04
Oct
By Eric Schweibenz
On September 29, 2017, ALJ MaryJoan McNamara issued a notice of the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Composite Aerogel Insulation Materials and Methods for Manufacturing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-1003).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a May 5, 2016 complaint filed by Aspen Aerogels, Inc. (“Aspen”) alleging violation of Section 337 by way of unlawfully importing into the U.S., selling for importation, and/or selling within the U.S. after importation certain composite aerogel insulation materials that infringe—or are made, produced, or processed by a process that infringes—one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,078,359; 7,399,439; 6,989,123; 7,780,890; and 9,181,486. See our May 5, 2016 and June 8, 2016 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

According to the notice, ALJ McNamara determined:
Complainant Aspen Aerogels, Inc. (“Complainant”) has proven that Respondents Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co., Ltd. (“Respondent Alison”) and Respondent Nano Tech Co., Ltd. (“Respondent Nano,” and with Respondent Alison collectively, “Respondents”), have infringed the asserted claims 15-17 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,989,123 (“’123 patent”), the asserted claims 1, 5, 7, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,078,359 (“’359 patent”), and the asserted claims of 11-13, 15, 17-19, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,789,890 (“’890 patent”). Additionally, the ALJ has found that Complainant has proven that Respondent Nano has infringed the asserted claims 12, 15 and 16 of the ’359 patent. The ALJ has found that Respondents have not proven that the asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S. §§ 102 or 103. The ALJ has recommended a 100% bond (to which the parties have stipulated) during the Presidential Review Period, and a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) with a certification provision that would apply to both Respondents. A public version of the ID will be available within 30 days.
Share