09
Sep
By Eric Schweibenz
On August 25, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public versions of Order No. 38 (dated July 2, 2010) and Order No. 39 (dated July 13, 2010) in Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-698).

In Order No. 38, ALJ Luckern granted Complainants Richtek Technology Corp. and Richtek USA, Inc.’s (collectively “Richtek”) motion for summary determination that Richtek satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement of 19 U.S.C. §1337(a)(3).  In granting the motion, ALJ Luckern found that (i) “Richtek has invested in two physical facilities in the United States, in which a number of United States-based employees spend time developing, designing, testing, and supporting Richtek’s products,” (ii) invested in personnel costs and compensation for employees in the United States, “who are associated with activities relating to products allegedly practicing one or more of the three patents-at-issue,” and (iii) “Richtek USA’s full-time employees have devoted a significant amount of time to engineering, research and development related to [Richtek’s] DC-DC controllers.”  Accordingly, ALJ Luckern found that Richtek demonstrated that it satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.

In Order No. 39, ALJ Luckern denied Richtek’s motion for summary determination that it has satisfied the domestic industry requirement of 19 U.S.C. §1337(a)(1)(A), which sets forth the domestic industry requirement for allegations of trade secret misappropriation.  In denying the motion, ALJ Luckern determined that Richtek presented facts “insufficient to support a finding of actual or threatened substantial injury.”  In particular, ALJ Luckern found that “Richtek has failed to present any evidence in the form of lost sales, underselling, or reduction in profits, that Richtek’s domestic industry in the United States has been injured as a result of respondents’ alleged misappropriation of Richtek’s trade secrets.”
Share