By Eric Schweibenz
On July 26, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of Order No. 6 (dated May 16, 2012) denying Respondent MaxLite, Inc.’s motion to terminate the investigation in Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-830).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Neptun Light, Inc. and Andrzej Bobel (collectively, “Complainants”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation and sale of certain dimmable compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,434,480 and 8,035,318.  See our February 23, 2012 post for more details.

According to the order, Respondent MaxLite, Inc. (“MaxLite”) filed a motion for termination based on the entry of a consent order.  MaxLite concurrently submitted a stipulation stating that it complied with all rules and that the consent order provides Complainants with the full relief they seek in the investigation. 

Complainants opposed the motion, specifically noting that the stipulation did not comply with Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3) for failure to contain several mandated items, including an admission of jurisdictional facts, an express waiver of rights to seek review, and statements about validity challenges, among others.  Complainants also argued that the consent order did not offer all the relief to which they would otherwise be entitled, as it “carves out a category of MaxLite’s dimmable CFLs that would not be subject to the Consent Order.” 

The ALJ agreed with Complainants, determining that the consent order stipulation failed to comply with various requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3) and also failed to provide Complainants with all the relief they would otherwise be entitled.  Thus, MaxLite’s motion to terminate the investigation was denied.