Roku, Inc. v. Itc

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: June 17, 2025
• Docket: 23-1317
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-1317 Document: 95 Page: 1 Filed: 06/17/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ROKU, INC., Appellant

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee

UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC., GEMSTAR TECHNOLOGY (QINZHOU) CO. LTD., GEMSTAR TECHNOLOGY (YANGZHOU) CO. LTD., C.G. DEVELOPMENT LTD., UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS BV, CG MEXICO REMOTE CONTROLS, S. DE R.L. DE C.V., CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING LLC, SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, ALTICE USA, INC., CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, CEQUEL COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, WIDEOPENWEST, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., LG ELECTRONICS INC., LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., Intervenors ______________________

2023-1317 ______________________ Case: 23-1317 Document: 95 Page: 2 Filed: 06/17/2025

Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1263. ______________________

Decided: June 17, 2025 ______________________

JONATHAN DANIEL BAKER, Dickinson Wright RLLP, Mountain View, CA, argued for appellant. Also repre- sented by DINO HADZIBEGOVIC, MARK HOWARD ROGGE; STEVEN R. DANIELS, MICHAEL DAVID SAUNDERS, Austin, TX; CRAIG Y. ALLISON, Nashville, TN.

BENJAMIN S. RICHARDS, Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, Washing- ton, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by MICHELLE W. KLANCNIK, MICHAEL LIBERMAN, HOUDA MORAD, SIDNEY A. ROSENZWEIG.

THOMAS WILLIAM DAVISON, Alston & Bird LLP, Wash- ington, DC, argued for intervenors Altice USA, Inc., Ca- blevision Systems Corporation, Cequel Communications, LLC, C.G. Development Ltd., CG Mexico Remote Controls, S. de R.L. de C.V., Charter Communications, Inc., Charter Communications Operating LLC, Gemstar Technology (Qinzhou) Co. Ltd., Gemstar Technology (Yangzhou) Co. Ltd., Spectrum Management Holding Company, LLC, Uni- versal Electronics BV, Universal Electronics, Inc., and WideOpenWest, Inc. Also represented by ADAM SWAIN; KIRK T. BRADLEY, STEPHEN LAREAU, NICHOLAS CHRISTOPHER MARAIS, MATTHEW S. STEVENS, Charlotte, NC; HOLLY HAWKINS SAPORITO, NICHOLAS TANG TSUI, At- lanta, GA.

ANDREW RYAN SOMMER, Greenberg Traurig LLP, McLean, VA, for intervenors Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Also represented by RICHARD EDLIN, New York, NY. Case: 23-1317 Document: 95 Page: 3 Filed: 06/17/2025

ROKU, INC. v. ITC 3

CYRUS FRELINGHUYSEN, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Washington, DC, for intervenors Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc. LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc. Also represented by JAMES J. LUKAS, JR., CALLIE SAND, Chicago, IL. ______________________

Before LOURIE, DYK, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges. LOURIE, Circuit Judge. Roku, Inc. appeals from the determination of the Inter- national Trade Commission (the “ITC”) that respondents Universal Electronics, Inc., Gemstar Technology (Qinzhou) Co. Ltd., Gemstar Technology (Yangzhou) Co. Ltd., C.G. Development Ltd., Universal Electronics BV, UEI Brasil Controles Remotos Ltda., CG México Remote Controls, S. de R.L de C.V., LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Charter Communications, Inc., Charter Communications Operating, LLC, Spectrum Management Holding Company, LLC, Altice USA, Inc., Cablevision Sys- tems Corp., Cequel Communications, LLC d/b/a Sud- denlink Communications, and WideOpenWest, Inc. did not violate 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“section 337”) by importing cer- tain televisions, remote controls, and components thereof. See generally Certain Televisions, Remote Controls, & Com- ponents Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1263, 2022 WL 16634058 (October 28, 2022). Relevant here, the ITC determined that asserted claims 1–5, 8–10, and 14 of Roku’s U.S. Patent 8,378,875 (“the ’875 patent”) are invalid and that Roku failed to es- tablish the technical prong of the domestic industry re- quirement of section 337(a)(3)(B) for that patent. The ITC also concluded that asserted claim 5 of Roku’s U.S. Patent No. 7,388,511 (“the ’511 patent”) is invalid as indefinite. Case: 23-1317 Document: 95 Page: 4 Filed: 06/17/2025

A. The ’875 Patent Roku challenges the ITC’s determinations that as- serted claim 10 of the ’875 patent is invalid and that it failed to satisfy the domestic industry requirement. At oral argument, counsel for Roku acknowledged that if we affirm the final written decision of the U.S. Patent Trial and Ap- peal Board (“the Board”) with respect to claim 10 in co- pending Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., No. 24-1188, argued the same day as this case, then this appeal would be moot. See Oral Arg. at 2:35–2:43, availa- ble at https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx ?fl=23-1317_05082025.mp3. We have today affirmed the Board’s decision with respect to that claim. See Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., No. 24-1188, slip op. 10–11, 13, — F. App’x —, — (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2025). This appeal is therefore moot as to the ’875 patent. B. The ’511 Patent The ’511 patent expired during the pendency of this ap- peal. The ITC has a limited statutory mandate and can only issue prospective relief. INVT SPE LLC v. ITC, 46 F.4th 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see also Tex. Instru- ments Inc. v. ITC, 851 F.2d 342, 344 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“The ITC can issue only an exclusion order barring future impor- tation or a cease and desist order barring future conduct. If the violation of section 337 involves patent infringement, neither of the above remedies is applicable once the patent expires.”). Roku and the ITC therefore agree that the ex- piration of the ’511 patent has rendered this appeal as to that patent moot also. Roku Br. 63; ITC Br. 60–61. Certain Intervenors nevertheless argue that the appeal is not moot because of pending district-court litigation in- volving the same parties and the same patent. Intervenors Br. 56–60. We rejected those precise arguments in INVT. We further find unpersuasive Intervenors’ arguments that mootness is avoided by the fact that the invalidity of claim 5, based on indefiniteness, is a purely legal issue. Case: 23-1317 Document: 95 Page: 5 Filed: 06/17/2025

ROKU, INC. v. ITC 5

Accordingly, because the portion of this appeal relating to the ’511 patent was mooted due to the intervening hap- penstance of the patent’s expiration, we vacate the ITC’s decision as to that patent and remand with instructions to dismiss as moot the relevant portions of the complaint. INVT, 46 F.4th at 1370 (collecting cases); see also Hyosung TNS Inc. v. ITC, 926 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[W]here an appeal from the ITC has become moot based on expiration of a patent during pendency of appeal, such ‘happenstance’ has been recognized as supporting vacatur of the underlying decision.” (citations omitted)). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss as moot Roku’s appeal with respect to the ’875 patent, we vacate the ITC’s decision with respect to the ’511 patent, and we remand with instructions to dismiss as moot the portion of the com- plaint relating to the ’511 patent. DISMISSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED COSTS The parties shall bear their own costs.