Sept 14, 2016 10:00 AM

QOMO LLC, issues the fol­low­ing state­ment regard­ing the U.S. Inter­na­tion­al Trade Com­mis­sion (“ITC”) Inves­ti­ga­tion No. 337-TA-967, titled “Cer­tain Doc­u­ment Cam­eras and Soft­ware for Use There­with,” and address­es the false and mis­lead­ing state­ment issued by Hov­er­Cam a/k/a, Path­way Inno­va­tions and Tech­nolo­gies, Inc.

The ITC per­mits QOMO to import and sell non-infring­ing doc­u­ment cam­eras. By its name, the ITC’s inves­ti­ga­tion cov­ers only cer­tain doc­u­ment cam­eras and soft­ware. QOMO chose not to lit­i­gate in the ITC inves­ti­ga­tion, instead focus­ing on intro­duc­ing new­er, non-infring­ing prod­ucts to its cus­tomers. The ITC’s lim­it­ed exclu­sion order is specif­i­cal­ly direct­ed to “doc­u­ment cam­eras and soft­ware for use there­with that are cov­ered by [cer­tain claims] of U.S. Patent No. 8,508,751” and not any oth­er QOMO’s doc­u­ment cam­eras. QOMO is in the process of releas­ing the new ver­sions of its doc­u­ment cam­eras that do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,508,751(“the ’751 patent”) and are not cov­ered by the ITC’s lim­it­ed exclu­sion order.

Mean­while, QOMO will seek legal actions against Hov­er­Cam for spread­ing the false and mis­lead­ing state­ment, includ­ing that “QOMO is pro­hib­it­ed from sell­ing or import­ing into the Unit­ed States all doc­u­ment cam­eras.” Even for QOMO’s alleged­ly infring­ing doc­u­ment cam­eras, the ITC allows QOMO to sell these prod­ucts by post­ing bond for a peri­od of time, although QOMO has dis­con­tin­ued these old prod­ucts. This shows that Hov­er­Cam made its false and mis­lead­ing state­ment inten­tion­al­ly to tor­tious­ly inter­fere QOMO’s busi­ness rela­tion­ship with its cus­tomers.

In addi­tion, upon QOMO’s request, the Unit­ed States Patent and Trade­mark Office has insti­tut­ed an inter partes review pro­ceed­ing (Case No. IPR2016-00661) on Sep­tem­ber 6, 2016, find­ing that “there is a rea­son­able like­li­hood” that QOMO would pre­vail in estab­lish­ing the unpatentabil­i­ty of sev­er­al claims of the ’751 patent. QOMO fur­ther intends to present proof in the ongo­ing fed­er­al law­suit before the Unit­ed States Dis­trict Court for the South­ern Dis­trict of Cal­i­for­nia (Case No. 3:15-cv-01540) that the ’751 patent is invalid and not infringed.

For any ques­tions or inquires, please con­tact us at

Kevin Tal­enti­no
Wixom, Michi­gan

Spread the love