Asus mobile phones and tablets that include Bluetooth or Wi-Fi features and security codes violate a U.S. patent (8,466,795) for a personal tracking and security system owned by Pragmatus Mobile since the patent was granted in June 2013, Pragmatus alleged in a complaint filed Nov. 24 at the U.S. International Trade Commission. The complaint seeks exclusive and cease and desist orders under Section 337 of the Tariff Act. Many CE manufacturers already license the patent that Asus allegedly violates, the complaint said, listing BlackBerry, HTC, Huawei, LG, Pantech, Samsung, Sony and ZTE among the licensees. In addition, several CE makers license the technology from Pragmatus on confidential terms, including one "major" manufacturer, it said. Many of the "accused" Asus devices at issue in the complaint "are smartphones and tablets, which are not necessary for some health or welfare need," Pragmatus said in a public interest statement. If imports of the Asus devices are barred from the U.S. under an ITC exclusion order, "there are many like or directly competitive articles" that could take their place, it said. Asus representatives didn’t comment.

Samsung filed a complaint Nov. 21 asking the International Trade Commission to ban imports of graphics processing chips from Nvidia and several other companies that allegedly infringe its patents. Nvidia’s Quadro, NVS, Tesla, GRID and GeForce line of graphics cards for computers, as well as several systems on a chip for tablets, copy its patented designs, Samsung said in the complaint. It's requesting a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order against Nvidia, plus several other companies that manufacture and export graphics cards and SoCs under contract with Nvidia, including Biostar, Elitegroup, EVGA, Fuhu, Jaton, Mad Catz, OUYA, Sparkle Computer, Toradex, Wikipad and ZOTAC. The ITC is asking for comments by Dec. 9 on public interest factors raised by Samsung’s complaint. Nvidia filed a similar complaint against Samsung in September (see 1410090095). Samsung retaliated, first with a patent infringement complaint against Nvidia filed Nov. 4 in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, and later with the Nov. 21 ITC complaint. The Nov. 4 complaint named Velocity Micro, which sources chips from Nvidia, as a co-defendant. Velocity, based in Richmond, Virginia, bills itself as an "independent American boutique builder of higher caliber computer systems," its CEO Randy Copeland said in a blog post in which he blasted the Samsung litigation in blunt terms. Samsung is "all too willing to throw a private company under the proverbial bus for their own strategic reasons," he said. "It’s simply wrong, and a shining example of what’s broken in big corporate America." Velocity is "a small private business" and has "absolutely nothing to do with the disputes between these business giants," Copeland said of Nvidia and Samsung. "This is not our fight, and it’s unconscionable that Samsung is willing to completely disregard the effects and financial fallout this legal tactic will have on the undeserving employees of Velocity Micro and our local community. ... If this is how Samsung operates, we want no part of it, and we hope others agree and consider this during this upcoming holiday shopping season." Samsung didn’t comment.

HDMI Licensing and the producers of the InfoComm show jointly asked the U.S. District Court in Las Vegas for a stay through Jan. 31 in their three-month-old legal battle because they have started talks to settle the case, said a stipulation motion filed at the court Friday. Though a "potential resolution" of the case is "at hand," it may "require some time to effectuate," the motion said. Both sides want to avoid an "extended or extensive litigation," so they've "agreed to exchange certain materials and negotiate in good faith over the next two months," it said. A nasty war of words between the two sides has marked the court battle. The InfoComm 2014 AV show in mid-June gave "safe haven" to exhibitors that are "direct infringers" of HDMI trademarks by letting them market, promote and sell unlicensed HDMI products on the show floor, shielded from investigators, HDMI Licensing alleged in a complaint filed in September (see 1409150044). InfoComm countersued a month later (see 1410170054), accusing HDMI Licensing of "blatant extortion" for the manner in which it treated "as a common criminal" any company on the InfoComm show floor that used the HDMI acronym.

Broadcasters’ court challenge of the FCC incentive auction order is an “unfortunate reaction to an expansive and progressive undertaking,” said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler in a speech Tuesday to the Mid-Atlantic Venture Association, according to a copy of his remarks on the FCC website. Wheeler also said a lack of access to broadcaster and cable company controlled content was responsible for causing online video services to falter, which he intends to address with a draft NPRM on broadening what the FCC defines as a multichannel video programming distributor (see 1410290064). “Competitors should be able to negotiate in good faith for video content, even if it is owned by cable companies and broadcasters,” Wheeler said. “The old rules of the FCC” let broadcasters stop Aereo in court, said the chairman. “Aereo wasn’t the reason for the new rules, but the idea that entrepreneurs should be able to assemble programs to offer consumers choices is something that shouldn’t be hindered by the FCC.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted an unopposed NAB motion to consolidate its challenge of the FCC incentive auction order with a separate challenge against a Sept. 30 FCC declaratory ruling “clarifying” that order, according to court filings. The petition for review of the declaratory ruling was filed by NAB Wednesday. The declaratory ruling, approved at the FCC September meeting, said the commission intended to "preserve the `coverage area' as well as the `population served' of eligible broadcasters." Since the ruling says the FCC won't protect broadcaster coverage areas that are subject to interference, it violates the Spectrum Act, NAB said. The ruling was also not adopted with proper notice and comment periods, violating the Administrative Procedure Act, NAB said. In its motion to consolidate, NAB argued the case should be combined with the petition against the auction order to allow it to use the same expedited schedule.

