11
Mar
By Robert Nissen
On March 10, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 32 (dated April 28, 2009) in Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-641) denying a motion for summary determination of no inequitable conduct.

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is General Electric Company (“GE”).  The Respondents are Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, America, Inc., and Mitsubishi Power Systems, Inc. (collectively, “MHI”).

According to the Order, MHI’s inequitable conduct defense was based on the fact that “Wilkens was [originally] listed as one of six named inventors” and that GE’s “counsel removed [] Wilkens from the [application-at-issue] subsequent to its filing.”

Although the Order is heavily redacted, MHI opposed the motion because “there are a number of facts that indicate an intent to deceive” in removing Wilkens from the application.  The Commission Investigative Staff also opposed the motion because  “there is evidence from which one could reasonably infer that Wilkens contributed to the claimed subject matter and should have remained a named inventor.”

In the Order, ALJ Charneski denied GE’s motion because “there is need for a factual development of this inequitable conduct issue.”
Share