Xie Xiaoping, Beijing - Every Economic Journal reporter. The American "337 Investigation" has struck again, with companies including Apple and HTC listed on the investigation roster.
On February 22, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) announced that it would launch a "337 Investigation" into three categories of products to determine whether there had been patent infringement. This investigation involved 50 American and overseas enterprises, including companies such as Apple and HTC, among which 13 were Chinese companies.
"We have already received relevant letters from the ITC and are currently in communication with them. We are not yet handling related legal matters," a relevant person from the implicated company Shanghai Haoqun Digital Technology Co., Ltd. told the Economic Daily.
Public relations personnel from Apple China and HTC also stated yesterday (February 23) that they had noticed relevant information from the ITC but declined to comment.
The ITC official information shows that the products involved in this "337 Investigation" include ink cartridges and components used for laser printing, camera phones, tablet computers, and other handheld image capturing and transmitting devices, as well as adjustable energy-saving fluorescent lamps and their products.
According to the ITC, Canon of Japan and its U.S. subsidiary, Eastman Kodak Company of the U.S., and Andrzej Bobel and Neptun Lighting Company of the U.S. separately filed complaints with the ITC earlier this year. They accused the above-mentioned imported products and those sold in the U.S. market of infringing on their patents and requested the initiation of a "337 Investigation."
According to reports by the Economic Daily, as early as January 10, Kodak had already sued Apple and HTC in court, claiming that these companies had infringed on Kodak's digital photo-related technology patents. At the same time, Kodak also complained to the ITC, claiming that HTC and Apple had infringed on Kodak's patents in terms of image collection and transmission and its components, demanding a halt to the importation of products including Apple's iPhone, iPad, HTC's Flyer tablet computer, and Wildfire S smartphone.
Based on the content of the lawsuit, Kodak claimed that Apple's iPad2, iPhone, and iPod Touch infringed on their patents, and HTC's tablets and mobile phones - including EVO View 4G, Jetstream, Vivid, Amaze 4G, Desire, Hero S, Rezound, Rhyme, Sensation 4G, and Wildfire S - also violated their patents.
Apple previously claimed that it was the true owner of the image preview patent. A company located in Cupertino, California, claimed that it developed digital cameras in the early 1990s, shared them with Kodak, and allowed Kodak to obtain the patent for this technology.
Apple argued that the ITC should not investigate this complaint because Kodak had applied for bankruptcy protection and planned to sell its patents and digital camera business.
However, Kodak did not agree. "Apple should not use the matter of bankruptcy protection to try to disrupt Kodak's actions against patent infringers like Apple. These infringers continue to infringe on Kodak's intellectual property and refuse to make reasonable compensation, which is one of the reasons for Kodak's current predicament," Kodak said.
Regarding this, Liu Ming, a partner lawyer at Beijing Yingke Law Firm, stated that Kodak, which had already applied for bankruptcy, was using its patent layout to sue Apple and HTC. On one hand, the cost of filing a complaint with the ITC is relatively low, and on the other hand, it could also take the opportunity to gain additional value from these patents, making it a very worthwhile move.
According to the ITC document, the 13 Chinese companies involved in this "337 Investigation" mainly produced products including ink cartridges and components used for laser printing, as well as adjustable energy-saving fluorescent lamps and their products.
On January 23, Neptun Lighting Company and patent holder Andrzej Bobe applied to the U.S. government to initiate a "337 Investigation." They accused relevant enterprises of producing, selling for importation to the U.S., and importing compact dimmable fluorescent lamps that allegedly infringed on their U.S. patents. They requested a permanent limited exclusion order to prohibit the importation of products that infringed on the involved patents into the U.S.
Another case was brought by Canon against Clover Technologies (hereinafter referred to as Clover), Shanghai Haoqun Digital Technology (Orink Infotech, hereinafter referred to as Orink), Nukote, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Nukote), Zhuhai Zhongrun Jingjie Printer Consumables Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongrun Jingjie), and 17 retailers (Retailers) regarding patent infringement of laser printer toner cartridges.
Canon pointed out in the lawsuit that the laser printer toner cartridges manufactured or sold by the Clover Group, Orink Group, Nukote Group, and 17 retailers used a patented injection unit; furthermore, since Canon had already manufactured a large number of toner cartridges using this patented technology within the U.S., it met the domestic industry requirements under Section 337. Therefore, they requested the ITC to investigate and issue general exclusion orders, limited exclusion orders, and cease-and-desist orders.
In fact, as early as July 30, 2010, Canon also initiated an ITC investigation against Ninestar Image International Ltd. in China with the same two patents and simultaneously filed an infringement lawsuit in the New York State District Court of the U.S. Both parties reached a settlement with these companies in June 2011.
Zhongrun Jingjie, which was implicated in this case, had also suffered a general exclusion order issued by the ITC in early 2011, prohibiting non-original equipment manufacturer (OEM) cartridges and accessories that infringed on HP's patents.
According to a relevant insider from Orink who spoke to the Economic Daily, they had already received the letter from the ITC after the Spring Festival. Currently, the company was actively communicating with the ITC side and waiting for further communication results. Legal affairs would not be initiated temporarily.
Liu Ming indicated that the frequent initiation of "337 Investigations" by the U.S. was more about trade protection for market interests. Due to its simple procedures and low costs, combined with insufficient intellectual property protection by Chinese companies, which often dare not respond to lawsuits, it has led to the increasing trend of Chinese companies being involved in "337 Investigations" in recent years.