ARTICLE
18 February 2022

ITC Finds No Violation Of Section 337 In Certain Electronic Stud Finders (337-TA-1221)

OM
Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P

Contributor

Oblon is among the largest US law firms that exclusively practice IP law. Businesses worldwide depend on Oblon to establish, protect and leverage their IP assets. Our team of 100+ legal professionals includes some of the country’s most respected practitioners. Most attorneys hold advanced degrees in engineering, physics, chemistry, biotechnology and other scientific disciplines. Oblon is headquartered within steps of the USPTO office in Alexandria, Virginia. 
On February 15, 2022, the Commission issued notice of its final determination of no violation of section 337 in Certain Electronic Stud Finders, Metal Detectors, and Electrical Scanners (Inv. No. 337-TA-1221).
United States California Connecticut Maryland Intellectual Property

On February 15, 2022, the Commission issued notice of its final determination of no violation of section 337 in Certain Electronic Stud Finders, Metal Detectors, and Electrical Scanners (Inv. No. 337-TA-1221).

By way of background, this investigation was instituted on October 5, 2020 based on a complaint by Zircon Corporation of Campbell, California alleging violations of section 337 by Respondents Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. of New Britain, Connecticut and Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. of Towson, Maryland) based on the importation/sale of certain electronic stud finders, metal detectors, and electrical scanners by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,989,662 ("the '662 patent"); U.S. Patent No. 7,148,703; U.S. Patent No. 8,604,771 ("the '771 patent"); and U.S. Patent No. 9,475,185 ("the '185 patent").  On October 7, 2021, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice regarding his initial determination ("ID") of no violation of section 337.  See our October 17, 2021 post for more details regarding the ID.  On December 6, 2021, the Commission issued notice of its determination to review the ID with respect to (1) the ID's infringement findings for the '662 patent; (2) the ID's findings on the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '662 patent; (3) the ID's obviousness findings for the '662 patent; (4) the ID's infringement findings for the '771 patent; (5) the ID's anticipation and obviousness findings for the '771 patent; (6) the ID's claim construction and infringement findings for the '185 patent; (7) the ID's anticipation and obviousness findings for the '185 patent; and (8) the ID's findings on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.

According to the notice, the Commission affirmed in part, modified in part, and reversed in part the ID and determined that no violation of section 337 has occurred.

We will post the Commission's opinion when it becomes available.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More