FS.COM Inc. v. International Trade Commission

 
APPEAL NO.
22-1228
OP. BELOW
OPINION
TBD
SUBJECT
Patent
AUTHOR
TBD

Issue(s) Presented

  1. “Whether the Commission legally erred in holding that Panduit and Siemon imported ‘articles that . . . infringe’ under the importation requirement of 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B) based on its findings of induced infringement of apparatus claims of the ’320, ’456, and ’153 patents when (1) Panduit and Siemon only imported modules and not chassis or other components; (2) modules are not required elements of the ’320 patent and are but one component out of several in the ’456 and ’153 patents; (3) modules did not directly infringe any of the ’320, ’456, and ’153 patents; (4) the Commission did not require any nexus between the modules and the claims of the ’320, ’456, and ’153 patents; and (5) the Commission found that the modules did not contributorily infringe because they were capable of substantial noninfringing uses.”
  2. “Whether the Commission legally erred in finding asserted claims of the ’320 and ’456 patents enabled when (1) the claims of those patents recite a broad, open-ended range of fiber optic connection densities per U space of ‘at least’ 98 and 144; (2) the Commission excluded post-priority-date evidence of new, smaller form factor components within the scope of the claims that can achieve far higher connection densities in a U space (such as 432 connections); and (3) the ’320 and ’456 patents do not disclose teachings that would enable the POSA to exceed densities significantly greater than 144 connections per U-space.”
  3. “Whether the Commission legally erred in finding that Panduit’s and Siemon’s accused products infringed the ’153 patent when (1) Corning amended the claims during prosecution to limit the recited “fiber optic routing elements” to those with a distinct configuration; (2) the ALJ agreed that the claims were limited to that configuration; but (3) the Commission declined to address Appellants’ non- infringement arguments showing that their products lacked the configuration.”
  4. “Whether the Commission’s findings that Siemon’s and FS’s module products infringed the ’206 patent were legally incorrect because they were premised on an improper construction of ‘front opening’ that includes modules with multiple front openings, rather than a single front opening.”

Posts About this Case