By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
21
On August 18, 2009, the International Trade Commission issued an Order granting the private parties’ petitions for reconsideration in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-629).  In connection with this Order, the Commission also issued a revised notice and limited exclusion order and a revised opinion in view of the parties’ petitions for reconsideration.  Please note that Oblon Spivak represents Respondent MEMS Technology Berhad (“MemsTech”) in this matter.

In the Order, the Commission explained that both Complainant Knowles Electronics, LLC (“Knowles”) and MemsTech filed petitions for reconsideration on June 26, 2009.  Specifically, both Knowles and MemsTech requested that the Commission remove any reference in the opinion, notice, and limited exclusion order to claim 10 of the asserted ‘089 patent since the Commission had already determined that such claim was invalid.  Further, Knowles requested that the Commission reconsider certain wording in its June 12, 2009 opinion stating that MemsTech’s “chamber chip” products are not covered by the limited exclusion order.  MemsTech asked the Commission to strike the language “and products containing the same” from the limited exclusion order.  According to the Order, the Commission Investigative Staff opposed Knowles’ petition for reconsideration.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
20
On August 18, 2009, the International Trade Commission issued an Order granting a joint motion filed by Complainant Tessera, Inc. and Motorola, Inc. to rescind the cease and desist order directed to Motorola in Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-605).  According to the Order, Tessera and Motorola filed the joint motion based upon a license agreement entered into between the two parties.

For further information regarding this investigation, please see our May 22, June 11, July 21, and July 29 posts.


Share
By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
19
On August 18, 2009, Administrative Law Judge E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 17 (dated August 5, 2009) in Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-666).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted Complainants O2 Micro International Ltd and O2 Micro Inc.’s (collectively, “O2 Micro”) motion to compel Respondent Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (“MPS”) to re-produce a document that MPS had “clawed back” as privileged.

In support of its motion, O2 Micro argued that (1) MPS did not demonstrate the disputed document was privileged; and (2) even if the disputed document was privileged, the privilege was waived when MPS produced such document in prior litigation between the parties.  MPS, on the other hand, argued that (1) the disputed document was privileged and related to pending litigation in Taiwan; (2) the disputed document was inadvertently produced in the prior litigation and the instant investigation “because the prior production was re-produced en masse”; and (3) privilege was not waived because counsel for MPS promptly “clawed back” the disputed document during a June 2009 deposition and followed it up with notification in writing.  For its part, the Commission Investigative Staff argued that (1) MPS waived any privilege to the disputed document in light of the inadvertent production in the prior litigation; and (2) the ALJ should perform an in camera review of the disputed document to confirm that it is privileged.


Share

Read More

By Barry Herman
|
Aug
19
On August 17, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 16 (dated August 4, 2009) granting Complainants O2 Micro International Ltd. and O2 Micro Inc.’s motion to compel documents regarding sales information and possibly infringing products from Respondents LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics USA in Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuit and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-666).

O2 sought the underlying sales records from which LG had produced sales summaries.  O2 also complained that LG had only produced technical, sales and marketing information for products incorporating CCFL inverter controllers that were manufactured by other Respondents, while the discovery requests sought information on LG products with CCFL inverter controllers manufactured by any entity.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
19
On August 18, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 5 in Certain High-Brightness Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-556).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted Complainant Philips Lumileds Lighting Company, LLC’s (“Philips Lumileds”) motion to withdraw its complaint and terminate the investigation in its entirety.

By way of background, on May 24, 2009, the Federal Circuit vacated the Commission’s limited exclusion order and remanded the case to the Commission to allow Respondent Epistar Corp. (“Epistar”) to challenge the validity of U.S. Patent No. 5,008,718 (the “‘718 patent”).  See our May 26, July 28, and July 29 posts for more information.  According to the Order, the ‘718 patent will expire on December 18, 2009, and “Philips Lumileds has been advised that it will not be able to complete the entire remand proceeding prior to the expiration of the ‘718 patent.”  Accordingly, Philips Lumileds moved for termination of the investigation while noting “that it does not waive any rights in its currently-pending lawsuit against Epistar in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.”


Share

Read More