Sonos filed a confidential motion Thursday for an International Trade Commission order compelling Google to produce physical samples of the device “redesigns” claimed to be built without the embedded source code that Sonos alleges infringe its multiroom audio patents. Sonos maintains the redesigns are “hypothetical,” not real, and should be struck from the Section 337 investigation into the allegations because Google refuses to produce the physical samples for Sonos to test (see 2009110007).

The World Intellectual Property Organization launched a free database for accessing “leading judicial decisions related to IP law,” said the group Thursday. “As technological innovation often outpaces the ability of legislatures and governments to create new rules and regulations,” said WIPO, “courts across the world are increasingly facing common issues of a highly sophisticated nature.” WIPO-Lex Judgments compiles rulings in WIPO member states “that establish precedent or offer a persuasive interpretation of IP law,” said the organization.

Samsung applied to register two new trademarks Wednesday, Samsung QLED+ and Samsung QLED Z, for branding with its TV offerings in the U.S., Patent and Trademark Office records show. It filed similar applications Sept. 9 with EU trademark authorities, said PTO. Samsung didn’t comment Monday.

Philips unleashed a torrent of complaints Thursday in U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Delaware, accusing seven tech companies of infringing various “secure authenticated distance measurement” patents for digital video delivery content protection. Accused of violating four patents were LG (in Pacer) for a laptop and 43-inch 4K smart TV, plus Dell, HP and Lenovo (in Pacer) for laptops and 27-inch monitors. Chip companies Intel, MediaTek and Realtek (in Pacer) allegedly infringed two of the four patents. All the finished products were sold through Best Buy, Walmart or other big-box retailers, said the complaints. Philips said it gave each of the defendants “actual notice” of the alleged infractions via warning letters, yet all “continued to actively induce, and contribute to, their customers’ infringement." Philips seeks a jury trial and wants punitive and compensatory damages “in an amount no less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the patented inventions.” The defendants didn't comment Friday.

Comments are due Sept. 24 at the International Trade Commission on the public interest ramifications of an import ban DivX seeks on LG, Samsung and TCL smart TVs, said Wednesday’s Federal Register. DivX’s Sept. 10 complaint (login required) in docket 337-3489 seeks a Tariff Act Section 337 investigation into allegations the video processors in the TVs infringe four DivX patents on adaptive bitrate streaming. Component suppliers MediaTek, MStar and Realtek are also named as potential respondents. DivX was “one of the first companies to enable successful delivery of high-quality digital video over the internet,” said the complaint: No harm would come to the public if the TVs were excluded because other manufacturers could easily fill the void. Respondents didn't comment.

Administrative Law Judge Dee Lord with the International Trade Commission is “not inclined” to sever into two probes the ITC's Tariff Act Section 337 investigation into allegations that Lenovo computers, tablets and parts infringe five Nokia patents, she told a Sept. 3 telephonic conference, per a transcript (login required) posted Monday in docket 337-TA-1208. Lee ordered the parties Aug. 14 to show cause why the “disparate” issues between four H.264 patents and the remaining invention didn’t warrant severance (see 2008160004). Nokia and ITC staff argued in their Aug. 26 replies there was substantial overlap between the bodies of intellectual property (see 2008270001), and Lord agreed, according to the transcript. “On balance, it seemed to me that we ought to keep everything in one place,” she said.

Google device “redesigns” built without the embedded source code that Sonos alleges infringe its multiroom audio patents are “hypothetical,” not real, and should be struck from the International Trade Commission’s Tariff Act Section 337 investigation into the allegations (see 2002060070), said a Sonos brief (login required) in support of the motion to strike posted Thursday in docket 337-TA-1191. Google misrepresented that the redesigns were “fixed and definite” when it told Chief Administrative Law Judge Charles Bullock it made the redesigns available to Sonos for inspection, said Sonos. “Google refuses to produce the alleged redesigns to Sonos for Sonos to test and is only willing to provide a limited demonstration of certain functions under the supervision of a Google attorney,” it said. “Such testing is necessary to determine whether or not the supposed redesigns actually removed the infringing code.” That Sonos was deprived of the opportunity to test the redesigns “directly contradicts” Google’s argument that the revised source code is embedded in physical working products that Google made available for inspection, said Sonos. Google didn’t comment Friday.

Sonos seeks an International Trade Commission “summary determination” it has satisfied the Tariff Act Section 337 import requirement on 19 models of Google devices that allegedly infringe five Sonos multiroom audio patents. “None of the underlying facts at issue are disputed,” said Sonos’ Aug. 27 motion (login required), posted Thursday in docket 337-TA-1191. Google “expressly stipulated” that it imported into the U.S. at least one unit of each allegedly infringing device, said Sonos. Google submitted copies of Customs and Border Protection Form 7501 “corresponding to at least one" import of each device since January 2019, it said. Granting the motion “will dramatically simplify the issues for trial, reducing the burden and costs of litigation on the private parties,” plus the ITC and its staff, said Sonos. The ITC opened its investigation Feb. 6 (see 2002060070). Sonos seeks an import ban on the allegedly infringing Google products.

No “extraordinary circumstances exist” to deny Sonos’ motion to terminate the International Trade Commission’s Tariff Act Section 337 investigation against Alphabet (see 2008240002), said Chief Administrative Law Judge Charles Bullock's order (login required) Tuesday in docket 337-TA-1191 granting the termination. The probe continues into allegations that Google smart devices infringe five Sonos multiroom audio patents, but Sonos withdrew the allegations against the Google parent after it swore under oath it doesn’t import or sell the allegedly infringing products. Bullock agrees with Sonos that terminating the probe against Alphabet “will simplify the investigation without causing prejudice to Google,” he said.

U.S. District Judge Richard Andrews in Wilmington, Delaware, ordered “administratively closed” the year-old complaint alleging Nanosys produces quantum dot materials using processes that infringe an NNCrystal patent on nanocrystal manufacturing (see 1907150019). The case was stayed Aug. 25 after Nanosys successfully petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for an inter partes review (IPR) into its contention that NNCrystal’s invention was unpatentable. The parties should promptly notify the court when the PTAB review is complete “so that this case may be reopened and other appropriate action may be taken,” said Andrews’ order (in Pacer) posted Monday in docket 1:19-cv-01307. PTAB instituted the IPR Aug. 18, finding preliminarily that Nanosys “established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing” in its argument that the NNCrystal patent should be thrown out. “Our final decision will be based on the record as fully developed during trial,” it said. PTAB’s decision to launch the IPR “validates our position” that NNCrystal lacks any “valid Intellectual Property assets to enable it to participate in the market we have created,” emailed Nanosys CEO Jason Hartlove Tuesday. “It is a critical step towards the ultimate dismissal of the case against us.” NNCrystal didn’t comment.