By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
06
In many ways, section 337 practice is similar to patent litigation in the federal district courts.  However, there are a number of subtle, yet important, distinctions.  By way of just one example, hearsay is generally admissible in section 337 proceedings at the ITC.

“‘Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”  Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).  Pursuant to Rule 802,              “[h]earsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority or by Act of Congress.”  Fed. R. Evid. 802.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
06
On March 5, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission voted to institute an investigation of certain optoelectronic devices, components thereof, and products containing the same.

The investigation is based on a February 3, 2009 complaint filed by Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., and Avago Technologies Ltd. of San Jose, California.  The complaint alleges violations of section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain optoelectronic devices, components thereof, and products containing the same.  According to the complaint, the products at issue in this investigation “concern aspects of fiber optics.”  More particularly, according to the complaint, the devices at issue transmit electronic digital information optically by converting such information into light signals that are passed through an optical fiber and upon receiving the light signals, a receiving device converts the light signals into electronic digital format.  


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
03
On February 27, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 15 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 non-party Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation’s (Wabtec) motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum served by complainant Amsted Industries Incorporated (Amsted). 

According to the Order, the subpoena at issue requested that Wabtec produce documents responsive to fourteen categories and that Wabtec present a representative to testify at a deposition on twelve topics. 


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
03
On February 27, 2009, ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of his February 9, 2009 Order No. 40 in Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components (337-TA-613).  In the Order, ALJ Luckern denied respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc.’s (Nokia) motion for a one-day claim construction hearing and a speedy claim construction order.

According to the Order, Nokia argued in support of its motion, among other things, that “although [ALJ Luckern] does not normally conduct claim construction hearings prior to an evidentiary hearing, the unique circumstances of this investigation warrant a separate hearing.”  Specifically, Nokia argued that conducting a claim construction hearing prior to the evidentiary hearing would streamline the proceedings.  Further, Nokia pointed to a prior investigation (Certain 3G Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) Handsets and Components Thereof (337-TA-601) (the 601 investigation)) and, according to the Order, argued that the disputed claim terms in the current investigation were identical to those in the 601 investigation.


Share

Read More