United States: DeLorme v. ITC : Federal Circuit Hears Arguments In Appeal Of $6.2 Million Penalty For Consent Order Violation

Last Updated: October 30 2015
Article by Charles S. Barquist

On September 8, 2015, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in an appeal from an ITC enforcement proceeding that imposed a civil penalty of $6.2 million against DeLorme Publishing Company, Inc. and DeLorme inReach LLC (collectively, "DeLorme") for violating a consent order.  The appeal, heard by a panel consisting of Judges Moore, Reyna and Taranto, raises a number of novel issues, including the effect of a subsequent district court judgment in a co-pending case that invalidated the patent claims at issue in the enforcement proceeding.

Background

In Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices, System and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-854, complainant BriarTek IP, Inc. accused its competitor DeLorme of violating Section 337 by infringing BriarTek's U.S. Patent No. 7,991,380 (the "'380 patent").  The asserted claims were directed to a two-way global satellite emergency monitoring and reporting system comprised of two major components:  a user unit and a monitoring system.  BriarTek alleged that DeLorme's inReach messaging devices – the user unit – infringed the '380 patent when used with other components of the patented system.  DeLorme decided to move its manufacturing operations from Taiwan to Maine, and therefore sought to resolve the ITC investigation through a consent order in which DeLorme agreed not to import or sell after importation "any two-way global satellite communication devices, system, and components thereof, that infringe claims 1, 2, 5, 10-12, and 34 of the '380 patent after April 1, 2013, until the expiration, invalidation, and/or unenforceability of the '380 patent."

Immediately following entry of the consent order and termination of the investigation, BriarTek filed an enforcement complaint on April 10, 2013.  The enforcement proceeding challenged DeLorme's domestic assembly of its inReach devices using various imported components.  One model was assembled almost entirely from imported parts:  an Iridium modem and antenna, a keypad, battery and the plastic housing; a second model used only two imported components — the plastic housing and a clip to hold the device on a user's belt.  Following discovery, an evidentiary hearing and an Initial Determination by Judge Lord, the Commission issued an opinion and order on June 9, 2014.  The Commission found that DeLorme violated the consent order and induced infringement by selling the domestically assembled devices with imported components to end users with instructions to use the entire system in an infringing manner.  The Commission rejected DeLorme's arguments that it did not violate the consent order because the imported plastic housing and belt clip did not, by themselves infringe, finding them to be "components" whose importation and sale were barred by the consent order.  The Commission found 227 days of violation, and imposed a civil penalty of $27,500 per day, for a total of $6,242,500.

In the meantime, in May 2013, DeLorme filed a declaratory judgment action in the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking to invalidate BriarTek's '380 patent.  Following motions for summary judgment, the district court entered judgment on November 19, 2014, finding the asserted claims of the '380 patent invalid.  BriarTek's appeal of the invalidity judgment was heard on the same day as DeLorme's appeal of the ITC penalty.

The Oral Argument

Although DeLorme offered arguments that clearly non-infringing components such as a belt clip cannot be the basis of a finding of violation, and that its good faith belief in the invalidity of the '380 patent precluded the finding of induced infringement, the oral argument focused almost exclusively on the effect of the district court's judgment of invalidity.

DeLorme argued that it cannot be found to violate Section 337 based on alleged infringement of an invalid patent.  DeLorme distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Commil that "belief regarding validity cannot negate the scienter required under § 271(b)"1 by relying on  Section 337(a)(1)(B), which expressly prohibits infringement of "a valid and enforceable" patent. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B).

The Court focused on the fact that the district court judgment was rendered several months after the ITC's finding of a consent order violation.  Judge Moore asked, assuming the Commission was otherwise correct in its decision, if the violation could "disappear" based on a later district court decision.  DeLorme argued that since civil penalties for violation of orders under Section 337(f) derive their authority from Section 337(a), the adjudicated invalidity of the '380 patent required reversal of the consent order violation finding and the $6.2 million penalty.  Judge Taranto questioned that analysis, pointing out that DeLorme had, as all ITC consent orders require, given up its right to challenge validity at the ITC.  Judge Taranto noted that DeLorme's Section 337(f) argument would mean that validity could be litigated in an enforcement action, and that "cannot be."

Judge Moore also noted that the consent order expressly stated it would not apply with respect to any claim that had been adjudicated invalid provided the adjudication was "final and non-reviewable."  She questioned how the district court's decision could terminate the ITC's consent order prohibitions while that decision was on appeal.

DeLorme and the Court appeared to agree that the consent order was ambiguous regarding the retrospective vs. prospective effect of a subsequent judgment of invalidity, although DeLorme argued that the jurisdictional limit of the Commission to reach a decision about unfair acts (e.g. infringement of a valid patent)meant that the invalidation must apply retrospectively.

DeLorme argued that the Federal Circuit's opinion in ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 789 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015), supported the conclusion that the ITC penalty could not stand.  In ePlus, the Federal Circuit vacated an injunction and contempt order because both were based on a claim that had been cancelled by the PTO during reexamination.  Judge Moore questioned the applicability of ePlus, noting that the case involved civil contempt.  She noted that while a civil fine of a compensatory nature could be vacated on the basis of subsequent events, as in ePlus, a punitive fine should not be reversed.  Recognizing that the ITC order was termed a "civil penalty," Judge Moore nevertheless pressed counsel for the parties to show whether the penalty in this case was compensatory or punitive.  The fine, if paid, would go to the ITC, not to BriarTek, but DeLorme relied on the "civil" label.  Counsel for the ITC could not say whether the fine was punitive, and suggested that the case should be remanded so the ITC could consider in the first instance what effect, if any, the subsequent district court judgment should have.  Counsel for the ITC stated that the consent order could not be viewed as a judicial decree or injunction because there had been no underlying finding or admission of wrongdoing.  Rather, he argued the consent order should essentially be viewed as a contract.

The Court questioned the ITC's request for remand rather than affirmance inasmuch as the interpretation of the consent order was a question of law.  Counsel for the ITC could not say whether the Commission would conclude that the district court judgment had retrospective or prospective effect because the Commission would have to consider input from the parties and deliberate before taking a position.  When Judge Moore noted that the consent order states it applies "until" the patent is invalidated, counsel for the ITC responded that while that is what the order appears to say, he could not state what the final position of the Commission would be.  He noted that the "until" language in the consent order was not standard, and asserted that was a further reason for remand so the Commission could consider its effect.  DeLorme concluded the hearing by arguing that remand was not necessary and reiterating its position that the consent order cannot be interpreted so as to exceed the Commission's authority to find violations based on infringement of valid patents.

The Court took the case under submission.

Footnote

1 Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys. Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920, 1928 (2015).

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

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.

Authors
Charles S. Barquist
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions