Lithium Metal Oxide Cathode Materials: Commission Grants Relief after First Oral Hearing in a 337 Investigation in 10 Years

by Morrison & Foerster LLP - MoFo@ITC
Contact

On January 26, 2017, after taking the unusual step of ordering a full International Trade Commission oral hearing to consider issues including laches, remedy, and public interest, the Commission issued a limited exclusion order (LEO) in Lithium Metal Oxide Cathode Materials, Inv. No. 337-TA-951. The oral hearing was the first held before the Commission since the 2007 hearing in Baseband Processor Chips, Inv. No. 337-TA-543.  It remains to be seen whether this is the start of a new trend of more frequent Commission oral hearings in section 337 investigations.

Background

Complainants BASF Corporation (BASF) and UChicago national laboratory Argonne LLC (ANL)[1] asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 6,677,082 (“the ’082 patent”) and 6,680,143 (“the ’143 patent”) against materials manufactured and imported by Umicore N.V. (Belgium) and Umicore USA Inc. (collectively, “Umicore” or “Respondents”). Argonne owns the patents-in-suit, while BASF held exclusive licenses to the patents. Comm’n Op. at 2. Both patents claim lithium metal oxide electrodes used in battery cells. Since ANL developed the technology, the DOE and U.S. government retain nonexclusive licenses under both patents. Id. at 3, fn. 1.

On February 29, 2016, Judge Pender issued a final initial determination (ID) finding that Umicore had violated Section 337 by importing materials that directly infringed both the ’143 and ’082 patents. ID at 65-71, 83-85. The judge also found contributory infringement, inferring intent from the absence of a non-infringing use of the accused material. Id. at 84 (citing Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005)). With respect to induced infringement, the judge determined that Umicore had a sufficient good-faith belief in non-infringement to negate the intent requirement for inducement. ID at 81-82. Umicore argued that its belief as to non-infringement had been based on chemical and crystallographic studies showing differences between its products and the asserted claims. Id.

Umicore’s laches defense – that Complainants had waited too long to file their complaint after learning of the potentially infringing products – failed as a matter of law. Umicore argued that SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, 807 F.3d 1311, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), made laches available as a defense in Section 337 investigations because it expressly overruled an earlier case, A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992), which the Commission had relied upon to reach the opposite conclusion. See Comm’n Op. at 15-16 citing SCA Hygiene, 807 F.3d at 1132. The judge, however, agreed with Complainants that SCA Hygiene “does not alter the principle that ‘laches does not provide . . . any meaningful defense in a Section 337 investigation.’” ID at 122 (citations omitted). The judge also ruled that Umicore’s laches defense failed on the merits because there was no evidence BASF knew Umicore sold accused products in the United States before filing its complaint. ID at 122.

Accordingly, the judge recommended issuing an LEO prohibiting importation of Umicore’s infringing products. Recommended Determination (RD) at 2-3.  The judge found that none of the public interest factors weighed against the LEO. RD at 10.

Commission Review

Umicore petitioned for review of the ID’s infringement, domestic industry, and laches findings on March 14, 2016, and requested a Commission hearing. On the same day, Complainants filed a petition challenging the finding of no induced infringement. The Commission investigative attorney petitioned for review of the ID’s laches finding.

The Commission determined to review the final ID on May 11, 2016, and scheduled a hearing for November 17, 2016. At the hearing, Umicore presented witnesses, including an industry representative (e.g., a product development manager at 3M), professors, and market analysts who argued that Umicore’s lithium oxide materials were essential for the research and development of batteries for electric vehicles, energy systems, and medical device applications. Comm’n Op. at 45-47. Witnesses for Complainants included the DOE (represented by its general counsel, among others). Id. at 47. The DOE testified about its interest in the patented technology and its “innovation pipeline” bringing advances from public sector research to commercial applications. Id. Failure to enforce the DOE’s patents, it argued, undermines support for the pipeline. Id.

Commission Opinion

The Commission upheld the ID’s finding that Umicore had failed to prove laches on the merits. Comm’n Op. at 15. For future investigations, however, the Commission took no position as to whether a laches defense is available at the ITC, since SCA Hygiene’s overruling of Auckerman’s bar on laches is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. Id.

With respect to induced infringement, the Commission overruled the ID’s finding that Umicore had possessed a good-faith belief of non-infringement. No evidence showed that Umicore had actually relied on its chemical and crystallographic studies to conclude that its products did not infringe. Id. at 22-23. Moreover, data cited by Umicore was insufficient to show non-infringement and its expert’s testimony, commissioned specifically for the ITC investigation, could not establish any pre-investigation belief by Umicore. Id. at 23-24. The Commission found specific intent to infringe in Umicore’s failure to seriously pursue licenses during negotiations with the Complainants, and in Umicore’s failure to investigate its customers’ suggestions that its product compositions fell within the scope of the patents-at-issue. Id. at 25-26.

With regard to public interest, the Commission rejected Umicore’s arguments that an exclusion order would negatively impact R&D in energy technology. Id. at 48. Despite substantial expert testimony, no “person appearing before the Commission could identify any particular ongoing research effort that would be impacted by an exclusion order.” Id. The Commission concluded that sources other than Umicore might still provide the materials (id. at 50-51), and the government would still be able to develop the technology because of its licenses to the patented technology (id. at 49). The Commission reasoned that these circumstances distinguished the case from Inclined-Field Acceleration Tubes, Inv. No. 337-TA-67, where an exclusion order’s impeding of research and development was determined to be contrary to the public interest and warranted denial of any remedy order. Here, unlike in Inclined-Field Acceleration Tubes, the ITC concluded there was no evidence that Umicore’s materials were indispensable to ongoing R&D efforts. Id. at 50.

Finally, the Commission rejected Complainants’ suggestion that the LEO include a provision requiring the Commission to adjudicate any redesigns before importation. Id. at 29. Instead, the Commission ruled that Customs and Border Protection, not the ITC, initially enforces exclusion orders with respect to redesigns. Id. It advised that the parties may seek enforcement, advisory, or modifications proceedings before the Commission (presumably a nod to the ITC’s new pilot program for redesigns and new products). Id. at 29.


[1] Argonne National Laboratory, represented by ANL, is a scientific laboratory run by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP - MoFo@ITC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Morrison & Foerster LLP - MoFo@ITC
Contact
more
less

Morrison & Foerster LLP - MoFo@ITC on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.