ITC Judge Rules Against HTC's Complaint Against Apple
HTC lost a patent infringement complaint filed against Apple in a preliminary decision at the U.S. International Trade Commission on Monday.
An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the ITC (United States International Trade Commission) has not found a violation by Apple in connection with four HTC patents. This relates to HTC's first ITC complaint against Apple, filed in May 2010 in response to Apple's March 2010 actions against HTC at the ITC and in federal court.
The four HTC patents include technologies for power management and phone dialing.
The administrative law judge, Charles Bullock, also said in his ruling that that the four HTC patents were valid.
"This is only one step of many in these legal proceedings. We are confident we have a strong case for the ITC appeals process and are fully prepared to protect our intellectual property," said Grace Lei, HTC general counsel in a statement.
"We look forward to resolving this case, so we can continue creating the most innovative mobile experiences for consumers."
The full commission will decide whether to uphold or reject the ITC judge's decision in February.
This is the text of the ITC's short announcement of the decision:
INITIAL DETERMINATION ON VIOLATION OF SECTION 337 AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION ON REMEDY AND BOND
Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge Charles E. Bullock
(October 17, 2011)
Pursuant to the Notice of Investigation, this is the Initial Determination in the matter of Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software, Investigation No. 337-TA-721.
For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned has determined that no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, has been found in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain portable electronic devices and related software by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 5,541,988; claims 8 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,320,957; claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,999,800; and claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 7,716,505. The undersigned has further determined that the asserted patents are valid, that a domestic industry in the United States exists that practices U.S. Patent Nos. 5,541,988 and 6,320,957, and that a domestic industry in the United States does not exist that practices U.S. Patent Nos. 6,999,800 and 7,716,505.
The four HTC patents include technologies for power management and phone dialing.
The administrative law judge, Charles Bullock, also said in his ruling that that the four HTC patents were valid.
"This is only one step of many in these legal proceedings. We are confident we have a strong case for the ITC appeals process and are fully prepared to protect our intellectual property," said Grace Lei, HTC general counsel in a statement.
"We look forward to resolving this case, so we can continue creating the most innovative mobile experiences for consumers."
The full commission will decide whether to uphold or reject the ITC judge's decision in February.
This is the text of the ITC's short announcement of the decision:
INITIAL DETERMINATION ON VIOLATION OF SECTION 337 AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION ON REMEDY AND BOND
Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge Charles E. Bullock
(October 17, 2011)
Pursuant to the Notice of Investigation, this is the Initial Determination in the matter of Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software, Investigation No. 337-TA-721.
For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned has determined that no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, has been found in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain portable electronic devices and related software by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 5,541,988; claims 8 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,320,957; claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,999,800; and claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 7,716,505. The undersigned has further determined that the asserted patents are valid, that a domestic industry in the United States exists that practices U.S. Patent Nos. 5,541,988 and 6,320,957, and that a domestic industry in the United States does not exist that practices U.S. Patent Nos. 6,999,800 and 7,716,505.
