By Eric Schweibenz
On June 28, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 25 granting Complainants Standard Innovation (US) Corp. and Standard Innovation Corporation’s (collectively, “SIC”) motion to terminate the investigation in part with respect to U.S. Patent No. D605,779 (the ‘779 patent) in Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-823).

According to the Order, SIC sought to withdraw its allegations of infringement of the ‘779 patent under Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1) in order to streamline the investigation and conserve the resources of the parties and the Commission.  Respondents LELO Inc., Leloi AB, and Lelo Shanghai Trading Ltd. (collectively, “Lelo”) opposed the motion, arguing that SIC committed inequitable conduct before the Commission and that if the motion is granted, then the ALJ should amend the consent orders previously entered terminating the respondent retailers to remove all references to the ‘779 patent (citing Order No. 16 in Certain Vehicle Security Systems).

ALJ Pender granted SIC’s motion, noting that unlike Certain Vehicle Security Systems, there are no pending motions for summary determination and evidentiary sanctions in the investigation that would constitute “extraordinary circumstances” sufficient to warrant denial of the motion.  The ALJ also refused to amend the previously entered consent orders on the grounds that Lelo offered no support for the proposition that an ALJ may amend a consent order entered by the Commission, and that Lelo has no standing to request such a modification.

Copyright © 2020 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P.