By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
04
On May 1, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 29 in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (337-TA-665).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied respondents LSI Corporation, Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Memory Products (US) Corporation, Seagate Technologies International (Singapore), and Seagate (US) LLC’s (collectively “Respondents”) motion to strike complainant Qimonda AG’s (“Qimonda”) eight motions to compel. 

According to the Order, Respondents argued that Qimonda did not satisfy the meet and confer requirements of Ground Rule 3.2, including the provision requiring that the moving party attempt to contact and resolve the disputed matter with the other parties at least two business days prior to filing the motion.  According to Respondents, Qimonda sent an email at 10:19 p.m. on the night of April 21, 2009 stating that it intended to file motions to compel on various topics.  Qimonda subsequently filed the subject motions to compel on April 23.  Thus, Respondents argued Qimonda (1) failed to provide Respondents with the two day notice required by Ground Rule 3.2; (2) unreasonably delayed bringing the motions to compel since the issues that form the bases for the motions were disputed for weeks; and (3) sought to impede Respondents’ trial preparation.  In response, Qimonda argued that it satisfied Ground Rule 3.2 for each of the eight motions to compel and  Respondents violated Ground Rule 3.2 in filing the instant motion to strike by failing to notify Qimonda of Respondents’ intent to file such motion. The Commission Investigative Staff filed a response in support of Respondents’ motion to strike.


Share

Read More

By Barry Herman
|
May
01
On April 30, 2009, the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam opinion in Amgen, Inc. v. ITC, No. 2007-1014.  Sitting en banc, Judges Newman, Lourie and Linn revised a portion of the March 19, 2008 opinion issued in this case.

By way of background, Amgen holds several U.S. patents relating to recombinant human erythropoietin and derivatives (“EPO”) and processes for making EPO.  Roche produces EPO in Europe and was seeking FDA approval for its own EPO drug in the U.S.  As part of its effort to generate data for its regulatory submissions to the FDA, Roche began importing EPO into the U.S.  Roche continued importing EPO after its FDA application was complete, although not for sale or contract to sell in the U.S.  Amgen initiated a Section 337 action, asserting that Roche’s imported EPO and the process by which it is produced in Europe are covered by one or more claims of six of Amgen’s U.S. patents.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
30
On April 29, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission announced its decision to institute an investigation of Certain Wireless Communications Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-675).

The investigation is based on a March 25, 2009 complaint filed by SPH America, LLC of Vienna, Virginia.  As we explained in our March 27 post, the complaint alleges that certain companies unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain wireless communications devices and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. RE 40,385 and U.S. Patent No. 5,960,029.


Share

Read More

By Tom Fisher
|
Apr
30
On April 27, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued a Notice determining to review the February 26, 2009 Initial Determination (“ID”) issued by Administrative Law Judge Theodore R. Essex in Certain Refrigerators and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-632).

The investigation was instituted on February 21, 2008, based on the complaint of Whirlpool Corp., Whirlpool Manufacturing Corp., Whirlpool Patent Corp., and Maytag Corp. (collectively “Whirlpool”).  The respondents are LG Electronics Corp., Inc., LG Electronics, USA, Inc., and LG Electronics Monterrey, Mexico S.A. de C.V. (collectively “LG”).


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
29
On April 23, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 8 in Certain Electronic Devices Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (337-TA-673).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted the Commission Investigative Staff’s (the “Staff”) motion to consolidate investigation No. 337-TA-673 with investigation No. 337-TA-667.

Respondents Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of America, and Panasonic Consumer Electronics Company (collectively “Panasonic”) and Palm, Inc. (“Palm”) from investigation No. 337-TA-667 opposed the motion.  Complainant Saxon Innovations, LLC (“Saxon”) (the complainant in both investigations) as well as respondents Nokia Corporation, Nokia Inc. (collectively “Nokia”), Research In Motion Ltd. and Research In Motion Corp. (collectively “RIM”) from investigation No. 337-TA-667 and respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) from investigation No. 337-TA-673 did not oppose the motion. 


Share

Read More