By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
03
On April 2, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a Notice regarding the public version of his initial determination in Certain Computer Products, Computer Components and Products Containing Same (337-TA-628).  In the notice, ALJ Essex rejected the private parties’ redactions as being “inappropriate” and inconsistent with the definition of “Confidential Business Information” (“CBI”) as set forth in 19 C.F.R. § 201.6 (a)(1).

By way of example, ALJ Essex focused on two proposed redactions in particular.  First, complainant IBM sought to redact one of its legal arguments relating to claim construction, which the ALJ noted was not redacted in IBM’s public version of its initial post hearing brief.  Second, IBM sought to redact the ALJ’s claim construction ruling in the initial determination.  ALJ Essex determined that both of the redactions requested were inappropriate because neither of the items to be redacted disclosed any CBI.


Share

Read More

By Barry Herman
|
Apr
03
On April 2, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 17 granting in part Respondents’ joint motion to compel Complainant to fully respond to specific discovery requests in Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-650).

According to the order, Respondents Fu Ching Technical Industry Co. Ltd.  and Gem Electronics, Inc. (“Respondents”) moved to compel Complainant John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC, Inc. (“PPC”) to fully respond to an interrogatory and a request for admission, and produce documents responsive to a request for production, relating to whether representatives of PPC had separated the locking member of Respondents’ accused products from the connector body and whether the locking member has a radially protruding shoulder circumscribing the member at a first position.  Respondents argued that PPC waived all privilege with respect to separation of the locking member of the accused products from the connector body because PPC disclosed that its counsel had accomplished such a separation in 2004.


Share

Read More

By Tom Fisher
|
Apr
02
As indicated in our March 27 post, on March 25, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission voted to institute an investigation of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (337-TA-673).

Since our March 27 post, Chief ALJ Luckern issued a notice indicating that ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. will handle this investigation.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
02
On March 31, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission voted to institute an investigation of Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips, Laser Diode Chips and Products Containing Same (337-TA-674). 

The investigation is based on a March 2, 2009 complaint filed by Professor Gertrude Rothschild of Columbia University in New York.  As we explained in our March 4 post, the complaint alleges that the following companies unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain light emitting diode (LED) chips, laser diode chips and products containing those devices that infringe claims 10, 12, 13, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 5,252,499:


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
01
On March 30, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 26 in Certain Laser Imageable Lithographic Printing Plates (337-TA-636).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted in part respondents VIM Technologies, Ltd., Hanita Coatings RCA, Ltd., AteCe Canada, Guaranteed Service & Supplies, Inc., Recognition Systems, Inc., and Spicers Paper, Inc.’s (“Respondents”) requests for receipt of certain exhibits without a sponsoring witness, but denied the majority of the requests.

According to the Order, Respondents requested, pursuant to Ground Rule 9.8.12, that the ALJ receive several exhibits into evidence without a sponsoring witness.  Respondents argued that “there is good cause to admit these exhibits into evidence because they are relevant, material, reliable and non-controversial, and their admission would streamline the hearing process without prejudicing any party to this Investigation.”


Share

Read More