By Barry Herman
|
Apr
15
On April 13, 2009, the public version of Order No. 14 (which was issued by Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern on February 27, 2009) was made available in Certain Video Game Machines and Related Three-Dimensional Pointing Devices (337-TA-658).  In the Order, ALJ Luckern denied third-party James D. Richards III’s motion for sanctions and for a new protective order, and denied his motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum, ordering Richards to comply with the subpoena.

According to the 17-page order, Richards moved for sanctions against respondents Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. (“Nintendo”) because Nintendo violated the protective order by disclosing Richards’ confidential trade secrets by including information obtained from its expert witness, Donald Odell, and by retaining Odell as an expert.  Odell is the named inventor on a patent that Nintendo asserted as prior art.  Odell was formerly employed at Selectech, Inc. under the supervision of Richards.  Richards also requested removal of two Nintendo attorneys for their disclosure of this supposed confidential business information, which included customer identities.


Share

Read More

By Barry Herman
|
Apr
14
On April 10, 2009, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a Notice regarding his Initial Determination in Certain Flash Memory Controllers, Drives, Memory Cards, and Media Players and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-619). 

According to the notice, ALJ Bullock held that no violation of Section 337 had occurred in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, or the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain flash memory controllers, drives, memory cards, and media players and products containing same, in connection with claims 17, 24, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 6,763,424 (the ‘424 patent) and claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 7,137,011 (the ‘011 patent).  The notice further indicated that the Complainant satisfied the domestic industry requirement for both the ‘424 and ‘011 patents.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
14
On April 10, 2009, the Commission issued a Notice of Commission Final Determination in Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-617) affirming ALJ Charneski’s finding that Respondents Vizio, Inc., AmTran Technology Co., Ltd., Syntax-Brillian Corp., Taiwan Kolin Co., Ltd., Proview International Holdings, Ltd., Proview Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Proview Technology, Ltd., TPV Technology, Ltd., TPV International, Top Victory Electronics Co., Ltd., and Envision Peripherals, Inc. (“Respondents”) violated section 337 as a result of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,115,074.

The investigation was instituted on November 15, 2007, based on the complaint of Funai Electric Co, Ltd. of Japan and Funai Corp. of Rutherford, NJ (“Funai”).  On November 17, 2008, ALJ Charneski determined that Respondents violated section 337 based on the importation, sale for importation, or sale after importation of certain digital televisions and certain products containing the same.  The ALJ found that all of the Respondents induce infringement of the ‘074 patent and that some of the respondents directly infringe the ‘074 patent.  Thereafter, on February 11, 2009, the Commission decided to review ALJ Charnseki’s infringement determination and requested written submissions on the issues under review, remedy, the public interest, and bonding.  On February 24, 2009, the parties filed opening submissions, and on March 3, 2009, the parties filed response submissions.


Share

Read More

By Barry Herman
|
Apr
13
On April 6, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 63 granting a motion to compel filed by Complainants Agere Systems Inc. and LSI Corporation (“Agere”) related to the identification of prior art.

Agere moved to compel the respondents to comply with the procedural schedule (Order No. 10) and amend their Joint Notice of Prior Art (“Notice”) to identify “the prior art upon which Respondents realistically intend to rely.”  According to the Order, Respondents had identified 478 prior art references in the Notice.  The Staff supported Agere’s motion to compel.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
13
Further to our March 6 and 17 posts, on April 6, 2009 ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 3 - Setting Target Date in Certain Optoelectronic Devices, Components Thereof, And Products Containing the Same (337-TA-669).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex set June 10, 2010 as the target date for completion of the investigation (which is 15 months after institution of the investigation).  Also, any final initial determination is due to be issued no later than February 10, 2010.  In the Order, ALJ Essex further provides that the pre-hearing conference and the evidentiary hearing will take place at the U.S. District Courthouse for the District of Columbia “[d]ue to lack of courtroom availability.”


Share

Read More