How to Search
ALJ Bullock

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment Appliances (337-TA-562)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
20
On June 15, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 36 in Certain Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment Appliances and Methods of Producing Same(Inc. No. 337-TA-562).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set the procedural schedule for the enforcement proceeding and included provisions for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions.  ALJ Bullock determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on December 3, 2012; any initial determination is due no later than March 1, 2013; and July 1, 2013 is the target date for completing the enforcement proceeding (which is approximately 14 months after institution of the proceeding).
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Eco Greenwares In Certain Food Storage Containers (337-TA-835)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
20
On June 19, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 9 in Certain Food Storage Containers, Cups, Plates, Cutlery, and Related Items and Packaging Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-835).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a motion filed by Complainant Fabri-Kal Corporation (“Fabri-Kal”) and Respondent Eco Greenwares Corporation (“Eco Greenwares”) to terminate the investigation as to Eco Greenwares on the basis of a settlement agreement.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Bullock granted the motion.
Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
20
On June 19, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 68 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 ON Corp US, Inc. (“On Corp.”) to terminate the investigation based on a Patent License and Settlement Agreement between Vizio and On Corp. 

After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Bullock granted the motion filed by Vizio and On Corp.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain Automated Media Library Devices (337-TA-746)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
21
On June 20, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination on Violation (“ID”) in Certain Automated Media Library Devices(Inv. No. 337-TA-746). 

By way of background, the Complainant in this matter is Overland Storage, Inc. and the Respondents are BDT AG, BDT-Solutions GmbH & Co. KG, BDT Products, Inc., BDT Automation Technology (Zhuhai FTZ) Co., Ltd., and BDT de México, S. de R.L. de C.V. (collectively, “BDT”).
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Motion To Amend Protective Order In Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Controls Technology (337-TA-820)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
25
On June 19, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 20 (dated May 24, 2012) denying Respondent VIZIO, Inc.’s (“Vizio”) motion to amend the protective order to include a prosecution bar in Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and Parental Controls Technology (Inv. No. 337-TA-820).

According to the order, Vizio sought to prohibit Complainants Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc., United Video Properties, Inc., Gemstar Development Corporation, and Index Systems, Inc.’s (collectively, “Rovi”) trial counsel from participating in pending prosecution matters involving the asserted patents because Rovi’s trial counsel has access to certain “highly sensitive confidential business information” that could give Rovi an unfair advantage during patent prosecution.  In opposition, Rovi argued that the existing protective order is sufficient to protect Vizio’s confidential business information as the order makes clear that such information cannot be used for purposes of patent prosecution.  Further, Rovi contended that its trial counsel has no decision-making authority regarding patent prosecution and the scope of the proposed bar places an undue burden on Rovi.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motions to Terminate Investigation In Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-789)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
27
On June 25, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order Nos. 69 and 70 in Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-789). 

In Order No. 69, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainant VIZIO, Inc. (“Vizio”) and Respondent Sceptre, Inc. (“Sceptre”) to terminate the investigation based on a Patent License and Settlement Agreement between Vizio and Sceptre.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Bullock granted the motion filed by Vizio and Sceptre.
Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
28
On June 26, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 71 in Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-789). 

In Order No. 71, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainant VIZIO, Inc. (“Vizio”) and Respondent Curtis International Ltd. (“Curtis”) to terminate the investigation based on a Settlement and License Agreement between Vizio and Curtis.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Bullock granted the motion filed by Vizio and Curtis and terminated the investigation in its entirety.
Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
29
On June 26, 2012, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 44 (dated May 1, 2012) granting Complainant’s motion to compel product samples and source code in Certain Computer Forensic Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-799).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a July 22, 2011 complaint filed by MyKey Technology Inc. (“MyKey”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain computer forensic devices and products that infringe one or more claims of various U.S. patents.  See our July 28, 2011 post for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Target Date In Certain Rubber Resins (337-TA-849)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
16
Further to our June 22, 2012 post, on July 13, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 4 in Certain Rubber Resins and Processes for Manufacturing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-849).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set October 25, 2013 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is approximately sixteen months after institution of the investigation).
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Respondent’s Motion For Sanctions In Certain Wiper Blades (337-TA-816)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
17
On July 11, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 33 denying Respondent Alberee Products, Inc. d/b/a Saver Automotive Products, Inc., and API Korea Co., Ltd’s (collectively, “Saver/API”) motion for sanctions against Complainant Robert Bosch LLC (“Bosch”) in Certain Wiper Blades(Inv. No. 337-TA-816).  Specifically, Saver/API requested that Bosch be sanctioned by “[1] terminating [the] investigation with prejudice with respect to Saver/API; and [2] awarding Saver/API its costs and legal fees accrued in [the] investigation” resulting from alleged abuse of process by Bosch under Commission Rule 210.4.

