Overland Claims of Patent Infringement Vs. BDT Definitively Rejected

Handal & Associates announced that the United States International Trade Commission issued its Notice of Commission Decision terminating the investigation into BDT’s products and finding no Section 337 violation.

After a rare two-and-a-half year fight, the International Trade Commission has finally terminated an investigation of German data storage company BDT Media Automation GmbH that had been instigated by competitor Overland Storage, Inc.

Overland had alleged that BDT’s FlexStor II products infringed its U.S. Patent No. 6,353,581 (the ‘581 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 6,328,766 (the ‘766 patent). The Commission, however, affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s findings that BDT’s FlexStor II products do not infringe the ‘581 patent and that the asserted claims of the ‘766 patent are invalid. As a result, the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s finding that BDT did not violate Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

The investigation has a long history by ITC standards. Commenced in October 2010 from a complaint filed by Overland Storage, the investigation proceeded to trial in August 2011. In June 2012, chief administrative law Judge Charles Bullock issued an initial determination finding that Overland’s patents were valid, but that BDT, nevertheless, did not violate Section 337.

Both sides petitioned the Commission for review and the Commission remanded the matter back to the ALJ for further consideration, including the issue of invalidity of the ‘766 patent. In his Remand Initial Determination entered in March 2013, judge Bullock reaffirmed his finding that BDT’s products do not infringe the ‘581 patent and, after considering previously excluded evidence, reversed his earlier decision to find that the asserted claims of the ‘766 patent are invalid. Overland once again petitioned the Commission for review of judge Bullock’s Remand Initial Determination, which the Commission granted.

The Commission released its Notice of Commission Decision to affirm the Remand Initial Determination that BDT did not infringe Overland’s ‘581 patent and that the asserted claims of the ‘766 patent are invalid. It also ordered the investigation terminated, amounting to a significant victory for BDT, which for years has vigorously disputed Overland’s meritless claims of infringement.

"It has been a long three-year battle, but today’s decision finally vindicates BDT and its FlexStor II products," said Anton N. Handal, lead counsel for BDT. "BDT is a company that respects the intellectual property of others, but, as this investigation has proven, it will vigorously defend its integrity against spurious claims of infringement."

To read the complete decision of US International Trade Commission

Read also:
US International Trade Commission Issues Notice Regarding Overland Patent …
Concerning action vs. BDT
… Overland Happy
But this affair is not terminated.