Though Epic Games depicts itself as “a modern corporate Robin Hood,” eager to steal from the rich and give to the poor, it’s really a “multi-billion dollar enterprise that simply wants to pay nothing for the tremendous value it derives from the App Store,” alleged an Apple countersuit (in Pacer) Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Oakland. After Epic installed an in-app direct-payment system for its Fortnite franchise to break up Apple’s alleged App Store monopolies, Apple retaliated by threatening to cut off Epic’s access to game developer tools, said Epic’s Aug. 13 complaint (see 2008130048). U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted Epic a temporary restraining order Aug. 24 blocking Apple from making good on the threat (see 2008250004). Now Apple wants Epic's direct-payment system taken down. Epic installed it “in the dark hours of the night” Aug. 13 in an “underhanded scheme to breach its agreements and free ride on Apple’s investments” in the App Store, said Apple’s Tuesday countersuit. “Epic’s flagrant disregard for its contractual commitments and other misconduct has caused significant harm to Apple,” it said. “Epic has reaped millions of dollars in in-app purchases through its unauthorized external purchase mechanism,” diverting to itself commissions Apple was entitled to earn under its license agreement, it said. Apple wants the court to declare Epic in breach of contract and seeks a permanent injunction barring the game developer from using its proprietary direct-payment system in the App Store. Epic didn’t comment.

Sonos seeks an International Trade Commission “summary determination” it has satisfied the Tariff Act Section 337 import requirement on 19 models of Google devices that allegedly infringe five Sonos multiroom audio patents. “None of the underlying facts at issue are disputed,” said Sonos’ Aug. 27 motion (login required), posted Thursday in docket 337-TA-1191. Google “expressly stipulated” that it imported into the U.S. at least one unit of each allegedly infringing device, said Sonos. Google submitted copies of Customs and Border Protection Form 7501 “corresponding to at least one" import of each device since January 2019, it said. Granting the motion “will dramatically simplify the issues for trial, reducing the burden and costs of litigation on the private parties,” plus the ITC and its staff, said Sonos. The ITC opened its investigation Feb. 6 (see 2002060070). Sonos seeks an import ban on the allegedly infringing Google products.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative notified Sonos it got extension through Dec. 31 of the exclusion from the List 4A Section 301 tariffs on speaker imports from China, said the company in a Thursday SEC filing. The exclusion extension eliminates the 7.5% tariffs until year-end. Sonos sources the speakers under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule's 8517.62.0090 subheading for a wide swath of Bluetooth goods, one of 87 categories granted USTR extensions Aug. 31 (see 2008310033). Sonos, whose exclusion was granted in March (see 2005110034), has begun the process of seeking refunds for the $30 million in tariffs paid through July, said Chief Financial Officer Brittany last month (see 2008060030). The company is continuing plans to diversify its supply chain into Malaysia, Bagley said on the August call. Sonos turned to Malaysia to reduce exposure to the tariffs on Chinese-sourced wireless mesh networking audio components. The company planned to have “significant” U.S.-bound production from Malaysia ramped up by Dec. 31, but due to COVID-19-related government restrictions on manufacturing in Malaysia, reaching scale will take until mid-2021, Bagley said.

No “extraordinary circumstances exist” to deny Sonos’ motion to terminate the International Trade Commission’s Tariff Act Section 337 investigation against Alphabet (see 2008240002), said Chief Administrative Law Judge Charles Bullock's order (login required) Tuesday in docket 337-TA-1191 granting the termination. The probe continues into allegations that Google smart devices infringe five Sonos multiroom audio patents, but Sonos withdrew the allegations against the Google parent after it swore under oath it doesn’t import or sell the allegedly infringing products. Bullock agrees with Sonos that terminating the probe against Alphabet “will simplify the investigation without causing prejudice to Google,” he said.

Calls to use ancillary service fees generated by ATSC 3.0 datacasting to fund consumer purchases of compatible equipment are a “red-herring,” said One Media in replies in docket 20-145 for Monday’s midnight deadline for responses to a June NPRM (see 2008180060). Statute requires the fees be deposited into the DTV Transition and Public Safety Fund, One Media said. Instead, the FCC would be “well-within its authority” to delay imposing fees on 3.0 datacasting for five years, said the company. NAB called the idea from Public Knowledge and the Open Technology Institute “legally questionable.” NAB urged the FCC “to move expeditiously to conclude this proceeding without adding regulatory hurdles for broadcasters.” Don’t nullify broadcaster obligations to pay such fees, said PK and OTI. “Revisit its ancillary and supplementary services rules as applied to Broadcast Internet services to ensure its fees and other regulations provide regulatory parity and reflect broadcasters’ evolving business ambitions,” asked CTIA. The public interest groups and NCTA again said the FCC should upgrade requirements for broadcasters to mandate an HD stream. “In considering whether the provision of such services unlawfully derogates broadcast television services, the Commission should be guided by the current state of technology and consumer expectations,” the cable association said. That the agency should “mechanically define ‘advanced’ with reference to a certain pixel count specified in a 1996 technical standard is obvious folly,” said ATSC 3.0 consortium BitPath. The FCC should “take measures that add protections for LPTV stations during the nation’s progression toward the offering of robust Next Gen TV services,” said the National Religious Broadcasters.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative extended List 4 Section 301 tariff exclusions to Dec. 31 on 87 Harmonized Tariff Schedule categories of Chinese imports, including LCD TV main board assemblies (HTS 8529.90.1300) and modules (HTS 9013.80.9000) that Element Electronics sources to assemble finished sets in South Carolina for sale through Walmart and other big-box retailers (see 2006090056). The exclusions were to expire Tuesday. Also extended were exclusions on smartwatches, fitness trackers and Bluetooth tracking devices (HTS 8517.62.0090), plus wireless audio receivers for smart speakers (HTS 8518.22.0000). USTR will let expire more than half the 200 exclusions it granted.

