By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
16
According to an excerpt from the March 13, 2009 Federal Register, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued a notice indicating that its Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) will be unavailable for use from 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 26, 2009 until 6:00 a.m. on Monday, March 30, 2009.

According to the notice, while EDIS is shut down the ITC plans to roll out EDIS3, a new and improved EDIS system with better technical performance.


Share

Read More

By Barry Herman
|
Mar
16
On March 13, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued a Notice determining to review in part the final Initial Determination (“ID”) issued by Administrative Law Judge Robert K. Rogers, Jr. on January 12, 2009, in the matter of Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-629).  Please note that Oblon Spivak represents MEMS Technology Berhad (“MemsTech”) in this matter. 

This investigation was instituted on January 14, 2008, based on the complaint of Knowles Electronics, LLC of Itasca, Illinois.  The sole respondent is MemsTech of Malaysia.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
13
On March 12, 2009, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued an order granting a joint motion to stay the investigation filed in Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-664).  According to the order, the private parties filed a motion to stay the investigation for ninety days to gain the necessary approvals to effectuate the agreed-upon settlement between the Spansion complainants and the Samsung respondents, which would result in termination of the investigation. 

Further, according to the order, on March 11, 2009 Spansion filed a notice of commencement of bankruptcy proceedings and an automatic stay in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  Although Spansion and Samsung have fully agreed to the settlement agreement, because Spansion filed for bankruptcy, the settlement agreement is subject to the Bankruptcy Court’s approval which may take up to ninety days.


Share
By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
12
On March 10, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued a notice indicating that he granted Complainant Farouk System, Inc.’s motion for summary determination of violation of section 337 in the matter of Certain Hair Irons and Packaging Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-637).  The notice further indicates that ALJ Charneski also issued a Recommended Determination (in the same order) recommending the issuance of a general exclusion order.  ALJ Charneski’s order granting complainant’s motion for summary determination was issued as a confidential document and a public version is not yet available.

We will provide additional information regarding this order once the public version issues.


Share
By Barry Herman
|
Mar
11
On March 9, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of his February 23, 2009 Order No. 22 in Certain Laser Imageable Lithographic Printing Plates (337-TA-636).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied respondents VIM Technologies, Ltd., Hanita Coatings RCA, Ltd., AteCe Canada, Guaranteed Service & Supplies, Inc., Recognition Systems, Inc., and Spicers Paper, Inc.’s (Respondents’) motion for summary determination that (i) claims 1 and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 5,339,737 are invalid as anticipated over a prior art reference by Nechiporenko et al.; (ii) claim 10 of the ‘737 patent is invalid as obvious over the Nechiporenko reference in combination with U.S. Patent No. 4,132,168; (iii) the accused lithographic printing plates do not infringe claims 1, 10, and 27 of the ‘737 patent; and (iv) the accused plates do not infringe claims 20, 21, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 5,487,338.

Complainant Presstek, Inc. and the Staff opposed Respondents’ motion.  They argued that there are disputed issues of fact relating to what is actually disclosed and enabled by the Nechiporenko reference, and that therefore summary determination of invalidity of any claims as anticipated by Nechiporenko or obvious over Nechiporenko (in combination with the ‘168 patent) would be inappropriate.  Further, they argued that since Respondents’ noninfringement position relied on disputed claim terms that still required construction, summary determination on that issue was premature.  The Staff also argued that there was a disputed issue of fact relating to the operation of the accused lithographic printing plates, which also made summary determination of noninfringement inappropriate.


Share

Read More