The OEM has now filed a petition for the commission to review the initial determination granting motions for summary determination of non-infringement and terminating the investigation in its entirety.
On 20 May 2019, the USITC issued a notice to affirm the initial determination, granting Ninestar, Static and some other respondents’ respective motions for summary determination of non-infringement.
Canon then announced its plans to appeal the U.S. International Trade Commission’s final determination terminating Investigation No. 337-TA-1106, which pertains to certain toner cartridges and photosensitive drum units sold for use in Canon and HP laser beam printers.
In reaching its decision, the ITC determined that the claims at issue should be interpreted narrowly to exclude the respondents’ accused products. Canon believes that narrow interpretation is legally erroneous and said it will appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which will review the construction de novo, without deference to the ITC.
Canon’s appeal asserts that in the original decision the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) errored in its interpretation of the coupling. And now seeks on appeal a review of “Did the ALJ err in finding that Canon disavowed coverage of non-pivoting coupling members, even though the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language clearly encompasses non-pivoting coupling members?”
