work at the agency for six-month periods, to develop additional research on patent litigation abuse. PTO also unveiled a set of new education and outreach materials aimed at answering questions from the targets of abusive patent litigation (http://1.usa.gov/15yx9EC).
The White House announced a series of executive actions and legislative recommendations Tuesday that a senior administration official said were “specifically designed” to deal with abusive patent litigation. The White House’s actions follow the introduction of four bills in Congress -- including three in the last month -- that would address patent litigation abuse caused by patent assertion entities (PAEs). The discussion draft of a fifth bill, crafted by the House Judiciary Committee, is circulating through industry and legislative circles (WID June 3 p1).
The White House announced a series of executive actions and legislative recommendations Tuesday that a senior administration official said were “specifically designed” to deal with abusive patent litigation. The White House’s actions follow the introduction of four bills in Congress -- including three in the last month -- that would address patent litigation abuse caused by patent assertion entities (PAEs). The discussion draft of a fifth bill, crafted by the House Judiciary Committee, is circulating through industry and legislative circles (CED June 3 p8).
A White House taskforce on patent issues released a set of recommendations and executive actions, urging legislative action on the standard for International Trade Commission injunctions and committing to an interagency review on CBP’s evaluation of the scope of ITC exclusion orders. The June 4 statement contained five executive actions and seven legislative recommendations “designed to protect innovators from frivolous litigation and ensure the highest-quality patents in our system,” the statement said. The National Economic Council and Council of Economic Advisers released a report on patent challenges (here) in conjunction with the White House announcement.
The 30-day period to challenge scope rulings in court begins on the date the scope ruling is mailed by the Commerce Department, and is not triggered by email communications, said the Court of International Trade as it dismissed Medline Industries’ challenge. Medline had filed suit after Commerce emailed its lawyer a copy of the adverse scope ruling on wooden bedroom furniture from China. But the snail mail scope ruling from a month later actually triggered the period for filing suit, even though Commerce had allegedly misrepresented that no physically mailed scope ruling would be forthcoming. The case will proceed regardless, as Medline filed a separate challenge following its second receipt of the scope ruling. The company expressed concern, however, at the cost of having to appeal this dismissal of its first suit to protect itself from a jurisdictional challenge.
Graphics Properties Holdings filed a petition for an International Trade Commission investigation May 17, alleging consumer electronics imported and sold by Panasonic, Toshiba, Vizio, AmTran, and ZTE are infringing its patents. According to the complaint, the products at issue are consumer electronics devices with display and processing capabilities, such as laptops, netbooks, PCs, television sets, HD camcorders, and Blue-ray and DVD players, that combine several pre-existing technologies into a single device. GPH is requesting cease and desist orders and limited exclusion orders against the products purportedly in violation of Section 337, as well as a bond requirement during the 60-day period during which the White House may veto any ITC orders.
Grooveshark employee Nikola Arabadjiev settled with major record labels in a 2011 copyright infringement case against the on-demand music service, according to documents obtained by P2P news site TorrentFreak (http://bit.ly/17Gfpe5). Arabadjiev does quality assurance for Grooveshark, according to the company’s site. The settlement is related to a copyright case brought against Grooveshark -- owned by Escape Media -- and its employees by Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Bros. Records after Grooveshark allegedly made available to users music owned by the labels without their permission (WID Dec 22/11 p1). Under the consent judgment, Arabadjiev is prohibited from “copying, uploading, reproducing, distributing, transmitting or publically [sic] performing any of the Copyrighted Works in violation of the United States Copyright Act, via the Grooveshark service or any other online streaming service, website, application, or peer-to-peer or file-trading system that operates without authority or license from the appropriate Plaintiff or any of its licensees.” In a statement, Grooveshark said it’s “pleased that the case between Universal Music and Escape Media has been narrowed and simplified by the removal of some individual defendants from the case upon their stipulation to simply obey the law -- something Escape Media does every day through its active licensing of millions of tracks and its strict compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."
The D.C. federal District Court dismissed PRP Trading’s attempt to gain release of several shipments of aluminum extrusions it contends were mistakenly seized for lack of country of origin markings. The Court of International Trade had transferred the case to the District Courts in October, after finding it had no jurisdiction because the shipments had been seized before PRP Trading filed suit (see 12100331). But according to the D.C. court, PRP Trading requested the case be transferred to the wrong district -- it should have brought suit in Puerto Rico -- and in any case the company didn’t complete all required actions at the administrative level before CBP.
The antidumping duty orders on ball bearings from Japan and the United Kingdom are set to be reinstated, after the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided May 16 to reverse several lower court rulings. The Court of International Trade remands had resulted in the International Trade Commission changing its affirmative injury determinations from its sunset reviews to negative ones. That led to revocation of the ball bearings orders for Japan and the U.K. in July 2011. But the appeals court said that, contrary to the lower court’s findings, the ITC injury findings were supported by record evidence, and should have stood.