By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
27
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).  The investigation is based on a February 23, 2009 complaint filed by Saxon Innovations, LLC of Tyler, Texas.

As explained in our February 24 post, the complaint alleges that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd of Korea, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLP of Richardson, Texas (collectively, “Samsung”) imports into the U.S. (in addition to sale for importation into the U.S. and/or sale within the U.S. after importation) certain electronic devices including handheld, wireless communications devices that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,235,635; 5,530,597, and 5,608,873.


Share
On March 25, 2009, SPH America, LLC of Vienna, Virginia filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to section 337.

The complaint alleges that Kyocera Corp. of Japan;  Kyocera Wireless Corp. of San Diego, California;  Kyocera Sanyo Telecom, Inc. of Woodland Hills, California;  MetroPCS Communications, Inc. of Richardson, Texas;  MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. of Dallas, Texas;  and Sprint Nextel Corporation of Overland Park, Kansas unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain wireless communications devices and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. RE 40,385 and U.S. Patent No. 5,960,029.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
26
On March 25, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission voted to institute an investigation of Certain Electronic Devices Having Image Capture Or Display Functionality And Components Thereof (337-TA-672).

The investigation is based on a March 10, 2009 complaint filed by LG Electronics, Inc. of Korea.  As explained in our February 24 post, the complaint alleges that Eastman Kodak Company imports into the U.S. (in addition to sale for importation into the U.S. and/or sale within the U.S. after importation) electronic devices having image capture or display functionality that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,995,767, 5,774,131, and 6,281,895.  According to the complaint, the ‘767 patent discloses “a method and apparatus for automatic focus controlling of a camera,” the ‘131 patent discloses “a sound generation and display control apparatus,” and the ‘895 patent discloses “an apparatus and method for implementing an on-screen display (OSD) menu for an image display device.”


Share

Read More

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

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