Copyright troll Rightraven has been ordered by a judge in Nevada to forfeit all of its intellectual property in order to pay its debts, Wired reported. The company was established in 2010 with the goal of suing blogs that republish sections of newspaper articles without permission. Rightraven saw early success and secured a number of small settlements for its clients, but it never won a case that was brought to trial, instead amassing debts amounting to approximately $200,000 owed to various defendants. The company’s domain name was auctioned off last year in an effort to begin raising money, but it sold for just $3,000. Now, U.S. District Judge Philip M. Pro has ordered Righthaven to surrender its 278 copyrighted articles to the court so they can be sold at auction, the proceeds of which will be used to pay as much of the company’s debt as possible.

Read

Lemko Corporation, a private software and systems developer, on Wednesday filed a complaint against Motorola Mobility alleging that it stole trade secrets and is financially benefiting from the misappropriation of Lemko’s source code. The company claims that Motorola hired an engineer who developed unique, protected code while employed by Lemko, and proceeded to implement the source code on Motorola’s servers without licensing the technology. The code in question relates to server side network-based positioning technology. Read on for more.

“Lemko is committed to protecting itself against the theft of its software,” Lemko’s Raymond Minkus said in a statement. ”Lemko will vigorously defend its intellectual property rights and will exercise its legal rights to prevent Motorola’s illegal sale which would result in the fraudulent conveyance of our source code to Google.”

The complaint goes on to allege that Motorola admitted to Lemko that the code in question was present on its servers, and later attempted to conceal the unauthorized use of this technology by moving related development work to China. “By destroying evidence of its misappropriation, Motorola has also engaged in willful, deliberate and malicious conduct and is, therefore, subject to increased damages under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, 765 I.L.C.S. Section 165/4(b),” Lemko’s complaint states. “Motorola’s conduct was done voluntarily and intentionally and its misappropriation is not the result of a mistake or accident. Further, Motorola’s acts were malicious, in that they were accompanied by a conscious and wanton disregard of Lemko’s rights.”

Based in Schaumburg, Illinois, Lemko bills itself as “a premier IP software company that provides a complete mobile system on a server at the cell site (RAN) distributing the core intelligence to the edge and fulfilling the ITU’s vision for 4G next generation networks.” This new complaint is the latest move in an ongoing legal battle between Lemko and Motorola Inc. that has lasted more than three years. The company’s full press release follows below.

Lemko Alleges Motorola Mobility
Using Stolen Source Code In Cellular Phones;
Complaint Details “Intentional” Misappropriation,
International Transfer For Commercialization

CHICAGO, IL (November 17, 2011) –  Lemko Corporation, a small US
developer of cellular broadband networking software and systems, filed
suit today in Cook County Circuit Court alleging that Motorola
Mobility Holdings, Inc., is financially benefitting from the use of
misappropriated trade secrets in all cellular phones.

The complaint details the alleged pilfering of Lemko’s network-based,
position-determining entity (“PDE”) source code by Motorola Mobility
and its predecessor Motorola, Inc.  The complaint provides the
specific chronology, including Motorola’s hiring of a Lemko engineer
responsible for creating the unique code and the surreptitious actions
of exporting the secret source code to Motorola’s operations in China.

Lemko’s unique software-based PDE and accompanying source code can be
embedded in every base station and in every cellular phone. Lemko’s
PDE system when combined with A-GPS technology helps determine a
cell phone’s precise geo-location. The ability to calculate and send
location information is central to the success of timely response to
E911 emergency calls and many other appications that use geo-location.

The complaint is the first brought by Lemko against Motorola Mobility,
based in Libertyville, IL., which was created in January 2011 upon the
break up of Motorola, Inc. It has been widely reported that Motorola
Mobility is in the process of being sold to Google for $12.5 billion,
mainly for its cellular patents and intellectual property.

Raymond Minkus, spokesman for Lemko, said, “Lemko is committed to
protecting itself against the theft of its software.  Lemko will
vigorously defend its intellectual property rights and will exercise
its legal rights to prevent Motorola’s illegal sale which would result
in the fraudulent conveyance of our source code to Google.”

