2009
By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
31
On December 28, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 25 in Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (Inv. No. 337-TA-686).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Complainants The Lincoln Electric Company and Lincoln Global, Inc.’s (collectively, “Lincoln”) motion to preclude Respondents Kiswel Co., Ltd. (“Kiswel”), Atlantic China Welding Consumables, Inc. (“Atlantic”), The ESAB Group, Inc. (“ESAB”), and Sidergas SpA (“Sidergas”) from relying on prior art not specified in their prior art notices.

While Kiswel and Atlantic were included in the motion, Lincoln’s argument in its accompanying memorandum focused solely on ESAB and Sidergas.  Specifically, Lincoln argued that the prior art notices filed by ESAB and Sidergas were deficient under the Ground Rules for the investigation because they did not include sufficient detail about alleged invalidating prior use of the claimed invention by ESAB and Sidergas.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
30
On December 29, 2009, the International Trade Commission issued a notice determining that there has been no violation of Section 337 in Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-630).

By way of background, this investigation was instituted on January 14, 2008, based on the complaint of Tessera, Inc. of San Jose, California.  Eighteen respondents were named in the complaint, and several of the named respondents either settled out of the investigation or defaulted.  According to the December 29 notice, the following Respondents remained in the investigation:  Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation, Nanya Technology Corporation, Nanya Technology Corporation U.S.A., Powerchip Semiconductor Corporation, Elpida Memory, Inc., Elpida Memory (USA), Inc., ProMOS Technologies, Inc., Kingston Technology Co., Inc., Ramaxel Technology Ltd., Centon Electronics, Inc., and SMART Modular Technologies, Inc.  On August 28, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued his initial determination (“ID”), finding no violation of Section 337 had occurred based on the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, or the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain semiconductor chips with minimized chip package size and products containing same in connection with certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106 (the ‘106 patent), U.S. Patent No. 5,679,977 (the ‘977 patent), and U.S. Patent No. 6,133,627.  Further, ALJ Essex determined that a domestic industry exists that practices the patents-in-suit.  See our September 1 and October 1 posts for more details.  On October 30, 2009, the Commission issued a notice determining to review in part the ID.  See our November 2 post for more details.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
30
On December 30, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued a press release announcing that it voted to institute an investigation of Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing The Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-699).

The investigation is based on a December 1, 2009 complaint and December 16, 2009 letter supplementing the complaint filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and/or the sale within the United States after importation of certain liquid crystal display (“LCD”) devices and products containing the same which allegedly infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,844,533, 6,888,585, and 7,436,479.  See our December 3 post for more details.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
30
Further to our December 15 and 16 posts, on December 29, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 27 in Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-631).

According to the Order, ALJ Luckern set November 18, 2010 as the target date (which is 11 months after institution of the formal enforcement proceeding).  ALJ Luckern further indicated that any enforcement initial determination on violation should be filed no later than July 19, 2010.  In addition, in connection with the procedural schedule, ALJ Luckern noted that the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on April 7, 2010.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
30
On December 29, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission instituted an investigation of Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-698).

The investigation is based on a December 2, 2009 complaint and December 3 and 23, 2009 letters supplementing the complaint filed by Richtek Technology Corp. of Taiwan and Richtek USA, Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively, “Richtek”) alleging violations of Section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain DC-DC controllers and products containing such controllers which allegedly infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,315,190, 6,414,470, and 7,132,717, and by reason of misappropriation of trade secret information relating to Richtek’s DC-DC controllers.  See our December 4 post for more details.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
30
On December 29, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission instituted an investigation of Certain Authentication Systems, Including Software and Handheld Electronic Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-697).

The investigation is based on a December 2, 2009 complaint and December 18, 2009 letter supplementing the complaint filed by Prism Technologies LLC of Omaha, Nebraska alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain authentication systems, including software and handheld electronic devices which allegedly infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,290,288.  See our December 4 post for more details.


Share

Read More

By Barry Herman
|
Dec
29
On December 29, 2009, Nokia Corporation of Finland and Nokia Inc. of White Plains, New York (collectively, “Nokia”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that the proposed respondent, Apple, Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”), unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the United States after importation certain electronic devices, including mobile phones, portable music players, and computers which allegedly infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,714,091 (the ‘091 patent), 6,834,181 (the ‘181 patent), 6,895,256 (the ‘256 patent), 6,518,957 (the ‘957 patent), 6,073,036 (the ‘036 patent), 6,262,735 (the ‘735 patent), and/or 6,924,789 (the ‘789 patent) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”).


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
29
On December 28, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 6 in Certain Course Management System Software Products (Inv. No. 337-TA-677).

In the Order, ALJ Essex granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Blackboard Inc. and Respondent Desire2Learn Incorporated to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement between the parties.


Share

Read More

Next Page