The International Trade Commission voted Aug. 8 to open a modification proceeding on Google’s July 14 petition that Pixel smartphones, tablets, laptops and other devices installed with a new “device utility app” no longer infringe an October 2019 Sonos patent (10,439,896) on wirelessly connecting devices in a home network and should be removed from standing cease and desist and limited exclusion orders, said a notice for Friday’s Federal Register. Sonos filed an opposition to Google’s petition July 25, said the notice. The ITC has assigned the proceeding to Chief Administrative Law Judge Clark Cheney, who will render a “recommended determination” by Feb. 13, it said. Customs and Border Protection ruled in June that some Google device imports continued to infringe Sonos multiroom audio patents in violation of the ITC’s Jan. 6 import ban, ordering Google to disable the original device utility app in those devices and install a new app (see 2206290001).

Contrary to Google assertions in a complaint Monday against Sonos in U.S. District Court in San Francisco that it “rarely sues” other companies for patent infringement (see 2208090010), Google previously sued Sonos “all over the world and Sonos has prevailed in every decided case,” said Sonos Chief Legal Officer Eddie Lazarus in a statement Tuesday. “By contrast, the courts have repeatedly validated Sonos’ claims that Google is infringing its core patented smart speaker technology,” said Lazarus. Google’s new litigation is “an intimidation tactic designed to retaliate against Sonos for speaking out against Google’s monopolistic practices,” he said. Google has avoided paying Sonos “a fair royalty for the roughly 200 patents it is currently infringing,” and keeps attempting to “grind down a smaller competitor whose innovations it has misappropriated,” he said. “It will not succeed." Google followed through with threats to bring Sonos before the International Trade Commission, filing two complaints Tuesday (in dockets 337-3634 and 337-3635) alleging infringement of a total of seven patents. The complaints seek separate Tariff Act Section 337 investigations into the allegations. They ask for cease and desist and limited exclusion orders on Sonos audio players with Sonos Voice Control, plus those that support wired or wireless charging or the “commissioning of devices into a system via short-range transmissions.”

Pirating of live sports streaming is booming, with major and lesser sports franchises entering over-the-top licensing deals they might once have avoided just to protect traditional TV exclusivity, Intertrust said Tuesday. As more sports producers more to live streaming, there's a growing threat of increased losses to thriving, sophisticated online piracy operations, it said. The onus is on streaming sports licensees to have a broad-based anti-piracy strategy that includes multiple digital rights management operations, identification of pirate sources and disruption of their operations in real time without adding latency to live viewing, it said.

The International Trade Commission voted Aug. 2 to open a Tariff Act Section 337 investigation into VideoLabs allegations that devices from Acer, Asus, Lenovo, Micro-Star, Motorola Mobility and MSI infringe four of its patents, said a notice for Monday’s Federal Register. Three of the patents involve H.264 and H.265 video compression. The fourth describes a method for readjusting a screen’s orientation when a portable device is rotated for different viewing positions. ITC’s docket number for the investigation is 337-TA-1323.

Powermat Technologies said Thursday it settled pending patent infringement lawsuits against Nanami and Yootech and that both entered into patent licensing agreements with the wireless power company. Under the settlement, Nanami and Yootech agreed to pay Powermat an initial payment covering the past use of patented technologies, plus ongoing quarterly licensing payments. The three companies agreed to the entry of an injunction against non-licensed use of the patented technologies, Powermat said. The agreements “acknowledge the value of our intellectual property” and validate the company’s licensing program, said Powermat CEO Elad Dubzinski. The IP at issue includes U.S. Patent No. 9,006,937: System and Method for Enabling Ongoing Inductive Power Transmission; U.S. Patent No. 9,048,696: Transmission-Guard System and Method for an Inductive Power Supply; and U.S. Patent No. 9,099,894: System and Method for Coded Communication Signals Regulating Inductive Power Transmission. The two cases were heard in the U.S. District Court in Austin. Nanami and Yootech couldn’t be reached for comment.