The suit alleges that Motorola has admitted that Lemko’s secret source
code was present on the company’s servers.  The complaint further
alleges that Motorola sought to conceal its use of Lemko’s secret
source code by exporting it to its China labs and by having Motorola’s
Chinese engineering team integrate the code into its cellular phones.
The complaint asserts Motorola built the Lemko source code into at
least one Motorola handset and tested it on the Sprint network.

Moreover, Motorola is accused of subsequently deleting and destroying
evidence of the code’s usage.

“By destroying evidence of its misappropriation, Motorola has also
engaged in willful, deliberate and malicious conduct and is,
therefore, subject to increased damages under the Illinois Trade
Secrets Act, 765 I.L.C.S. Section 165/4(b),” the complaint states.
“Motorola’s conduct was done voluntarily and intentionally and its
misappropriation is not the result of a mistake or accident.  Further,
Motorola’s acts were malicious, in that they were accompanied by a
conscious and wanton disregard of Lemko’s rights.”

Lemko Corporation (http://www.lemko.com) is dedicated to creating and
providing comprehensive broadband cellular solutions to rural
communities, areas ravaged by disaster and for other special
situations where small subscriber bases and / or problematic events
require lower cost yet easy to implement solutions.

Lemko’s proprietary IP software provides core 4G network technology
that equips carriers, emergency response teams and other mission
critical users of Lemko’s patented “game changing” technology, with
the ability to quickly, easily and economically deploy next generation
mobile broadband systems.

Apple and Samsung are among the companies expected to take part in an upcoming sealed-bid auction of RPO’s manufacturing assets and patent portfolio, which covers technology surrounding the company’s Digital Waveguide Touch (DWT) solution. California-based RPO Inc. filed for bankruptcy in April of this year, and an auction to liquidate its protected manufacturing processes and IP portfolio will take place on November 3rd. The company’s DWT technology, which is touted as a superior touch solution that eliminates the need for a touch-sensitive layer, is seen as appealing to Apple, Samsung and other vendors seeking new methods to improve their smartphone and tablet displays. Read on for more.

RPO’s DWT technology records touch input from a finger or stylus by registering interruptions in projected beams of light that are invisible to the naked eye. Because it eliminates the need for a touch-sensitive layer, the technology is said to be more power efficient than current resistive and capacitive touchscreen technologies. RPO also claims its technology makes displays brighter than competitive offerings, with better contrast as well.

“Apple is expected to emerge as a top contender for the DWT patents and manufacturing equipment,” technology research firm iRunway wrote in its analysis of the auction. “The absence of a touch overlay would allow Apple to show off the full capability of their Retina display screens, which are currently produced by LG Display.”

IRunway notes that the capacitive technology currently used in Apple’s iPhone and other smartphones was initially developed for use by graphic artists. “As revolutionary as the iPhone’s retina display is, it is at best a close second when compared against to the new Super AMOLED display sported by the latest Samsung smartphones,” the firm wrote. “A DWT touch screen in place of a traditional semitransparent capacitive touch overlay can give Apple back its competitive advantage at least in the display area. Apple’s motivation will be particularly acute, considering that Samsung recently showcased its own Retina resolution display.”

Samsung also stands to gain from the technology according to iRunway’s report, but not necessarily for the same reason. While DWT might offer benefits for Samsung’s entry-level displays, implementing DWT into its line high-end of Super AMOLED displays is not seen as a cost-effective option. Instead, Samsung could step in and acquire RPO’s patents to block its competitors from purchasing the technology, iRunway says.

“The RPO auction will undoubtedly fuel the ongoing smartphone/tablet wars and is set to be highly contested not only for its technology but also for the strategic and legal advantage it will provide for the winning bidder,” RPO’s report concludes. “Even though it will not hugely upset the playing field, the importance of even incremental improvements in an instantly gratifying spec can never be undermined.”

Microsoft’s alleged strategy of forcing Android partners into intellectual property licensing deals with threats of legal action is once again under fire. In a report released on Friday, intellectual property management firm M-CAM offered a no-holds-barred analysis of Microsoft’s “license or we sue” strategy. The firm said Microsoft is offsetting its own failures in the mobile space by forcing more successful companies to pay royalties on Android device sales, and it likened Microsoft’s strategy to that of “a deranged Easter Bunny.” Read on for more.

Microsoft “has entered into more than 700 licensing agreements and continues to develop programs that make it possible for customers, partners and competitors to access its growing, broad patent and IP portfolio,” the company notes on its website, but M-CAM calls this assessment a deranged marketing ploy.

