RSSITC Investigation Into Mfg. Processes Could Shut Down HDD Imports
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published October 11, 2007, 4:45 PM
In what could be an unprecedented patent infringement claim with the capability to shut down the imports of hard disk drives made by Seagate, Toshiba, and Western Digital, the US International Trade Commission announced yesterday it will take seriously a claim of patent infringement made by the inventors of a circuit board manufacturing process.
By opening a formal investigation into possible Section 337 violations, the ITC sets in motion a process that could lead to the indefinite suspension of a vast number of hard drives into this country, along with computers from Dell and HP that include them.
The patents in question are not held by a portfolio manager, as with so many disputes of late, but instead with Steven F. and Mary Reiber, who live in the suburbs of Sacramento. Mr. Reiber is the holder of five US patents pertaining to wire bonding tools. Specifically, he and Ms. Reiber created a tool that factories can use to join electrical wire to circuit boards without sending surges through the boards that short out the other installed parts.
The way it works, according to this World Intellectual Property Organization document, is not by suppressing the entire surge - which may be impossible - but instead equipping the bonding tip with dissipative ceramic.
This way, the tool does send a controlled charge of a moderate amount of electricity, though not enough to be considered a surge, and not enough to cause damage. The most recent US patent granted is dated August 30, 2005.
The ITC said the Reibers are seeking permanent cease-and-desist orders and permanent exclusion orders against the three hard drive manufacturers' products, as well as against HP and Dell PCs including those products. The Commission did not list the specific drives in question, though it's difficult to imagine a situation where one manufacturer makes some HDDs using a dissipative ceramic tip process, and some others without it.
"Section 337" refers to a portion of the Tariff Act of 1930, which declares unlawful "the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation by the owner, importer, or consignee, of articles that (i) infringe a valid and enforceable United States patent or a valid and enforceable United States copyright registered under title 17; or (ii) are made, produced, processed, or mined under, or by means of, a process covered by the claims of a valid and enforceable United States patent."
Though the ITC would not go into detail concerning the specifics of the Reibers' claim, it appears as though manufacturers were unwilling to reach patent license arrangements with individuals, even though they're represented by prominent patent attorneys.
now this IMO is a bogus patent claim. 2005? I am sure this process existed well before that date. And this may be an attempt to lay such a patent claim within the shores of the US. I am sure outside, this tech was in existence and engineered by others 15-25 years ago.
Score: 0
|The implied threat of a shut down of HDD shipments into the U.S. is quite flagrant and a major disruption to a critical segment of trade flow. Imagine, Christmas without all of the gadgets that hard drives are configured into. Worse, imagine IT coming to a standstill at this crtically competiitive time. Will the govt. suspend Sarbanes Oxley? OK, now imagine the timing of the legal action, and how we seldom get the whole story initially. One thing I am very certain of...none of the companies mentioned willfully ignore intellectual property, either their own, or others. This on is going to be interesting to watch unfold.
Score: 0
|Well I don't know how they made the hard drive boards before August 2005 but maybe it's time to consider that process again. Unless of course the way they did it back then is pretty much the same as it is now, would that be previous art or something like that ???
Either way if you ever meet the Reibers, make sure to thank them :)
Score: 0
|Hmm. I can see why this couple would want compensation if they did invent this process. However, compensation is very different from preventing a broad class of products from entering the country. If the drive makers are only unwilling to strike a deal with them because these are individuals instead of a company, then shame on them for not resolving the issue before it got this far. People have a right to fair compensation just like big corporations do. A lengthy courtroom battle won't help anyone because the lawyers are the only ones who will truly profit in the end. We'll all pay higher prices, and shareholders will be stuck with massive losses in inventory that can't be sold along with the legal costs of the battle. Better to settle some sort of royalty agreement or even try to buy the patents.
Score: 0
|Great. An Act from 1930 could damn near raise the prices on *everything* in the US.
Good call leaving *that* one on the books, guys.
Score: 0
|The law is still sound, though. You wouldn't want someone ripping off Windows in another country and re-branding it to sell back to the US.
Score: 0
|No, the intent is sound. The language is obviously causing some issues in the modern age.
I never said the law was bad.
It's just badly written. I can't believe they don't have a department to go over some of these older laws to make sure they aren't going to wreak havoc due to bad wording on the part of the original authors.
Score: 0
|it's called congress
Score: 0
|That bunch of morons that hasn't done a damn thing in nearly a year other than hem and haw about crap they have no say in, grandstand, and, oh yeah, raise minimum wage?
Yeah. I am not expecting squat from this congress. I feel sorry for the next administration, regardless of party.
Score: 0
|"...patent infringement...of a circuit board manufacturing process."
So you can patent a process, huh?
Sorry guys, but I'm going to have to patent the process of how to correctly turn your computer on.
Score: 0
|RTFA. It's actually a tool. But yes, they do patent processes - but you can't patent one that is obvious to anyone like you suggested.
Score: 0
|Oh but you can, and people do. One click? Method of swinging on a swing? There are tens of thousands of process patents that pass the obviousness test yet remain...
Score: 0
|I think he meant with the CURRENT patent law...which was just reformed.
Score: 0
|