By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
21
On April 17, 2009, ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued a Notice of his Enforcement Initial Determination (“ED”) which included the non-confidential title page, conclusions of law, and the order in Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof (337-TA-565).  According to the Notice, ALJ Luckern determined that enforcement respondents Ninestar Technology Company Ltd., Ninestar Technology Co., Ltd. and Town Sky, Incorporated violated the orders issued at the conclusion of Investigation No. 337-TA-565.

ALJ Luckern determined that the Ninestar and Town Sky compatible and remanufactured cartridges at issue are “covered products” under the Cease and Desist Order issued against it by the Commission on October 19, 2007.  ALJ Luckern also determined that Ninestar and Town Sky failed to meet their burden to demonstrate their affirmative defenses and were “jointly and severally liable for violations of the Cease and Desist Orders in the amount of $20,504,974.16.”


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
21
On April 17, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 19 (dated April 10, 2009) in Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (337-TA-650).  ALJ Gildea denied Fu Ching Technical Industry Co., Ltd.’s and Gem Electronics, Inc.’s  (“Respondents”) joint motion for summary determination that (i) they do not infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,470, 257 (the “‘257 patent”), (ii) the ‘257 patent is invalid as anticipated, obvious or indefinite, and (iii) Complainant John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC, Inc. (“PPC”) is barred by laches from pursuing the Investigation against Respondents.

In the order, ALJ Gildea determined that a finding of non-infringement was inappropriate because genuine material issues of fact remain relating to at least (i) whether the locking member of Respondents’ accused products is separable from the connector body and (ii) whether a radially protruding circular shoulder is present on Respondents’ accused products at a first position.


Share

Read More

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