17
Jul
By Eric Schweibenz
ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 28, Order No. 29, and Order No. 30 in Certain Video Analytics Software, Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-795).  First, on July 11, 2012, ALJ Shaw issued Order No. 28, in which he ruled on Respondents Robert Bosch GmbH and Bosch Security Systems, Inc.’s (collectively, “Bosch”) motion to compel Complainant ObjectVideo, Inc. (“ObjectVideo”) to produce certain non-privileged documents.  Additionally, on July 12, 2012, ALJ Shaw issued Order No. 29 and Order No. 30.  In Order No. 29, the ALJ granted one motion by Respondents Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd. and Samsung Opto-Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) for leave to supplement their Notice of Prior Art, but denied a second motion by Samsung for leave to supplement its Notice of Prior Art.  In Order No. 30, ALJ Shaw denied Bosch and related entities’ motion for summary determination of invalidity of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,613,324 (the ‘324 patent), 7,932,923 (the ‘923 patent), and 7,868,912 (the ‘912 patent) under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

According to Order No. 28, Bosch moved to compel ObjectVideo to produce certain non-privileged documents.  ObjectVideo opposed the motion.  The Commission Investigative Staff supported the motion in part.  After considering the arguments, ALJ Shaw ordered ObjectVideo to provide one copy of each of the documents at issue to the ALJ for an in camera review.  The ALJ further ordered that specific portions of each of the documents deemed to be protected by the attorney-client privilege should be highlighted in yellow.  Moreover, each document should include an identifying number.

According to Order No. 29, Samsung filed two motions for leave to supplement its Notice of Prior Art.  In the first of these motions, Samsung argued that certain prior art documents were “uncovered through discussions with a Samsung employee who has been designated to testify regarding topics listed in deposition notices.”  Samsung argued that these documents were immediately produced to ObjectVideo, and included in Samsung’s invalidity contentions that were served approximately one month after Samsung served its Notice of Prior Art and with almost two months remaining before the close of fact discovery.  ObjectVideo argued that good cause did not exist to supplement the Notice of Prior Art because Samsung had failed to explain why it could not meet its obligation to identify prior art in advance of the deadline.  After considering the arguments, ALJ Shaw determined to grant Samsung’s motion.  However, the ALJ denied Samsung’s second motion for leave to supplement its Notice of Prior Art as moot because that motion had only sought to add one additional reference, and that  reference was only applicable to a patent that had already been terminated from the investigation.

According to Order No. 30, Bosch and related entities argued that the asserted claims of the ‘324, ‘923, and ‘912 patents “are invalid as a matter of law because they are directed to mental processes, which are not patentable subject matter.”  ObjectVideo opposed the motion, arguing that summary determination of invalidity would be premature because the ALJ had not yet construed various disputed claim terms.  After considering the arguments, ALJ Shaw determined to deny Bosch and its related entities’ motion because the ALJ had not yet construed the disputed claim terms and because Bosch and the related entities had failed to show that the asserted claims were unpatentable.
Share