Google, Lenovo Back Severing ITC Probe; Nokia Opposes It; Staff Not Sure
Nokia opposes severing into two probes the Tariff Act Section 337 investigation at the International Trade Commission into its allegations that Lenovo computers and parts infringe five of its patents, it told Administrative Law Judge Dee Lord Wednesday. Lenovo supports…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
separate investigations, it told Lord. Google asked to intervene in the case to defend the Google Assistant functionality in the allegedly infringing Lenovo Chromebooks (see 2008130032). It also backs two investigations, it told the ALJ. ITC staff said it doesn’t oppose separating the probes, but doubts doing so will “result in more efficient adjudication.” Lord ordered all parties to show cause last week why the investigation shouldn’t be severed into two inquiries, one on the infringement allegations involving four H.264 video compression patents, the other on single user interface patent (8,583,706) unrelated to H.264 (see 2008160004). Nokia disagreed, saying severing the investigation “would undermine the efficient adjudication of this case.” Unlike previous severed investigations where the technology in the accused products varied widely, “there is no such divergence here,” said its brief (login required) posted Wednesday in docket 3337-TA-1208. Four of the five asserted patents involve H.264, while the remaining ‘706 patent “involves other technology present on a subset of the same Lenovo products” accused of infringing the H.264 patents. The accused Lenovo product set “is therefore wholly overlapping between the two technologies,” said Nokia. ITC staff agreed, using nearly identical language. Though staff “appreciates the technology distinction” between the H.264 and ‘706 patents, the “accused products overlap,” said its brief (login required). “The alleged accused products relating to the ‘706 patent appear to be a subset of the accused products” involving H.264, it said. Severing the single investigation into two risks “duplicative” and “overlapping depositions and expert reports,” it said. The disparate issues between the H.264 and ‘706 patents “support severance,” countered Lenovo's brief (login required). Despite “some overlap in accused products,” evidence on infringement “will be separate,” it said. Lenovo intends to show “the unjust benefits that Nokia received in connection with its late-disclosed alleged patent rights constitute at least a waiver of Nokia’s rights to enforce” the H.264 patents, it said. That defense “does not apply” to the ’706 patent, it said. Severing the investigation would streamline discovery, “allowing for a more focused presentation of the relevant issues underlying the disparate patent groupings,” said Google’s brief (login required). “The disparate technologies underlying the two groups of patents means that there will not be any technical issues relating to infringement or invalidity that span the two groupings.”