By Tom Fisher
|
Apr
07
On April 2, 2009, the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential order denying Respondent Cypress Semiconductor Corporation’s (“Cypress”) petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Commission to halt its investigation in the matter of Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same (337-TA-648).

The patent-in-suit held by Complainants Agere Systems Inc. and LSI Corporation (“Agere”) was previously the subject of an infringement suit brought by Agere against Atmel Corporation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which ruled the patent invalid.  After judgment was entered, the parties settled and, on motion, the district court vacated its summary judgment orders, the jury verdict and the judgment.  When Agere then submitted a complaint to the Commission alleging infringement of the same patent, Cypress filed a motion for summary determination arguing that Agere is precluded from relitigating validity in light of the district court’s rulings.  The ALJ denied the motion, and the Commission affirmed.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
06
On April 1, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued a Remand Determination in the matter of Certain R-134a Coolant (Otherwise Known as 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluorothane) (337-TA-623) affirming that Respondents Sinochem Modern Environmental Protection Chemicals (Xi’an) Co. Ltd. and Sinochem Ningbo Ltd. (“Sinochem”) imported coolant that infringed a process patent held by Complainants INEOS Fluor Holdings Ltd., INEOS Fluor Ltd. and INEOS Fluor Americas LLC (“INEOS”).

The investigation was instituted in December 2007.  On December 1, 2008, ALJ Luckern issued a final initial determination (“ID”) that Sinochem infringed the patent-in-suit and failed to establish that the patent-in-suit was invalid.  Following submissions by the parties, the Commission reviewed the ID with respect to invalidity and issued an order on January 30, 2009 remanding the investigation to the ALJ for further proceedings related to anticipation and obviousness because the disposition of these issues was unclear from the ALJ’s ID.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
03
On April 2, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a Notice regarding the public version of his initial determination in Certain Computer Products, Computer Components and Products Containing Same (337-TA-628).  In the notice, ALJ Essex rejected the private parties’ redactions as being “inappropriate” and inconsistent with the definition of “Confidential Business Information” (“CBI”) as set forth in 19 C.F.R. § 201.6 (a)(1).

By way of example, ALJ Essex focused on two proposed redactions in particular.  First, complainant IBM sought to redact one of its legal arguments relating to claim construction, which the ALJ noted was not redacted in IBM’s public version of its initial post hearing brief.  Second, IBM sought to redact the ALJ’s claim construction ruling in the initial determination.  ALJ Essex determined that both of the redactions requested were inappropriate because neither of the items to be redacted disclosed any CBI.


Share

Read More

By Barry Herman
|
Apr
03
On April 2, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 17 granting in part Respondents’ joint motion to compel Complainant to fully respond to specific discovery requests in Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-650).

According to the order, Respondents Fu Ching Technical Industry Co. Ltd.  and Gem Electronics, Inc. (“Respondents”) moved to compel Complainant John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC, Inc. (“PPC”) to fully respond to an interrogatory and a request for admission, and produce documents responsive to a request for production, relating to whether representatives of PPC had separated the locking member of Respondents’ accused products from the connector body and whether the locking member has a radially protruding shoulder circumscribing the member at a first position.  Respondents argued that PPC waived all privilege with respect to separation of the locking member of the accused products from the connector body because PPC disclosed that its counsel had accomplished such a separation in 2004.


Share

Read More

By Tom Fisher
|
Apr
02
As indicated in our March 27 post, on March 25, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission voted to institute an investigation of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (337-TA-673).

Since our March 27 post, Chief ALJ Luckern issued a notice indicating that ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. will handle this investigation.


Share

Read More