Townsend’s experience before the U.S. International Trade Commission is just one example of our firm’s ability to think beyond the constraints of patent litigation in U.S. district courts. A distinguishing feature of the ITC is its reputation as a speedy forum, making it an increasingly popular forum of patentees seeking to prevent companies from importing goods outside the United States.
Townsend is uniquely qualified for practicing this type of fast-paced litigation. With its depth of technical expertise, Townsend can quickly understand complex technology and complicated patent issues. Armed with these skills, Townsend can provide superior advice and representation to clients faced with an ITC complaint.
Recent representative cases include:
In re Certain Rubber Antidegradants, Components Thereof, And Products Containing Same, ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-533. Townsend lawyers successfully defended Korea Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. ("KKPC") at trial in defense of a patent infringement action involving the manufacture and importation of tire chemicals. In both the trial decision and subsequent review by the Commission, KKPC was found not to be in violation of section 337 of the ITC’s unfair trade practice laws, thus preserving KKPC’s ability to import tire chemicals and tires made with those tire chemicals into the U.S.
Amkor Technology, Inc. v. Carsem Semiconductor Sdn Bhd. Carsem hired Townsend to defend against charges by Amkor that Carsem infringed 21 claims of three different patents related to semiconductor packaging. Townsend lawyers tried the case for over five weeks, obtaining an Initial Determination that all asserted claims were invalid, not infringed, or both, and that Carsem did not violate Section 337.
Gemstar-TV Guide v. EchoStar, Pioneer and Scientific-Atlanta. In a case ultimately won by its client, Townsend represented Gemstar at trial in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning interactive program guides used in cable and satellite set-top boxes.
Genesis Microchip Inc v. SmartASIC, Inc. In defense of display controller manufacturer SmartASIC, Townsend obtained an early dismissal of the Genesis Microchip complaint after Townsend arranged to purchase a key prior art patent and threatened a countersuit to put Genesis Microchip out of the display controller business.
Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Integrated Circuit Systems, Inc. Integrated Circuit Systems ("ICS") hired Townsend to defend it against patent infringement charges by Cypress Semiconductor accusing ICS of infringing Cypress' patent relating to zero delay buffers - a product which represented a significant portion of ICS's business in the United States. In response, Townsend lawyers filed ICS’ own counter ITC patent action against Cypress and had the two actions consolidated, which ultimately resulted in a successful settlement for ICS.
Micron Technologies, Inc. v. Hyundai Electronics, Inc. Hyundai hired Townsend to defend it against patent infringement charges by competitor Micron, which accused Hyundai of infringing its patents involving anisotropic etching plasma etching technology. Townsend lawyers tried the case for four weeks, presenting compelling evidence of both invalidity and non-infringement. The case settled on very favorable terms for Hyundai just prior to the Administrative Law Judge issuing her Initial Determination.
Hynix Semiconductor v. Toshiba Corp.: In the Matter of Certain NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-553. Townsend lawyers representing Hynix tried this case, which involved two patents relating to semiconductor processes and flash memory devices. Following trial, the case was on review at the Commission before settling.
SGS Thomson v. Hyundai Electronics, Inc. Hyundai hired Townsend to defend it against patent infringement charges filed by SGS Thomson regarding its semiconductor processing patents. The case settled on favorable terms for Hyundai.
Intel Corporation v. Hyundai Electronics America, Inc., et al. Hyundai hired Townsend to defend against patent infringement charges filed by Intel regarding Intel's EPROM patents. Six of Intel's eight patents were held either invalid or not infringed. Of the patents held to be infringed, one related to an obsolete design and the other was easily designed around.