“It’s like a creepy dude in an Easter bunny suit offering eggs, and them throwing them if the passerby refuses to take one,” M-CAM wrote in its report. “This strategy of ‘license or we sue’ is working for them though, since Microsoft’s likely ‘received five times more income from Android than from Windows Phone’ – and this just from HTC phone sales!”

It has been estimated in the past that Microsoft at one point earned five times more money from Android licensing deals than from its own mobile platform, and the Redmond, Washington-based software giant has announced numerous licensing deals since that estimate was made.

M-CAM curiously suggests that the success of Microsoft’s patent licensing strategy is due at least in part to a lack of licensees’ willingness to to comb through Microsoft’s massive patent portfolio. “This strategy is working because, really, how many manufacturers are going to look through not only Microsoft’s 10,000 plus patents, but their own sizeable [sic] portfolios as well, just to determine which patents they may or may not be infringing? We doubt even Microsoft’s patent lawyers know what’s in their own portfolio, let alone what’s in their competitors’.”

Microsoft on Sunday announced a new licensing deal with ODM Compal that covers Android and Chrome devices. It already had a similar deal in place with Quanta, and M-CAM ponders whether or not Amazon should be worried. BGR reported last month that Microsoft’s prior deals with Amazon will not cover the retailer’s upcoming Kindle Fire tablet, but that it would likely pursue a new licensing agreement.

A Samsung executive has gone on record in stating that the South Korea-based electronics giant plans to take a more active role in combating Apple in the companies’ ongoing war. “We’ll be pursuing our rights for this in a more aggressive way from now on,” Lee Younghee, head of global marketing for mobile communications, told the Associated Press in an interview on Friday. Lee stated that Apple has been “free riding” on Samsung’s wireless patents and the company will finally take a more proactive stance in defending its intellectual property. Read on for more.

“We’ve been quite respectful and also passive in a way” Lee told the AP. “However, we shouldn’t be … anymore.” The executive’s comments follow news that Samsung is already planning an assault on Apple’s next-generation iPhone 5, which is set to be unveiled at a press conference early next month.

Apple has been the aggressor in the ongoing patent dispute between the two technology giants, and the firm has scored some significant victories in recent months. Moreover, the patent battle between the two companies has caused Apple to decrease its dependence on Samsung as a component supplier, which could cost the South Korean company billions. Samsung’s passive stance to date may have resulted from the company’s effort to keep Apple’s business, and now that the Cupertino firm is looking elsewhere for parts, Samsung will finally turn up the heat.

But Apple sees things differently. “It is no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging,” Apple spokesman Steve Park said to the AP. “This kind of blatant copying is wrong and we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”

Despite the company’s legal troubles with Apple, Lee sees a bright future ahead for Samsung and its Android-based GALAXY lineup of smartphones and tablets. “We are striving to continue this growth momentum and someday we can imagine that we can be in the leading position,” she said. Market analysis firm Strategy Analytics suggested in July that Samsung’s smartphone business grew 520% by shipment volume between the second quarters of 2010 and 2011.

Read

Back in July — less than a week after Google’s general counsel Kevin Walker took to the company’s blog to launch a war of words against rivals and their patent trolling — Google bought more than 1,000 patents from IBM’s portfolio. This past Tuesday, the U.S. Patent Office published records showing that the tech giant has purchased another 1,023 patents from IBM, this time covering technologies that range from “COMMUNICATIONS ON A NETWORK” to “SELF-ALIGNED DOUBLE-GATE MOSFET BY SELECTIVE EPITAXY AND SILICON WAFER BONDING TECHNIQUES.” The IP transfer took place last month, Bloomberg reports. This move is the latest in a long line of steps Google is taking to protect Android and its partners, the most high-profile of which is its current effort to acquire Motorola Mobility and its massive portfolio of 25,000 issued and pending patents.

