Televisions that infringe patents excluded from United States. AMD v. MediaTek

A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted to the inventor of an invention. To be granted a patent in the United States an inventor must file a patent application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The United States Patent and Trademark Office will review that patent application and determine if the invention meets all the requirements to be granted a patent. The patent application must demonstrate that the invention is new, useful and not obvious. If the United States Patent and Trademark Office determines that that the patent application meets all the requirements then the inventor will be granted a patent on the invention. A patent grants the owner of the patent the exclusive right to make, use, sell and import the invention in the United States. If someone other than the patent owner attempts to exercise one of these exclusive rights, that can be considered patent infringement. A patent owner can file a lawsuit to stop patent infringement with an injunction and to get monetary damages for patent infringement which has occurred.

When a patent owner is granted a patent, it is up to the patent owner to enforce the patent. The United States Patent and Trademark Office grants patents but does not actively enforce patents. When the alleged patent infringer is operating completely withing the United States a patent owner’s only option is to file a patent infringement lawsuit in United State Federal Court. However, when infringing products are being imported in to the United States a patent owner can get assistance from the United States International Trade Commission.

When infringing products are being imported into the United States a patent owner can petition the United States International Trade Commission to conduct an investigation conducted pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337. These investigations are commonly refereed to as Section 337 investigations. Section 337 investigations, include trial proceedings before administrative law judges and review by the Commission. Section 337 investigations most often involve claims regarding intellectual property rights, including allegations of patent infringement by imported products. Both utility and design patents, may be asserted in these investigations.

The primary remedy available in Section 337 investigations is an exclusion order that directs Customs to stop infringing imports from entering the United States. In addition, the Commission may issue cease and desist orders against named importers and other persons engaged in unfair acts that violate Section 337. Appeals from United States International Trade Commission decisions are reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

A case which illustrates a patent owner using the United States International Trade Commission to exclude infringing products from the United States is MEDIATEK v. UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, 19-1362 (C.A.F.C. 2019). The plaintiff in this case is MediaTek, a manufacturer of televisions. MediaTek filed this lawsuit to appeal the decision of the United States International Trade Commission to exclude certain products which infringe on patents owned by Advanced Micro Devices.

In January 2017 Advanced Micro Devices filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that MediaTek violates 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (section 337) by infringing certain claims of Advanced Micro Devices patents, including U.S. Patent No. 7,633,506. Based on the complaint the International Trade Commission initiated Investigation No. 337-TA-1044, “In the Matter of Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer Products Containing the Same”. In August 2018 the International Trade Commission issued a Final Determination of infringement and Limited Exclusion Order directed to MediaTek’s infringing graphics systems. Essentially, MediaTek’s televisions were barred from importation into the United States.

To succeed on appeal MediaTek will have to demonstrate that either the International Trade Commission made an error interpreting the law or that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence.

If you have questions or comments for the authors of this blog please email us at: admin@uspatentlaw.cn