ALJ Bullock

ALJ Bullock Issues Claim Construction Order in Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-789)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
19
On March 14, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 32 (dated March 1, 2012) in Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-789).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock construed various claim terms in connection with the asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 5,511,096 (the ‘096 patent), 5,621,761 (the ‘761 patent), 5,703,887 (the ‘887 patent), 5,745,522 (the ‘522 patent), and 5,511,082 (the ‘082 patent).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Vizio Inc. (“Vizio”) and the Respondents are Coby Electronics Corp., Curtis International Ltd., ON Corp US, Inc., Renesas Electronics Corp., Renesas Electronics America, Inc., Seceptre, Inc., and Westinghouse Digital, LLC (collectively, the “Respondents”).  See our July 15, 2011 post for more details about this investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Claim Construction Order In Certain Digital Televisions And Components Thereof (337-TA-806)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
19
On April 13, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 6 construing certain terms of the asserted claims in Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof  (Inv. No. 337-TA-806).

By way of background, this investigation was instituted by the Commission on September 12, 2011 after Renesas Electronics Corporation and 511 Technologies, Inc. (collectively, “Renesas”) filed a complaint naming Vizio, Inc. (“Vizio”) as Respondent.  See our August 15, 2011 post for more details about the complaint.  The patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,199,432 (the ‘432 patent) and 6,531,400 (the ‘400 patent).  A Markman hearing was held on February 2, 2012 regarding the interpretation of the claim terms discussed below.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Motion To Compel Inspection In Certain Computer Forensic Devices (337-TA-799)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
26
On April 23, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 42 in Certain Computer Forensic Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-799) denying Respondents Guidance Software, Inc. and Guidance Tableau, LLC’s (collectively, “Guidance”) motion to compel Complainant MyKey Technology Inc. (“MyKey”) to make the products MyKey is relying on for the domestic industry requirement available for inspection.

According to the Order, Guidance argued that MyKey’s responses to document requests asking for samples of domestic industry products indicated that MyKey would make such products available for inspection at its counsel’s office in Northern California, but that MyKey had placed restrictions on the inspection making it “difficult, if not almost impossible” for Guidance to properly examine the products (e.g., no samples were “visible” at MyKey’s warehouse, access to inspect samples was denied, an offer to trade product samples between parties was rejected).  MyKey responded that its domestic industry products were available for inspection at its counsel’s office since September 2011 and Guidance never asked to inspect them during discovery.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Motion To Quash In Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-789)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
27
On April 24, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 48 in Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-789).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock denied non-parties Dale Papovitch and Paul Bartusiak’s motion to quash subpoenas served on them by Respondents Renesas Electronics Corp. and Renesas Electronics America, Inc.

In the Order, ALJ Bullock noted that his Ground Rule 4.6.2 provides that any motion to quash must be filed within ten days after receipt of any subpoena.  Accordingly, since the instant motion to quash here was not filed until nearly two months after the deadline, it was denied as untimely.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Summary Determination Motions In Certain Computer Forensic Devices (337-TA-799)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
30
On April 24, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order Nos. 39-41 in Certain Computer Forensic Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-799) denying various summary determination motions.

According to Order No. 39, ALJ Bullock denied a motion for summary determination filed by the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) arguing that no domestic industry exists, that none is in the process of being established, and that no violation of Section 337 has occurred for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,159,086 (the ‘086 patent) and 7,228,379 (the ‘379 patent).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock determined that there “appears to be a legitimate question as to whether a domestic industry exists with respect to the ‘086 and ‘379 patents” and thus genuine issues of material fact remain.  Accordingly, ALJ Bullock denied OUII’s motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Motion For Leave To File A Supplemental Notice of Prior Art In Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-789)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
30
On April 24, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 40 (dated April 12, 2012) in Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-789).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock denied Respondents Coby Electronics America, Inc., Sceptre, Inc. and Westinghouse Digital, LLC’s (collectively, “Respondents”) motion for leave to file a supplemental notice of prior art. 