[Via Bloomberg]

Read

Dutch technology news site Webwereld on Friday uncovered new images that suggest Apple may again be tampering with photographic evidence used in its case against Samsung. In this instance, it appears as though an image submitted to a court in the Netherlands intentionally misrepresents the South Korea-based company’s Galaxy S II smartphone. While the Galaxy S II is both wider and taller than Apple’s iPhone 3GS, the image Apple submitted as evidence shows a device that is exactly the same height as the iPhone that appears next to it. This past Monday, Webwereld revealed that Apple may have altered the dimensions of an image of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in an effort to make it look more like the iPad when submitted as evidence to a German court. While that instance seemed extremely dubious — Apple’s legal team actually presented an image where the physical proportions of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 were altered to match the iPad — the Galaxy S II image seen above appears to just be reduced in size. The accusations are serious nonetheless, and Samsung’s legal team is undoubtedly examining the images in order to determine whether or not to take action.

Read

It’s only Tuesday, but the big news this week is already behind us: Google intends to shell out $12.5 billion to acquire Motorola Mobility and its portfolio of roughly 25,000 patents. The deal was covered far and wide, but some of the most interesting thoughts surrounding the news came late Monday night from Apple pundit John Gruber. The initial intent of Gruber’s piece was to point out the irony of reporter Dan Lyons’ repeated use of baseless speculation in an effort to discredit “Apple fanboy MG Siegler” of TechCrunch, but it evolved into an interesting commentary on the acquisition itself. Moreover, it brings a few interesting observations to light that went widely overlooked in yesterday’s coverage of the deal. BGR noted yesterday that it was curious Google chose to spend a fortune — nearly two times its 2010 profits, as Gruber points out — to acquire Motorola rather than licensing its patents. The answer might just be that Google, despite its size, was not in a position of power with this deal, and saving Android in the face of unending patent complaints became its top priority. Read on for more.

With Apple and Microsoft using patents as a weapon in an effort to slow competition from Android vendors and even block the sale of their products, Google had to act. The company’s odd public patent spat ended up being a prelude to something more — something much more: a massive $12.5 billion acquisition. Of course this purchase will give Google the ability to create an end-to-end Android experience across smartphones, tablets and Google TV boxes that represent its vision more precisely, but many experts agree that this was not the driving force behind the deal. Instead, it was Motorola’s massive patent portfolio, which will arm Google with the means to defend Android and its partners. With this in mind, it now makes sense that Google was willing to part with $12.5 billion to buy a struggling smartphone vendor that reported an operating loss of $85 million last quarter. It also might explain how Motorola Mobility managed to work out a sale rather than a licensing deal.

“I think Motorola knew they had Google by the balls,” Gruber wrote on Daring Fireball. “Google needed Motorola’s patent library to defend Android as a whole, Motorola knew it, and they made Google pay and pay handsomely.” He also notes that during the company’s negotiations with Google — which only took place over the past five weeks according to a report from GigaOm — CEO Sanjay Jha publicly spoke of Motorola’s interest in Microsoft’s Windows Phone platform, and even openly threatened to use Motorola’s IP to wage war on other Android vendors. In this context, Jha was asserting power and giving Google ultimatums. Gruber continued, ”I don’t think it’s curious at all why Google didn’t simply license Motorola’s patents. Motorola held out for a full acquisition at a premium far above the company’s actual value, and threatened to go after its sibling Android partners if Google didn’t acquiesce. Thus the public threats from Jha and Icahn. Thus the high price. Thus the lack of a simpler, cheaper licensing agreement. Thus the unusual $2.5 billion reverse breakup fee.”

In the end, Motorola may have just played an incredible game of chess with Google, a company that identified Motorola’s patent war chest as its best line of defense against Apple, Microsoft and even a patent battle that was brewing within the ranks of its Android partners. Motorola has been behind some of the most popular smartphones in Android’s short history, and yet it is still unable to turn a profit. Now that Samsung and HTC have emerged as clear leaders in the Android space, Motorola might have seen a potential acquisition as its best chance to create a return for investors. And so by denying Google the ability to license its patents and forcing Google’s hand, an acquisition of Motorola Mobility might have become the only way for Google to ultimately save Android from patent predators like Apple.

In a post penned by Larry Page on Google’s company blog, the CEO explains why Google decided to shell out $12.5 billion to purchase smartphone vendor Motorola Mobility. While Page had plenty to say about Motorola’s extensive history and its leading role in Android’s explosive growth, he also points to what many believe to be one of the leading factors behind the deal: patents. “We recently explained how companies including Microsoft and Apple are banding together in anti-competitive patent attacks on Android,” the CEO wrote on Google’s blog. “The U.S. Department of Justice had to intervene in the results of one recent patent auction to ‘protect competition and innovation in the open source software community’ and it is currently looking into the results of the Nortel auction. Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google’s patent portfolio, which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies.” Read on for more.

