17
Sep
By Eric Schweibenz and John Presper
On September 12, 2018, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 19 in Certain Carburetors and Products Containing Such Carburetors (Inv. No. 337-TA-1123).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a June 12, 2018 complaint filed by Walbro, LLC of Tucson Arizona (“Walbro”) alleging violation of Section 337 by way of unlawful importation into the U.S., selling for importation, and/or selling within the U.S. after importation certain carburetors and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,394,424 (the ’424 patent), 6,439,547 (the ’547 patent), 6,533,254 (the ’254 patent), 6,540,212 (the ’212 patent), and 7,070,173 (the ’173 patent). See our June 12, 2018 and July 17, 2018 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

According to the Order, Respondent Champion Power Equipment, Inc. (“Champion”) moved to terminate the investigation as to Champion based on a consent order stipulation and proposed consent order. The Commission Investigation Staff (“Staff’) opposed the motion on the grounds that the consent order stipulation does not comply with Commission rules because it fails to identify all of the asserted claims and does not contain the required admission of all jurisdictional facts. Staff argued that the proposed consent order similarly does not identify all of the asserted claims, does not identify specific carburetors, and does not include a statement that Champion will not sell for importation, import, or sell after importation the “subject articles ... except under consent, license from Walbro, or to the extent permitted by a settlement between Walbro and Champion.” Walbro also opposed the motion on the grounds that the proposed consent order was “improperly restricted” to only the specific products named in the complaint, and “fails to even address the disposition of inventory currently awaiting sale in the United States.” Champion filed an amended consent order stipulation and proposed consent order that the ALJ found to adequately address Staff’s concerns, but that did not resolve all the inventory issues raised by Walbro. Accordingly, ALJ Bullock denied the motion.
Share



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