Banning imports of the Apple Watch for Tariff Act Section 337 violations, as an administrative law judge at the International Trade Commission is recommending for infringing two AliveCor electrocardiogram patents (see 2207140030), “will broadly harm public interest,” commented Apple Thursday in docket 337-TA-1266. “These smartwatches are an important part of many consumers’ daily lives, including millions who rely on them to monitor their individual health and welfare,” it said. An ITC exclusion order “could literally put lives at risk and impede crucial medical research,” said Apple. “Public interest considerations compel the Commission to invoke its Section 337 authority to refrain from issuing remedial orders here,” it said. If the ITC imposes an import ban, it should at least “be delayed by a transition period” and include an exemption for warranty service, repairs and replacements, it said. "It would take significant time to replace Apple Watch in the event of the extraordinary supply shock that would be caused by an exclusion order," said Apple.

Apple is “one of the world’s richest companies and one with a proud tradition of innovation,” but neither of those attributes “should make Apple above the law,” commented Charles Swerdlow, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute in Beverly Hills, in docket 337-TA-1266 at the International Trade Commission. If the Apple Watch infringed AliveCor’s patented electrocardiogram technology, as an ITC administrative law judge ruled in an initial determination June 27 that it did, “then failing to punish Apple will only encourage it and other large corporations to copy future innovations developed by other small companies,” said Swerdlow Wednesday. He differed from other cardiologists who urged the ITC not to ban Apple Watch imports for Tariff Act Section 337 violations because the product’s ECG functions have helped atrial fibrillation patients seek treatment earlier than they would have otherwise (see 2207270036). Swerdlow described himself as a named inventor on 35 U.S. patents related to the diagnosis and treatment of cardiac arrhythmias, “and I have commercialized several of these patents.” Wearing his inventor’s hat, he said, “I have had a few difficult experiences in which large companies were able to effectively copy my inventions without consequences because I lacked the financial resources to pursue an infringement suit.” Sparing the Apple Watch from the import ban that the ALJ recommended may be “good for Apple and -- in the short term – good for some of its customers,” said Swerdlow. “But it will do a deep disservice to the nation’s inventors, undercut innovation in our society, and encourage public distrust that the largest companies are above the law.” Swerdlow thinks a “sufficiently severe penalty” like an import ban could protect companies like AliveCor and “deter Apple and other large corporations from future actions that unlawfully copy inventions patented by smaller companies and individual inventors,” he said. Apple didn’t comment Thursday. It filed public interest comments in the docket Wednesday that were marked confidential.

VideoLabs asked the International Trade Commission for cease and desist and limited exclusion orders on a “wide range” of consumer tech devices, but it’s withholding the identities of the licensees it alleges “can be relied on to satisfy domestic needs for the articles it seeks to exclude,” commented the Public Interest Patent Law Institute Monday in docket 337-3626. As long as the identities of the VideoLabs licensees remain secret, the public “cannot ascertain or explain how the requested exclusion order would impact consumers, economic conditions, or public health in this country,” said the institute. The consumer tech market “is already struggling with disruptions to the supply chain for electronic devices while the COVID-19 pandemic makes access to such devices more essential than ever,” it said. It urged the ITC to deny the VideoLabs request to “keep this basic yet crucial information secret and give the public an opportunity to comment once it can access the information it needs.” VideoLabs alleges in a Tariff Act Section 337 complaint that devices from Acer, Asus, Lenovo, Micro-Star, Motorola Mobility and MSI infringe four of its patents, including three involving H.264 and H.265 video compression and a fourth describing a method for readjusting a screen’s orientation when a portable device is rotated for different viewing positions (see 2207070054).

Comments are due July 27 in docket 337-TA-1266 at the International Trade Commission on the public interest ramifications of the cease and desist and limited exclusion orders AliveCor seeks against the Apple Watch, Series 4 through 6, said a notice for Friday’s Federal Register. Administrative Law Judge Cameron Elliot, in a June 27 initial determination, found Apple guilty of Tariff Act Section 337 violations for infringing two AliveCor electrocardiogram patents (10,683,941 and 10,595,731).

An initial determination would be due July 7 in the Tariff Act Section 337 investigation at the International Trade Commission into Advanced Micro Designs allegations that TCL smart TVs and Realtek graphics processing unit chips infringe four AMD patents on GPU circuitry architecture (see 2206060040), said a joint proposed procedural schedule filed Tuesday in docket 337-TA-1318. AMD, TCL and Realtek are proposing Nov. 7, 2023, as the target date for completing the investigation, said the schedule. AMD is seeking cease and desist and limited exclusion orders against the allegedly infringing TCL and Realtek goods.