Regarding where this deal might leave other big Android partners such as Samsung and HTC, Page was sure to indicate that Google’s acquisition of Motorola Mobility will not push them out of the space. “This acquisition will not change our commitment to run Android as an open platform,” Page noted in his post. “Motorola will remain a licensee of Android and Android will remain open. We will run Motorola as a separate business. Many hardware partners have contributed to Android’s success and we look forward to continuing to work with all of them to deliver outstanding user experiences.” Google is obviously looking to build a scenario where it can control the end-to-end Android user experience as a result of this acquisition, but it also appears that the company is looking to protect the Android ecosystem as a whole by using patents obtained through the deal to fight off assailants like Apple and Microsoft.

Read

German news outlet Financial Informer reported on Tuesday that Apple has won a preliminary injunction to stop the sale of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in the whole of the European Union except for the Netherlands. The Regional Court of Düsseldorf appears to have sided with Apple’s claims that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringes on intellectual property related to the design of Apple’s iPad. Apple has a similar ongoing lawsuit in the Netherlands. Should Samsung continue to sell the tablet, the company could face fines of up to $350,000 for each violation. Foss Patents said the ruling in Germany will go into effect immediately, although Samsung could appeal the decision during another hearing. On August 1st, Apple blocked Samsung from selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia until courts there rule on whether or not the tablet infringes on 10 of Apple’s patents. Samsung agreed not to advertise or sell the device and Apple will pay damages if the South Korean company wins the Australian case.

[Via Foss Patents]

Read

Microsoft’s Communications boss Frank X. Shaw on Thursday responded to an update posted by Google’s Chief Legal Officer David Drummond, which was written in response to Microsoft’s General Counsel Brad Smith’s response to Drummond’s initial claim that Microsoft and Apple were playing dirty with patents. Catch all that? Here’s the gist of it: Google’s David Drummond wrote on Wednesday that Microsoft, Apple and others were “banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the ‘CPTN’ group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the ‘Rockstar’ group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them.” Microsoft’s Frank X. Shaw and Brad Smith each responded on Twitter, saying that Google was invited to the patent party but the company declined the invitation. On Thursday, Drummond updated his original post on the Google blog, stating that Microsoft and Apple’s invitation was disingenuous. Had Google joined the group that purchased the patents, Drummond explained, the joint acquisition would have “eliminated any protection these patents could offer to Android against attacks from Microsoft and its bidding partners.”

Microsoft’s Shaw then shot back on Twitter, saying that Drummond is a liar and Google didn’t joint the group because it wanted the patents all to itself (of course Google’s bids in the Nortel patent auction were seemingly intended to merely drive up the price of the portfolio; it bid $Pi billion at one point). The bottom line is it’s all ridiculous, and each company is out to protect its own interests as can only be expected. It would be great if tech giants could fire all their patent attorneys and build innovative products without having to weave through an obstacle course of patents, but that will never happen under the current system. In the meantime, companies will keep suing each other and in the end, everyone — including end users — loses.

Read [Google's response to Microsoft's response to Google] Read [Microsoft's response to Google's response to Microsoft's response to Google]

Thanks to royalty payments from awards related to patent complaints against HTC, Microsoft is estimated to have made three times more revenue from sales of HTC’s Android phones than it did from sales of Windows Phone licenses last quarter. Asymco analyst Horace Dediu estimated this past May that Microsoft had made five times more money from HTC’s Android phones than its own Windows Phone platform through the first quarter of this year. In the second quarter, Dediu says Microsoft made approximately $21 million from 1.4 million Windows Phone licenses at $15 a piece, while the company’s $5-per-device royalty from sales of 12 million HTC Android phones brought in $60 million in the quarter. Dediu’s numbers are based on Canalys’ Windows Phone shipment estimates and the 12.1 million handsets HTC says it shipped in the second quarter, though we’re not sure how the analyst determined that 12 million of those devices were Android phones. HTC also sells phones that run Microsoft’s Windows Phone operating system and phones based on Qualcomm’s Brew MP platform.