In support of its motion, Saver/API asserted that “Bosch violated Rule 210.4’s proscription against making allegations that have no factual basis [b]y submitting a Complaint to the Commission alleging that Saver/API Korea imported the accused beam-type wipers into the United States” when Bosch possessed “unambiguous importation records stating that Saver/API Korea only import parts of beam-type wiper blades and not the accused product.”  Bosch opposed the motion, arguing that Saver/API failed to comply with the safe harbor provision of Rule 210.4(d)(1)(i), which provides that a motion for sanctions cannot be filed with the Commission or presiding ALJ if, within seven days after receiving a draft motion, the non-movant withdrawals or appropriately corrects the challenged paper.  According to the order, Bosch moved to withdrawal the portions of the Complaint related to Saver/API three days before the safe harbor period expired. 
Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
25
On July 16, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 35 granting Complainant Robert Bosch LLC’s (“Bosch”) motion to terminate the investigation as to Respondents Alberee Products, Inc. d/b/a/ Saver Automotive Products, Inc. and API Korea Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Saver/API Korea”) based on withdrawal of the complaint in Certain Wiper Blades(Inv. No. 337-TA-816).

According to the Order, Saver/API Korea agreed that immediate termination of the investigation was warranted, but “disagree[d] with and oppose the Complainant’s failure to address the timeliness of the proposed complaint withdrawal, whether Bosch should have maintained the instant case against Saver/API Korea through the present, [and] the propriety of lodging the instant action against Saver/API Korea in the first place.”  Respondents also opposed termination “unaccompanied by a concurrent or subsequent consideration and determination of whether sanctionable conduct has occurred on the part of Bosch and Counsel.”
Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Grants Motion To Terminate In Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices (337-TA-823)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
25
On July 10, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 26 granting Complainants Standard Innovation (US) Corp. and Standard Innovation Corporation’s (collectively, “Standard”) motion to terminate the investigation as to Respondent Castle Megastore Group, Inc. (“Castle”) in Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-823).

According to the Order, Castle entered into a stipulation and consent order with Standard.  ALJ Pender found that the stipulation complied with the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3).  The ALJ further found that, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(2), the termination of the investigation on the basis of the consent order is in the public interest and does not impose any undue burdens on the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the U.S., or U.S. consumers.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Declare Waiver Of Privilege By Non-Party In Certain Wiper Blades (337-TA-816)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
25
On July 24, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 32 (dated July 12, 2012) in Certain Wiper Blades(Inv. No. 337-TA-816).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted Complainant Robert Bosch LLC’s (“Bosch”) motion to declare that non-party Trico Products, Inc. (“Trico”) had waived attorney-client privilege and work-product protection with respect to certain documents that Trico had produced in the investigation.

According to the Order, Bosch sought a declaration that Trico had waived attorney-client privilege and work-product protection with respect to eight documents.  Bosch noted that Trico had produced these documents on February 15, 2012, and had also produced the documents in two district court cases.  Bosch further stated that it was not until the deposition of Trico’s corporate designee on March 13, 2012 that Trico’s counsel recalled two of the documents.  Bosch further stated that Trico had then waited until May 11, 2012 to send a letter in which it attempted to recall, inter alia, the remaining documents at issue.  Bosch therefore argued that (1) Trico had demonstrated a lack of care that was inconsistent with the type of inadvertence that the Commission has excused in the past; (2) Trico had not taken reasonable steps to prevent its error because it had produced the documents on three separate occasions and had not submitted a privilege log; and (3) Trico had failed to promptly rectify the error because it had waited a significant period of time before notifying the parties of its intention to claw back any documents.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Automated Media Library Devices (337-TA-746)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
27
On July 24, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version (dated June 20, 2012) of the Initial Determination (“ID”) finding no Section 337 violation in Certain Automated Media Library Devices(Inv. No. 337-TA-746).  Due to the size of the ID, we have separated the file into part 1, part 2, and part 3.

By way of background, the Complainant in this matter is Overland Storage, Inc. (“Overland”) and the Respondents are BDT AG, BDT-Solutions GmbH & Co. KG, BDT Products, Inc., BDT Automation Technology (Zhuhai FTZ) Co., Ltd., and BDT de México, S. de R.L. de C.V. (collectively, “BDT”).
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Orders Monetary Sanctions In Certain Computer Forensic Devices (337-TA-799)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
02
On July 20, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 49 (dated July 11, 2012) ordering Respondent CRU Acquisitions Group LLC (“CRU”) to pay $9,784.83 in attorneys’ fees in Certain Computer Forensic Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-799).

