By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
04
On December 2, 2009, Prism Technologies LLC of Omaha, Nebraska (“Prism”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that Research In Motion, Ltd. of Canada and Research In Motion Corp. of Irving, Texas (collectively, “RIM”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain authentication systems, including software and handheld electronic devices which allegedly infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,290,288 (the ‘288 Patent).


Read More

On December 2, 2009, Richtek Technology Corp. of Taiwan and Richtek USA, Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively, “Richtek”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that the following proposed respondents unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain DC-DC controllers and products containing such controllers which allegedly infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,315,190 (the ‘190 patent), 6,414,470 (the ‘470 patent), and 7,132,717 (the ‘717 patent):

  • uPI Semiconductor Corp. of Taiwan (“uPI”)

  • Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California (“AMD”)

  • Sapphire Technology Limited of Hong Kong

  • Diamond Multimedia, Inc. of Chatsworth, California

  • XFX Technology, Inc. of Ontario, California


The complaint further alleges violations of Section 337 “arising from the unfair act of misappropriating Richtek’s proprietary and trade secret information relating to at least Richtek’s DC-DC controllers.”


Read More

Further to our October 19 post, on November 20, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated October 16, 2009) in Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Certain Processes For Manufacturing Or Relating To Same And Certain Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-655).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Amsted Industries Inc. (“Amsted”).  The Respondents are Tianrui Group Co. Ltd, Tianrui Group Foundry Co. Ltd, Standard Car Truck Company, Inc., and Barber Tianrui Railway Supply (collectively, “Tianrui”).  On October 16, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued the ID in this investigation finding that a violation of Section 337 “ha[d] occurred in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain cast steel railway wheels or products containing the same by reason of trade secret misappropriation.”


Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
04
On December 1, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 29 (dated November 13, 2009) in Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips, Laser Diode Chips and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-674).  In the Order, ALJ Luckern granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Gertrude Neumark Rothschild and Respondent Dalian Lumei Optoelectronics Corporation (“Dalian Lumei”) based on a settlement agreement between the parties.

According to the Order, the Commission Investigative Staff filed a response supporting termination of Dalian Lumei from the investigation based on the settlement agreement, and also termination of the investigation in its entirety.


Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
04
On December 2, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 7 in Certain Collaborative System Products and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-682).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted Complainant eInstruction Corporation’s (“eInstruction”) motion seeking termination of the investigation in its entirety by reason of a settlement agreement with Respondent Qomo HiteVision, LLC.

According to the Order, eInstruction stated in its motion that there were no other agreements between the parties concerning the subject matter of this investigation.  Additionally, the Commission Investigative Staff (the “Staff”) filed a response supporting the motion and indicating that it complies with the Commission requirements for termination.  The Staff further noted in its response to the motion that termination of this investigation would not have any adverse impact on the public interest.


Read More