The three patents that haptics technology supplier Immersion is citing in International Trade Commission and federal court infringement complaints are “foundational” in nature and “vital to the use of haptics on a mobile device in particular,” Immersion CEO Victor Viegas said on a Thursday conference call with analysts about the complaints. Immersion said Thursday it filed against Apple and AT&T on six models of iPhones and the Apple Watch. “We felt they were the appropriate patents to bring to case in this particular action.” The three patents were never previously “litigated” in earlier Immersion patent lawsuits against other carriers and manufacturers, Viegas said. The complaints in U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Delaware, and at the ITC allege violations of U.S. patents 8,619,051, 8,773,356 and 8,659,571. The ITC complaint also seeks a Section 337 import investigation and an exclusion order barring import of the infringing Apple products. “Immersion’s inventions have literally shaped haptics as we know it today,” said Viegas. “Years of foresight, tenacity, passion have led us to the spot we find ourselves today. Haptics exists because the world needs it. Immersion has made it a reality. We’re the undisputed leader in haptics. We’ve carefully crafted a valuable set of solutions, knowhow, IP, even an ecosystem of partners to bring these rich experiences to consumers through over 3 billion devices. My hope is that those of you who really care about Immersion see the stunning success we’ve had in achieving this broad and meaningful adoption.” The complaints against Apple and AT&T are “an important step in our efforts to be fairly compensated for our achievements and our continuing efforts to bring touch to the markets we serve,” he said. Apple and AT&T representatives didn’t comment.
Four models of “accent” chests imported by Ethan Allen are not subject to antidumping duties on wooden bedroom furniture from China, said the Commerce Department in a remand redetermination filed “under protest” on Feb. 12. Reversing course from a 2014 scope ruling where it found all four models covered by AD duties (see 14060403), Commerce said all four models are living room furniture, not bedroom furniture, despite continued concerns that they are suitable and sometimes advertised for bedroom use.
Technology and Internet industry groups urged the U.S. to continue promoting IP protection among its trading partners, and identified countries that violate existing IP obligations or fail to provide "fair and equitable" market access, in comments filed with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and made public Monday. Stakeholders submitted comments to the USTR in response to the agency's request for written responses to its Special 301 report (see 1602080061), which is meant to "identify countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection." Commenters also warned of both active and proposed rules by certain global competitors that limit cross-border data flows and encourage digital protectionism.
International Custom Products recently requested that the U.S. Supreme Court hear its challenge to the constitutionality of the requirement that importers pay duties before filing suit at the Court of International Trade, according to the Supreme Court’s website (here). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in June 2015 that the duty payment for court challenges of denied protest does not violate International Custom Products’ right to due process (see 1506300073). The now-bankrupt importer would have had to pay $28 million to have its case heard at CIT on the classification of white sauce. International Custom Products had argued a CBP notice of action improperly revoked a ruling letter without the required notice and opportunity to comment (see 12121239).
Technology and Internet industry groups urged the U.S. to continue promoting IP protection among its trading partners, and identified countries that violate existing IP obligations or fail to provide "fair and equitable" market access, in comments filed with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and made public Monday. Stakeholders submitted comments to the USTR in response to the agency's request for written responses to its Special 301 report (see 1602080061), which is meant to "identify countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection." Commenters also warned of both active and proposed rules by certain global competitors that limit cross-border data flows and encourage digital protectionism.
No lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 1-7.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Feb. 1-5 in case they were missed.
CBP outlined its recent enforcement work related to antidumping and countervailing duties in an AD/CVD Update for November that includes statistics for fiscal year 2015 (here). CBP said it "carried out 28,783 entry summary reviews on potential AD/CVD violations and identified over $29 million in AD/CVD noncompliance." Products associated with the most AD/CVD violations during FY2015 were tires, solar cells, and pencils, CBP said. The agency said its lawyers were involved in over 350 AD/CVD cases during the fiscal year and scored several major legal victories. "For example, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with CBP that sureties are liable for penalty interest" on all customs bonds, including AD/CVD bonds, it said. The agency's Garlic Antidumping Enforcement Team also successfully defended a requirement for additional single transaction bonds with the Court of International Trade. As a result, CBP saw "shipments valued at over $5.8 million exported back to the country of origin as importers did not want to file additional bonds; shipments valued at over $6.9 million exported or destroyed; and shipments valued at over $4 million were released after an importer posted a $1 million bond with CIT," it said. CBP also highlighted the agency's enforcement on steel imports (see 1601250019).
Corrective orthodontic device manufacturer ClearCorrect asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for an 18-day extension to respond to an International Trade Commission petition for rehearing en banc (see 1601270053) in the company's legal battle with the ITC. ClearCorrect attorney Michael Myers filed the petition for a deadline extension Monday, saying the company and its affiliate in Pakistan need additional time to file "a unified response" to arguments of the ITC, intervenor and industry competitor Align Technology and the amici curiae supporting the ITC. If granted, ClearCorrect's deadline to file a response to the petition for rehearing en banc would extend until Feb. 29. In November, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of ClearCorrect in a case involving questions of the ITC's ability to block the flow of patent-infringing data.
Corrective orthodontic device manufacturer ClearCorrect asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for an 18-day extension to respond to an International Trade Commission petition for rehearing en banc (see 1601270053) in the company's legal battle with the ITC. ClearCorrect attorney Michael Myers filed the petition for a deadline extension Monday, saying the company and its affiliate in Pakistan need additional time to file "a unified response" to arguments of the ITC, intervenor and industry competitor Align Technology and the amici curiae supporting the ITC. If granted, ClearCorrect's deadline to file a response to the petition for rehearing en banc would extend until Feb. 29. In November, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of ClearCorrect in a case involving questions of the ITC's ability to block the flow of patent-infringing data.