By way of background, on April 23, 2012 and May 1, 2012, ALJ Bullock issued Order Nos. 43 and 44 granting Complainant MyKey Technology Inc.’s (“MyKey”) motions to compel written discovery, product samples, and source code.  See our May 4, 2012 and June 29, 2012 posts for further details regarding Order Nos. 43 and 44, respectively.  On June 5, 2012, the ALJ issued Order No. 46 granting MyKey’s motion for sanctions against CRU for its failure to comply with Order Nos. 43 and 44.  As part of Order No. 46, MyKey was awarded its attorneys’ fees that it spent “on filing the present motion and reply and to the extent CRU’s delayed productions necessitate[d] supplemental expert reports,” MyKey was awarded its fees associated with preparation of those reports.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Strikes Supplemental Expert Reports In Certain Computer Forensic Devices (337-TA-799)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
02
On August 1, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 56 in Certain Computer Forensic Devices and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-799).

According to the Order, the parties served supplemental expert reports in the investigation.  However, ALJ Bullock noted that “[s]upplemental expert reports were not permitted under the procedural schedule,” and since no parties sought leave to file such reports, they were stricken.  ALJ Bullock further determined that the subject supplemental expert reports “may not be relied upon for any purpose, including but not limited to impeachment of a witness.”  Lastly, ALJ Bullock ordered the parties to “remove any testimony that relies on a supplemental expert report from their witness statements prior to introducing said witness statements into evidence.”
Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices (337-TA-823)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
03
On August 1, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 34 granting Complainants Standard Innovation (US) Corp. and Standard Innovation Corporation (collectively, “Standard”) and Respondent Marsoner, Inc. d/b/a Fascinations’ (“Marsoner”) joint motion to terminate the investigation in Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-823).

According to the Order, Marsoner entered into a stipulation and consent order.  ALJ Pender found that the stipulation complied with the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3).  The ALJ further found that, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(2), the termination of the investigation on the basis of the consent order is in the public interest and does not impose any undue burdens on the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the U.S., or U.S. consumers.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants-In-Part Motion For Sanctions In Certain Computer Forensic Devices (337-TA-799)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
08
On August 6, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 46 (dated June 5, 2012) granting-in-part complainant MyKey Technology Inc.’s (“MyKey”) motion for sanctions against respondent CRU Acquisitions Group LLC d/b/a CRU Data-Port LLC (“CRU”) in Certain Computer Forensic Devices and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-799).

By way of background, ALJ Bullock previously issued Order Nos. 43 and 44 granting MyKey’s motions to compel written discovery, product samples, and source code.  See our May 4, 2012 and June 29, 2012 posts for further details regarding Order Nos. 43 and 44, respectively.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Respondents’ Motion To Preclude Disclosure Of Confidential Business Information In Certain Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment Appliances (337-TA-562)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
08
On August 6, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 39 (dated July 20, 2012) in Certain Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment Appliances and Methods of Producing Same (Inc. No. 337-TA-562).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock denied Respondents’ motion to preclude Complainant Align Technology, Inc. (“Align”) from disclosing Respondents’ confidential business information to Align’s expert.  On July 19, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. denied a similar motion by Respondents in Inv. No. 337-TA-833, a co-pending investigation involving Align and Respondents in which the parties have agreed that discovery in this investigation can be used in the other.  (See Certain Digital Models, Digital Data, and Treatment Plans, 337-TA-833, Order No. 11 (July 19, 2012)).  To remain consistent with the ALJ’s determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-833, ALJ Bullock denied Respondents’ motion without analysis. 
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Motion For Reconsideration In Certain Wiper Blades (337-TA-816)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
15
On August 10, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 39 (dated August 2, 2012) in Certain Wiper Blades (Inv. No. 337-TA-816).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock denied non-party Trico Products, Inc.’s (“Trico”) motion for reconsideration of Order No. 32.  By way of background, ALJ Bullock had found in Order No. 32 that Trico had waived attorney-client privilege and/or work-product protection with respect to certain documents that Trico had produced in the investigation.  See our July 25, 2012 post for more details.

According to Order No. 39, Trico argued that reconsideration of Order No. 32 was necessary because of a “mistake of fact” and to prevent “manifest injustice.”  Bosch opposed the motion and argued that Trico was improperly attempting to revisit issues already addressed.  Bosch further argued that Trico was improperly attempting to present additional facts that had already been available to Trico at the time Trico submitted its response to Bosch’s original motion.
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.