D+M Group said in a statement Thursday it will "protect itself" against a lawsuit filed by Sonos last week (see 1410220043) alleging that its Heos by Denon wireless music system infringes on patents owned by Sonos. “D+M has been a technology innovator for over 100 years and has an extensive intellectual property portfolio to protect our products," Denon said. "Given our experience and wealth of expertise, we absolutely stand behind our Heos products and technology and are well prepared to defend our intellectual property,” said Jim Caudill, CEO, D+M Group. Denon said its engineers and designers worked "for more than 10 years to develop Heos by Denon."

U.S. District Court Judge Alison Nathan’s ruling slapping a nationwide preliminary injunction on Aereo (see 1410230060) could lead to more litigation for the streaming service, said Fletcher Heald First Amendment attorney Kevin Goldberg in a blog post Wednesday. Aereo could appeal the portion of the injunction limiting it to broadcasting time-delayed content, or broadcasters could appeal that the injunction allows Aereo to provide some form of streaming service. “A time-delayed Aereo is still a competitor in many ways,” said Goldberg. Either side of the case could also choose to let the matter be decided on the merits. “This obviously suits the broadcasters to some extent, since Aereo may not be as attractive to potential subscribers without the live viewing function,” Goldberg said. NAB and Aereo did not comment.

A who’s-who list of manufacturers of aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors and their subsidiaries "engaged in at least a five-year conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices of capacitors" in the U.S., alleged a class-action complaint filed by Quathimatine Holdings, a Texas City, Texas, firm that does business as Divicom USA. Quathimatine is a terminal and pipeline equipment company that bought capacitors from one or more or the defendants and was "injured" as a result of their "anticompetitive conduct," said the complaint, which was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Oakland, California. "Capacitors are found in nearly every electronic product on the market in a wide variety of industries, including consumer products (audio and visual), telecommunications, automotive, computer, and industrial equipment," the complaint said. "Sometimes hundreds of Capacitors can be found in a single electronic device. For example, Apple iPhone 4s and iPads have 469 and 702 capacitors, respectively. Given their necessity in nearly every electrical device, the global market for capacitors is large -- estimated to be $18.25 billion in 2014 and projected to continue growing." Several "macroeconomic factors support the birth of the conspiracy" to fix prices beginning in 2009, "as well as its continuation through the present," the complaint said. "These factors include: the negative effects on business due to the global economic recession; increased raw material costs; technological innovations; and increased competition from other cheaper forms of capacitors produced by aggressive Taiwanese, South Korean, and Chinese manufacturers." The defendants "accomplished their price-fixing conspiracy through, among other things, meetings and the exchange of confidential information regarding pricing, costs, manufacturing and supply issues," it said. "The purpose of these secret, conspiratorial meetings, discussions, and communications was to ensure that all Defendants agreed to participate in and implement an unlawful, continuing price-fixing scheme." Named as defendants were AVX, Elna, Hitachi Chemical, Kemet, Matsuo, NEC-Tokin, Nichicon, Nippon Chemi-Con, Panasonic, Rohm, Rubycon, Samsung, Sanyo, Taiyo-Yuden, Toshin Kogyo, United Chemi-Con and Vishay Intertechnology. Of those we canvassed for reaction to the complaint, only Panasonic spokesman Jim Reilly responded Sunday by email to say: "The matter involves ongoing litigation, so it would not be appropriate for us to comment on it."

Oral argument in the court challenge against the FCC incentive auction order by NAB and Sinclair could be heard as early as March, said the briefing schedule released by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Thursday. Final briefs are due Jan. 27, and oral argument is typically heard at least 45 days after the last briefs are filed, the order said. In an expedited case such as this one, oral argument is typically heard very soon after the final brief, an attorney experienced in such matters told us. The court’s schedule is very close to the one requested by all three parties to the case in a joint filing (see 1410060045), designed to allow the case to wrap up before the mid-2015 incentive auction. NAB and Sinclair asked to brief their cases separately, since their objections are focused on different sections of the auction order. NAB raised issues about the commission’s use of updated OET-69 software, while Sinclair argued that the FCC violated the law by requiring displaced licensees to cease operating on their old channels within 39 months of the auction even if their replacement facilities aren’t usable. The D.C. Circuit said petitioners will file their briefs jointly, limiting the amount of space each argument will have. Their initial brief is due Nov. 7.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling that Redbox’s sharing of customer service data with Stream Global Services, the company to which it outsources that function, doesn’t violate laws against sharing customer video rental information, in an opinion released Thursday (http://1.usa.gov/ZJTgKc). “Redbox’s actions fall within the statutory exception for disclosures in the ordinary course of business,” said the opinion. Redbox has been sued by two customers who argued that providing the customer service data to a second party violated the Video Privacy Protection Act. “Congress enacted the VPPA in 1988, before the advent of automated kiosks,” and couldn’t have anticipated the need for a separate customer service company to service such kiosks, the opinion said.