By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
25
On March 24, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 21 in Certain Video Game Machines and Related Three-Dimensional Pointing Devices (337-TA-658).  In the Order, Chief ALJ Luckern determined that “written testimony for direct testimony of witnesses will be limited to non-controversial testimony” and “expert reports are not to be admitted with evidence.”

According to the Order, the parties made submissions on March 20, 2009 regarding the issue of witness statements and expert reports.  With respect to witness statements, all of the parties agreed that the use of witness statements should be permitted in lieu of live direct testimony on certain non-controversial matters, such as, for example, witness qualifications, educational history, work experience, etc. 


Share

Read More

By Barry Herman
|
Mar
24
On March 20, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 18 in Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Certain Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same (337-TA-655).  In the Order, ALJ Charneski denied respondents Standard Car Truck Company, Inc., Barber Tianrui Railway Supply, LLC, Tianrui Group Company Limited, and Tianrui Group Foundry Company Limited’s (“Respondents”) motion to compel complainant Amsted Industries Incorporated to release a videotape made during respondents’ inspection of Amsted’s Kansas City Foundry.

According to the Order, the dispute between the parties involved access to a videotape made during Respondents’ inspection of Amsted’s Griffin Wheel Foundry outside of Kansas City, Missouri.  The Respondents sought unlimited access to the videotape and argued that the Protective Order issued during the investigation would provide sufficient protection for Griffin Wheel Foundry’s trade secrets.  Amsted and the Commission Investigative Staff argued for greater protection for the videotape inspection and suggested that an amendment to the Protective Order for special, increased measures of ensuring security and confidentiality is not uncommon. 


Share

Read More

By Tom Fisher
|
Mar
24
On March 20, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of his March 12, 2009 Order No. 12 in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (337-TA-665).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted-in-part and denied-in-part complainant Qimonda AG’s motion to compel respondent LSI Corporation to (1) identify information regarding its 100 best-selling products and (2) produce “critical processing and technical documents.”

In its motion, Qimonda asked ALJ Rogers to compel LSI to produce a complete list of its 100 best-selling semiconductor integrated circuits, a complete list of all downstream products containing any of these 100 integrated circuits, a complete list of all foundries producing any of these integrated circuits or downstream products, and an identification of which foundries produced which circuits and/or downstream products.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
24
On March 18, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 10 in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (337-TA-665).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted-in-part and denied-in-part non-party Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing Inc.’s (“Chartered USA”) motion to quash and/or limit a subpoena served by complainant Qimonda.

ALJ Rogers determined that Qimonda’s definition of “Accused Products” “fails to meet the standard required by Commission Rule 210.32(a)(2), because it fails to describe with any precision the ‘Accused Products’ that are the subject of the documents sought in the subpoena.”  Rather than using “generic semiconductor chip terms,” ALJ Rogers suggested that Qimonda define the accused products “by listing specific structural features, circuit designs, and/or fabrication processes found in the accused products that are already defined in the complaint and that Qimonda believes are relevant to the case at hand.”  ALJ Rogers further determined that the subpoena as written subjected non-party Chartered USA to an undue burden since it would not lead to the production of relevant evidence.  Thus, ALJ Rogers quashed a number of document requests, deposition topics, and inspection requests because of Qimonda’s overly broad definition of “Accused Products.”


Share

Read More

By Tom Fisher
|
Mar
23
The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law has recently published an issue of its law review devoted entirely to section 337 litigation at the ITC.

The issue is entitled “A Written Symposium on Litigation Before the International Trade Commission,” and features six articles, including an article written by ALJ Carl C. Charneski.  ALJ Charneski’s article provides an overview of the Office of the Administrative Law Judges within the ITC, and provides his comments on various procedural issues that arise in section 337 proceedings from the issuance of a Notice of Investigation to the Commission’s decision whether to review the ALJ’s initial determination.


Share

Read More