In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Technology Properties Limited LLC (“TPL”) and Respondent ViewSonic Corporation (“ViewSonic”) to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Rogers granted the joint motion filed by TPL and ViewSonic.

In the Order, ALJ Rogers noted that AT&T’s motion included neither a copy of the subpoena nor AT&T’s response to it in contravention of Ground Rule 3.5(b) requiring any discovery-related motion to “have appended to it the pertinent parts of the discovery request and all objections and answers thereto.”  The ALJ stated that AT&T’s violation of Ground Rule 3.5(b) “renders it impossible to determine the reasonableness of the document requests or the burden presented by the document requests.”

According to the Order, ALJ Rogers set July 18, 2013 as the target date (which is 18 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Rogers further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on March 18, 2013.

ALJ Rogers determined that there is good cause for setting an 18-month target date in this investigation since, inter alia, “[t]his investigation includes 21 respondents, 4 patents and 46 claims.”

In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Technology Properties Limited LLC (“TPL”) and Respondent Royal Consumer Information Products, Inc. (“Royal”) to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Rogers granted the joint motion filed by TPL and Royal.

In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted a joint motion filed by Complainants Remy International, Inc. and Remy Technologies LLC and Respondent Electric Motor Service, Inc. to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) initially opposed the motion because the parties did not file a public version of the settlement agreement; however, after the parties filed a supplement to their motion that included a public version of the agreement, the OUII supported the motion.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Rogers granted the motion.

According to the Order, SKC argued that the asserted claims of the ‘961 patent were invalid in light of prior art polyimide films manufactured and sold by E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) more than a year before the earliest priority date asserted by Complainant Kaneka Corporation (“Kaneka”).  SKC pointed to Kaneka’s interrogatory responses indicating that the inventors of the ‘961 patent conceived of the inventions therein “in early 2003” and reduced the inventions to practice “in or about the Summer of 2003,” and contended that the undisputed facts show that some of DuPont’s Kapton® film products manufactured prior to September 2001 meet each limitation set forth in the asserted claims as construed by Kaneka.  SKC relied on samples of Kapton® 200HN and Kapton® 200FPC that were tested using a protocol developed by SKC based on the ‘961 patent, and a report submitted by its expert witness.

Kaneka argued in response that genuine issues of material fact precluding summary determination exist with respect to the methods and results of the testing of the DuPont films, specifically regarding the calculation of the molecular orientation axis (MOA) and the coefficient of linear expansion (CLE) in claims 1, 2 and 6-8, and the calculation of the tear propagation resistance (TPR) in claims 9-10 and 12-14.

ALJ Rogers agreed with Kaneka that a genuine issue of fact exists as to whether the measurements for the MOA, CLE and TPR were correctly determined for the DuPont films, and therefore denied the motion.

In the Order, ALJ Rogers set the procedural schedule for the investigation and included provisions for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions.  The procedural schedule also provides that the evidentiary hearing in this investigation will commence on November 26, 2012; the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on January 18, 2013; and the target date for completion of the investigation is May 20, 2013.

By way of background, the Complainants in this matter are Thomson Licensing SAS and Thomson Licensing LLC and the Respondents are Chimei Innolux Corp., Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., Innolux Corp. (collectively, “CMI”); Qisda Corp., Qisda America Corp., Qisda (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Qisda”); BenQ Corp., BenQ America Corp., BenQ Latin America (collectively, “BenQ”); AU Optronics Corp., AU Optronics Corp. America; Realtek Semiconductor Corp.; and MStar Semiconductor, Inc.  

According to the notice, ALJ Rogers determined that there is a violation of Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent No. 5,648,674 (the ‘674 patent).  Specifically, ALJ Rogers found that (i) claims 1, 7-9, 11, 13-14, 16-18 of the ‘674 patent “are infringed by the CMI accused products including the Type 2 Array Circuitry and any Qisda or BenQ accused product incorporating these CMI accused products,” (ii) claims 1, 7-9, 11, 13-14, 16-18 of the ‘674 patent “are not infringed by the CMI accused products including the Type 1 Array Circuitry, Type 3 Array Circuitry, Type IZO Array Circuitry, or any Qisda or BenQ accused products incorporating these CMI accused products,” and (iii) the “finding of infringement does not apply to the Qisda-manufactured G2200W LCD monitor, because Qisda and BenQ have established that it is covered by a valid license.”

ALJ Rogers also determined that there is no violation of Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,978,063; 5,375,006; 5,621,556; and 6,121,941.    

The notice issued by ALJ Rogers released only the conclusions of law in the ID.  We will provide additional information after the public version of the ID issues in its entirety.

According to the Order, ALJ Rogers set May 20, 2013 as the target date (which is 16.5 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Rogers further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on January 18, 2013.

ALJ Rogers determined that there is good cause for setting a 16.5-month target date in this investigation since, inter alia, “[i]f this investigation is scheduled with a target date on a 16-month schedule, that schedule would result in two Initial Determinations due within a one-week period.”

In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Technology Properties Limited LLC (“TPL”) and Respondent Curtis International, Ltd. (“Curtis”) to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Rogers granted the joint motion filed by TPL and Curtis.