Customer Support: 800-526-4902
 
Home > Legal Library > Article




Join Matindale-Hubbell Connected


ITC Decides To Not Review Remand Initial Determination In Certain Gaming And Entertainment Consoles (337-TA-752)




by:
Eric W. Schweibenz
Thomas C. Yebernetsky
Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office

 
June 5, 2013

Previously published on June 3, 2013

On May 23, 2013, the International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) issued a notice determining not to review the Remand Initial Determination (“RID”) in Certain Gaming and Entertainment Consoles, Related Software, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-752).

By way of background, the investigation was instituted on December 23, 2010 based on a complainant filed by Motorola Mobility, Inc. and General Instrument Corporation (collectively “Motorola”) against Respondent Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”).  Motorola alleged a violation of Section 337 in the importations into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain gaming and entertainment consoles, related software, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,069,896 (the ‘896 patent); 7,162,094 (the ‘094 patent); 6,980,596 (the ‘596 patent); 5,357,571 (the ‘571 patent); and 5,319,712 (the ‘712 patent).  On April 23, 2012, ALJ David P. Shaw issued his final Initial Determination (“ID”), finding a violation of Section 337 by Microsoft of the assert claims of the ‘896, ‘094, ‘596, and ‘571 patents.  The Commission determined to review the ID in its entirety and remanded to the investigation back to ALJ Shaw to apply recent ITC case law.  In the months following the Commissions remand determination, ALJ Shaw granted two separate motions by Motorola, which terminated the investigation as to the ‘712, ‘571, ‘596, and ‘094 patents.  On March 22, 2013, ALJ Shaw issued his RID, which found no violation of Section 337 with respect to the asserted claims of the only remain patent, the ‘896 patent.

Following a review of the parties’ petitions for review and responses, the Commission determined not to review the RID.  The Commission affirmed ALJ Shaw’s findings that:  (1) Motorola waived its indirect infringement argument, (2) Motorola failed to prove indirect infringement on the merits, and (3) Motorola failed to prove indirect infringement on the merits during the remand proceeding.  Accordingly, the Commission held that there is no violation of Section 337 with respect to the ‘896 patent and terminated the investigation.



 

The views expressed in this document are solely the views of the author and not Martindale-Hubbell. This document is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.
 

View More Library Documents By...

 
Author
 
Eric W. Schweibenz
Thomas C. Yebernetsky
Practice Area
 
Intellectual Property
 
Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. Overview


 

Practice Area Resource Centers
Visit our Practice Area Resource Centers to view practice area specific content compiled from a variety of legal sources. Find related articles, podcasts, industry leader insights and much more. We currently offer the following Practice Areas:Litigation;Intellectual Property;Real Estate;Corporate Law;Criminal Law;Bankruptcy;Immigration;Business Law;Insurance;Taxation;Labor & Employment;Commercial Law;Medical Malpractice;Trusts & Estates;Securities;International Law ;Health Care;Environmental Law;Construction Law;Workers' Compensation