Nokia opposes severing into two probes the Tariff Act Section 337 investigation at the International Trade Commission into its allegations that Lenovo computers and parts infringe five of its patents, it told Administrative Law Judge Dee Lord Wednesday. Lenovo supports separate investigations, it told Lord. Google asked to intervene in the case to defend the Google Assistant functionality in the allegedly infringing Lenovo Chromebooks (see 2008130032). It also backs two investigations, it told the ALJ. ITC staff said it doesn’t oppose separating the probes, but doubts doing so will “result in more efficient adjudication.” Lord ordered all parties to show cause last week why the investigation shouldn’t be severed into two inquiries, one on the infringement allegations involving four H.264 video compression patents, the other on single user interface patent (8,583,706) unrelated to H.264 (see 2008160004). Nokia disagreed, saying severing the investigation “would undermine the efficient adjudication of this case.” Unlike previous severed investigations where the technology in the accused products varied widely, “there is no such divergence here,” said its brief (login required) posted Wednesday in docket 3337-TA-1208. Four of the five asserted patents involve H.264, while the remaining ‘706 patent “involves other technology present on a subset of the same Lenovo products” accused of infringing the H.264 patents. The accused Lenovo product set “is therefore wholly overlapping between the two technologies,” said Nokia. ITC staff agreed, using nearly identical language. Though staff “appreciates the technology distinction” between the H.264 and ‘706 patents, the “accused products overlap,” said its brief (login required). “The alleged accused products relating to the ‘706 patent appear to be a subset of the accused products” involving H.264, it said. Severing the single investigation into two risks “duplicative” and “overlapping depositions and expert reports,” it said. The disparate issues between the H.264 and ‘706 patents “support severance,” countered Lenovo's brief (login required). Despite “some overlap in accused products,” evidence on infringement “will be separate,” it said. Lenovo intends to show “the unjust benefits that Nokia received in connection with its late-disclosed alleged patent rights constitute at least a waiver of Nokia’s rights to enforce” the H.264 patents, it said. That defense “does not apply” to the ’706 patent, it said. Severing the investigation would streamline discovery, “allowing for a more focused presentation of the relevant issues underlying the disparate patent groupings,” said Google’s brief (login required). “The disparate technologies underlying the two groups of patents means that there will not be any technical issues relating to infringement or invalidity that span the two groupings.”

The International Trade Commission’s “investigative staff” supports Sonos' motion to terminate the Tariff Act Section 337 probe into Alphabet, based on withdrawal of the patent infringement allegations against the Google parent (see 2008240002), said its response (login required) posted Wednesday in docket 337-TA-1191. ITC “precedent” shows terminating an investigation “will be readily granted to a complainant during the prehearing stage,” barring “extraordinary circumstances,” it said. Staff is “unaware” of any, and the motion “substantially complies” with ITC rules, it said. Terminating the investigation “is in the public interest and will conserve public and private resources,” it said. The probe will continue into allegations that Google devices infringe five Sonos multiroom audio patents.

Lenovo supports Google’s motion to intervene in the Tariff Act Section 337 investigation at the International Trade Commission into Nokia allegations that Lenovo computers and parts infringe five Nokia patents, said the PC vendor in comments (login required) posted Tuesday in docket 337-TA-1208. Nokia doesn’t oppose Google’s intervention, said its filing (login required), also posted Tuesday, but does have concerns. “It is undisputed that Google’s interests in this investigation are aligned with Respondents Lenovo and contrary to Complainants Nokia, and thus Google and Lenovo should coordinate accordingly,” said Nokia. Google’s motion said it doesn’t seek to participate in any relief phase of the investigation, “but it has already filed a public interest statement” warning against an import ban of Lenovo Chromebooks when COVID-19 demand for remote-learning connectivity tools is at an historic high, said Nokia: “Google’s intentions regarding the relief phase are thus unclear.” Google didn’t comment Tuesday. Administrative Law Judge Dee Lord ordered Google, Lenovo and Nokia to file briefs by Wednesday showing cause why the investigation shouldn't be “severed” into two separate probes (see 2008160004). Nokia's comments indicated it plans to oppose Lord's plan to sever the investigation. "As Nokia will explain more fully in its forthcoming response," Google's "limited participation as an intervenor "should not impede the ability to proceed efficiently in this Investigation without severance," it said. Nokia said "Google can be added as an intervenor without impacting the efficient adjudication of the issues in a single investigation."

Kaleidescape is weighing its options over Google’s potential introduction of a Kaleidoscope-branded streaming aggregator tool for the next version of Chrome (see 2008210048), emailed CEO Cheena Srinivasan Monday. Google’s initiative “will create lots of confusion in the market due to the similarity of our trademark,” he said. “Google will own the name Kaleidoscope (very close to Kaleidescape) for a content aggregation app on its Chrome browser. If they fail, that could also harm our brand as customers and prospects may be confused about our own successful offering.” Kaleidescape is “discussing this internally” and will soon disclose “what we plan to do next to stop this confusion,” said Srinivasan. Google didn’t comment Tuesday.