On April 5, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID,” dated February 27, 2013) finding no violation of Section 337 in Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-830).
By way of background, the International Trade Commission instituted this investigation on February 22, 2012 based on a complaint filed by Complainants Neptun Light, Inc. and Andrzej Bobel’s (collectively, “Neptun”). Neptun alleged that the named Respondents violated Section 337 by importing into the United States, selling for importation, and selling within the United States after importation certain dimmable compact fluorescent lamps (“CFLs”) that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,434,480 (the ‘480 patent) and 8,035,318 (the ‘318 patent). Specifically, Neptun alleged that U Lighting America Inc.’s (“ULA”) CFLs infringe claim 9 of the ‘480 patent and Technical Consumer Products, Inc.; Shanghai Qiangling Electronics Co. Ltd.; and Zhejiang Qiang Ling Electronic Co. Ltd.’s (collectively, “TCP”) CFLs infringe claims 1 and 12 of the ‘318 patent. See our February 23, 2012 post for more details about this investigation.
The ‘480 Patent
According to the ID, the parties disputed the meaning of the phrase “a resonant boosting circuit integrates into the power line rectifier.” ALJ Pender determined that the phrase should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. ALJ Pender based his determination on the intrinsic record and the uncontroverted testimony of Neptun’s expert witness. ALJ Pender noted that the majority of ULA’s claim construction arguments were purely attorney arguments without evidentiary support.
As to infringement, ALJ Pender held that ULA’s CFLs do not infringe claim 9 of the ‘480 patent. ALJ Pender rejected ULA’s arguments because ULA failed to present any evidence in support of its contentions. Further, ALJ Pender pointed to testimony given by Neptun’s expert witness that refuted all of ULA’s non-infringement arguments.
Read More