By Barry Herman
|
Apr
21
On April 20, 2009, the Federal Circuit issued its Opinion in Princo Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2007-1386.  This was an appeal from the Commission’s ruling in Certain Recordable Compact Discs & Rewritable Compact Discs (Inv. No. 337-TA-474) that Princo Corp. and Princo America Corp. (“Princo”) had violated Section 337 through the importation of compact discs that infringed six patents owned by U.S. Philips Corp. (“Philips”).  At the ITC, Princo conceded infringement but made two distinct arguments that Philips’ patents were unenforceable due to patent misuse.  The Commission found both patent misuse arguments unpersuasive and held that Princo had violated section 337.  Princo appealed to the Federal Circuit.

In the opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s rejection of Princo’s first patent misuse argument but vacated and remanded with respect to the Commission’s rejection of the second patent misuse argument.


Share

Read More

By Tom Fisher
|
Apr
20
On April 16, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 48 (dated March 11, 2009) 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 (“LSI”) motion for reconsideration of a ruling he made during a telephonic conference that a deposition witness appearing on behalf of respondent Cypress Semiconductor Corp. (“Cypress”) need not answer questions with respect to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 5,227,335 (the ‘335 patent”) since only claim 1 of the ‘335 patent was asserted against Cypress.  ALJ Charneski also denied LSI’s alternative request seeking leave for interlocutory review of the ruling.

By way of background, during a deposition, Cypress’ counsel instructed a Cypress engineer not to answer a question on the basis that the question only related to possible infringement of claim 4 of the ‘335 patent.  While claim 4 was asserted against other respondents, only claim 1 had been asserted against Cypress.  In response to Cypress’ counsel’s instruction, the parties contacted ALJ Charneski for a ruling as to whether Cypress’ counsel’s objection to the question was proper.  In addition to ruling that the objection was proper, ALJ Charneski went on to rule that questions regarding claim 4 were not permissible as to Cypress or to any other respondent that has not been asserted to have infringed claim 4.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
20
On April 16, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 20 in Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Certain Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same (337-TA-655).  According to the Order, ALJ Charneski denied respondent Standard Car Truck Company’s (“SCT”) motion to dismiss complainant Amsted Industries Incorporated’s (“Amsted”) complaint. 

In the Order, ALJ Charneski first explained that SCT’s motion to dismiss “was filed pursuant to Commission Rule 210.18, i.e., the rule on summary determination (19 C.F.R. § 210.18).”  SCT argued that the complaint should be dismissed for three reasons: (1) there was no trade secrets in existence at the time of the filing of the complaint that could have been misappropriated as alleged by [Amsted]; (2) there was no domestic industry at the time of filing, and therefore (3) the [ITC] lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”  Amsted and the Commission Investigative Staff opposed SCT’s motion.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
20
On April 16, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 30: Initial Determination Terminating Investigation On The Basis Of Settlement Agreement in Certain Automotive Parts (337-TA-651).

According to the Order, on April 3, 2009, complainant Ford Global Technologies, LLC (“Ford”) and respondents LKQ Corporation, Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc., Jui Li Enterprise Co., Y.C.C. Parts Manufacturing Co., Ltd., TYC Brother Industrial Co. Ltd., Taiwan Kai Yih Industrial Co., Ltd., and T.Y.G. Products, L.P. (“Respondents”) filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation on the basis of a settlement agreement.  The Commission Investigative Staff filed a response in support of the motion.


Share

Read More

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