ARTICLE
19 October 2021

Chief ALJ Bullock 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 October 7, 2021, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice regarding his initial determination ("ID") of no violation of section 337 in Certain Electronic Stud Finders, Metal Detectors...
United States Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On October 7, 2021, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a  notice regarding his initial determination ("ID") of no violation of section 337 in Certain Electronic Stud Finders, Metal Detectors and Electronic Scanners  (Inv. No. 337-TA-1221).

By way of background, this investigation was instituted based on a complaint by Zircon Corporation of Campbell, California alleging violations of section 337 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 ("the '703 patent"); U.S. Patent No. 8,604,771 ("the '771 patent"); and U.S. Patent No. 9,475,185 ("the '185 patent") by Respondents Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. of New Britain, Connecticut and Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. of Towson, Maryland.

According to the notice, the ID is based on the following conclusions of law:

  • Certain accused products infringe claims 1, 9, and 16 of the '662 patent.
  • Certain domestic industry products practice claims 1, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 17 of the '662 patent.
  • Claim 17 of the '662 patent is invalid as obvious.
  • No accused products infringe any asserted claims of the '771 patent.
  • Certain domestic industry products practice claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 13-15, and 22 of the '771 patent.
  • No asserted claims of the '771 patent have been shown to be invalid.
  • No accused products infringe any asserted claims of the '185 patent.
  • Certain domestic industry products practice claims 1, 2, 5-11, 13-15, 17, and 20-22 of the '185 patent.
  • No asserted claims of the '185 patent have been shown to be invalid.
  • The economic prong of the domestic industry requirement has not been satisfied with respect to any asserted patent.


We will post the public version of the ID 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.

See More Popular Content From

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