13
Nov
By Eric Schweibenz
On November 12, 2009, the International Trade Commission issued a notice determining that there has been no violation of Section 337 in Certain Probe Card Assemblies, Components Thereof and Certain Tested DRAM and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-621).

By way of background, and as explained in our July 23 and September 22 posts, this investigation was instituted on December 19, 2007, based on the complaint of FormFactor, Inc. (“FormFactor”) of Livermore, California.  On December 5, 2008, Respondents Phicom Corp. and Phiam Corp. (collectively, “Phicom”) jointly filed a motion for partial summary determination that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,624,648 are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112.  ALJ Charles E. Bullock granted this motion on February 11, 2009 in Order No. 46.  Subsequently, on June 29, 2009, ALJ Bullock issued his initial determination (“ID”) finding no violation of Section 337 by Respondents Micronics Japan Co., Ltd.; MJC Electronics Corp. (collectively, “Micronics”); and Phicom.  On September 14, 2009, the Commission issued a notice determining to review in part ALJ Bullock’s ID.

According to the November 12 notice, the Commission determined to: (1) “reverse the ALJ’s determination that Japanese Patent Application Publication H10-31034 to Amamiya et al. (RX-166) does not anticipate the asserted claims of the ‘751 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102;” (2) “reverse in part the ID’s conclusion that, inter alia, Phicom’s accused products do not infringe claims 1-3, 12, 24, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 6,509,751, see ID at 197, and, accordingly, to modify the ID’s conclusion of law at issue by substituting the following: ‘Respondents Micronics’ accused products do not infringe claims 1-3, 12, 24, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 6,509,751 in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).  Respondent Phicom’s (old) Type B and Type C accused products infringe claims 1-3, 12, 24, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 6,509,751 in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); Phicom’s new Type B and Type C accused products do not infringe.’;” (3) “strike the ID’s statement ‘Since three bases for no violation of claim 21 have been determined, no analysis of the invalidity arguments related to anticipation and obviousness of the dependent claims will be made,’ see ID at 191, and to take no position with respect to the validity of the dependent claims of the ‘152 patent;” and (4) “to affirm and adopt the ALJ’s other findings contained in the final ID under review except insofar as they are inconsistent with the Commission Opinion to be issued later.”

Additionally, the Commission determined to “affirm ALJ Order No. 46 with certain modifications as will be detailed in the Commission’s Opinion.”

Finally, the Commission determined that there has been no violation of Section 337, and terminated the investigation.
Share