In support of the motion, Respondents argued that certain prior art was recently discovered and thus it was impossible to include this prior art by the January 18, 2012 deadline.  Respondents further argued that there was sufficient time remaining before the evidentiary hearing to alleviate any prejudice to the other parties and that granting this motion would further the public interest.  Complainant Vizio, Inc. (“Vizio”) opposed the motion and argued that it was untimely since Respondents knew of the prior art “from the beginning of the investigation.”  Vizio also argued, inter alia, that it would be severely prejudiced by the supplementation because fact discovery is over and thus it would be unable to properly conduct discovery regarding Respondents’ new prior art allegations.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Rules On Motion To Preclude Direct Testimony Of Expert Witness In Certain Static Random Access Memories (337-TA-792)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
03
On May 1, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 44 (dated March 8, 2012) in Certain Static Random Access Memories and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-792).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted-in-part a motion filed by Respondents seeking to preclude Complainant Cypress Semiconductor Corporation’s (“Cypress”) expert witness from offering new and revised testimony.  In support of their motion, Respondents argued that (1) the errata to the witness statement offered by Cypress was, in fact, a revised witness statement that was filed nearly three weeks after the January 26, 2012 deadline set forth in the procedural schedule, (2) the errata should be excluded because it contained substantive additions to the expert’s testimony, and (3) Cypress’s late filing of the errata was prejudicial because it prevented the Respondents from including testimony in their rebuttal witness statements addressing the new testimony.  Cypress opposed the motion and argued, inter alia, that the errata merely provided missing citations to demonstratives that were already disclosed in the expert’s original witness statement and thus there was no prejudice to the Respondents. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Target Date In Certain Food Storage Containers (337-TA-835)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
03
Further to our April 9, 2012 post, on May 1, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 5 in Certain Food Storage Containers, Cups, Plates, Cutlery, and Related Items and Packaging Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-835).

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

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Compel In Certain Computer Forensic Devices (337-TA-799)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
04
On May 2, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 43 (dated April 23, 2012) in Certain Computer Forensic Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-799).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted Complainant MyKey Technology Inc.’s (“MyKey”) motion to compel Respondents CRU Acquisitions Group and CRU-Data Port, LLC (collectively, “CRU”) to provide complete written discovery responses.

In support of its motion, MyKey argued that CRU’s responses to several discovery requests regarding non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability were inadequate since, for example, they did not provide basic information about CRU’s own accused products and potential witnesses.  The Commission Investigative Staff supported MyKey’s motion and noted that CRU’s discovery responses were “unjustifiably incomplete.”  CRU’s opposition was not considered by ALJ Bullock because it was filed after the deadline for responses. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion to Terminate Investigation As To Westinghouse In Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-789)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
07
On May 7, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 52 in Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-789).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainant VIZIO, Inc. (“Vizio”) and Respondent Westinghouse Digital LLC (“Westinghouse”) to terminate the investigation based on a patent cross-license and settlement agreement between Vizio and Westinghouse. 

After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreements, ALJ Bullock granted the motion filed by Vizio and Westinghouse.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Motion To Strike Portions of Expert Reports In Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-789)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
09
On May 9, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 45 (dated April 19, 2012) in Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-789).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock denied Respondents Coby Electronics Corp., ON Corp. US, Inc., Renesas Electronics Corp., Renesas Electronics America, Inc., and Sceptre, Inc’s (collectively, the “Respondents”) motion to strike portions of the Initial Expert Reports of Drs. Bill Lin and Anthony Acampora.

According to the Order, the Respondents sought to strike certain paragraphs of Dr. Lin’s and Dr. Acampora’s expert reports because the reports allegedly relied on constructions of the claim terms “a(x)” and “b(x)” in U.S. Patent No. 5,703,887 (the ‘887 patent) that had already been rejected by ALJ Bullock.  See our April 19, 2012 post for more details on ALJ Bullock’s claim construction order.  For example, the Order states that the Respondents contended that Dr. Lin had improperly relied on an embodiment from the ‘887 patent where a(x) = 1.  The Respondents also contended that Dr. Acampora had used Dr. Lin’s improper analysis to conclude that the QAM decoders in the Respondents’ and Complainant Vizio, Inc.’s (“Vizio”) products meet the explicit disclosure of the patent.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Motions By Non-Party In Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-789)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
10
On May 9, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 51 (dated May 1, 2012) in Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-789).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock denied non-party Motorola Mobility, Inc.’s (“MMI”) motions to intervene for a limited purpose, to compel documents, and to postpone certain third-party depositions.

According to the Order, MMI sought the following relief:  (1) to require certain individuals to serve MMI with copies of documents they had already produced in the investigation; (2) to compel Respondents (and ex-employees) to return or destroy any privileged documents that MMI might identify within the document production; (3) to postpone the depositions of the ex-employees until Respondents and the ex-employees confirm that any privileged documents have been returned or destroyed; and (4) to allow MMI to attend any depositions of the individuals referred to above.  In particular, MMI argued that it should be permitted to intervene to prevent further disclosure of MMI’s privileged and confidential information.  According to the Order, MMI believed that the depositions should be postponed until MMI has the opportunity to review the document production and receives confirmation that any privileged documents have been destroyed.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Rules On Motion For Default Judgment In Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-789)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
11
On May 10, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 54 in Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-789).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock denied Complainant Vizio, Inc.’s (“Vizio”) motion for entry of an Initial Determination finding Respondent Curtis International, Ltd. (“Curtis”) in default.  However, ALJ Bullock also ordered that certain non-monetary sanctions be imposed against Curtis.

