Untitled case

ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1324, titled "Certain Mobile Electronic Devices," was initiated based on a complaint filed by Maxell, Ltd. of Kyoto, Japan. Maxell is an operating company known for manufacturing various electronic components and consumer products. The respondents in the investigation were Lenovo Group Ltd. of Beijing, China; Lenovo (United States) Inc. of Morrisville, North Carolina; and Motorola Mobility LLC of Libertyville, Illinois, all of which are major global technology companies involved in the production of mobile electronic devices. The accused products were "certain mobile electronic devices" imported into or sold within the United States.

US Patent 10,129,590, listed as "Patents at issue" for this case, was among several patents initially asserted by Maxell in its complaint. A one-line technical sketch of US Patent 10,129,590, titled "Image Display Apparatus, Image Display Method, and Image Display Program," describes a system and method for displaying images, potentially involving display control or processing. However, the investigation as to US Patent 10,129,590 was partially terminated on March 6, 2023, based on Maxell's withdrawal of the complaint regarding this specific patent.

The procedural posture of this case is an active Section 337 investigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which was instituted on August 22, 2022. The ITC is a critical venue for intellectual property disputes, particularly for complainants seeking to prevent the importation and sale of infringing products in the U.S. market, as it can issue powerful remedies such as exclusion orders and cease and desist orders. Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) preside over these investigations, making initial determinations that are subject to review by the full Commission. While the specific Administrative Law Judge for this investigation is not explicitly identified in the provided search results as of May 15, 2023 regarding the termination of the '394 patent, ALJs at the ITC are known for their expertise in complex and technical intellectual property cases. The notability of ITC investigations often stems from their accelerated timeline compared to district court litigation, and the potential for market-altering import bans. The withdrawal of multiple patents, including 10,129,590 and 8,170,394, suggests a dynamic litigation strategy or potential settlements during the course of the investigation.

ITC Investigation 337-TA-1324: Maxell v. Lenovo (U.S. Patent 10,129,590)

Caption: In the Matter of Certain Mobile Electronic Devices
Case Number: 337-TA-1324
Court: U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)
Patents at Issue (originally asserted): U.S. Patent Nos. 7,199,821; 7,324,487; 8,170,394; 8,982,086; 10,129,590; and 10,244,284.
Complainant: Maxell, Ltd. (Kyoto, Japan)
Respondents: Lenovo Group Ltd. (Beijing, China), Lenovo (United States) Inc. (Morrisville, North Carolina), and Motorola Mobility LLC (Libertyville, Illinois)

This ITC investigation, which originally involved six patents including U.S. Patent 10,129,590, was terminated in its entirety due to the withdrawal of the complaint by Maxell, Ltd. The investigation concluded without a full determination on the merits of infringement or validity for the asserted patents.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2022-06-16: Maxell, Ltd. filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission.
  • 2022-06-30: A supplement to the complaint was filed.
  • 2022-08-22: The ITC formally instituted the investigation, designated as 337-TA-1324, concerning "Certain Mobile Electronic Devices." The complaint alleged violations of Section 337 based on the importation and sale of certain mobile electronic devices infringing claims of the six asserted patents, including U.S. Patent 10,129,590 ("the '590 patent"). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) was also a party to the investigation.

• Termination of Investigation (Initial Phase):

  • 2022-09-19: The Commission voted to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on the withdrawal of the complaint. This decision was noted in a Federal Register notice published on September 23, 2022. The investigation was terminated, and the Commission determined not to review the Initial Determination.

• Subsequent Partial Terminations (Clarification Needed - Appears to be a re-institution or related proceeding based on the same patents given later dates):

  • 2023-03-06: The Commission partially terminated the investigation as to U.S. Patent 10,129,590 ("the '590 patent") and U.S. Patent 10,244,284 ("the '284 patent") based on the withdrawal of the complaint as to those specific patents. This followed an Initial Determination (Order No. 16) issued by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on February 6, 2023, which the Commission decided not to review.
  • 2023-05-15: The Commission determined not to review an Initial Determination (Order No. 22) issued by the ALJ on April 13, 2023, which partially terminated the investigation as to U.S. Patent 8,170,394 ("the '394 patent") based on the withdrawal of the complaint for that patent.

