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

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
23
Further to our March 19 post, ALJ Luckern has issued a notice indicating that ALJ Charles E. Bullock will handle the investigation of certain digital cameras.  Certain Digital Cameras (337-TA-671).

Also, according to the Notice of Investigation, Bryan F. Moore of the Office of Unfair Import Investigations is the Investigative Attorney assigned to handle this investigation.


Share
By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
19
On March 19, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission voted to institute an investigation of certain digital cameras.  The investigation is based on a February 17, 2009 complaint filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.  As explained in our February 19 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) digital cameras that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,731,852 and U.S. Patent No. 6,229,695.  According to the complaint, the ‘852 patent “improves on the prior art recording devices by allowing a variable-length audio file, enabling the user to create ‘sound tags’ or ‘voice memos’ that exceeded the fixed file size known in the prior art.”  Further, the complaint alleges that the ‘695 patent relates to a palm-sized camera, and more particularly to the housing encasing the device’s structure that provides “increased impact-resistance.” 

The ITC has identified Eastman Kodak Company as the respondent in this investigation.


Share