Commission confirms patent ruling

The International Trade Commission has issued its final determination in Power Integrations' patent-infringement case against System General Corp.

The International Trade Commission (ITC) has issued its final determination in Power Integrations' patent-infringement case against System General Corp (SG).

The ITC has confirmed the administrative law judge's determination that certain of SG's power-supply controllers infringe Power Integrations' US Patent Nos 6,351,398 and 6,538,908, and that SG is therefore in violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

The ITC has also issued an exclusion order against SG's infringing products, which include the SG6840, SG6841, SG6841x3, SG6842, SG6842J and SG6843.

The exclusion order prohibits the importation of these parts into the USA, as well as the import of any LCD monitors and AC printer adapters containing the infringing parts.

The exclusion order is expected to become effective on the close of the 60-day Presidential review period, which begins immediately.

During the review period, any importer of an infringing SG chip must pay a bond of 38 cents for each imported infringing chip or each imported product containing an infringing chip.

"Intellectual property is the lifeblood of our business, and we are determined to protect it against unlawful infringement by competitors", said Balu Balakrishnan, President and CEO of Power Integrations.

"By ordering the exclusion of SG's infringing parts from the US market, the ITC has struck a decisive blow in favour of fair competition".

Power Integrations is proceeding with its patent-infringement lawsuit against SG in Federal District Court in San Francisco, originally filed in June 2004.

In that lawsuit, which was stayed pending the final decision of the ITC, the company seeks an injunction against all SG products that infringe Power Integrations patents, including the SG 6848 and SG 6849 products, and other, newer parts not subject to the ITC decision.

Power Integrations is also seeking financial damages in the district court case.

Back to top