By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
13
On March 12, 2009, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued an order granting a joint motion to stay the investigation filed in Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-664).  According to the order, the private parties filed a motion to stay the investigation for ninety days to gain the necessary approvals to effectuate the agreed-upon settlement between the Spansion complainants and the Samsung respondents, which would result in termination of the investigation. 

Further, according to the order, on March 11, 2009 Spansion filed a notice of commencement of bankruptcy proceedings and an automatic stay in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  Although Spansion and Samsung have fully agreed to the settlement agreement, because Spansion filed for bankruptcy, the settlement agreement is subject to the Bankruptcy Court’s approval which may take up to ninety days.


Share
By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
12
On March 10, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued a notice indicating that he granted Complainant Farouk System, Inc.’s motion for summary determination of violation of section 337 in the matter of Certain Hair Irons and Packaging Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-637).  The notice further indicates that ALJ Charneski also issued a Recommended Determination (in the same order) recommending the issuance of a general exclusion order.  ALJ Charneski’s order granting complainant’s motion for summary determination was issued as a confidential document and a public version is not yet available.

We will provide additional information regarding this order once the public version issues.


Share
By Barry Herman
|
Mar
11
On March 9, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of his February 23, 2009 Order No. 22 in Certain Laser Imageable Lithographic Printing Plates (337-TA-636).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied respondents VIM Technologies, Ltd., Hanita Coatings RCA, Ltd., AteCe Canada, Guaranteed Service & Supplies, Inc., Recognition Systems, Inc., and Spicers Paper, Inc.’s (Respondents’) motion for summary determination that (i) claims 1 and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 5,339,737 are invalid as anticipated over a prior art reference by Nechiporenko et al.; (ii) claim 10 of the ‘737 patent is invalid as obvious over the Nechiporenko reference in combination with U.S. Patent No. 4,132,168; (iii) the accused lithographic printing plates do not infringe claims 1, 10, and 27 of the ‘737 patent; and (iv) the accused plates do not infringe claims 20, 21, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 5,487,338.

Complainant Presstek, Inc. and the Staff opposed Respondents’ motion.  They argued that there are disputed issues of fact relating to what is actually disclosed and enabled by the Nechiporenko reference, and that therefore summary determination of invalidity of any claims as anticipated by Nechiporenko or obvious over Nechiporenko (in combination with the ‘168 patent) would be inappropriate.  Further, they argued that since Respondents’ noninfringement position relied on disputed claim terms that still required construction, summary determination on that issue was premature.  The Staff also argued that there was a disputed issue of fact relating to the operation of the accused lithographic printing plates, which also made summary determination of noninfringement inappropriate.


Share

Read More

By Barry Herman
|
Mar
11
On March 9, 2009, the Commission issued a Final Determination finding a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 by the 9 remaining respondents -- General Protecht Group, Inc., Shanghai ELE Manufacturing Corporation, Shanghai Meihao Electric, Inc., Wenzhou Trimone Company, Cheetah USA Corp., Nicor, Inc., Orbit Industries, Inc., The Designer’s Edge, and Colacino Electric Supply, Inc. as a result of infringement of certain claims of the following U.S. Patents: (1) U.S. Patent No. 5,594,398; (2) U.S. Patent No. 7,283,340; (3) U.S. Patent No. 7,145,718; and (4) U.S. Patent No. 7,164,564.

The investigation was instituted on September 18, 2007 based upon a complaint filed by Pass & Seymour, Inc.  In the ID, ALJ Carl. C. Charneski determined that the above 9 respondents violated section 337 based on the importation, sale for importation, and sale after importation of certain ground fault circuit interrupters and products containing the same for six different patents.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
11
On March 9, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission voted to institute an investigation of certain adjustable keyboard support systems and components thereof.  The investigation is based on a February 10, 2009 complaint filed by Humanscale Corporation of New York, New York.  As explained in our February 17 post, the complaint alleges violations of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and/or the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain adjustable keyboard support systems and components thereof.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the “products at the heart of the proposed investigation are keyboard support systems, particularly, ergonomic computer keyboard support systems that are adjustable for minimizing an individual worker’s fatigue and improving efficiency.”

The ITC has identified the following as respondents in this investigation:


Share

Read More