By Tom Fisher
|
Apr
10
As indicated in our March 2 post, on February 26, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued his initial determination in the matter of Certain Refrigerators and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-632).  On April 6, ALJ Essex issued the public version of his Initial Determination.

In the ID, ALJ Essex determined that Respondents LG Electronics Corp., Inc., LG Electronics, USA, Inc., and LG Electronics Monterrey, Mexico S.A. de C.V. (collectively “LG”) did not violate section 337 through their admitted importation, sale for importation, and sale after importation of certain refrigerators because the refrigerators do not infringe Complainants Whirlpool Corp., Whirlpool Manufacturing Corp., Whirlpool Patent Corp., and Maytag Corp.’s (collectively “Whirlpool’s”) U.S. Patent No. 6,082,130.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
09
On April 8, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 19 in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (337-TA-665).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted-in-part respondents LSI Corporation, 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 preclude complainant Qimonda AG (“Qimonda”) from offering claim constructions for any claim term for which Qimonda’s proposed construction was “plain and ordinary meaning” or “plain meaning.”

In the Order, ALJ Rogers noted that his procedural schedule required the parties to (i) exchange lists of claim construction terms, and (ii) submit a joint list showing each party’s proposed claim constructions.  ALJ Rogers further noted that “Qimonda’s proposed constructions for many of the disputed claim terms is stated as ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ or ‘plain meaning.’”  Respondents objected to this approach and argued that Qimonda’s constructions were “nothing more than a strategic placeholder” and that Qimonda “was required to offer an actual definition, and not simply state that the term should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning.”


Share

Read More

By Tom Fisher
|
Apr
09
On April 7, 2009, Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. of Coopersburg, Pennsylvania filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to section 337.

The complaint alleges that Universal Smart Electric Corp. (“USE”) of Irvine, California unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain lighting control devices, including dimmer switches and/or switches and parts thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,637,930 (‘930 patent), 5,248,919 (‘919 patent), and U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3,061,804 (‘804 trademark).


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
08
On April 6, 2009, the Commission issued a Notice in the matter of Certain Sucralose, Sweeteners Containing Sucralose, and Related Intermediate Compounds Thereof (337-TA-604).  The Commission also issued a limited exclusion order against eleven companies that defaulted or failed to participate in the investigation.

The full opinion of the Commission is confidential.  We will provide an update with more information once the public version of the opinion is issued.


Share
By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
08
On April 6, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 25 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 to preclude complainant Presstek, Inc.’s (“Presstek”) 2009 VIM plate testing conducted by Presstek’s expert and all documents, testimony and arguments relating thereto (“Respondents’ Motion”).

According to the Order, in a previous ruling issued by ALJ Essex, Respondents were permitted to substitute Dr. Yoash Carmi (an employee of Respondent Hanita Coatings RCA, Ltd.) for their previously identified expert (Dr. Richard Goodman), with the understanding that Dr. Carmi’s opinions would be limited to those set forth in Dr. Goodman’s previously submitted expert reports.  The same previous ruling by ALJ Essex permitted Presstek to introduce into evidence Dr. Goodman’s deposition testimony and also permitted Presstek to supplement its expert reports to rebut any new theories advanced by Dr. Carmi.


Share

Read More