By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
02
On March 31, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission voted to institute an investigation of Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips, Laser Diode Chips and Products Containing Same (337-TA-674). 

The investigation is based on a March 2, 2009 complaint filed by Professor Gertrude Rothschild of Columbia University in New York.  As we explained in our March 4 post, the complaint alleges that the following companies unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain light emitting diode (LED) chips, laser diode chips and products containing those devices that infringe claims 10, 12, 13, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 5,252,499:


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
01
On March 30, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 26 in Certain Laser Imageable Lithographic Printing Plates (337-TA-636).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted in part respondents VIM Technologies, Ltd., Hanita Coatings RCA, Ltd., AteCe Canada, Guaranteed Service & Supplies, Inc., Recognition Systems, Inc., and Spicers Paper, Inc.’s (“Respondents”) requests for receipt of certain exhibits without a sponsoring witness, but denied the majority of the requests.

According to the Order, Respondents requested, pursuant to Ground Rule 9.8.12, that the ALJ receive several exhibits into evidence without a sponsoring witness.  Respondents argued that “there is good cause to admit these exhibits into evidence because they are relevant, material, reliable and non-controversial, and their admission would streamline the hearing process without prejudicing any party to this Investigation.”


Share

Read More

By Barry Herman
|
Apr
01
On March 31, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 24 in Certain Composite Wear Components and Products Containing Same (337-TA-644).  In the Order, ALJ Essex stayed the evidentiary hearing scheduled to begin on April 13, 2009. 

On March 23, respondents AIA Engineering Ltd. and Vega Industries Ltd. filed a notice that “it will not participate any further in this investigation, except in connection with appeals or other challenges to the denial by the ALJ of [its] Termination Motion . . . .”  The notice stated that AIAE intended to seek redress against complainant Magotteaux S/A and Magotteaux, Inc. (Magotteaux) for incorrect allegations of patent infringement in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
01
At the ITC, each of the Administrative Law Judges (“ALJ”) employ their own unique set of Ground Rules.  Most ALJs have a ground rule that requires production of existing English language translations of any document produced during discovery.  See, e.g., Chief ALJ Luckern Ground Rule 4(v) in Certain Video Game Machines and Related Three-Dimensional Pointing Devices (337-TA-658).

The bounds of this particular ground rule were tested in Certain Microlithographic Machines and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-468) (Order No. 8).  In that investigation, respondent ASML (citing Ground Rule 4(v)) sought to compel all existing English language translations of more than 100,000 pages of Japanese language documents produced in discovery by complainant Nikon.  In response, Nikon argued that of the approximately 32,000 documents (totaling around 600,000 pages) that it produced, its counsel selected and compiled 304 of those documents to be translated for further study and use in the litigation.  Nikon further argued that the selection and compilation of these documents represented Nikon’s counsel’s work product and thus were immune from discovery. 


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
31
On March 26, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 60 in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same (337-TA-648).  In the Order, ALJ Charneski denied Complainants LSI Corporation’s and Agere Systems Inc.’s (“Complainants”) motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to assert two additional patent claims against respondent Magnachip Semiconductor, Ltd. (“MagnaChip”).

According to the Order, Complainants’ motion failed to meet the good cause standard set forth in Commission Rule 210.14(b)(1) as it relates to post-institution motions to amend the complaint and notice of investigation.  Specifically, ALJ Charneski noted, among other things, that initial expert reports had already been filed, rebuttal expert reports are due on April 6, 2009, and the deadline for fact and expert discovery is April 17, 2009.


Share

Read More