• Cross Match Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Biometric Scanning Devices
  • May 18, 2010 | Author: Eric W. Schweibenz
  • Law Firm: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office
  • On May 11, 2010, Cross Match Technologies, Inc. of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida (“Cross Match”) filed a complaint  requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

    The complaint alleges that Suprema, Inc. of South Korea (“Suprema”) and Mentalix, Inc. of Plano, Texas (“Mentalix”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain biometric scanning devices, components thereof, associated software, and products containing the same, (collectively, the “accused products”) which allegedly infringe Cross Match’s U.S. Patent Nos. 5,900,993, 6,483,932, 7,203,344, and 7,277,562 (collectively, the “Cross Match Patents”).

    According to the complaint, the Cross Match Patents relate to “innovative devices used to capture and process the unique physiological characteristics, including fingerprints and palmprints, of individuals to verify their identities.”  In particular, the inventions relate to lens systems for use in fingerprint detection, a method and apparatus for rolled fingerprint capture, and a biometric imaging and scanning method.

    In the complaint, Cross Match alleges that Suprema (or others on its behalf) manufactures, assembles, and/or packages the accused products in Korea and then imports them into the U.S., sells them for importation into the U.S., and/or sells them after importation into the U.S.  Cross Match further alleges that Mentalix has imported, will imminently import, and/or has sold or offered for sale after importation into the U.S. Suprema’s accused products.

    Cross Match states in the complaint that it sued Suprema and Mentalix for infringement of the same Cross Match Patents on February 10, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and that the district court litigation is ongoing.  Cross Match further states in the complaint that a European counterpart to U.S. Patent No. 7,277,562 was the subject of an opposition proceeding in Europe that resulted in all claims being affirmed, and that the decision in that opposition proceeding is currently being appealed.

    Regarding domestic industry, Cross Match states that it conducts significant domestic activities in the U.S. relating to products that practice the Cross Match Patents.  According to Cross Match, it sells products covered by the asserted patents in the U.S. to private financial institutions, local law enforcement, schools, and the U.S. federal government.  Further, Cross Match’s research, design, manufacturing, and business operations relating to the asserted patents and products that practice the same are located primarily in Florida.

    Regarding potential remedy, Cross Match requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease-and-desist order directed at Suprema and Mentalix.