- ALJ Pender Issues Remand Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337 by Apple in Certain Wireless Communication Devices (337-TA-745)
- January 3, 2013 | Authors: Eric W. Schweibenz; Thomas C. Yebernetsky
- Law Firm: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office
On December 18, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination on Remand (the “Remand ID”) in Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-745).
By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“Motorola”) and the Respondent is Apple Inc. (“Apple”). On May 16, 2012, ALJ Pender issued an initial determination (“ID”) finding that a violation of Section 337 had occurred by Apple regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,246,697. However, ALJ Pender found no violation of Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,272,333, 6,246,862 (the ‘862 patent), and 5,636,223. See our May 31, 2012 post for more details on the ID. On September 17, 2012, the Commission issued a notice determining to affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand-in-part the findings in the ID. Specifically, the Commission remanded the case to the ALJ for further proceedings on claim construction, the remaining invalidity challenges, infringement, and domestic industry in relation to the ‘862 patent. See our September 20, 2012 post for more details on the Commission’s decision.
According to the notice, ALJ Pender determined that Apple did not violate Section 337 in connection with claim 1 of the ’862 patent. Specifically, ALJ Pender determined that (1) the accused products infringe claim 1 of the ’862 patent both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents; (2) claim 1 of the ’862 patent is invalid as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,052,464 (the ’464 patent) to Harris; (3) claim 1 of the ’862 patent is not obvious in light of the ’464 patent in combination with U.S. Patent No. 5,894,298 to Hoeksma; (4) claim 1 of the ’862 patent is not obvious in light of the ’464 patent in combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art; 5) the Droid 2 practices the ’862 patent; and 6) Motorola has satisfied the domestic industry requirement with regard to the ’862 patent.
The notice issued by ALJ Pender released only the first page and conclusions of law from the Remand ID. We will provide additional information after the public version of the Remand ID issues in its entirety.