ITC Commissioner F. Scott Kieff to leave International Trade Commission

ITC Commissioner F. Scott Kieff has publicly announced that he will be leaving the International Trade Commission and returning to his academic posts as a Professor at George Washington University Law School and a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. Kieff’s last day at the ITC will be June 30, 2017.

Kieff, a Republican, was sworn in on Friday, October 18, 2013, as a Commissioner of the ITC. Nominated by President Barack H. Obama, he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on August 1, 2013, for a term that would have expired on June 16, 2020.

Before being sworn in, Kieff took a leave of absence from his post as a Professor at the George Washington University Law School in Washington, DC, which he joined as a faculty member in the summer of 2009. Also before being sworn in at the ITC, Kieff resigned his roles at the Stanford University Hoover Institution, where he was the Ray & Louise Knowles Senior Fellow. Kieff will resume roles at George Washington University Law School and at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution effective July 1, 2017.

Before entering academia, Kieff practiced law for over six years as a trial lawyer and patent lawyer for Pennie & Edmonds in New York and Jenner & Block in Chicago and also served as a Law Clerk to Judge Giles S. Rich of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. After entering academia, he regularly served as a testifying and consulting expert, mediator, and arbitrator to law firms, businesses, government agencies, and courts.

Kieff’s research, teaching, practical experience has always focused on the law, economics, and politics of innovation, including entrepreneurship, corporate governance, finance, economic development, trade, intellectual property, antitrust, bankruptcy, medical ethics, technology policy, and health policy. Kieff was recognized as one of the nation’s “Top 50 under 45” by the magazine IP Law & Business in May, 2008, and was inducted as a Member of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts in March 2012.

Originally from the Hyde Park neighborhood in Chicago, Kieff became a lawyer in New York City and now lives with his family in Washington, DC. Before attending law school at the University of Pennsylvania, he studied molecular biology and microeconomics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and conducted research in molecular genetics at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, MA.

Nintendo Prevails at ITC in Wii Case

WiiOn Sept. 12, 2013, Nintendo won a patent infringement case brought at the International Trade Commission by Creative Kingdoms. The commission found that Nintendo’s Wii and Wii U systems do not infringe Creative Kingdoms’ patents. The commission also found that Creative Kingdoms’ patents are invalid.

On April 27, 2011, the Commission instituted the investigation based on a complaint filed by Creative Kingdoms, LLC of Wakefield, Rhode Island and New Kingdoms, LLC of Nehalem, Oregon. The complaint alleged violations of Section 337 by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,500,917 (“the ‘917 patent”), 7,896,742 (“the ‘742 patent”), 7,850,527 (“the ‘527 patent”), and 6,761,637 (the ‘637 patent). The ‘637 patent was subsequently terminated from the investigation. On August 31, 2012, the ALJ issued a final Initial Determination (ID) finding no violation of section 337 by Nintendo.

The ALJ found that the accused products infringe sole asserted claim 24 of the ‘742 patent, but that the claim is invalid for failing to satisfy the enablement requirement and the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The ALJ found that no accused products infringe the asserted claims of the ‘917 patent and the ‘527 patent. The ALJ also found that the asserted claims of the ‘917 and ‘527 patents are invalid for failing to satisfy the enablement requirement and the written description requirement. The ALJ concluded that complainant has failed to show that a domestic industry exists in the United States that exploits the asserted patents as required by 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2). The ALJ did not make a finding regarding the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the asserted patents. The ALJ also did not making a finding with respect to anticipation and obviousness of the asserted patents.

(more…)

Reexamination Requests For the Weeks of October 18th and 25th

Here is the latest  installment of Reexamination Requests from Scott M. Daniels, of Reeaxamination Alert and Practice Center Contributor which includes the requests for the weeks of October 18th and October 25th….

NVIDIA Attack on Rambus Patent Among Requests Filed the Week of October 18th

In their litigation/reexamination wars, Rambus and NVIDIA often look like two boxers trying to slug each other into submission.  That was true last Wednesday.  The same day that the PTO issued its Notice of Intent to issue a reexamination certificate, confirming the claims of Rambus’ U.S. Patent No. 6,715,020, NVIDIA requested another reexamination (Inter Partes Request No. 2 below).  The ‘020 patent is just one of 17 patents that Rambus has accused NVIDIA of infringing in their case pending in the Central District of California.  Five of those Rambus patents in litigation were the subject of a recently settled ITC investigation.  The ‘020 patent is related to Rambus’ U.S. Patent No. 7,209,997, which is also part of the California litigation and the subject of two pending reexaminations.  NVIDIA is now appealing the reexamination examiner’s decision to confirm the patentability of the ‘997 claims (95/000,471). (more…)