On August 10, 2021, the ITC issued an investigation notice in Certain network devices, computers and components thereof (Inv. N ° 337-TA-1275).
For your information, this investigation is based on a June 1, 2021 (as amended) complaint filed by Proven Networks, LLC of Los Angeles, California (“Proven”) alleging a violation of Section 337 by the Respondent F5 Networks, Inc. of Seattle, Washington (“F5”) in the illegal importation and / or sale in the United States of certain network devices, computers and components thereof by reason of counterfeiting one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,687,573 (“the ‘573 patent”).
According to the complaint, the ‘573 patent concerns the allocation of resources in a communication system, and more specifically the allocation of resources according to the priorities of the services at different levels of users. The incriminated products are networking devices (for example, switches, gateways, and application delivery controller products) that manage traffic flow and bandwidth for application quality of service, policy management and security on a network, and associated software. Proven is asking the Board to issue a limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order for F5. According to the notice of investigation, the Bureau of Unfair Import Investigation will participate as a party to the investigation. Finally, ALJ Chief Charles E. Bullock issued a notice stating that ALJ Cameron R. Elliot will chair the investigation.
In addition, F5 had requested that the Board use the early disposition program to resolve issues of patent validity (limited to a prior art reference) and domestic industry. Specifically, F5 asserted that the ‘573 patent is invalid based on a prior art reference published by one of the inventors years before the priority date. F5 also argued that Proven will not be able to establish a domestic industry on the basis of the activities / investments of its licensee (Extreme Network, Inc. (“Extreme”)) because (a) Extreme has been licensed from ‘573 patent in litigation – a settlement based on the settlement not involving the’ 573 patent, which was included in the settlement under a portfolio license; and (b) therefore, no inference can be drawn that Extreme uses the ‘573 patent for purposes of the technical side of the domestic industry’s requirement. The Board issued an order denying F5’s claim “because the disability issue may not be determinative, and the disability and domestic industry issues may be too complex to be resolved within 100 days of the decision. ‘institution. “