According to the Order, Vizio argued that Curtis should be found in default because Curtis had failed to comply with a previous order in which ALJ Bullock had granted a motion to compel responses to Vizio’s requests for admission and to compel production of a Curtis witness for deposition.  See our April 2, 2012 post for more details.  Vizio further argued that a finding of default was appropriate because Curtis had completely failed to participate in the investigation since the time that its counsel withdrew on January 30, 2012.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Food Storage Containers (337-TA-835)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
16
Further to our April 9, 2012 and May 3, 2012 posts, on May 11, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 6:  Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Food Storage Containers, Cups, Plates, Cutlery, and Related Items and Packaging Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-835).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on October 29, 2012.  The Initial Determination is due on March 8, 2013 and the target date for completing the investigation is July 8, 2013 (which is approximately fifteen months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Joint Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Winplus In Certain Wiper Blades (337-TA-816)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
21
On May 15, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 27 in Certain Wiper Blades (Inv. No. 337-TA-816).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Robert Bosch LLC (“Bosch”) and Respondent Winplus North America Inc. (“Winplus”) to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement and related Supply Agreement.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreements, ALJ Essex granted the motion filed by Bosch and Winplus.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motions To Terminate Investigation As To Haier In Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Control Technology (337-TA-820)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
29
On May 24, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order Nos. 18 and 19 in Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and Parental Control Technology (Inv. No. 337-TA-820). 

In Order No. 18, ALJ Bullock granted a motion filed by Respondent Haier America Trading, LLC (“Haier America”) to terminate the investigation based on the entry of a consent order.  ALJ Bullock’s determination was made over Complainants Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc., United Video Properties, Inc., Gemstar Development Corporation, and Index Systems, Inc.’s (collectively, “Rovi”) arguments that the consent order would not provide the full scope of relief that Rovi would be entitled to in this investigation.  Specifically, ALJ Bullock found that the patents asserted by Rovi against Haier America relate to parental control features that control the display of adult content on televisions and the only Haier products accused of infringement are televisions.  Moreover, ALJ Bullock found that Rovi’s assertion that Haier America “may import other products such as ‘tablets’ is nothing more than attorney argument” and “mere speculation without any documentary evidence is an insufficient basis to force Haier America to remain in this investigation.”  Accordingly, ALJ Bullock granted Haier America’s motion. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Compel In Certain Wiper Blades (337-TA-816)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
01
On May 24, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 24 (dated May 10, 2012) in Certain Wiper Blades (Inv. No. 337-TA-816).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted Respondent Corea Autoparts Producing Corporation’s (“CAP”) motion to compel Complainant Robert Bosch LLC (“Bosch LLC”) to respond to CAP’s interrogatories and document requests without objecting to the production of responsive information or materials in the possession, custody, or control of Bosch LLC’s parent company, Bosch GmbH.

According to the Order, CAP sought to compel Bosch LLC to provide discovery and interrogatory responses that include information in the possession, custody, or control of Bosch GmbH.  Bosch LLC opposed the motion, arguing that “it has properly maintained its objection as to its lack of control over materials or information that still remain solely in Bosch GmbH’s possession,” and that “it has not withheld any non-privileged materials or information received from Bosch GmbH on the basis of its possession, custody, or control objection.”  Bosch LLC further argued that CAP’s motion should be denied because CAP failed to set out, generally or specifically, what information or materials from Bosch GmbH were being sought.  The Commission Investigative Staff filed a response in support of CAP’s motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion to Terminate Investigation As To Renesas In Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-789)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
12
On June 8, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 66 in Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-789).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainant VIZIO, Inc. (“Vizio”) and Respondents Renesas Electronics Corporation and Renesas Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Renesas”) to terminate the investigation based on a settlement and license agreement between Vizio and Renesas. 

After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreements, ALJ Bullock granted the motion filed by Vizio and Renesas.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Vizio In Certain Digital Televisions Containing Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-806)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
12
On June 11, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 10 in Certain Digital Televisions Containing Integrated Circuit Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-806).  

In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Renesas Electronics Corporation and 511 Technologies, Inc. (collectively, “Renesas”) and Respondent VIZIO, Inc. (“Vizio”) to terminate the investigation based on a settlement and license agreement between Vizio and Renesas.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Motion To Strike Expert Report In Certain Digital Televisions Containing Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-806)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
13
On June 12, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 9 (dated June 1, 2012) denying Respondent Vizio, Inc’s (“Vizio”) motion to strike-in-part Complainant Renesas Electronics Corporation and 511 Technologies, Inc.’s (collectively, “Renesas”) expert report in Certain Digital Televisions Containing Integrated Circuit Devices and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-806). 

According to the Order, Vizio moved to strike any reference to exhibits D-H from the expert report of Dr. Vivek Subramanian because the exhibits contained factual reports (the “TechInsights reports”) that, Vizio argued, should have been disclosed prior to the close of fact discovery.  Vizio also argued that as a result of Renesas’ untimely production, Vizio was not afforded the opportunity to seek discovery on “the instruction and bases for generation of the TechInsights reports.” 

Share

Read More