Roku v. Altice, Samsung & UEI Brasil: ITC Remote Control Patent Battle
Roku, Inc. brought a Section 337 complaint at the U.S. International Trade Commission against Altice USA, Samsung Electronics America, and Brazilian manufacturer UEI Brasil, asserting two universal remote control patents. The investigation, presided over by Judge MaryJoan McNamara, ran for approximately 568 days before closing in August 2025.
Roku’s ITC Section 337 action targets remote control supply chain
On April 8, 2021, Roku, Inc. filed ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1263, asserting that Altice USA, Samsung Electronics America, and UEI Brasil Controles Remotos were importing or selling products that infringed US8378875B2 and US7388511B2 — patents covering methods of programming universal remote controls and systems for controlling identical devices. The investigation was assigned to ITC Administrative Law Judge MaryJoan McNamara.
The investigation closed on August 3, 2025, after approximately 568 days. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Other,’ which at the ITC commonly suggests a consent order, settlement, or withdrawal of the complaint, though the public record does not specify which mechanism applied here. Without a formal exclusion order or cease-and-desist order on record, the precise commercial terms remain undisclosed.
A 568-day duration is broadly consistent with a contested multi-respondent Section 337 investigation proceeding through discovery, evidentiary hearing, and post-hearing briefing phases. The involvement of a Brazilian component manufacturer alongside a major U.S. pay-TV operator and a global consumer electronics distributor suggests the complaint targeted the full remote control supply and distribution chain. What drove the ultimate resolution — and whether any behavioral commitments were made — is not apparent from the public record.
Filing to Other in 1578 days
568 days from filing to close — consistent with a contested multi-respondent ITC investigation
ITC investigation closed: what ‘Other’ termination means for both sides
‘Other’ termination at the ITC — what it typically means
At the ITC, an investigation terminated on an ‘Other’ basis — without a published exclusion order or finding of violation — typically reflects a consent order, a settlement agreement, or voluntary withdrawal of the complaint. None of these outcomes constitutes a merits ruling on infringement or validity. The public record for 337-TA-1263 does not specify which mechanism applied.
No merits determinationRoku’s position: leverage exercised, terms private
Filing a Section 337 complaint imposes significant litigation costs on respondents and carries the threat of an import exclusion order — often a powerful settlement lever. Roku’s decision to file against the full supply chain (manufacturer, distributor, and operator) suggests a strategic enforcement posture. Whether Roku secured commercial concessions, licensing terms, or behavioral commitments is not disclosed in the public record.
Strategic enforcement postureAltice, Samsung EA & UEI Brasil: import risk resolved
For the three respondents, closure without an exclusion order or cease-and-desist order removes the immediate risk of import prohibition and market exclusion. However, an ‘Other’ termination does not constitute a finding of non-infringement. The underlying patents remain active, and respondents — or new market entrants in the universal remote control space — cannot treat this outcome as clearing prior art or invalidity arguments.
Import exclusion risk resolvedUniversal remote IP: Roku’s patents remain enforceable
US8378875B2 and US7388511B2 were not invalidated or found unenforceable in this proceeding. The ITC outcome leaves Roku’s remote control patent portfolio intact and potentially deployable in future enforcement actions — at the ITC or in district court — against other manufacturers, distributors, or operators in the connected TV and set-top box ecosystem.
Patent portfolio intactFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Roku, Inc. | Company | Streaming platform and smart TV OS provider — holder of US8378875B2 and US7388511B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Altice USA, Inc. | Company | U.S. pay-TV operator (Altice), CE distributor (Samsung Electronics America), and Brazilian remote manufacturer (UEI Brasil)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | UEI Brasil Controles Remotos, Ltda. | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dickinson Wright PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Roku, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Alston & Bird, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Altice USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge MaryJoan McNamara | Judge | United States International Trade CommissionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict is recorded as ‘Other,’ reflecting that the ITC investigation closed without a formal Commission opinion finding violation or no violation under Section 337. This outcome forecloses neither party from future proceedings on the same patents. For Roku, the patents remain presumptively valid and enforceable. For the respondents, no finding of non-infringement or invalidity was made, meaning the commercial and legal uncertainty associated with these patents persists.
US8378875B2 & US7388511B2 — Universal Remote Control Programming Systems
US8378875B2 (application no. US12/282692) covers a method of programming a universal remote control, addressing how a single remote can be configured to operate multiple or substitute devices. US7388511B2 (application no. US10/496549) covers a system for remote control of identical devices — relevant where multiple same-model devices must be independently addressed. Together, these patents cover core firmware and protocol-level functionality in the universal remote control stack.
For the connected TV sector, these patents are strategically significant because universal remote control capability is a standard feature of set-top boxes, streaming sticks, and smart TVs. A platform operator like Roku, whose OS powers millions of third-party TV sets, has strong commercial incentive to control remote control interoperability standards via IP. Any manufacturer or operator deploying universal remote programming — particularly using ODM-sourced hardware — should assess freedom-to-operate against these two patents.
Should you run an FTO against US8378875B2 and US7388511B2?
If your product or platform relies on universal remote control programming — whether you are a set-top box OEM, a smart TV manufacturer, a pay-TV operator deploying branded remotes, or an ODM supplying remote controls for U.S. distribution — both patents in this investigation are directly relevant. The ITC’s jurisdiction over imported articles means offshore manufacture does not provide safe harbour.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US8378875B2 and US7388511B2 against your product’s remote control programming architecture, identify relevant prior art that may support design-around or IPR strategies, and surface Roku’s broader continuation and family patent landscape — giving your team a complete picture before committing to a product design or distribution arrangement.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8378875B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar ITC Section 337 cases involving remote control and streaming platform patents
Explore related Section 337 investigations at the U.S. ITC involving universal remote control, streaming device, and connected TV interface patents.
What this case signals for the connected TV and remote control IP landscape
Roku’s willingness to pursue ITC action across the full supply chain signals active enforcement of its remote control patent portfolio against hardware and distribution partners.
ITC complaints target the import nexus — supply chains are exposed
By naming a Brazilian manufacturer (UEI Brasil), a U.S. distributor (Samsung Electronics America), and a domestic operator (Altice), Roku pursued every node in the remote control supply chain simultaneously. Companies sourcing remote controls from offshore manufacturers for U.S. distribution should assess their ITC exposure under Section 337, particularly where universal remote programming methods are involved.
Closure without exclusion order does not equal non-infringement
The ‘Other’ termination in 337-TA-1263 carries no preclusive effect on Roku’s ability to re-assert US8378875 or US7388511 in subsequent proceedings. Competitors and licensees in the universal remote and set-top box space should not interpret this outcome as a clean bill of health. Both patents remain live and enforceable.
Roku v Altice — key questions answered
337-TA-1263 is a Section 337 investigation filed by Roku, Inc. at the U.S. International Trade Commission on April 8, 2021, against Altice USA, Samsung Electronics America, and UEI Brasil Controles Remotos. Roku alleged infringement of US8378875B2 and US7388511B2, covering universal remote control programming methods and systems.
Roku asserted two patents: US8378875B2 (application US12/282692), covering a method of programming a universal remote control, and US7388511B2 (application US10/496549), covering a system for remote control of identical devices. Both patents relate to core universal remote control functionality relevant to set-top boxes and streaming hardware.
At the ITC, an ‘Other’ termination typically reflects closure via consent order, settlement, or voluntary withdrawal — rather than a Commission finding of violation or no violation. It carries no preclusive effect on either party. Roku’s patents remain enforceable, and no finding of non-infringement or invalidity was made in this proceeding.
UEI Brasil Controles Remotos is a major OEM/ODM manufacturer of remote controls. Its inclusion as a respondent suggests Roku’s patent claims read on manufacturing-level remote control programming methods, not solely on downstream operator or distributor implementations. This signals that the ITC complaint targeted the full import supply chain.
Not necessarily. The ‘Other’ termination does not constitute a finding of non-infringement or patent invalidity. Roku’s patents US8378875B2 and US7388511B2 remain in force. The respondents — and other companies in the universal remote and connected TV space — cannot rely on this outcome as a clearance against future enforcement actions by Roku.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.