By Barry Herman
|
May
28
On May 26, 2009, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Norgren Inc. v. ITC (2008-1415) which reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the ITC’s final determination of no violation in this case.  Please note that Oblon Spivak represents SMC Corporation and SMC Corporation of America (“SMC”) in this matter.

By way of background, on October 6, 2006, Norgren Inc. (“Norgren”) filed a complaint with the ITC against SMC alleging violation of Section 337 by SMC’s importation and sale of certain connecting devices or clamps that connect together modular filters, regulators, and lubricators (“FRLs”) used for conditioning compressed air in pneumatic systems.  On February 13, 2008, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued an initial determination (“ID”) in which he found no violation of Section 337 because SMC’s accused connectors did not receive generally rectangular ported flanges of the FRLs as required by the patent-in-suit.  Norgren petitioned for review, and the Commission rendered a final decision on April 14, 2008 adopting the ALJ’s ID.


Share

Read More

By Tom Fisher
|
May
27
On May 20, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 80 and Order No. 81 in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-648).  In the Orders, ALJ Charneski denied five motions for summary determination relating to the validity or invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,227,335.

Order No. 80 addresses four motions for summary determination concerning alleged anticipation and/or obviousness of certain claims of the ‘335 patent in light of prior work conducted at non-party IBM (“IBM Prior Art”).  According to the Order, Respondents National Semiconductor Corp., Integrated Device Technology, Inc., STMicroelectronics N.V., Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp., Spansion Inc., Nanya Technology Corp., Powerchip Semiconductor Corp., Cypress Semiconductor Corp. and Elpida Memory, Inc. moved for summary determination of invalidity of claims 1, 3, and 4 of the ‘335 patent for anticipation and obviousness.  Complainants LSI Corp. and Agere Systems, Inc. (“Complainants”) filed a response and cross motion for summary determination of validity of claims 1, 3, and 4.  Complainants also filed a separate motion for summary determination that the IBM Prior Art does not anticipate claims 1, 3, or 4 of the ‘335 patent against respondents Microchip Technology, Inc., ProMOS Technologies, Inc., United Microelectronics Corp., Micronas Holding AG, NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc., Vanguard International Semiconductor Corp., Dongbu HiTek Semiconductor Business, Qimonda AG, Jazz Semiconductor, Tower Semiconductor, Ltd. and ON Semiconductor Corp.  Lastly, Complainants filed an additional motion for summary determination that the IBM Prior Art does not anticipate or render obvious claims 1, 3, or 4 of the ‘335 patent against respondent Magnachip Semiconductor, Ltd.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
26
On May 21, 2009, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Linear Technology Corporation v. ITC, No. 2008-1117.  Judge Schall, sitting on a panel with Judge Mayer and Judge Lourie affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part and remanded the case to the ITC for further proceedings.

By way of background, the ITC instituted the underlying investigation (Certain Voltage Regulators, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-564) based on Linear Technology Corporation’s (“Linear”) complaint against Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc. (“AATI”) alleging violation of Section 337 by AATI’s importation and/or sale for importation of certain electronic voltage regulator products that infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,580,258 (the “‘258 patent”).


Share

Read More

By Alex Englehart
|
May
26
On May 19, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 21 (dated May 11, 2009) in Certain Automotive Multimedia Display and Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-657).  In the Order, ALJ Essex granted complainant Honeywell International Inc.’s (“Honeywell”) motion to compel respondents Pioneer Corp. and Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. (collectively, “Pioneer”) to produce source code for their OEM products made for Honda.

According to the order, Honeywell argued that the source code was discoverable because it controls various functions within the accused products and is relevant to whether certain claim elements were met.  Pioneer argued that since the source code was for OEM products made for non-party Honda, and the products of non-parties could not be excluded by an ITC limited exclusion order under Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the source code was irrelevant.


Share

Read More

By Robert Nissen
|
May
26
On May 22, 2009, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2007-1457.  This was an appeal from the Commission’s final determination in Investigation No. 337-TA-556, which held that Epistar’s LED products infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,008,718 (“the ‘718 Patent).  The’718 patent is owned by Philips Lumileds Lighting Co. LLC (“Lumileds”).  At the ITC, Epistar attempted to argue that the ‘718 patent was invalid and the parties disagreed on the claim constructions for two terms.  The Commission found that Epistar had waived its right to argue that the ‘718 patent was invalid due to a settlement agreement signed by its subsidiary.  After the Commission ruled against Epistar’s construction of two claim terms, it found that Epistar’s products infringed and issued a Limited Exclusion Order (“LEO”) prohibiting the importation of Epistar’s LED products, regardless of the manufacturer or importer of those products.  Epistar appealed to the Federal Circuit.

In the opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed the Commission’s decision that Epistar could not raise the defense of patent invalidity, affirmed the Commission’s claim construction, and reversed the grant of the LEO.  The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the ITC so that Epistar could raise its invalidity defense and reconsider the grant of the LEO.


Share

Read More