ALJ Bullock

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Approve Request For International Judicial Assistance In Certain Robotic Toys (337-TA-869)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
24
On July 19, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 6 (dated April 10, 2013) in Certain Robotic Toys and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-869).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted Complainants Innovation First International, Inc., Innovation First, Inc., and Innovation Labs, Inc.’s (collectively, “Innovation First”) motion seeking issuance of a request for international judicial assistance pursuant to the Hague Convention.

According to the Order, Innovation First sought to obtain evidence from Mr. Xiaoping Lu of China, the individual whom Innovation First claimed was responsible for orchestrating the alleged trade secret misappropriation at issue in the investigation.  Innovation First argued that the requested discovery was narrowly tailored, focusing on “Lu’s licensing negotiations with third parties with regards to the robotic toy fish design and his allegations of independent creation.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Joint Motion To Amend Protective Order In Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities (337-TA-868)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
26
On July 24, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 46in Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-868).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted Complainants InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corp., IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “InterDigital”) and Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Huawei Technologies, Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., Futurewei Technologies, Inc., Nokia Inc., Nokia Corp., ZTE Corp., and ZTE (USA) Inc.’s (collectively, “Respondents”) joint motion to amend the protective order in the investigation.

According to the Order, InterDigital and Respondents sought to amend the protective order to add specific provisions permitting the use of discovery from the investigation in four co-pending actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.  The amendments also sought to permit use of discovery from the co-pending district court actions in the investigation.  The Commission Investigative Staff did not oppose the motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Ink Application Devices (337-TA-832)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
07
Further to our July 19, 2013 post, on July 30, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated July 17, 2013) in Certain Ink Application Devices and Components Thereof and Methods of Using the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-832).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a January 13, 2012 complaint filed by MT. Derm GmbH (“MT. Derm”) of Germany and Nouveau Cosmetique USA, Inc. (“Nouveau”) of Orlando, Florida, (collectively “Complainants”) alleging a violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain ink application devices and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,505,530 (the ‘530 patent).  The remaining Respondent in the investigation is T-Tech Tattoo Device, Inc. (“T-Tech”) of Ontario, Canada.  See our March 2, 2012 post for more details on this investigation.

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
19
On August 14, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 75 (dated August 5, 2013) denying Respondents’ motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, for interlocutory review of Order No. 71 in Certain Wiper Blades(Inv. No. 337-TA-816).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Robert Bosch LLC (“Bosch”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation and sale of certain “flat” or “beam-type” wiper blade devices that infringe one or more claims of the asserted patents.  See our October 27, 2011 post for more details on Bosch's complaint.  As explained in our November 2, 2012 post, the Commission determined to review Order Nos. 51 and 52 and the claim constructions these orders turned upon.  Further, the details of the Commission’s subsequent opinion reversing the ALJ’s initial determination can be found in our April 29, 2013 post.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets 14-Month Target Date In Certain TV Programs, Literary Works For TV Production And Episode Guides (337-TA-886)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
21
Further to our July 12, 2013 post, on August 20, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 6 in Certain TV Programs, Literary Works For TV Production And Episode Guides Pertaining to Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-886).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set September 15, 2014 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is approximately fourteen months after institution of the investigation).  In addition, ALJ Bullock directed the parties to submit proposed procedural schedules by August 28, 2013.  ALJ Bullock further noted that the evidentiary hearing in this investigation will commence on March 10, 2014, for purposes of preparing proposed procedural schedules.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Terminates Investigation As To Personal Communications Devices In Certain Mobile Handset Devices And Related Touch Keyboard Software (337-TA-864)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
23
On August 20, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued issued Order No. 16 in Certain Mobile Handset Devices and Related Touch Keyboard Software(Inv. No. 337-TA

According to the Order, Complainants Nuance Communications, Inc., Swype, Inc., and Tegic Communications, Inc. (collectively, “Complainants”) and Respondent Personal Communications Devices, LLC (“PCD”) filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation as to PCD based on an agreement between Complainants and TCT Mobile International Limited (PCD’s supplier of the accused cellular device “Venture”).  ALJ Bullock granted the motion, agreeing that the terms of the settlement have no negative effect on the public health and welfare or competitive conditions in the U.S.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Motions To Amend The Protective Order In Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices (337-TA-854)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
06
On August 21, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 12 in Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices, System and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-854).