Outcome for Patent 10,129,590:
U.S. Patent 10,129,590 was removed from ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1324 on March 6, 2023, when the Commission partially terminated the investigation as to this patent due to the complainant Maxell, Ltd. withdrawing its allegations concerning it. The broader investigation itself was terminated in its entirety on September 19, 2022, based on the withdrawal of the complaint. The later partial terminations indicate that either the initial "entirety" termination was reversed or specifically related to different patents, or the notices refer to a later development in the same case where some patents were re-asserted or the "entirety" termination was not truly global. Given the information, the most direct outcome for patent 10,129,590 is its termination from the investigation in March 2023 due to withdrawal of the complaint.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
A search for Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings related to U.S. Patent 10,129,590 did not yield any results in the provided search snippets. Therefore, there is no information available to indicate that parallel PTAB proceedings affected this ITC litigation.Caption: In the Matter of Certain Mobile Electronic Devices
Case Number: 337-TA-1324
Court: U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)
Patents at Issue (originally asserted): U.S. Patent Nos. 7,199,821; 7,324,487; 8,170,394; 8,982,086; 10,129,590; and 10,244,284.
Complainant: Maxell, Ltd. (Kyoto, Japan)
Respondents: Lenovo Group Ltd. (Beijing, China), Lenovo (United States) Inc. (Morrisville, North Carolina), and Motorola Mobility LLC (Libertyville, Illinois)

This ITC investigation, which initially involved six patents including U.S. Patent 10,129,590, was ultimately terminated in its entirety due to the withdrawal of the complaint by Maxell, Ltd. The investigation concluded without a full determination on the merits of infringement or validity for the asserted patents.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2022-06-16: Maxell, Ltd. filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission.
  • 2022-06-30: A supplement to the complaint was filed.
  • 2022-08-22: The ITC formally instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1324, titled "Certain Mobile Electronic Devices." The complaint alleged violations of Section 337 based on the importation and sale of certain mobile electronic devices infringing claims of the six asserted patents, including U.S. Patent 10,129,590 ("the '590 patent"). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) was also a party to the investigation.

• Termination of Investigation:

  • 2022-09-19: The Commission voted to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on the withdrawal of the complaint. This decision was officially noted in a Federal Register publication on September 23, 2022, confirming the termination of the investigation, with the Commission declining to review the underlying Initial Determination.

• Post-Initial Termination Events (Further Clarification on Overall Scope):

  • 2023-03-06: Notwithstanding the earlier "entirety" termination, a later Commission notice indicated a partial termination of the investigation as to U.S. Patent 10,129,590 ("the '590 patent") and U.S. Patent 10,244,284 ("the '284 patent"). This partial termination was based on the withdrawal of the complaint's allegations regarding these specific patents, following an Initial Determination (Order No. 16) by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on February 6, 2023, which the Commission chose not to review.
  • 2023-05-15: Similarly, the Commission determined not to review an Initial Determination (Order No. 22) issued by the ALJ on April 13, 2023, which partially terminated the investigation as to U.S. Patent 8,170,394 ("the '394 patent") after the complainant withdrew its allegations concerning this patent.

Outcome for Patent 10,129,590:
U.S. Patent 10,129,590 was effectively removed from ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1324 when the Commission partially terminated the investigation as to this patent on March 6, 2023. This action was a direct consequence of Maxell, Ltd. withdrawing its complaint's allegations concerning the '590 patent. The overarching investigation was terminated in its entirety much earlier, on September 19, 2022, also due to the complainant's withdrawal of the complaint. The subsequent partial terminations suggest that either the initial "entirety" termination had a narrower scope than implied, or the procedural history involved some form of re-engagement or re-assertion of specific patents after an initial broader withdrawal. Regardless, for Patent 10,129,590, the specific disposition was a termination from the investigation due to withdrawal of the complaint.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
No information was found regarding any parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings concerning U.S. Patent 10,129,590 at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Therefore, there is no indication that such proceedings impacted this ITC litigation.

ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1324, "Certain Mobile Electronic Devices," is not currently active. The investigation, which was initiated based on a complaint filed by Maxell, Ltd. of Kyoto, Japan ("Complainant"), was terminated in its entirety on August 17, 2023, due to a settlement between Maxell and the Respondents. Furthermore, U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590, specifically mentioned in the case details, was among the patents for which the complaint was partially withdrawn and terminated from the investigation on March 6, 2023. Therefore, there is no active counsel representing the plaintiff(s) for this specific patent in this investigation.

However, historical records indicate that Maxell, Ltd. was represented in this investigation, and in other related patent disputes, by the following firm:

• Firm: Mayer Brown LLP
  • Office Locations: Washington D.C., Chicago (and potentially others)
  • Notable Experience: While specific attorneys for 337-TA-1324 are not explicitly listed in public summaries of the termination, Mayer Brown has a significant patent litigation practice and has represented Maxell in related patent infringement cases, including a substantial jury verdict against [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.) Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%20Ltd.) in the Eastern District of Texas. The Mayer Brown team for that district court case included partners Jamie Beaber (Washington D.C.), Alan Grimaldi, Kfir Levy, James Fussell, Saqib Siddiqui, Bryan Nese, Michael Lindinger, Robert Pluta, and Amanda Streff Bonner, as well as counsel Tiffany Miller, Paul Baldine, and Alison Gelsleichter, and several associates. This demonstrates their involvement in Maxell's broader patent enforcement efforts, which have included actions before the ITC.

The available information indicates that the investigation in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1324 was terminated in its entirety based on a settlement between Maxell, Ltd. and the Respondents (Lenovo Group Ltd., Lenovo (United States) Inc., and Motorola Mobility LLC) on July 26, 2023. This suggests that detailed information about counsel of record for the defendant(s) might not be as readily available in public documents as in a case that proceeds to a full evidentiary hearing or trial. However, based on general practices in ITC investigations and related patent litigation involving these entities, we can infer and identify potential counsel.

For ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1324, while specific counsel for Lenovo and Motorola Mobility for this particular ITC case is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, these companies are frequently involved in patent litigation and often use a combination of in-house and prominent law firms specializing in intellectual property and ITC matters.

Looking at other related cases involving Motorola Mobility and Lenovo, several firms have represented them in patent disputes:

• Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

  • David A. Nelson (Partner, Chicago, IL) and David Andrew Perlson (Partner, San Francisco, CA) were counsel for Motorola Mobility LLC in Intellectual Ventures LLC II LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC Inc.
  • Relevant Experience: Quinn Emanuel is a well-known firm for intellectual property and patent litigation, frequently representing major technology companies.

• Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP

  • Mitchell G. Stockwell (Partner, Atlanta, GA) was also listed as counsel for Motorola Mobility LLC in Intellectual Ventures LLC II LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC Inc.
  • Relevant Experience: Kilpatrick Townsend has a significant intellectual property practice, handling patent litigation for various technology clients.

• Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, White & Case LLP, and Polsinelli PC

  • These firms represented Apple, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, LLC as respondents in the Federal Circuit appeal SoftView, LLC v. Apple & Motorola Mobility concerning a mobile web display patent.
  • Relevant Experience: These firms are prominent in patent litigation, including appellate work at the Federal Circuit, and often represent technology companies.

It's important to note that while these firms and attorneys have represented Motorola Mobility and Lenovo in other patent cases, their specific roles in the now-terminated ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1324 are not explicitly stated in the provided documents. The early termination due to settlement often means that the complete roster of counsel might not be publicly disclosed in the same manner as a case that progresses further. The fact that the investigation was terminated based on a joint motion for settlement suggests that both parties were actively represented by counsel throughout the process.