On March 31, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 24 in Certain Composite Wear Components and Products Containing Same (337-TA-644).  In the Order, ALJ Essex stayed the evidentiary hearing scheduled to begin on April 13, 2009. 

On March 23, respondents AIA Engineering Ltd. and Vega Industries Ltd. filed a notice that “it will not participate any further in this investigation, except in connection with appeals or other challenges to the denial by the ALJ of [its] Termination Motion . . . .”  The notice stated that AIAE intended to seek redress against complainant Magotteaux S/A and Magotteaux, Inc. (Magotteaux) for incorrect allegations of patent infringement in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
01
At the ITC, each of the Administrative Law Judges (“ALJ”) employ their own unique set of Ground Rules.  Most ALJs have a ground rule that requires production of existing English language translations of any document produced during discovery.  See, e.g., Chief ALJ Luckern Ground Rule 4(v) in Certain Video Game Machines and Related Three-Dimensional Pointing Devices (337-TA-658).

The bounds of this particular ground rule were tested in Certain Microlithographic Machines and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-468) (Order No. 8).  In that investigation, respondent ASML (citing Ground Rule 4(v)) sought to compel all existing English language translations of more than 100,000 pages of Japanese language documents produced in discovery by complainant Nikon.  In response, Nikon argued that of the approximately 32,000 documents (totaling around 600,000 pages) that it produced, its counsel selected and compiled 304 of those documents to be translated for further study and use in the litigation.  Nikon further argued that the selection and compilation of these documents represented Nikon’s counsel’s work product and thus were immune from discovery. 


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
31
On March 26, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 60 in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same (337-TA-648).  In the Order, ALJ Charneski denied Complainants LSI Corporation’s and Agere Systems Inc.’s (“Complainants”) motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to assert two additional patent claims against respondent Magnachip Semiconductor, Ltd. (“MagnaChip”).

According to the Order, Complainants’ motion failed to meet the good cause standard set forth in Commission Rule 210.14(b)(1) as it relates to post-institution motions to amend the complaint and notice of investigation.  Specifically, ALJ Charneski noted, among other things, that initial expert reports had already been filed, rebuttal expert reports are due on April 6, 2009, and the deadline for fact and expert discovery is April 17, 2009.


Share

Read More

On April 3, 2009, the Federal Circuit is scheduled to hear oral argument in Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH v. ITC.

Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH (“Erbe”) filed a complaint with the ITC against Canady Technology, LLC et al. (“Canady”) on April 10, 2006 alleging violation of Section 337 by Canady’s importation and sale of certain endoscopic probes for use in argon plasma coagulation (“APC”) systems that coagulate bleeding tissue during electrosurgery.  After the Commission instituted an investigation (337-TA-569) and an evidentiary hearing was held, ALJ Bullock issued an initial determination (“ID”) on January 16, 2008 in which he construed the claim terms “predetermined minimum safety distance,” “working channel” and “sidewardly” of the patent-in-suit and concluded that Erbe failed to establish that (1) there was a domestic industry, (2) the asserted claims were directly infringed, and (3) Canady had induced or contributed to infringement even if the asserted claims were directly infringed.  On January 28, 2008, Erbe filed a petition for review of the ID which the Commission granted in part, but the ID was upheld on March 17, 2008.  Erbe filed its Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit on May 14, 2008.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
30
According to a March 27, 2009 letter sent to the ITC, Microsoft has sought to formally withdraw its February 25, 2009 complaint against TomTom.

As we explained in our February 27, 2009 post, Microsoft’s complaint alleges, among other things, that TomTom N.V. of the Netherlands and TomTom, Inc. of Concord, Massachusetts (collectively, “TomTom”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain portable navigation computing devices and associated computer software that infringe certain claims of five Microsoft U.S. Patents.


Share

Read More