By Barry Herman
|
Apr
28
On May 4, 2009, the Federal Circuit is scheduled to hear oral argument in Norgren Inc. v. ITC (2008-1415).  Please note that Oblon Spivak represents SMC Corporation and SMC Corporation of America (“SMC”) in this matter.

By way of background, on October 6, 2006, Norgren Inc. (“Norgren”) filed a complaint with the ITC against SMC alleging violation of Section 337 by SMC’s importation and sale of certain connecting devices or clamps that connect together modular filters, regulators and lubricators (“FRLs”) used for conditioning compressed air in pneumatic systems.  After the Commission instituted an investigation (337-TA-587) and an evidentiary hearing was held, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued an initial determination (“ID”) on February 13, 2008 in which he found no violation of Section 337 because SMC’s accused connectors do not receive generally rectangular ported flanges of the FRLs as required by the patent-in-suit.  Norgren petitioned for review, and the Commission rendered a final decision on April 14, 2008 adopting the ALJ’s ID.  Norgren appealed the Commission’s decision.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
24
As indicated in our March 18 post, on March 16, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued his initial determination (“ID”) in the matter of Certain Computer Products, Computer Components and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-628).  On April 14, ALJ Essex issued the public version of his 172-page ID.

In the ID, ALJ Essex held that no violation of section 337 has occurred by respondents ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. and ASUS Computer International (“Respondents”) because the accused products do not infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,008,829, 5,249,741, and 5,371,852.  ALJ Essex further determined that the patents-in-suit are valid and that Complainant International Business Machines (“IBM”) satisfied the domestic industry requirement of section 337 for each of the patents-in-suit.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
22
On April 20, 2009, Blackboard Inc. of Washington, D.C. filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to section 337.

The complaint alleges that Desire2Learn Incorporated of Canada unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain course management system software products that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,988,138.


Share

Read More

By Barry Herman
|
Apr
21
On April 17, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 18 (dated April 6, 2009), the initial determination granting in part the motion for summary determination filed by Complainant John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC, Inc. (“PPC”) in Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-650).

PPC moved for summary determination on importation, infringement, domestic industry, and for a general exclusion order.  With respect to infringement, PPC moved for summary determination that products of Respondents Fu Ching Technical Industry Co. Ltd.  and Gem Electronics, Inc. (“Respondents”) infringed certain claims of the patent-in-suit “which is valid and enforceable.”  Respondents opposed and raised a number of theories regarding invalidity and non-infringement, but did not dispute PPC’s assertions relating to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement and importation of the accused products.  The Commission Investigative Staff filed a response in support of a finding of summary determination for importation and economic prong, but argued there were genuine issues of material fact and that PPC had failed to meet its burden which would preclude summary determination on the issues of infringement and technical prong.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
21
On April 17, 2009, ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued a Notice of his Enforcement Initial Determination (“ED”) which included the non-confidential title page, conclusions of law, and the order in Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof (337-TA-565).  According to the Notice, ALJ Luckern determined that enforcement respondents Ninestar Technology Company Ltd., Ninestar Technology Co., Ltd. and Town Sky, Incorporated violated the orders issued at the conclusion of Investigation No. 337-TA-565.

ALJ Luckern determined that the Ninestar and Town Sky compatible and remanufactured cartridges at issue are “covered products” under the Cease and Desist Order issued against it by the Commission on October 19, 2007.  ALJ Luckern also determined that Ninestar and Town Sky failed to meet their burden to demonstrate their affirmative defenses and were “jointly and severally liable for violations of the Cease and Desist Orders in the amount of $20,504,974.16.”


Share

Read More