By Eric Schweibenz
On July 30, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 9 denying Complainants Neptun Light, Inc. and Andrzej Bobel (collectively, “Complainants”) 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 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.

In the Order, Complainants sought to withdraw the complaint as to certain respondents because those entities were not proper parties to the investigation.  For example, Complainants noted that named Respondent Shanghai Jensing Electron Electrical Equipment is “an alternative transliteration/translation of the name of a corporate affiliate of the TCP Respondents that was formerly known as ‘Shanghai Zhenxin Electronics Co., Ltd.’”  According to the Order, that entity is now known as Shanghai Qiamgling Electronics Co., Ltd., which is already a named Respondent in the investigation which has answered the complaint.  Accordingly, Complainants asserted that termination as to the former “Zhenxin” entity is therefore appropriate.

According to the Order, ALJ Pender denied Complainants’ motion because it failed to comply with Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1) which requires a statement that there are no agreements, written or oral, express or implied between the parties concerning the subject matter of this Investigation.