Search Results for keywords:"patent infringement"

The U.S. International Trade Commission decided not to review an initial ruling that allows JBS Hair, Inc. to amend its complaint to include JMS Trading Corp. as a new respondent. This investigation involves allegations of patent infringement related to certain pre-stretched synthetic braiding hair. The original complaint, filed by JBS Hair, claims violations of the Tariff Act due to the importation and sale of these products. Despite requests from some respondents to extend deadlines, the judge found no prejudice in adding JMS Trading and upheld the decision without changes to the schedule.

The U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint from One World Technologies Inc. and Techtronic Power Tools Technology Ltd., claiming that certain imported batteries and products infringe on their U.S. patents. The complaint involves several Shenzhen-based Chinese companies and requests an investigation and potential restrictions on imports found to be infringing. The investigation will determine if U.S. patent laws were violated and if an industry exists that is impacted by these imports. If violations are confirmed, the Commission may issue orders to stop the import and sale of these products in the U.S.

The U.S. International Trade Commission has decided not to review a ruling by the administrative law judge allowing changes to a complaint in an investigation concerning artificial eyelash extension systems. The original complaint by Lashify, Inc. claimed that certain products were imported or sold in the U.S., infringing on some of their patents. The investigation originally named CVS Health Corporation and Ulta Beauty, Inc. as respondents, but the ruling allows substituting them with CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. This decision means the investigation will proceed with these updated parties, and authority for this determination comes from the Tariff Act of 1930.

A complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 5, 2024, by Schütz Container Systems, Inc. and Protechna S.A., alleging that imported composite intermediate bulk containers violate multiple U.S. patents. The complaint accuses several Chinese companies of infringing on these patents and requests the Commission to investigate and potentially issue exclusion and cease and desist orders. An investigation has been initiated to look into these claims and whether a relevant industry exists in the U.S. The Commission has also outlined details for the investigation process and response requirements for the accused entities.

The U.S. International Trade Commission has decided to partially review a decision by an administrative law judge that found no violation of trade laws by Samsung Display Co., Ltd. in a dispute over certain OLED display panels. The case involves allegations of patent infringement related to products imported and sold in the U.S. The Commission is asking for written opinions on certain issues related to the case, such as whether Samsung Display had the rights to bring the case and the economic impact of the alleged violations. The Commission is also interested in understanding the impact of any potential trade remedies on public interest factors like health, competition, and consumer welfare.

Modumetal, Inc. of Snohomish, Washington, filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission on November 19, 2024, claiming that certain companies violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The complaint alleges that specific nanolaminate alloy coated metal parts and products infringe on Modumetal's U.S. Patents No. 10,253,419 and No. 11,242,613. The Commission has started an investigation to determine if these claims hold true and whether there is an existing U.S. industry related to these products. If the investigation finds violations, the Commission could issue orders to exclude these products from the U.S. or cease their sale.

A complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission by Spanx, LLC of Atlanta, Georgia, alleging patent infringement concerning certain shapewear garments. The commission has decided to investigate whether shapewear products imported into the U.S. infringe on the specified patents and whether there's a U.S. industry being harmed. The parties involved are Spanx, various Chinese companies, and other firms like Honeylove Sculptwear Inc. The commission may issue orders to stop these imports if they find violations of U.S. patent law.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has decided to start an advisory opinion proceeding related to certain foam footwear. This involves a case where Crocs, Inc. accused Double Diamond Distribution Ltd. of patent infringement. After a series of legal actions, Double Diamond requested a quick advisory opinion to find out if their Original Beach DAWGS shoes with plastic washers are subject to existing import restrictions. The ITC will issue a decision about this within 90 days.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking information about instances where patent or trademark holders experience unauthorized use of their rights by state entities, particularly without adequate state law remedies. This is part of a study prompted by Senators Thom Tillis and Patrick Leahy, focusing on whether such violations are intentional or reckless. The USPTO is asking for public comments on these issues, requesting responses to specific questions by February 22, 2021. The agency aims to gather insights that will help them understand the extent of these challenges and is open to anonymous contributions.

The U.S. International Trade Commission received a complaint from InOvate Acquisition Company, alleging that certain dryer wall exhaust vent assemblies imported into the U.S. infringe on a U.S. patent. The complaint requests an investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and seeks a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order. The investigation will look into whether the accused products, identified as "wall exhaust vents," violate specific claims of the patent and whether a supporting U.S. industry exists. The respondents named in the complaint include an entity based in China, Xiamen Dirongte Trading Co., Ltd.