On December 21, 2012, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public versions of Order Nos. 36 (dated June 19, 2012), 42 (dated July 17, 2012), 44 (dated July 20, 2012), 51 (dated August 15, 2012), 56 (dated August 20, 2012), and 57 (dated August 20, 2012) in Certain Microprocessors, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-781).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is X2Y Attenuators, LLC (X2Y) and the Respondents are Intel Corporation; Componentes Intel de Costa Rica S.A.; Intel Malaysia Sdn. Bhd; Intel Products (Chengdu) Ltd.; Intel Products (Shanghai) Ltd.; Apple Inc.; and Hewlett-Packard Company (collectively, the “Respondents”).  On December 14, 2012, ALJ Shaw issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) holding: a violation of Section 337 has not occurred, certain claims of the 7,916,444 (the ‘444 patent) and 8,023,241 (the ‘241 patent) patents are invalid, and the domestic industry requirement was satisfied with respect to all asserted patents.  See our December 18, 2012 post for more details.

Read More

On December 21, 2012, ALJ James E. Gildea issued Order No. 26 denying a motion by Complainant Pragmatus AV, LLC (“Pragmatus”) to enter a supplemental Protective Order to govern the discovery of nonparty Google Inc. (“Google”) in Certain Consumer Electronics, Including Mobile Phones and Tablets (Inv. No. 337-TA-839).

ALJ Gildea held that Pragmatus did not provide sufficient explanation or support to show how or why the protections already in place fail to provide adequate protection for Google.  According to the Order, Google’s confidential business information and highly confidential source code is already protected by a Protective Order and an Addendum to the Protective Order.  Further, ALJ Gildea held that Pragmatus’s request was considerably undermined by Google taking “no action on its own behalf to timely quash or limit the subpoena served on it or to seek some form of protective order itself.”

Read More

On December 21, 2012, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued a notice of its determination not to review the Initial Determination (“ID”) of Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock finding no violation of Section 337 in Certain Computer Forensic Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-799).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is MyKey Technology Inc. (“MyKey”) and the remaining Respondents are CRU Acquisitions Group LLC d/b/a CRU Data-Port LLC, Guidance Software, Inc., Guidance Tableau LLC, and Digital Intelligence, Inc.  MyKey filed a complaint on July 22, 2011 alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation and sale of certain computer forensic devices and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,813,682; 7,159,086 and 7,228,379.  See our August 26, 2011 post for more details.

Read More

On December 26, 2012, Speculative Product Design, LLC of Mountain View, California, d/b/a Speck, (“Speck”) filed a complaint requesting that the U.S. International Trade Commission ( the “Commission”) commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that En Jinn Industrial Co. Ltd. of Taiwan, Shengda Huanqiu Shijie of China, Global Digital Star Industry, Ltd. of China, JWIN Electronics Corp., d/b/a iLuv of Port Washington, New York, Project Horizon, Inc. d/b/a InMotion Entertainment of Jacksonville, Florida, Superior Communications, Inc. d/b/a PureGear of Irwindale, California, and Jie Sheng Technology of Taiwan (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import and/or sell certain one-piece protective cases for portable handheld electronic devices that infringe one or more of claims 1–16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,204,561 (the ‘561 patent).

Read More

On December 21, 2012, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice and order in Certain Static Random Access Memories and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-792).  In the notice, the Commission determined to review Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock’s October 25, 2013 initial determination (“ID”) which found no violation of Section 337.  Further, the Commission issued an order remanding the investigation back to ALJ Bullock.

By way of background, the Complainant in this matter is Cypress Semiconductor Corporation (“Cypress”) and the remaining Respondents are GSI Technology, Inc. (“GSI”), Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”); and Avnet, Inc. (“Avnet”; collectively, the “Respondents”).  The patents at issue in the investigation are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,651,134 (the ‘134 patent); 6,262,937 (the ‘937 patent); 7,142,477 (the ‘477 patent); and 6,534,805 (the 805 patent).  See our July 26, 2011 post for more information about this investigation.

Read More

On December 21, 2012, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of South Korea and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC of Richardson, Texas (collectively, “Samsung”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that Ericsson Inc. of Plano, Texas and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson of Sweden (collectively, “Ericsson”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, sell within the U.S. after importation, service, and/or repair certain wireless communications systems and equipment used in those systems, such as wireless communication base stations, that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,782,749 (the ‘749 patent), 8,165,081 (the ‘081 patent), 8,208,438 (the ‘438 patent), 8,228,827 (the ‘827 patent), 6,617,929 (the ‘929 patent), 6,767,813 (the ‘813 patent), and 6,865,682 (the ‘682 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”).

Read More

On December 21, 2012, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice and order in Certain Devices for Improving Uniformity Used in a Backlight Module and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (337-TA-805).  In the notice, the Commission determined to review ALJ Theodore R. Essex’s October 22, 2012 initial determination (“ID”) which found no violation of Section 337.  Further, the Commission issued an order remanding-in-part the investigation back to ALJ Essex.

By way of background, the Complainants in this matter are Industrial Technology Research Institute and ITRI International, Inc. (collectively, “ITRI”) and the Respondents are LG Corporation, LG Electronics, Inc., and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “LG”).  ITRI alleged that LG violated Section 337 by the importation and/or sale of LCD televisions and monitors that infringed claims 6, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,883,932 (the ‘932 patent).  The subject matter of the ‘932 patent is an apparatus for improving uniformity used in backlight modules using light sources, a reflective housing, and at least one structured arc sheet.  See our September 12, 2011 post for more details.

Read More

Further to our December 10, 2012 post, on December 21, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order 7 in Certain Optoelectronic Devices for Fiber Optic Communications, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-860).

In the Order, ALJ Essex determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on July 8, 2013.  The Initial Determination is due on October 30, 2013 and the target date for completing the investigation is February 28, 2014 (approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).

Read More

On December 21, 2012, Covidien LP of Mansfield, Massachusetts (“Covidien”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that Pajunk Medizintechnik GmbH of Germany, Pajunk Medizintechnologie GmbH of Germany, and Pajunk Medical Systems L.P. of Norcross, Georgia (collectively, “Pajunk”) unlawfully import and/or sell certain balloon dissection devices and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,312,442 (the ‘442 patent). 

Read More

On December 20, 2012, Fellowes, Inc. of Itasca, Illinois and Fellowes Office Products (Suzhou) Co. Ltd. of China (collectively, “Fellowes”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that the following entities and individuals (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain paper shredders that are made in China using Fellowes’s misappropriated trade secrets and/or that infringe one or more claims of  U.S. Design Patent Nos. D583,859 (the ‘859 patent) and D598,048 (the ‘048 patent):

• New United Co. Group Ltd. of China


• Jiangsu New United Office Equipments Co. Ltd. of China


• Shenzhen Elite Business Office Equipment Co. Ltd. of China


• Elite Business Machines Ltd. of China


• New United Office Equipment USA, Inc. of Northbrook, Illinois


• Jiangsu Shinri Machinery Co. Ltd. of China


• Zhou Licheng, a citizen and resident of China


• Randall Graves, a U.S. citizen and resident of China


• “Jessica” Wang Chongge, a citizen and resident of China

According to the complaint, the intellectual property at issue relates to the development and testing processes and engineering know-how necessary to manufacture Fellowes shredders.  In particular, Fellowes refers to trade secrets embodied in its shredder development processes, bill of specifications, design tools, drawings, specifications, tolerances, manufacturing molds and tooling, quality control tests, “key learnings,” and training materials.  Fellowes also refers to the ‘859 and ‘048 patents, which cover various design features of Fellowes’s shredders.

Read More