By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
29
On June 22, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 12, construing the disputed terms of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit in Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-661).

In this investigation, Complainant Rambus, Inc. (“Rambus”) alleges that respondents NVIDIA Corp.; Asustek Computer Inc.; ASUS Computer International, Inc.; BFG Technologies, Inc.; Biostar Microtech (U.S.A.) Corp.; Biostar Microtech International Corp.; Diablotek Inc.; EVGA Corp.; G.B.T. Inc.; Giga-byte Technology Co., Ltd.; Hewlett-Packard Co.; MSI Computer Corp.; Micro-star International Co., Ltd.; Palit Multimedia Inc.; Palit Microsystems Ltd.; Pine Technology Holdings, Ltd.; and Sparkle Computer Co., Ltd. (“Respondents”) infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos., 7,177,998; 7,210,016; 6,470,405; 6,591,353; 7,287,109; 7,287,119; 7,330,952; 7,330,953; and 7,360,050.  The patents-in-suit are generally directed to memory controllers for controlling data transfers to and from dynamic random access memory in computer systems.  A Markman hearing was held on March 24, 2009.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
29
On June 29, 2009, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice regarding his Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond in Certain Probe Card Assemblies, Components Thereof and Certain Tested DRAM and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-621). 

According to the notice, ALJ Bullock held that there is no violation of section 337 in this investigation by respondents Phicom Corp., Phiam Corp., Micronics Japan Co., Ltd., and MJC Electronics Corp. 


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
26
On June 24, 2009, the ITC issued a Notice of Commission Decision to affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part a final Initial Determination (“ID”) finding a violation of section 337 by Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc. (collectively, “Sharp”) as a result of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,344 (the “‘344 patent”).

This investigation was instituted on January 25, 2008, based on a complaint filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea.


Share

Read More

On June 23, 2009, Lutron Electronics Co. (“Lutron”) of Coopersburg, Pennsylvania filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to section 337.

The complaint alleges that Neptun Light, Inc. (“Neptun”) of Lake Bluff, Illinois unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, or sells within the U.S. after importation certain lighting control devices and parts thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,637,930 (“the ‘930 patent”).


Share

Read More

Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, codified at 19 U.S.C. § 1337, authorizes the ITC to declare unlawful the “importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation. . . of articles that - (i) infringe a valid and enforceable United States patent . . . ; or (ii) are made, produced, processed, or mined under, or by means of, a process covered by the claims of a valid and enforceable United States patent.”  Actions under this statute only require the ITC to have in rem jurisdiction over the imported articles at issue.  Unlike the personal jurisdiction requirement to bring an infringement case in a U.S. district court, the ITC does not need personal jurisdiction over any party. 

The explicit requirement in section 337 is often referred to as the importation requirement.  In the ITC, a complainant must establish that infringing articles have been, or imminently will be, imported into the United States in order to prevail.  In contrast, establishing importation is not required when initiating a patent infringement case in a U.S. district court.  Proving importation in a section 337 proceeding is not typically arduous.  Parties often stipulate to this element while, in other cases, importation is decided by the ITC on summary determination. 


Share

Read More