China's Ministry of Commerce website September 4 News, August 30, the United States Autel Robotics Company in accordance with the U.S. 1930 Tariff Act No. 337, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) filed an application, accusing Shenzhen DJI Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "DJI")
and its affiliates ' exports to the United States, drones and their components (Unnamed aerial vehicles and thereof) that are imported or sold in the United States violate their patent rights and request the ITC to initiate a 337 investigation and issue a limited exclusion order and a restraining order.
It is reported that the case plaintiff Autel Robotics Company is a Chinese company in the U.S. subsidiary, the company is known as Shenzhen Road Tong Intelligent Aviation Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Dao Tong Intelligent"), was established in 2014, the registered capital of 710 million yuan.
Passepartout Intelligence has a long history of patent disputes with DJI. In August 2016, DJI initiated a lawsuit in the United States Delaware Federal District Court (Federal District Court of Delaware), claiming that Autel Robotics violated its 3 patents; May 19, 2017, DJI again in the Western District of Washington Federal Court (Western District Federal District Court) launched a lawsuit, said Autel robotics patent infringement;
In March 2018, two prosecutions were consolidated by the Delaware Federal District Court.
Just one months later, Autel Robotics sued three subsidiaries in the United States for violating its 2 U.S. invention patents. It is noteworthy, however, that Autel Robotics's 2 patents involved in the DJI lawsuit were acquired.
The two patents were transferred to Autel Robotics company in October 2017 and April 2018.
337 investigation refers to an investigation by ITC pursuant to section No. 337 of the U.S. Tariff Act of 1930 (Tariff Act of 1930) and related amendments prohibiting all unfair acts of competition or any unfair trade in products exported to the United States. 337 investigations may be initiated by the plaintiff or by the ITC itself, but most of them are filed by the plaintiff. Upon receipt of the application, ITC will conduct a review and decide whether to file a case within 30th. If a decision is made, the ITC will publish the plaintiff and the prosecution in the Federal Chronicle (Federal Register) and serve each defendant with an application and notice of investigation.
If the ITC decides not to make a case, the plaintiff should be justified. 6 months after the commencement of the investigation, the administrative judge may preside over the hearing and fully listen to the parties ' quality and defense opinions. At the hearing, each party has the right to inquire, to provide evidence, to oppose, to move, to debate, etc.
Hearings generally take 1--2 weeks.
After the hearing, no later than 9 months after filing (if the target date of the investigation exceeds 15 months, 4 months before the end of the investigation), the administrative judge should submit to the ITC a preliminary decision on the case, stating whether there is a violation of paragraph 337 and making recommendations on relief measures. After the initial cut is made, the ITC may, on the request of the parties or on its own initiative, review the initial cut and decide whether to review it within 90 days after the initial decision. The ITC's decision to review will be final. In the event that the ITC's final rulings and remedies (if any) are made and posted in the Federal Chronicle, the final and relief measures are in force.
After the final release, the foreign products that were convicted of infringement can be imported by way of margin until the end of the presidential scrutiny period. After the final decision is made, the ITC shall submit it to the President of the United States for consideration, if the president has not rejected the decision on policy grounds within 60 days after the ITC decision is made, the award will be final.
In practice, there are few cases where the President of the United States vetoed ITC's final results. It is particularly noteworthy that in patent infringement cases, the parties may settle the dispute by signing a settlement agreement and terminate the investigation. There were 3 statutory reconciliation meetings throughout the 337 investigation process, prompting the parties to reach a settlement. The content of the settlement agreement usually includes: the defendant ceases to import, the plaintiff waives the accusation against the defendant, authorizes the defendant to use the patent, the determination of the infringement facts, the time of sale of the disputed product or the regional provisions. The parties to the settlement agreement must submit a copy of the agreement to the administrative judge for review. From the point of view of public interest, the administrative judge examines whether there are anti-competitive factors in the settlement agreement and whether it is contrary to public interests. If the examination results are qualitative, the administrative judge may make a preliminary decision to conclude the investigation in accordance with the agreement.