Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Itc
| Decision Date | 14 October 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2007-1573.,No. 2008-1012.,No. 2007-1494.,No. 2008-1015.,No. 2007-1496.,No. 2007-1493.,No. 2007-1514.,No. 2008-1019.,No. 2007-1497.,No. 2008-1018.,No. 2008-1009.,No. 2008-1004.,No. 2008-1013.,No. 2007-1499.,No. 2008-1010.,No. 2007-1495.,No. 2007-1498.,2007-1493.,2007-1494.,2007-1495.,2007-1496.,2007-1497.,2007-1498.,2007-1499.,2007-1514.,2007-1573.,2008-1004.,2008-1009.,2008-1010.,2008-1012.,2008-1013.,2008-1015.,2008-1018.,2008-1019. |
| Citation | 545 F.3d 1340 |
| Parties | KYOCERA WIRELESS CORPORATION, Appellant, and Qualcomm Incorporated, Appellant, and Motorola, Inc., Appellant, and Samsung Electronics Corporation, Ltd., Appellant, and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., Appellant, and Sanyo Fisher Co., Appellant, and T-Mobile USA, Inc., Appellant, and AT & T Mobility, LLC (formerly known as Cingular Wireless, LLC), Appellant, and Sprint Nextel Corporation, Appellant, and Palm, Inc., Appellant, and Pantech Wireless, Inc., Pantech Co., Ltd., and Pantech & Curitel Communications, Inc., Appellants, and UT Starcom, Inc., Appellant, and High Tech Computer Corporation, Appellant, and Shenzhen Huawei Communication Technologies Co., Ltd., Appellant, and Research In Motion Limited and Research In Motion Corporation, Appellants, and Foxconn International Holdings Ltd., Appellant, and Casio Hitachi Mobile Communications Company, Ltd., Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, and Broadcom Corporation, Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Carter G. Phillips, Sidley Austin LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellant Qualcomm Incorporated. With him on the brief were Stephen B. Kinnaird, Robert A. Parker, William K. West, Jr., Cecilia H. Gonzalez, and Juliana M. Cofrancesco, Howrey LLP, of Washington, DC; Karin J. Kramer, Howrey LLP, of San Francisco, CA; Timothy S. Teter and Lorie R.E. Ploeger, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, of Palo Alto, CA; and Stanley J. Panikowski, DLA Piper U.S. LLP, of San Diego, CA. Of counsel was William D.A. Zerhouni, Covington & Burling LLP, of Washington, DC.
Claudia W. Frost, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, of Houston, TX, argued for appellant T-Mobile USA, Inc., AT & T Mobility LLC, Research in Motion Limited, et al.
Andrea C. Casson, Assistant General Counsel for Litigation, Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission of Washington, DC, argued
for appellee. With her on the brief were James M. Lyons, General Counsel, Michael Liberman, Paul M. Bartowski, and James A. Worth, Attorneys.
Robert A. Van Nest, Keker & Van Nest, LLP, of San Francisco, California, argued for intervenor. With him on the brief were Ragesh K. Tangri, Steven Hirsh, Daniel E. Purcell, and Steven K. Taylor. Of counsel were James M. Dowd, Gregory H. Lantier, and William G. McElwain, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP, of Washington, DC; and Scott P. McBride, and Alejandro Menchaca, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., of Chicago, IL.
Don F. Livornese, Howrey LLP, of Los Angeles, CA, for appellant Kyocera Wireless Corp. With him on the brief were Roman E. Darmer and Richard J. Burdge, Jr. Of counsel were Tom Crunk and Bradley J. Sparks.
Russell E. Levine, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, of Chicago, IL, for appellant Motorola, Inc. With him on the brief were Christopher R. Liro and Nyika O. Strickland.
Russell E. Levine, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, of Chicago, IL, for appellant Samsung Electronics Corporation, Ltd. With him on the brief were Gregory S. Arovas and Todd M. Friedman.
Mark S. Zolno, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, of Chicago, IL, for appellant Sanyo Fisher Co. With him on the brief were Michael A. Dorfman and Eric R. Rock, and James A. Gromada, of Washington, DC. Of counsel was Kazumune V. Kano.
Michael J. McKeon, Fish & Richardson, P.C., of Washington, DC, for appellant LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. With him on the brief was Scott A. Elengold.
Josh A. Krevitt, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, of New York, NY, for appellant T-Mobile USA, Inc. With him on the brief was Kevin W. Cherry. Of counsel were Mark A. Perry, Mathew D. McGill, and Minodora D. Vancea, of Washington, DC. Of counsel was Richard M. Kohel.
