How to Search
ALJ Bullock

ALJ Bullock Sets 19-Month Target Date In Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Control Technology (337-TA-820)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
12
Further to our December 16, 2011 post, on January 10, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 4 in Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Controls Technology (Inv. No. 337-TA-820).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set July 22, 2013 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is nineteen months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Bullock determined that there is good cause for setting a target date exceeding sixteen months in this investigation in light of “the complexity of the asserted technology and the number of claims at issue.”
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Target Date In Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices (337-TA-823)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
12
Further to our January 9, 2012 post, on January 10, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 2 in Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-823).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set May 10, 2013 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is sixteen months after institution of the investigation).
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Controls Technology (337-TA-820)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
30
Further to our December 16, 2011 and January 12, 2012 posts, on January 24, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 5 in Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Control Technology (Inv. No. 337-TA-820).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock included provisions for the early exchange of claim terms, claim construction expert reports, Markman briefs, and a Markman hearing on April 5, 2012.  ALJ Bullock also determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on November 9, 2012.  The Initial Determination is due on March 22, 2013 and the target date for completing the investigation is July 22, 2013.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motions To Terminate Investigation In Certain Static Random Access Memories (337-TA-792)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
02
On January 31, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order Nos. 23 and 25 in Certain Static Random Access Memories and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-792).

In Order No. 23, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Cypress Semiconductor Corporation (“Cypress”) and Respondent Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. (“ALU USA”) to terminate the Investigation based on a settlement agreement between Cypress and ALU USA.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Rules On Supplemental Expert Report Motions in Certain Video Game Systems (337-TA-770)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
02
On January 31, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 33(dated January 9, 2012) concerning a motion for leave to serve a supplemental expert report and a motion to strike one of Respondents’ supplemental expert reports filed by the Complainants Creative Kingdoms, LLC and New Kingdoms, LLC (collectively, “CK”) in Certain Video Game Systems and Wireless Controllers and Components Thereof(337-TA-770).

By way of background, this investigation was instituted on April 20, 2011 based on CK’s complaint alleging a violation of Section 337 by Respondents Nintendo of America, Inc. and Nintendo Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Nintendo”) for the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain video game systems and wireless controllers and components thereof, including Nintendo’s Wii wireless game system and controllers.  See our March 23, 2011and April 21, 2011 posts for more information. 
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Joint Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Static Random Access Memories (337-TA-792)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
08
On February 6, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 26 in Certain Static Random Access Memories and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-792).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Cypress Semiconductor Corporation (“Cypress”) and Respondent Alcatel-Lucent (“ALU”) to terminate the investigation based upon Cypress’s withdrawal of the First and Second Amended Complaint, in their entirety, as against ALU.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Joint Motion To Amend Ground Rules In Certain Wiper Blades (337-TA-816)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
09
On February 7, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 12 in Certain Wiper Blades(Inv. No. 337-TA-816).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock denied a joint motion filed by Complainant and Respondents to amend the Ground Rules to include provisions addressing electronic service, the time of Discovery Committee meetings, the timing for exchanging privilege logs and contents thereof, the timing and format of document production, the protection of inadvertently produced privileged or work-product protected materials, and the scope of expert discovery.  The Commission Investigative Staff did not oppose the joint motion. 
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Claim Construction Order In Certain Static Random Access Memories (337-TA-792)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
17
On February 9, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 29 construing terms of the asserted claims in Certain Static Random Access Memories and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-792).

By way of background, this investigation was instituted on July 28, 2011 after Cypress Semiconductor Corp. (“Cypress”) filed a complaint naming as respondents GSI Technology, Inc.; Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericcson; Ericcson Inc.; Motorola Mobility, Inc.; Motorola Solutions, Inc.; Tellabs, Inc.; Cisco Systems, Inc.; Avnet, Inc.; and Hewlett-Packard Company/Tipping Point (collectively, the “Respondents”).  The patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,534,805 (“the ‘805 patent”); 6,651,134 (“the ‘134 patent”); 7,142,477 (“the ‘477 patent”); and 6,262,937 (“the ‘937 patent”).  A Markman hearing was held on October 14, 2011 regarding the interpretation of the claim terms discussed below.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To YEC Co., Ltd. In Certain Computer Forensic Devices (337-TA-799)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
02
On March 1, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 28 in Certain Computer Forensic Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-799).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainant MyKey Technology Inc. (“MyKey”) and Respondent YEC Co. Ltd. (“YEC”) to terminate the investigation on the basis of a license agreement between MyKey and YEC.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Bullock granted the motion filed by MyKey and YEC.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motions For Summary Determination In Certain Static Random Access Memories (337-TA-792)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
06
On February 27, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public versions of Order Nos. 34, 35 and 37 (dated February 14, 2012) in Certain Static Random Access Memories and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-792).

