Overview
Title
Certain Electrical Connectors and Cages, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same: Institution of Investigation
Agencies
ELI5 AI
Amphenol Corp. told a government group that some companies might be selling and bringing in connectors that copy Amphenol's ideas without asking. They want the group to look into it and maybe stop those companies from selling those connectors.
Summary AI
Amphenol Corp. filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 18, 2020, claiming that certain companies violated the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing and selling specific electrical connectors and cages that infringe on Amphenol's patents. The U.S. International Trade Commission decided to investigate these claims and determine if there was indeed a violation. If the investigation finds a violation, the Commission may issue orders to stop the importation of these products. The Commission has also outlined the process for the accused companies to respond to the complaint.
Abstract
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 18, 2020, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Amphenol Corp. of Wallingford, Connecticut. Supplements to the complaint were filed on December 22, 2020 and January 6, 2021. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electrical connectors and cages, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,371,117 ("the '117 Patent"); U.S. Patent No. 8,371,875 ("the '875 Patent"); U.S. Patent No. 8,864,521 ("the '521 Patent"); U.S. Patent No. 9,705,255 ("the '255 Patent"); and U.S. Patent No. 10,381,767 ("the '767 Patent"). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Overview of the Document
In this notice, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has announced the initiation of an investigation due to a complaint filed by Amphenol Corp., a company based in Wallingford, Connecticut. The complaint, lodged on December 18, 2020, alleges that certain companies imported and sold electrical connectors and cages into the United States, infringing on Amphenol’s patent rights. The USITC will investigate whether these actions violate the Tariff Act of 1930. If a violation is found, the Commission could potentially halt the importation of these products through exclusion orders. The document also outlines the procedural requirements for the involved companies to formally respond to these allegations.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One significant challenge presented by the document is the complexity of the legal language and references. The notice frequently mentions specific patents and legal regulations, such as 19 CFR 210.10. For those not versed in patent law or federal trade statutes, these references may be perplexing and difficult to navigate. The document assumes familiarity with legal procedures, which might not be common knowledge for all readers.
Additionally, the strict deadlines for responses could have substantial implications. If the named respondents fail to reply on time, they may forfeit their right to contest the allegations. However, the document provides limited guidance on what constitutes “good cause” for any extensions to these deadlines. This lack of clarity could result in severe consequences for the respondents if they fail to adhere to procedural requirements.
Public Impact
The public might be largely unaffected by the specifics of this investigation, as it pertains primarily to the legal dispute over patent infringement between private companies. However, the broader implications of such investigations emphasize the protection of intellectual property rights and fair trade practices in the U.S. market.
Consumers might benefit indirectly if the investigation results in ensuring that the electrical components available in the market are legally compliant and uphold patent laws. This can foster innovation and competition, which might lead to better product offerings.
Impact on Stakeholders
Amphenol Corp. stands to gain positively if the investigation rules in their favor, possibly leading to a competitive advantage and the protection of their patented technologies. It reinforces their efforts to safeguard their intellectual property rights.
Conversely, the respondent companies (such as Luxshare Precision Industry) may face negative repercussions, including financial losses if they are found to have infringed on the patents. This could result in exclusion orders, impacting their ability to sell these products in the lucrative U.S. market.
Legal professionals and businesses dealing with patents and international trade can draw valuable insights from such cases regarding compliance and the importance of upholding patent laws.
In summary, while the complex legal nature of this document may not concern the everyday reader directly, it plays a significant role in maintaining a balanced and legally compliant business environment in the realm of international trade and patent law.
Issues
• The document contains multiple references to specific patent numbers and claims which may be difficult to understand for those not familiar with patent law or the specific patents involved.
• The document outlines legal procedures and rules such as 19 CFR 210.10 but does not provide explanations or context for readers unfamiliar with these regulations, possibly making it difficult for those not versed in law to follow.
• There is a potential challenge in accessing full details of the complaint for individuals who may not have ready access to the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) or the internet.
• Failure to file a timely response could result in serious consequences for the respondents, but the document does not provide specific examples or detailed guidance on what constitutes 'good cause' for extensions.
• The document assumes prior knowledge of federal statutes and procedures, which might not be common knowledge, potentially leading to confusion for lay readers.
• The list of parties and respondents named involves specific entities which may raise concerns about whether the investigation favors or disfavors certain organizations.