Kathryn L. Clune, Crowell & Moring LLP, of Washington, DC, for appellant Sprint Nextel Corporation. With her on the brief were Richard McMillan, Jr. and Lisa A. Murray.
V. James Adduci, II, Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, LLP, of Washington, DC, for appellant Palm, Inc. With him on the brief were Munford P. Hall, II, Patricia Larios, and Jamie D. Underwood.
Adam R. Hess, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, of Washington, DC, for appellant Casio Hitachi Mobile Communications Company Ltd.
Hae-Chan Park, H.C. Park & Associates, PLC, of Vienna, VA, for appellants Pantech & Curitel Communications, Inc., et al. With him on the brief was Wayne M. Helge.
Theodore T. Herhold, Townsend & Townsend & Crew LLP, of Palo Alto, CA, for appellant Shenzhen Huawei Communication Technologies Co., Ltd.
Robert F. Aldrich, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, of Washington, DC, for appellant UT Starcom, Inc. On the brief was Charles W. Saber.
Steven E. Adkins, Jones Day, of Washington, DC, for appellant Foxconn International Holdings Ltd. With him on the brief was Kenneth R. Adamo, of Cleveland, OH.
William S. Feiler, Morgan & Finnegan, LLP, of New York, NY, for appellants Research In Motion Corporation, et al. On the brief were Peter N. Fill and Eric G. Wright, of Washington, DC. Of counsel was Robert K. Goethals, of New York, NY.
Christopher F. Corr, White & Case LLP, of Washington, DC, for appellant
High Tech Computer Corporation. With him on the brief were Todd P. Taylor, Alexander W. Dennis. Of counsel on the brief was Warren S. Heit. Of counsel was Monisha Deka, of Washington, DC, and Farhenna Y. Rasheed, White & Case, LLP, of Palo Alto, CA.
Before RADER, BRYSON, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
The United States International Trade Commission ("ITC" or "Commission") determined that Qualcomm Incorporated ("Qualcomm") infringed Broadcom Corporation's ("Broadcom's") United States Patent 6,714,983 ("'983 Patent") with its imports. As a remedy, the ITC issued a limited exclusion order ("LEO") against the importation of all downstream products containing the accused technology. Aside from Qualcomm, the appellants in this action are Qualcomm's customers. Some customers are wireless device manufacturers whose products are subject to the LEO. Others are wireless network operators whose networks depend on products subject to the LEO. Despite the broad downstream scope of the LEO, Broadcom named only Qualcomm as a respondent in its ITC complaint. Because the ITC correctly construed the critical disputed claim term in Broadcom's patent, and because the ITC correctly rejected Qualcomm's invalidity arguments under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, this court affirms the ITC's finding that the '983 Patent is not invalid. This court also affirms the ITC's determination of no direct infringement by Qualcomm. However, because the ITC misapplied the standard for induced infringement, this court vacates and remands on infringement. Finally, because the ITC has no statutory authority to issue an LEO against downstream products of non-respondents, this court vacates and remands the limited exclusion order.
Broadcom's '983 patent is entitled "Modular, portable data processing terminal for use in a communication network." The patent claims a mobile computing device that can both communicate with wireless networks and operate in a reduced power mode to extend battery life:
One or more circuits adapted for use in a mobile computing device comprising: a terminal adapted to receive battery power for at least one of the circuits; communication circuitry comprising a reduced power mode and being adapted to use a first wireless communication and a second wireless communication different from the first wireless communication to transmit data to access points, the communication circuitry reducing power by controlling the frequency of scanning for the access points; and processing circuitry arranged to process data received from the communication circuitry.
'983 Patent col.42 l.57-col.43 l.2 (Claim 1). In the liability phase at the ITC, the parties vigorously contested the interpretation of the phrase "a first wireless communication and a second wireless communication different from the first wireless communication." The ITC administrative law judge characterized this dispute in terms of "how different these wireless communications need to be." In re Certain Baseband Processor Chips & Chipsets, Transmitter & Receiver (Radio) Chips, Power Control Chips, & Prod. Containing Same, Including Cellular Telephone Handsets, Inv. No. 337-TA-543, 2006 WL 3920334, 2006 ITC LEXIS 803, at *185 (Int'l Trade Comm'n Oct. 10, 2006) ("Initial Determination").
