In addition to the WDPA case filed on May 31, 2011, X2Y Attenuators also filed a complaint with the USITC. Today, the ITC announced initiation of an investigation:

From the USITC:

June 30, 2011

News Release 11-071

Inv. No. 337-TA-781

Contact: Peg O'Laughlin, 202-205-1819

USITC INSTITUTES SECTION 337 INVESTIGATION ON CERTAIN MICROPROCESSORS, COMPONENTS THEREOF, AND PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain microprocessors, components thereof, and products containing same. The products at issue in this investigation are microprocessors designed for improved power delivery.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by X2Y Attenuators, LLC, of Erie, PA, on May 31, 2011. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain microprocessors, components thereof, and products containing same that infringe patents asserted by the complainant. The complainant requests that the USITC issue an exclusion order and a cease and desist order.

The USITC has identified the following as respondents in this investigation:

• Intel Corporation of Santa Clara, CA;
• Componentes Intel de Costa Rica S.A. of Costa Rica;
• Intel Malaysia Sdn. Bhd of Malaysia;
• Intel (Philippines) of the Philippines;
• Intel Products (Chengdu) Ltd. of China;
• Intel Products (Shanghai) Ltd. of China;
• Apple Inc. of Cupertino, CA; and
• Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto, CA.

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-781), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC's Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC's six administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission.

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

Related Posts:

• X2Y Attenuators v. Intel, Apple, HP

On May 31, 2011, X2Y Attenuators, LLC filed a complaint for patent infringement in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The patents at issue are United States Patent Nos. 6,738,249 (“the 249 patent”); 7,110,227 (“the 227 patent”); 7,609,500 (“the 500 patent”); 7,733,621 (“the 621 patent”); and 7,916,444 (“the 444 patent”).  The patents relate to energy conditioning in electronic circuits.  The infringement allegations all appear to relate to Intel's Core iX processors.

With regard to Apple:

13. Intel, Apple, and Hewlett-Packard have infringed and continue to infringe the 249 patent by engaging in acts constituting direct infringement, contributory infringement, and/or inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq., including but not necessarily limited to one or more of making, using, selling, and offering to sell, in this District and elsewhere in the United States, and importing into this District and elsewhere in the United States, without authority, products and services including but not necessarily limited to microprocessors and products that contain microprocessors, including personal computers.

14. Upon information and belief, one such microprocessor includes the Intel Core i7-950 3.06GHz 8M L3 Cache LGA1366 Desktop Processor.

15. Upon information and belief, one such personal computer includes the Apple iMac 27"/3.20/2x2GB Model No: A1312 personal computer sold with an Intel Core i3 processor.

Similar assertions are made with regard to the '227, '500, '621, and '444.

The patents have complex histories.  For instance, the '444 states:

This application is a

• continuation of application Ser. No. 12/554,976, filed Sep. 7, 2009 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,768,763,
• which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 11/866,437, filed Oct. 3, 2007, now abandoned,
• which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 11/296,391, filed Dec. 8, 2005, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,321,485,
• which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 10/189,339, filed Jul. 2, 2002, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,110,235,
• which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 10/115,159, filed Apr. 2, 2002, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,894,884,
• which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 09/845,680, filed Apr. 30, 2001, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,580,595,
• which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 09/777,021, filed Feb. 5, 2001, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,687,108,
• which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 09/632,048, filed Aug. 3, 2000, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,738,249,
• which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 09/594,447, filed Jun. 15, 2000, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,636,406,
• which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 09/579,606, filed May 26, 2000, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,373,673,
• which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 09/460,218, filed Dec. 13, 1999, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,331,926,
• which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/056,379, filed Apr. 7, 1998, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,018,448,
• which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 09/008,769, filed Jan. 19, 1998, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,097,581,
• which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 08/841,940, filed Apr. 8, 1997, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 5,909,350.

That is so many generations that if this patent were a person, the last patent in that list might have come to the US on the Mayflower.

 

More to follow if the case moves forward.