By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
20
On April 16, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 17 in Certain Video Game Machines and Related Three-Dimensional Pointing Devices (337-TA-658).  In the order, ALJ Luckern found respondents Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America, Inc.’s (“Nintendo”) license agreements relating to the accused products are not relevant for calculating the appropriate bond.

On March 2, 2009, complainant Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc. (“Hillcrest”) moved for an order compelling Nintendo to produce their license agreements relating to the accused products, and, if necessary, to produce a witness to provide testimony on those agreements.  Nintendo and the Commission Investigative Staff opposed Hillcrest’s motion.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
20
Further to our March 26 post, on April 16, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 4 – setting target date in Certain Electronic Devices Having Image Capture or Display Functionality and Components Thereof (337-TA-672). 

In the order, ALJ Charneski set a 16 month target date.  Therefore, the Initial Determination in this investigation will be due on March 30, 2010 and the target date for completion of the investigation is July 30, 2010.


Share
By Barry Herman
|
Apr
20
On April 16, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 7 denying a motion filed by respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLP (“Samsung”) to amend the Notice of Investigation (“Notice”) and limit the scope of the investigation to Certain Camcorders and Wireless Telephones with Keypads.  Complainant Saxon Innovations, LLC and the Commission Investigative Staff opposed the motion.

According to the order, Samsung argued that the current Notice makes broad infringement claims against an unidentified range of Samsung’s “electronic devices” but that Saxon’s complaint only provided specific infringement allegations for two Samsung products -- a wireless telephone with a keypad and a camcorder.  Samsung argued that Saxon’s complaint only alleged a nexus between the asserted patents and two categories of Samsung products, and thus the scope of the investigation should be limited to those products.  Samsung argued that Saxon’s complaint failed to comply with Commission Rule 210.12.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
16
On April 15, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 16 in Certain Automotive Multimedia Display and Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (337-TA-657). 

In the Order, ALJ Essex determined that “the use of witness statements in lieu of live testimony for direct examination by all of the parties would be the most efficient use of the allotted hearing time.”  ALJ Essex thus ordered the parties to “submit witness statements in lieu of live direct testimony, except for those third party witnesses who object to providing written testimony.”  With respect to expert reports, ALJ Essex determined that “expert reports will not be admitted into evidence, but exhibits and attachments to the expert reports may be received into evidence if they are properly introduced at the hearing during the examination of the experts, subject to any objections and rulings.”


Share
By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
16
On April 15, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 4 in Certain Optoelectronic Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (337-TA-669).

In the Order, ALJ Essex set the procedural schedule for the investigation.  He included a provision for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions, and scheduled the evidentiary hearing to begin on October 19, 2009.


Share