2010
By author; ?>
|
Dec
31
On December 22, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public versions of Order No. 44 (dated November 30, 2010), Order No. 45 (dated November 30, 2010), and Order No. 47 (dated December 1, 2010) in Certain Flash Memory and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-685).

In Order No. 44, ALJ Charneski granted Complainant Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd.’s (“Samsung”) motion for summary determination that Respondents Alpine Electronics, Inc. and Alpine Electronics of America, Inc. (collectively, “Alpine”) have met the importation requirement of 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B).  In support of its motion, Samsung alleged that Alpine infringes the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,740,065 (the ‘065 patent), and “identifie[d] the accused products that infringe the ‘065 patent as including, but not limited to,” certain products of Respondents Spansion, Inc. and Spansion LLC. (collectively, “Spansion”).  In granting Samsung’s motion, ALJ Charneski determined that “there is no real dispute in substance” given that “Alpine concedes that ‘the Commission has jurisdiction over certain Alpine downstream products containing Spansion chips that are imported into the United States’” and that “Alpine admitted that it has sold for importation and sold after importation products in the United States.” 


Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Dec
30
On December 29, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 12 (dated December 3, 2010), denying Respondent Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) motion to amend the Protective Order by adding a prosecution bar in Certain Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-724).

According to the Order, Apple asserted that a prosecution bar was necessary because attorneys and experts retained by Complainants S3 Graphics Co., Ltd. and S3 Graphics, Inc. (collectively, “S3G”) “work directly for Apple’s fierce competitors,” and that even though the protective order presently limited use of information to the current litigation, it “may not prevent inadvertent compromise,” of Apple’s sensitive information, citing In re Deutsche Bank Trust Co Americas, 605 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Deutsche Bank”).


Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Dec
29
On December 22, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 69, denying Respondents HTC Corp., HTC America, Inc. and Exedia, Inc.’s (collectively, “HTC”) and Respondents Nokia Corp. and Nokia, Inc.’s (collectively, "Nokia") motion to preclude Complainants Apple Inc. and NeXT Software Inc. (collectively, “Apple”) from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents in Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-710).

According to the Order, HTC and Nokia argued that Apple failed to articulate a sufficient basis for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents when, in response to contention interrogatories, Apple recited for each asserted claim that “each [claim] element is also met by the Accused HTC Android Products and the Accused HTC DSP Products under the doctrine of equivalents.”  Apple’s responses further stated that, “the differences, if any, between the claim elements and Accused HTC Android Products and the Accused HTC DSP Products are insubstantial, and the application performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way with substantially the same result as the claim elements.”  Respondents argued that Apple had no excuse for failing to articulate the contentions in greater detail, and that this failure prejudiced Respondents’ preparation of expert reports and the ability to fully participate in discovery.


Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Dec
28
On December 22, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 6 in Certain Automated Media Library Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-746).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock determined that the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on September 1, 2011, the Initial Determination is due on November 23, 2011, and the target date for completion of this investigation is March 24, 2012 (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).


Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Dec
27
On December 23, 2010, Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Washington (“Microsoft”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that Datel Design and Development Ltd., Datel Direct Ltd., Datel Holdings Ltd., and Datel Electronics Ltd. — all of the United Kingdom — and Datel Design and Development Inc. of Clearwater, Florida (collectively, “Datel”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain game devices, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,787,411 (the ‘411 patent).


Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Dec
27
On December 21, 2010, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Spansion, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, (2009-1460, -1461, -1462, -1465).  The Federal Circuit affirmed in all respects the ITC’s determinations, including those on infringement and the issuance of exclusion and cease and desist orders.

By way of background, on April 17, 2007, Tessera, Inc. (“Tessera”) filed a complaint alleging violations of Section 337 in the importation or sale of certain semiconductor chips or products containing the chips, which infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,433,419 (the ‘419 patent) and 5,852,326 (the ‘326 patent).  The complaint named Spansion, Inc. and Spansion, LLC (collectively, “Spansion”), Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (“Freescale”), ATI Technologies, Ulc., ST Microelectronics N.V., and Qualcomm Inc. (“Qualcomm”) (collectively, “Appellants”) as respondents.  On May 21, 2007 the ITC instituted an investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-605).  On December 1, 2008 ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued an Initial Determination (“ID”), finding no infringement with respect to the ‘419 and ‘326 patents, and determining that the patents were neither indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, nor anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102.  The Commission reviewed the ID in part, and on May 20, 2009, issued a Final Determination reversing the ALJ’s infringement determinations, finding instead that Appellants directly infringed the ‘326 patent and contributorily infringed the ‘419 patent.  The ITC further issued cease and desist and limited exclusion orders against Qualcomm, Freescale, and Spansion.


Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Dec
24
On December 23, 2010, the International Trade Commission issued a notice determining not to review an Initial Determination (“ID”) issued by ALJ Charles E. Bullock on October 22, 2010 in Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-664).

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are Spansion, Inc. and Spansion LLP.  The Respondents are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung International Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Shanghai Lenovo Electronic Co. Ltd., Asustek Computer Inc., Asus Computer International Inc., Apple, Inc. (“Apple”), Transcend Information Inc., Transcend Information, Inc. (US), Transcend Information Inc. (Shanghai Factory), Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology (Shanghai) Co. Ltd., Kingston Technology Far East Co., Kingston Technology Far East (Malaysia), PNY Technologies, Inc., Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB NYA Vattentornet, Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA), Inc. Beijing Se Putian Mobile Communications Co., Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd., Verbatim Americas LLC, Verbatim Corp., Research In Motion, Ltd., and Research In Motion Corporation (collectively, “Respondents”).


Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Dec
23
On December 23, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination on Violation ("ID") in Certain MEMS Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-700).

By way of background, the Complainant in this matter is Analog Devices, Inc.  The Respondents are Knowles Electronics LLC (“Knowles”) and Mouser Electronics, Inc.


Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Dec
23
On December 23, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 5 in Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music And Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-745).

In the Order, ALJ Luckern set the procedural schedule for the investigation and included provisions for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions.  Also, according to the Order, the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on July 25, 2011.


Share

Read More

By author; ?>
|
Dec
23
On December 23, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 11 in Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-740).

In the Order, ALJ Charneski granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Lexmark International, Inc. and Respondent Print-Rite Holdings Ltd. to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.


Share

Read More

Next Page