Shenzhen Dajiang Successfully Invalidated 3 U.S. Patents, Chinese Enterprises Go to Sea to Actively Respond to "337 Investigation"!

Shenzhen DajiangINNOVATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED(hereinafter referred toDJI)As a global drone giant, its U. S.“337 investigation"The case has been widely concerned by the industry. August 30, 2018Shenzhen Daotong Intelligent Aviation Technology Co.The Autel Robotics (hereinafter referred to as Autel) initiated a request to the U.S. International Trade Commission (hereinafter referred to as ITC). The ITC began investigating the three U.S. patents (patent numbers US7979174,US9260184 and US10044013 respectively) claimed by Autel on October 2, 2018. As a response, DJI filed a review request for these three patents in the United States Patent Office (USPTO) and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). On March 2, 2020, ITC Chief Administrative Law Judge Bullock preliminarily ruled that some of DJI's products infringed US9260184 patents, recommending that most models of DJI drones be removed from the shelves and blocked access to the U.S. market. Within the 60-day review period of the decision, the request for review had its outcome.PTAB declared all claims of the US7979174 and US10044013 patents invalid, and on May 21, 2020, PTAB determined that claims 1,2,5-9, and 11 in the US9260184 were not patented. According to relevant sources, US9260184 the remaining claims that have not been invalidated should have nothing to do with the previously determined infringement, Dajiang's sales in the United States will not be affected by Autel's case.

"337 investigation" can actually be regarded as a quasi-judicial process,withLitigationcompared,The "337 investigation" trial period is short, usually 12-18 months to close the case..Section 1337 of Title 19 of the United States Code provides that the ITC may conduct an administrative investigation if there is an infringement of intellectual property rights or other unfair competition in any import trade.If the ITC determines that an imported product infringes domestic intellectual property rights in the United States, or does not infringe intellectual property rights but its effect destroys or substantially harms a U.S. industry, or hinders the establishment of such an industry, or restricts or monopolizes U.S. commerce or trade, the ITC has the right to impose sanctions.

The authority for "337 investigations" is ITC, which has three main departments: 1.ITC5 members, who are responsible for considering initial determinations and reviewing and making final determinations as necessary.2.Five Administrative Judges (ALJ), one of whom is appointed by the Commission to conduct preliminary hearings on cases, including investigations, hearings and preliminary rulings.3.The Unfair Import Investigation Office (OUII) has three main functions. First, it contacts the plaintiff to ensure that the indictment meets the requirements of ITC in form and content. Second, OUII conducts an informal investigation into the allegations raised in the indictment and recommends to ITC whether to formally initiate a 337 investigation. Third, after the investigation is officially launched, OUII's full-time lawyers can participate in the investigation as the public interest representatives.

In recent years, for Chinese enterprises“337 investigation"The vast majority of cases are patent infringements, and a small number of cases involve trade secrets, copyright and trademark infringements.Mainly concentrated in the communications equipment, computers and other technical content of the electronics industry and manufacturing.In 2019, a total of 85 Chinese companies were sued to the ITC, of which 43 Chinese companies chose to respond to the lawsuit, and their enthusiasm has been greatly improved. This reflects,Chinese companies are paying more and more attention to the layout of patents. Before the products go abroad, they consciously use intellectual property rights to protect their technology, and they can respond more maturely“337 investigation ".