Before the ITC, Qualcomm argued that "different" is extremely broad and is not limited to any particular type of difference. The ITC concluded Qualcomm's proposal was too broad and would "include any slight difference in wireless communications, without regard to the context of the claim." Id. The ITC construed the term as "refer[ring] to two different methods of communication." Id. at *186. In this appeal, Qualcomm challenges the ITC's construction as too narrow and argues instead for its originally proffered broad interpretation.
This action began on May 19, 2005, when Broadcom filed a complaint in the ITC alleging unfair acts in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (). Broadcom named Qualcomm, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co.
... ... Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson , 647 F.3d 1353, 136465 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (claiming use of new "macrocyclic ... skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it." Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n , 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The jury could readily ... ...
-
Nordock Inc. v. Sys. Inc.
... ... See Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138 F.3d 277, 291 (7th Cir.1998). Nordock's technical expert, Steven Carl ... Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2008) (internal quotations and citations ... ...
-
FUJITSU LTD. v. BELKIN Int'l INC.
... ... D-Link Corporation ("D-Link Corp.") moves to dismiss Plaintiff Fujitsu Limited's claims against it pursuant to Federal Rules of ... of the Defendants involves the making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing of wireless interface cards, access points, and routers. Id. 14-18. B. Service of Process on D-Link Corp ... induced infringement and possessed specific intent to encourage another's infringement.'" Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co ... ...
-
Intermec Technologies Corp. v. Palm Inc.
... ... Intermec makes and sells data capture equipment such as portable data collection terminals and wireless communication systems to support them. Intermec also develops, makes and sells bar code readers which may be incorporated into a terminal or provided ... (D.I. 200 at 8) ( citing Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1345, 1347-48 (Fed.Cir.2008)) In Kyocera, the court, in construing the claim phrase "a second ... ...
-
ITC Lacks Authority To Issue Exclusion Orders Based On Theory Of Induced Infringement Where Underlying Direct Infringement Occurs Postimportation
...as a viable theory on which to base exclusion, the Court distinguished Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. International Trade Commission, 545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and Alloc, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Noting that the issue presently before it had n......
-
Does Louis Vuitton's Recent Victory At The US ITC Mark That Tribunal As A Viable Alternative To District Court?
...products of entities that were not named as respondents in the ITC proceeding (see Kyocera Wireless Corp v International Trade Comm'n, 545 F 3d 1340 (Fed Cir The Louis Vuitton investigation is not the first time that the ITC has addressed the issue of trademark infringement. Indeed, in its ......
-
How ITC Is Addressing Its Importation Requirement
...Order No. 23 at 1-2. 15 Inv. No. 337-TA-1280, Order No. 23 at 5. 16 Id. at 6. 17 Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int'l. Trade Comm'n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 18 Id. 19 Inv. No. 337-TA-602, Advisory Opinion at 5 (April 20, 2010). 20 Id. 21 Inv. No. 337-TA-1280, Order No. 35. 22 Inv. No. 337......
-
ITC May Enforce A Consent Order Against A Party To An Investigation When The Party Aids A Third Partys Importation Of Products In Violation Of The Consent Order
...Consent Order." Slip op. at 13. The Court next explained that its decision in "Kyocera [Wireless Corp. v. International Trade Commission, 545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008),] does not prohibit the Commission from enforcing the Consent Order in accordance with its terms, although the Commission ......
-
The PTAB is Not an Article III Court: A Primer on Federal Agency Rule Making
...in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys. , 511 F.3d 1186, 1194-95 (Fed. Cir. 2008), which was quoted in Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC , 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008), which was quoted in Blue Calypso , 815 F.3d at 1348, which was quoted by the PTAB in Go-Pro . 46. See Cottier , 20 F.......
-
Printed Publications and Persons of Ordinary Skill: Did the PTAB in GoPro v. Contour IP Holding Apply an Overly Restrictive Standard?
...in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys. , 511 F.3d 1186, 1194-95 (Fed. Cir. 2008), which was quoted in Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC , 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008), which was quoted in Blue Calypso , 815 F.3d at 1348, which was quoted by the PTAB in Go-Pro . 46. See Cottier , 20 F.......
-
Chapter §7.06 Loss of Right/Statutory Bars Under §102(b)
...Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).[316] Lister, 583 F.3d at 1311 (quoting Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).[317] 781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986).[318] Hall, 781 F.2d at 900.[319] 890 F.2d 1158, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (observi......
-
Attorney-Client Privilege for In-House Counsel
...in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys. , 511 F.3d 1186, 1194-95 (Fed. Cir. 2008), which was quoted in Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC , 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008), which was quoted in Blue Calypso , 815 F.3d at 1348, which was quoted by the PTAB in Go-Pro . 46. See Cottier , 20 F.......