According to Order Nos. 34 and 35, respondents Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“MMI”), Hewlett-Packard Company/Tipping Point (“HP/TP”), Tellabs, Inc. (“Tellabs”), and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (“LME”) moved for summary determination that they are not in violation of Section 337.  Complainant Cypress Semiconductor Corp. (“Cypress”) did not oppose the motions “[i]n light of the documented representations made by Respondents.”  ALJ Bullock granted the motions.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Strikes New Arguments In Certain Automated Media Library Devices (337-TA-746)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
13
On February 27, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 41 (dated February 14, 2012) granting Complainant Overland Storage, Inc.’s (“Overland”) motion to strike new arguments in Respondents BDT AG, BDT Products, Inc., BDT de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V., and BDT Automation Technology (Zhuhai FTZ) Co., Ltd.’s (collectively, “BDT”) revised post-hearing briefs in Certain Automated Media Library Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-746).

According to the Order, Overland asserted that BDT in its revised post-hearing brief improperly presented new arguments regarding (1) that Overland offered no evidence that BDT imported the accused products into the United States, (2) patent exhaustion, and (3) that Overland offered no evidence of direct infringement that does not involve a licensed party.  BDT countered that the revisions to its post-hearing briefs reflected the effect of the IBM settlement and license agreement and were authorized by Order No. 36 which stated that the issues in post-hearing briefs “be narrowed to exclude all references to the settling respondents, as well as any issues that only pertain to IBM and Dell,” and that it could not have included the arguments in its pre-hearing briefs because they pre-dated the IBM settlement.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Joint Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Ericsson In Certain Static Random Access Memories (337-TA-792)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
20
On March 19, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 46in Certain Static Random Access Memories and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-792).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Cypress Semiconductor Corporation (“Cypress”) and Respondent Ericsson, Inc. (“Ericcson”) to terminate the Investigation based on a settlement agreement between Cypress and Ericsson.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Public Version of Initial Determination Finding Violation Of Section 337 In Certain Handbags And Luggage (337-TA-754)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
20
On March 13, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 16 (dated March 5, 2012) in Certain Handbags, Luggage, Accessories and Packaging Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-754).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a motion for summary determination filed by Complainants Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. and Louis Vuitton U.S. Manufacturing, Inc. (collectively, “Louis Vuitton”) and recommended a general exclusion order and a bond in the amount of 100% of the value of imported products.

By way of background, Louis Vuitton filed a complaint requesting the ITC to commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337 against a host of respondents from Guangzhou China, Texas and California, for the unlawful import into the U.S., sale for importation, and/or sale within the U.S. after importation of certain handbags, luggage, accessories and packaging thereof that infringe U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 297,594; 1,643,625; 1,653,663; 1,875,198; 2,773,107; 2,177,828; 2,181,753; and 1,519,828.  In effect, the respondents were alleged to be in the business of manufacturing, and/or purchasing counterfeit or trademark-infringing Louis Vuitton bags and accessories from China and selling them in the United States.  See our December 8, 2010 post for more details.  On June 10, 2011, former Chief ALJ Luckern issued an initial determination finding that Louis Vuitton satisfied the domestic industry requirement. See our July 27, 2011 post for more details.  According to the March 13, 2012 Order, during the course of this Investigation, all respondents have either settled or been found in default.  The defaulting respondents are identified as House of Bags, Ronett Trading, Inc., EZ Shine Group, Inc., Master of Handbags, Choice Handbags, Handbag Warehouse, T&T, and The Inspired Bagger (collectively, “the Defaulting Respondents”).  Accordingly, none of the Defaulting Respondents have contested Louis Vuitton’s allegations that they violated Section 337, and in order to prevail in its motion for summary determination, Louis Vuitton needed to show that its allegations, which are presumed true, are sufficient to show a violation.  Since  Louis Vuitton requested a general exclusion order, it is required to show a section 337 violation “by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence.”
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Precludes Disclosure Of Confidential Business Information To Proposed Expert In Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Control Technology (337-TA-820)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
21
On March 19, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 10 in Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and Parental Control Technology (Inv. No. 337-TA-820).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock ruled that Complainants Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc., United Video Properties, Inc., Gemstar Development Corporation, and Index Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Rovi”) are precluded from disclosing the confidential business information (“CBI”) of Respondent Vizio, Inc. (“Vizio”) to Rovi’s proposed expert Mr. Stephen D. Bristow.