Read

Apple sat quiet following Google Chief Legal Officer David Drummond’s rant yesterday, as it always does, but Microsoft was not content letting Drummond air his grievances without responding. Drummond on Wednesday penned a post on Google’s blog claiming that Apple, Microsoft and other companies are joining together to “strangle” Android with patent complaints. With all of the patent-related lawsuits against Android partners right now, this certainly seems like a valid complaint. Highlighting a specific example, Drummond wrote that the companies are “banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the ‘Rockstar’ group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them.” Microsoft’s General Counsel Brad Smith disagreed, however, and he pointed out a gaping hole in Drummond’s argument: ”Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no,” Smith wrote on Twitter. Microsoft’s Corporate Communications boss Frank X. Shaw followed up Smith’s note by posting an image on Twitter of an email between Brad Smith and Google’s General Counsel Kent Walker where Walker refuses Microsoft’s invitation to bid on Nortel’s patent portfolio alongside Microsoft and other companies. The image of the email and a transcription of its contents can be seen below.

Brad –
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you — I came down with a 24-hour bug on the way back from San Antonio. After talking with people here, it sounds as though for various reasons a joint bid wouldn’t be advisable for us on this one. But I appreciate your flagging it, and we’re open to discussing other similar opportunities in the future.

I hope the rest of your travels go well, and I look forward to seeing you again soon.
– Kent

Read [Smith tweet] Read [Shaw tweet]

Samsung announced on Tuesday that it has purchased Grandis, a maker of spin transfer torque random access memory (STT-RAM). Grandis will be wrapped inside Samsung’s existing research and development branch where it will continue to work on memory semiconductor technology. According to its website, Grandis “holds a unique, broad patent portfolio in STT-RAM, including key fundamental and practical implementation patents, and licenses its IP to technology companies that design, develop and manufacture a variety of products incorporating stand-alone and embedded STT-RAM memory,” so we wouldn’t be surprised if Samsung made the purchase in an effort to boost its patent portfolio as part of ongoing legal battles with Apple. Details of the acquisition were not revealed and Samsung said the purchase is effective as of late July. Read on for the full press release.

Samsung Electronics Acquires Grandis, Inc.

SEOUL, South Korea-

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the world leader in advanced memory technology, today announced acquisition of Grandis, Inc. (based in Silicon Valley, California), a leader in spin transfer torque random access memory (STT-RAM). Grandis will be merged into those Samsung’s R&D operations that are focused on developing the next evolution of memory, where new semiconductor materials and structures are reviewed for their long-term commercial value. With its expertise in next-generation memory solutions and strong technical capabilities, Grandis will contribute to Samsung’s continued development of cutting-edge memory semiconductor technologies and become a key part of the company’s global R&D network.

Effective late July, the acquisition includes the full scope of technology, assets and human resources under Grandis, Inc. Further details of the transaction were not disclosed.

The U.S. International Trade Commission on Tuesday announced that it will launch an investigation into whether or not multiple Samsung products infringe on Apple patents. “The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain electronic digital media devices and components thereof,” the Commission said in a statement. “The products at issue in this investigation include mobile phone handsets and tablet computers, in addition to components such as software, touchpads, and hardware interfaces.” Apple has filed multiple complaints with the ITC, U.S. courts and international agencies claiming that several Samsung devices are “copycat” products that infringe on Apple patents and copy its designs. Samsung struck back in nearly every case, though the South Korea-based manufacturer did agree not to sell its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in Australia for the time being following a patent complaint filed there by Apple. Apple is also currently at war with several other vendors over patents, including HTC. The ITC’s full news release follows below.

USITC INSTITUTES SECTION 337 INVESTIGATION ON CERTAIN ELECTRONIC DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICES AND COMPONENTS THEREOF

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain electronic digital media devices and components thereof. The products at issue in this investigation include mobile phone handsets and tablet computers, in addition to components such as software, touchpads, and hardware interfaces.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by Apple Inc. of Cupertino, CA, on July 5, 2011. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain electronic digital media devices and components thereof that infringe patents asserted by Apple. The complainant requests that the USITC issue an exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

The USITC has identified the following as respondents in this investigation:

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., of Korea;
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., of Ridgefield Park, NJ; and
Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, of Richardson, TX.

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-796), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC’s Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC’s five administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission.

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.