Sept 14, 2016 10:00 AM
QOMO LLC, issues the following statement regarding the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) Investigation No. 337-TA-967, titled “Certain Document Cameras and Software for Use Therewith,” and addresses the false and misleading statement issued by HoverCam a/k/a, Pathway Innovations and Technologies, Inc.
The ITC permits QOMO to import and sell non-infringing document cameras. By its name, the ITC’s investigation covers only certain document cameras and software. QOMO chose not to litigate in the ITC investigation, instead focusing on introducing newer, non-infringing products to its customers. The ITC’s limited exclusion order is specifically directed to “document cameras and software for use therewith that are covered by [certain claims] of U.S. Patent No. 8,508,751” and not any other QOMO’s document cameras. QOMO is in the process of releasing the new versions of its document cameras that do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,508,751(“the ’751 patent”) and are not covered by the ITC’s limited exclusion order.
Meanwhile, QOMO will seek legal actions against HoverCam for spreading the false and misleading statement, including that “QOMO is prohibited from selling or importing into the United States all document cameras.” Even for QOMO’s allegedly infringing document cameras, the ITC allows QOMO to sell these products by posting bond for a period of time, although QOMO has discontinued these old products. This shows that HoverCam made its false and misleading statement intentionally to tortiously interfere QOMO’s business relationship with its customers.
In addition, upon QOMO’s request, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has instituted an inter partes review proceeding (Case No. IPR2016-00661) on September 6, 2016, finding that “there is a reasonable likelihood” that QOMO would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of several claims of the ’751 patent. QOMO further intends to present proof in the ongoing federal lawsuit before the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No. 3:15-cv-01540) that the ’751 patent is invalid and not infringed.
For any questions or inquires, please contact us at email@example.com.