21
Apr
By Barry Herman
On April 17, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 18 (dated April 6, 2009), the initial determination granting in part the motion for summary determination filed by Complainant John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC, Inc. (“PPC”) in Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-650).

PPC moved for summary determination on importation, infringement, domestic industry, and for a general exclusion order.  With respect to infringement, PPC moved for summary determination that products of Respondents Fu Ching Technical Industry Co. Ltd.  and Gem Electronics, Inc. (“Respondents”) infringed certain claims of the patent-in-suit “which is valid and enforceable.”  Respondents opposed and raised a number of theories regarding invalidity and non-infringement, but did not dispute PPC’s assertions relating to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement and importation of the accused products.  The Commission Investigative Staff filed a response in support of a finding of summary determination for importation and economic prong, but argued there were genuine issues of material fact and that PPC had failed to meet its burden which would preclude summary determination on the issues of infringement and technical prong.

ALJ Gildea found that PPC was entitled to summary determination on importation since it was undisputed that the accused products were sold for importation into the U.S. and were imported and sold in the U.S.  He also found that PPC satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement since it was undisputed that “PPC has made significant investment in at least domestic manufacturing and equipment, labor, and research and development.”

ALJ Gildea denied summary determination “[w]ith respect to infringement and validity as they relate to Respondents” since there were genuine issues of material fact remaining with respect to whether Respondents’ accused products satisfied certain claim limitations, and there was not good cause to grant the motion in lieu of a trial.  ALJ Gildea agreed with the Staff in finding that PPC failed to set forth sufficient information in its “one-page analysis to support summary determination with respect to the technical domestic industry requirement.”  Since he found material issues of fact remained for both infringement and technical prong, ALJ Gildea declined to evaluate remedy.
Share