Certain Pre-Stretched Synthetic Braiding Hair and Packaging Therefor II; Inv. No. 337-TA-1457 (Violation)

The ALJ found no violation of Section 337 as to any of the four asserted patents (the 026, 301, 478 and 616 patents). Infringement was found for claim 1 of the 026 patent, claims 1 and 8 of the 301 patent and claim 11 of the 616 patent, but not for claim 20 of the 478 patent. Each of those asserted claims was held invalid over prior art braid products, so the violation failed despite a finding that the economic prong of domestic industry was met. The complainant JBS gets no exclusion order, because invalidity defeated every asserted claim. The ALJ nonetheless made a conditional recommended remedy: limited exclusion orders with certification provisions, a cease and desist order only against Hair Zone, no general exclusion order, and a 0% bond. The Commission can review the violation and remedy findings if a petition for review is filed or on its own motion. 026 patent: the ALJ found claim 1 infringed and covered by the domestic industry products, but invalid, so there is no violation. 301 patent: claims 1 and 8 were found infringed, with articles protected by claims 1, 4, 7 and 8, but both asserted claims were found invalid, so there is no violation. 478 patent: infringement of claim 20 was not proven and the claim was found invalid, so there is no violation. 616 patent: claim 11 was found infringed and covered by the domestic industry products, but invalid, so there is no violation. Domestic industry economic prong was met under subsections (A) and (B) but not (C). JBS failed to show that its representative products stood for the other domestic industry and accused products. The ALJ rejected the res judicata defense.