According to the Order, Respondents DeLorme Publishing Company, Inc. and DeLorme InReach, LLC. (“Respondents”) sought to amend the protective orders to permit the use of fact and expert discovery developed in this ITC proceeding in a related federal litigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain TV Programs, Literary Works For TV Production And Episode Guides (337-TA-886)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
09
Further to our July 12, 2013 and August 21, 2013 posts, on September 5, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 8 in Certain TV Programs, Literary Works For TV Production And Episode Guides Pertaining to Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-886).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set the procedural schedule for the investigation.  ALJ Bullock determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on March 10, 2014; any initial determination is due no later than May 15, 2014; and the target date for completing the investigation is September 15, 2014 (which is approximately fourteen months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Motion To Change Trial Date In Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices (337-TA-854)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
16
On August 27, 2013 Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 13 (dated August 26, 2013) in Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices, System and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-854).

According to the Order, Respondents DeLorme Publishing Company, Inc. and DeLorme InReach LLC (collectively, “Respondents”) filed a motion seeking to continue the pretrial conference and evidentiary hearing currently scheduled for November 4, 2013 until November 13, 2013, or as soon as practical.  Respondents’ requested the change in trial date because it conflicted with a planned vacation for lead counsel for Respondents.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Rules On Motions In Certain Wiper Blades (337-TA-816)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
16
On September 5, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order Nos. 76 (dated August 15, 2013) and 80 (dated August 20, 2013) in Certain Wiper Blades (Inv. No. 337-TA-816).

According to Order No. 76, Complainant Robert Bosch LLC (“Bosch’) moved to strike certain portions of the Supplemental Expert Report of Walter Cempura (the “Cempura Report”) and the Supplemental Initial Expert Report of Gregory Davis (the “Davis Report”).  Bosch argued that portions of the Davis Report rely on references not identified in Respondents ADM21 Co., Ltd., ADM21 Co. (North America), Ltd., Cequent Consumer Products, Inc., RainEater LLC, Corea Autoparts Producing Corporation, CAP America, and PIAA Corporation USA’s (collectively, “Respondents”) Notices of Prior Art.  Additionally, Bosch asserted that portions of the Davis and Cempura Reports fell outside of the agreed-upon scope of supplementation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets 15-Month Target Date In Certain Laundry And Household Cleaning Products (337-TA-891)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
17
Further to our August 26, 2013 and August 29, 2013 posts, on September 13, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 3 in Certain Laundry And Household Cleaning Products and Related Packaging (Inv. No. 337-TA-891).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set November 28, 2014 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is approximately fifteen months after institution of the investigation).  In addition, ALJ Bullock directed the parties to submit proposed procedural schedules by September 20, 2013.  ALJ Bullock further noted that the evidentiary hearing in this investigation will commence on March 31, 2014, for purposes of preparing proposed procedural schedules.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Trico Motion To Compel Conception And Reduction To Practice Documents In Certain Windshield Wiper Devices (337-TA-881)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
17
On September 16, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 9 in Certain Windshield Wiper Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-881).

According to the Order, Respondents Trico Products Corporation and Trico Componentes SA de CV (collectively, “Trico”) filed a motion to compel Complainants Federal-Mogul Corporation and Federal-Mogul SA (collectively, “FM”) to produce documents responsive to certain document requests relating to the conception and reduction to practice of the claimed invention.  In support of the motion, Trico argued that the bulk of the documents produced by FM thus far related to the prosecution of the asserted patent and its foreign counterparts, but additional documents relating to the conception and reduction to practice of the claim invention exist because FM has produced documents surrounding the claimed priority date that are part of a larger series of reports.  Trico further argued that (1) it has not yet received documents relating to communications between the three named inventors, drawings, design specifications, notes and tests; and (2) FM has taken inconsistent positions regarding its production, asserting that production was both complete and will be supplemented.  FM opposed the motion and argued, among other things, that it conducted a reasonable and diligent search for responsive documents.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) noted that the documents sought by Trico are relevant and within the scope of discovery because they relate to Trico’s affirmative defenses of invalidity and unenforceability.  OUII further noted that FM has only produced a single email from one of the three inventors and that it was “unusual for a multinational corporation to have such a dearth of documents relating to the invention, conception, and reduction to practice of the claimed invention.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies InterDigital Motion to Compel in Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities (337-TA-868)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
18
On September 10, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 64 (dated August 30, 2013) denying Complainants InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corp., IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital Holdings, Inc.’s (collectively, “InterDigital”) motion to compel in Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-868).

