By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
17
On June 12, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 43 in Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (337-TA-630).  In the Order, ALJ Essex requested that the parties provide supplemental briefing in connection with the Commission’s recently issued opinion in Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (337-TA-605) (see our June 11 post for details about this opinion).

Specifically, ALJ Essex sought “the parties’ arguments on how the Commission’s Opinion in the ‘605 Investigation and its findings on Dr. Qu’s infringement analysis will affect the ALJ’s analysis in this investigation, if at all.”  ALJ Essex further noted that “[t]he parties should limit their briefing to the infringement analysis for the ‘627 and the ‘977 Patents in this investigation.”


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
17
Public interest factors can override the finding of a violation of Section 337 at the ITC.  Upon finding a violation, the administrative law judge (“ALJ") considers the impact that exclusion orders would have upon (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) the production of like or directly competitive articles in the U.S., and (4) U.S. consumers.  The ALJ next weighs these factors against the public interest in protecting U.S. intellectual property rights by excluding infringing imports.

In making this public interest determination, the ALJ considers whether there are alternative sources (such as the complainant or its licensees) for the accused products that can adequately meet the demands of the U.S. market, whether there are alternative and non-infringing products that would not be subject to the remedial order, and the effect such an order would have on U.S. consumers.  See Certain Circuit Telecommunications Chips, Inv. No. 337-TA-337.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
16
On June 12, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued a notice regarding his Initial Determination in Certain Liquid Crystal Display Modules, Products Containing Same, and Methods for Using the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-634).

According to the notice, ALJ Luckern held that there is a violation of section 337 in this investigation by respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.  The notice further indicates that “[s]hould the Commission find a violation, the administrative law judge recommends the issuance of a limited exclusion order barring entry into the United States of infringing liquid crystal display modules and products containing respondents’ infringing liquid crystal display modules, including respondents’ downstream LCD televisions, LCD computer monitors and LCD professional displays as well as the issuance of a cease and desist order.”


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
15
On June 12, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission voted to institute an investigation of Certain Energy Drink Products (337-TA-678).

The investigation is based on the May 15, 2009 complaint filed by Red Bull GmbH of Austria and Red Bull North America, Inc. of Santa Monica, California (collectively, “Red Bull”).  As we explained in our May 18 post, the complaint alleges that certain respondents unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell and distribute within the U.S after importation gray market energy drink products which are materially different from Red Bull’s energy drink.  The Notice of Investigation names the following companies as respondents in this matter:

  • Chicago Import Inc. of Chicago, Illinois;

  • Lamont Dist., Inc. a/k/a Lamont Distributors Inc. of Brooklyn, New York;

  • India Imports, Inc., a/k/a International Wholesale Club of Metairie, Louisiana;

  • Washington Food and Supply of D.C., Inc. a/k/a Washington Cash & Carry;

  • Vending Plus, Inc. of Glen Burnie, Maryland; and

  • Baltimore Beverage Co. of Glen Burnie, Maryland.


Red Bull asserts that these proposed respondents have violated Section 337 by infringing Red Bull U.S. Trademark Reg. Nos. 3,092,197; 2,946,045; 2,994,429; and 3,479,607, as well as Red Bull Copyright Reg. No. VA0001410959.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
15
Further to our May 12 post, on June 11, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 7: Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Wireless Communications Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-675).

According to the Order, the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on January 19, 2010.


Share