According to the Order, on February 28, 2012, Vizio submitted objections to the disclosure of its CBI to Mr. Bristow.  In the objections, Vizio argued that it would be improper for Mr. Bristow to access Vizio’s CBI because he is simultaneously participating as an expert in multiple reexamination proceedings regarding Rovi’s patents, one of which is an asserted patent in the instant ITC investigation, U.S. Patent No. 6,701,523 (the ‘523 patent).  In particular, Vizio contended that Mr. Bristow’s participation in the reexamination proceedings could create a potential for misuse of Vizio’s CBI as Rovi attempts to redefine the scope of the ‘523 patent and defend the validity of the ‘523 patent.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Diskology In Certain Computer Forensic Devices (337-TA-799)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
22
On March 14, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 30 in Certain Computer Forensic Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-799).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a motion filed by Complainant MyKey Technology Inc. (“MyKey”) to terminate the investigation with respect to Respondent Diskology, Inc. (“Diskology”) on the basis of withdrawal of its allegations as to Diskology.  According to the Order, the Commission Investigative Staff and the remaining respondents did not oppose the motion.  Accordingly, ALJ Bullock granted MyKey’s motion to terminate.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Target Date In Certain Ink Application Devices (337-TA-832)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
22
Further to our March 2, 2012 post, on March 20, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 3 in Certain Ink Application Devices and Components Thereof and Methods of Using The Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-832).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set July 8, 2013 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is sixteen months after institution of the investigation).
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Rules On Motions to Compel in Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-789)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
02
On March 27, 2012, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public versions of Order No. 36 and Order No. 37 (dated March 16, 2012) concerning motions to compel filed by the Complainant Vizio, Inc. (“Vizio”) in Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof  (337-TA-789).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Vizio alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain digital televisions and components thereof that infringe several U.S. Patents.  See our June 21, 2011 post for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants-in-Part Non-Party’s Motion to Quash or Limit Subpoena in Certain Wiper Blades (337-TA-816)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
05
On March 27, 2012, ALJ Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 14 (dated March 14, 2012) in Certain Wiper Blades (Inv. No. 337-TA-816).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted-in-part non-party Mercedes-Benz USA’s (“MBUSA”) motion to quash or modify the subpoena served on it by Respondent Corea Autopart Producing Corporation (“CAP”).

MBUSA made two arguments to support is motion.  First, it argued the subpoena sought documents that were in the possession, custody and control of its parent company in Germany, Daimler AG, and that MBUSA had no right to demand the documents of Daimler, nor did it have any reason to request the documents in the ordinary course of business.  Second, MBUSA argued the subpoena was unduly broad and burdensome because some topics used a vague definition of the products for which documents were sought, other topics sought “all documents”, yet other topics sought documents in the possession of Daimler, and other topics required MBUSA to search for documents relating to testing conducted years ago that have nothing to do with wiper blades.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Motions For Summary Determination In Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices (337-TA-823)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
06
On March 27, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order Nos. 13, 14, 15, and 16 in Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices And Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-823). 

According to Order Nos. 13, 14, 15, and 16, Respondents PHE, Inc., Momentum Management, LLC, Evolved Novelties Inc., Lelo Inc., Leloi AB, and Lelo moved for summary determination of non-infringement as to U.S. Patent No. 7,931,605.  Complainants and the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) opposed the motions.  Having reviewed the memoranda submitted by Respondents, Complainants and the OUII, ALJ Bullock found that summary determination was inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact may remain necessitating a trial of all issues on the merits.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To JI2 and Multimedia Effects In Certain Computer Forensic Devices (337-TA-799)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
12
On April 5, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 34 in Certain Computer Forensic Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-799).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a motion filed by Complainant MyKey Technology Inc. to terminate the investigation as to Respondents Ji2, Inc. (“Ji2”) and Multimedia Effects, Inc. (“Multimedia’) on the basis of a withdrawal of certain paragraphs of the complaint as to Ji2 and Multimedia.   
Share

Read More

Copyright © Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. | Disclaimer
The opinions, commentary and characterizations provided to this online forum by the authors and moderators are provided for encouraging discussion, thought and debate on important ITC issues. These postings are in no way representative of the opinions of the Oblon firm, or its clients, but rather the personal views of the individual authors.