ALJ Shaw Issues Final Initial Determination Of No Violation Of Section 337 In Certain UMTS And LTE Cellular Communication Modules (337-TA-1240) – Patent

On April 28, 2022, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of his April 1, 2022 final
initial determination (“ID”) finding no violation of
Section 337 in Certain UMTS and LTE Cellular Communication
Modules and Components Thereof  (Inv. No.
337-TA-1240).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a December
17, 2020 complaint filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V. of the
Netherlands and Philips RS North America LLC (f/k/a Respironics,
Inc.) of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (collectively,
“Complainants”) alleging a violation of Section 337 by
ten respondents in the unlawful importation/sale of certain UMTS
and LTE cellular communication modules and products containing the
same that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,831,271 (“the ‘271
patent”); 8,199,711 (“the ‘711 patent”);
7,554,943 (“the ‘943 patent”); and 7,944,935
(“the ‘935 patent”). The asserted patents generally
relate to improved methods and devices to enable flexible and
efficient multiplexing of data packets, and solve various problems
in radio and mobile communications systems. See 
our February 19, 2021 post for more details
regarding the complaint and Notice of Investigation.

According to the ID, ALJ Shaw found no violation of Section 337
based on the following conclusions of law:

1. The Commission has subject matter, personal, and in
   rem  jurisdiction in this investigation.




2. The accused products have been imported or sold for importation
   into the United States.




3. The accused products do not infringe the asserted claims
   (method claims 1-3, and apparatus claims 9-11, and 17) of the
   ‘935 patent.




4. The accused products do not infringe the asserted claim
   (apparatus claim 12) of the ‘943 patent and asserted claims
   (apparatus claim 9 and method claim 12) of the ‘711
   patent.




5. The accused products do not infringe the asserted claims
   (method claims 1-4 and apparatus claims 5-8) of the ‘271
   patent.




6. The domestic industry requirement has not been satisfied with
   respect to any of the asserted patents.




7. It has not been shown by clear and convincing evidence that the
   asserted claims of the asserted patents are patent ineligible under
   35 U.S.C. § 101.




8. It has not been shown by clear and convincing evidence that the
   asserted claims of the ‘935 patent are invalid.




9. It has been shown by clear and convincing evidence that
   asserted claim 12 of the ‘943 patent and asserted claim 9 of
   the ‘711 patent are indefinite.




10. It has been shown by clear and convincing evidence that claims
    9 and 12 of the ‘711 patent are rendered obvious by certain
    prior art references.




11. It has been shown by clear and convincing evidence that
    asserted claims 1-8 of the ‘271 patent are indefinite.




12. It has been shown by clear and convincing evidence that the
    four asserted patents are unenforceable under the doctrine of
    implied waiver.




13. Complainants have not granted express and/or implied license to
    the asserted patents.




14. Complainants are not equitably estopped from seeking an
    exclusion order against respondents.

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.