Chief ALJ Bullock Finds No Section 337 Violations In Certain Electronic Amount Detectors (337-TA-1221) – Intellectual Property


United States: Chief ALJ Bullock Finds No Section 337 Violation in Certain Electronic Stud Detectors (337-TA-1221)

To print this article, simply register or connect to Mondaq.com.

On October 7, 2021, ALJ Chief Charles E. Bullock issued a notice regarding his Initial Determination (“ID”) of non-violation of Section 337 in Certain electronic stud finders, metal detectors and electronic scanners (Inv. N ° 337-TA-1221).

For your information, this investigation was initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by Zircon Corporation of Campbell, California, alleging violations of Section 337 based on the import / sale of certain stud finders. electronics, metal detectors and electrical scanners due to the violation of certain allegations. U.S. Patent No. 6,989,662 (“the ‘662 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,148,703 (“the ‘703 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,604,771 (“the ‘771 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 9,475,185 (“the ‘185 Patent”) to respondents Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. of New Britain, Connecticut and Black & Decker (US), Inc. of Towson, Maryland.

According to the opinion, the ID is based on the following legal conclusions:

  • Certain offending products infringe claims 1, 9 and 16 of the ‘662 patent.
  • Certain domestic industry products practice claims 1, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 of the ‘662 patent.
  • Claim 17 of the ‘662 patent is evidently invalid.
  • None of the accused products infringe the claimed claims of the ‘771 patent.
  • Certain domestic industry products practice claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 13-15 and 22 of the ‘771 patent.
  • None of the claimed claims of the ‘771 patent have been found to be invalid.
  • None of the accused products infringe the claimed claims of the ‘185 patent.
  • Certain domestic products practice claims 1, 2, 5-11, 13-15, 17 and 20-22 of the ‘185 patent.
  • No claimed claim of the ‘185 patent has been found to be invalid.
  • The economic aspect of the domestic industry requirement has not been met with respect to the claimed patents.

We will release the public version of the ID when it becomes available.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: United States Intellectual Property

Trademark Comparison Guide

Obhan & Associates

Trademark comparison guide for the jurisdiction of India, see our comparison guides section to compare multiple countries

An invalidated patent is still considered 102 (e) Art

Marshall, Gerstein & Borun srl

On May 28, 2021, the Federal Circuit found the claims of a telepharmacy patent evident, describing a process for a pharmacist to remotely supervise and approve the work of non-pharmacists when filling orders for medications.


Source link

Previous Early voting for the NJ begins on Saturday; a map and a list of each location
Next Windows 11 runs on a 15-year-old Intel Pentium 4 chip

No Comment

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *