19
Nov
By Eric Schweibenz
On November 17, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public versions of Order No. 24, Order No. 25, and Order No. 26 (all orders dated November 4, 2009) denying various summary determination motions filed by Respondents CompX International, Inc. and Waterloo Furniture Corporation Ltd. d/b/a CompX Waterloo (collectively, “CompX”) in Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-670).

Regarding Order No. 24, ALJ Luckern denied CompX’s summary determination motion of invalidity due to anticipation and/or obviousness.  In the Order, ALJ Luckern determined that issues of claim construction and whether the asserted claims contain means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 have yet to be resolved.  ALJ Luckern further determined that “the parties’ experts disagree as to the appropriate construction of at least some of these claim terms.”  Additionally, ALJ Luckern noted that he was “not prepared, at the present time, to decide the construction of any means-plus-function limitations.”  Accordingly, ALJ Luckern denied CompX’s motion for summary determination of invalidity due to anticipation and/or obviousness.

Regarding Order No. 25, ALJ Luckern denied CompX’s summary determination motion concerning infringement.  Similar to Order No. 24, ALJ Luckern determined in Order No. 25 that disputed issues of claim construction created genuine issues of material fact and thus  CompX’s motion for summary determination concerning infringement should be denied.

Regarding Order No. 26, ALJ Luckern denied CompX’s summary determination motion of invalidity due to improper broadening and intervening rights with respect to the patent in issue.  In the Order, ALJ Luckern determined that the “affirmative defenses of improper broadening and intervening rights each require a prior determination of claim construction…and based on the lack of analysis provided by CompX, the administrative law judge is not prepared at this time to decide the construction of any claim limitations.”  Accordingly, ALJ Luckern denied CompX’s summary determination motion finding that “most every aspect of CompX’s motion is opposed by both [Complainant] Humanscale and the staff, and that genuine issues of material fact remain.”
Share