Complainant OSRAM AG ("OSRAM") moved for a summary
determination that it had satisfied the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement. Respondent LG Electronics, Inc. and
other LG entities (collectively, LG) opposed the motion.
OSRAM moved for summary determination on the ground that it has
devoted substantial resources in the United States, including
engineering and research of products that incorporate LEDs. As
stated by the Administrative Law Judge, "OSRAM contends that
it satisfies the economic prong of the domestic industry
requirement as set forth in 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(C) for U.S.
Patent Nos. 7,151,283 ("the '283 patent") and
7,271,425 ("the '425 patent"). OSRAM states that it
has devoted substantial resources in the United States, including
investments in domestic engineering and research and development
("R&D") of products incorporating LEDs, at its two
domestic subsidiaries, OSRAM Opto Semiconductors, Inc. and OSRAM
Sylvania Inc. Mem. at 1. OSRAM further states that these
investments relate to work on OSRAM LEDs with chip level conversion
technology ("OSRAM LEDs with CLC"), which OSRAM asserts
are covered by claims of the '283 patent, and OSRAM's
Advanced Power TOPLEDs ("OSRAM APT LEDs"), which OSRAM
asserts are covered by claims of the '425 patent Id OSRAM
summarizes its investments in domestic engineering and R&D from
October 2009 through September 2011."
LG opposed the motion by asserting that OSRAM had not
established that the products containing OSRAM LEDs were articles
protected by the patents-in-suit. "In opposition to
OSRAM's motion, LG does not contest that OSRAM has made the
claimed investments for products containing OSRAM LEDs with CLC and
OSRAM APT LEDs, nor does LG dispute the Statement of Material Facts
filed by OSRAM in support of its motion. LG instead argues that
OSRAM has not shown that products containing OSRAM LEDs with CLC
and OSRAM APT LEDs are in fact articles protected by the
patents-in-suit, and that OSRAM has provided evidence only that the
Golden Dragon Plus LUW W5AM (an OSRAM LED with CLC) and the LCW
G6CP (an OSRAM APT LED) practice the patents-in-suit. Opp. at 4-5.
LG argues that OSRAM has not shown that these two products are
representative of all OSRAM LEDs with CLC and OSRAM APT LEDs, and
that OSRAM therefore cannot rely on its domestic investments in
these two product lines to establish satisfaction of the economic
prong. Opp. at 5."
The Administrative Law Judge found that OSRAM had not overcome
the disputed issues of fact as to whether OSRAM satisfied the
economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to
articles protected by the patents-in-suit. Accordingly, the
Administrative Law Judge concluded that there were disputed issues
of fact and denied the motion for summary determination.
In the Matter of Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products
Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-784 (ITC April 13, 2012)
(Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw)
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.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
As is well known, patent trolls often threaten dozens of alleged infringers in the hope of scoring quick license fees from those who understandably prefer to provide a modest payoff, thereby avoiding expensive and protracted litigation.
In order to best protect the IP rights of a U.S. company seeking to produce goods through a Chinese manufacturer by providing a protected design, the U.S. company needs to take actions even before the contracting stages.
On November 12, 2012, the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of issued the Draft Rules on Inventor-Employee Inventions for public comment, and this article seeks to reconcile the different provisions between the Implementing Rules and the Draft Rules.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of seven film studios finding that the defendant induced third parties to download infringing copies of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.