• Lincoln Electric Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers
  • August 20, 2009 | Author: Eric W. Schweibenz
  • Law Firm: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office
  • On August 7, 2009, The Lincoln Electric Company, Inc. of Cleveland, Ohio and Lincoln Global Inc. of City of Industry, California (collectively, “Lincoln”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

    The complaint alleges that the following proposed respondents (collectively, “Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain bulk welding wire containers and components thereof and welding wire, which allegedly infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,260,781; 6,648,141; 6,708,864; 6,913,145; 7,309,038; 7,398,881; and 7,410,111:

    • Atlantic China Welding Consumables, Inc. of China
    • ESAB AB of Sweden
    • Hyundai Welding Co., Ltd of South Korea
    • Kiswel Co., Ltd. of South Korea
    • Sidergas SpA of Italy

    According to the complaint, all of the asserted patents relate generally to welding wire and/or the containers used to store and ship bulk quantities of coiled wire.

    In the complaint, Lincoln alleges that proposed respondent Atlantic China Welding Consumables, Inc. manufactures bulk wire overseas and sells the wire for importation into the U.S. in bulk wire containers that infringe certain claims of the asserted ‘781 and ‘864 patents.  Lincoln further alleges that proposed respondents Hyundai Welding Co., Ltd, and Kiswel Co., Ltd. manufacture bulk wire, bulk wire containers and components overseas and sell the filled containers for importation into the U.S. that infringe certain claims of the asserted ‘781 and ‘864 patents.  Additionally, Lincoln alleges that proposed respondent ESAB AB manufactures bulk wire, bulk wire containers and components overseas and sells the filled containers for importation into the U.S. that infringe certain claims of the asserted ‘781, ‘038, and ‘864 patents.  Lastly, Lincoln alleges that proposed respondent Sidergas SpA manufactures bulk wire, bulk wire containers and components thereof and exports these products for sale in the U.S. that infringe certain claims of the asserted ‘781, ‘141, ‘864, ‘145, ‘881, and ‘111 patents.

    Regarding domestic industry (economic prong), Lincoln alleges in its complaint that it “has made significant investments in plant, equipment, labor and capital relating to the manufacture of bulk wire containers covered by the asserted patents.”  Lincoln also alleges that it “has made substantial investments in the exploitation of the asserted patents, including engineering and research and development activities related to the construction of its bulk wire containers.” Further, Lincoln asserts that it satisfies the domestic industry (technical prong) requirement by practicing “one or more claims of each asserted patent.”

    In the complaint, Lincoln alleges that “the asserted patents are being asserted in a civil action filed in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, concurrently herewith, in which each of the Proposed Respondents have been named as defendants.”

    Regarding potential remedy, Lincoln asks that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed to all of the proposed respondents.