Respondents involved in patent infringement investigations at the ITC typically raise affirmative defenses in response to a Section 337 complaint.  Similar to district court practice, respondents may also assert counterclaims.  In Section 337 actions, however, counterclaims are automatically removed to a U.S. District Court of appropriate venue so as not to delay the ITC investigation. [...]

On June 22, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 12, construing the disputed terms of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit in Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-661). In this investigation, Complainant Rambus, Inc. (“Rambus”) alleges that respondents NVIDIA Corp.; Asustek Computer [...]

On June 29, 2009, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice regarding his Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond 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).  According to the notice, ALJ Bullock held that there [...]

On June 24, 2009, the ITC issued a Notice of Commission Decision to affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part a final Initial Determination (“ID”) finding a violation of section 337 by Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc. (collectively, “Sharp”) as a result of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. [...]

On June 23, 2009, Lutron Electronics Co. (“Lutron”) of Coopersburg, Pennsylvania filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to section 337. The complaint alleges that Neptun Light, Inc. (“Neptun”) of Lake Bluff, Illinois unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, or sells within the U.S. after importation certain lighting control [...]

Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, codified at 19 U.S.C. § 1337, authorizes the ITC to declare unlawful the “importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation. . . of articles that – (i) infringe a valid and enforceable United States patent . [...]

Further to our June 18 post, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 2 on June 23, 2009.  In the Order, ALJ Bullock issued notice of his ground rules, set the target date for the investigation, and set a date for submission of discovery statements.  Specifically, ALJ Bullock set October 25, 2010 as the target [...]

On June 22, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 20 in Certain Non-Shellfish Derived Glucosamine and Products Containing Same (337-TA-668).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied respondent Nantong Foreign Medicines & Health Product Co., Ltd.’s (NFT) motion for summary determination of invalidity. According to the Order, complainant Cargill, Inc. asserts that NFT [...]

On June 19, 2009, the International Trade Commission issued a notice determining not to review the April 17, 2007 Enforcement Initial Determination (“ED”) issued by Chief Administrative Law Judge Paul J. Luckern in Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof (337-TA-565). As explained in our April 21 post, ALJ Luckern determined that enforcement respondents Ninestar Technology [...]

On June 17, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued a press release announcing that it voted to institute an investigation of Certain Products Advertised as Containing Creatine Ethyl Ester (337-TA-679). The investigation is based on the May 20, 2009 complaint filed by UNeMed Corporation (“UNeMed”) of Omaha, Nebraska.  As we explained in our May [...]