According to the Order, InterDigital argued that Respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc.’s (“Nokia”) refusal to produce discovery regarding the sale, assignment, transfer or other divestment of Nokia’s 3G and 4G patents was unjustified and accordingly should be compelled to do so.  InterDigital added that, in the alternative, if Nokia were not compelled to provide the requested discovery, it should be precluded from making arguments that could be rebutted with the requested evidence. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Respondent ZTE’s Motion to Certify Subpoenas to Intel in Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities (337-TA-868)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
18
On September 10, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 63 (dated August 29, 2013) denying Respondent ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.’s (collectively, “ZTE”) motion to certify to the Commission a request for judicial enforcement of its April 8, 2013 subpoenas to Intel Corporation (“Intel”) in Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-868).

According to the Order, ZTE argued that in 2012 Intel entered into a patent sales transaction with Complainants InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IP Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “InterDigital”) involving the sale of approximately 8% of InterDigital’s patent portfolio, including more than 1,700 patents and applications related to 3G, LTE, and 802.11 technologies.  ZTE contended that on April 8, 2013, it served suponeas duces tecum and ad testificandum on Intel, seeking documents and testimony related to the sales negotiations between Intel and InterDigital, including Intel's internal notes and analyses and Intel’s valuation of InterDigital's patent portfolio at the time of the Intel acquisition.  ZTE argued that these documents are directly relevant to Respondents’ affirmative defenses relating to InterDigital's commitment to licensing patents under Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms and whether InterDigital’s portfolio value and the FRAND rates were decreased upon that sale.  ZTE asserted that Intel has denied the existence of any non-privileged internal documents related to the transaction, and that Intel should be required to conduct a reasonable search, produce any responsive, nonprivileged documents, produce a privilege log of any newly found documents that Intel claims are privileged, and produce a witness to testify regarding the narrowed deposition topics.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Respondents’ Motion for Summary Determination in Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices (337-TA-854)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
19
On September 10, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 10 (dated August 20, 2013) denying Respondents DeLorme Publishing Company, Inc. and Delorme InReach, LLC’s (collectively, “DeLorme”) motion for summary determination in Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices, System and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-854).

By way of background, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) instituted the underlying investigation on September 18, 2012 based on BriarTek IP, Inc.’s (“BriarTek”) complaint of August 17, 2012.  See our September 19, 2012 post for more details.  On March 15, 2013, ALJ Robert K. Rogers granted a motion by DeLorme to terminate the investigation and for entry of a proposed consent order (“the consent order”).  See our March 19, 2013 post for more details.  In the consent order, DeLorme agreed that it would not import or sell two-way global satellite communication devices, systems, or components thereof that infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,991,380 (the ‘380 patent) after April 1, 2013.  On April 10, 2013, BriarTek filed an enforcement complaint alleging that DeLorme violated the consent order.  See our April 11, 2013 post for additional details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Laundry And Household Cleaning Products (337-TA-891)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
26
Further to our August 26, 2013 and September 17, 2013 posts, on September 24, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 6 in Certain Laundry And Household Cleaning Products and Related Packaging (Inv. No. 337-TA-891).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set the procedural schedule for the investigation.  The ALJ determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on March 31, 2014, any final initial determination will issue no later than July 28, 2014, and the target date for completion of the investigation is November 28, 2014 (which is approximately 15 months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Rules On Motion To Compel Discovery In Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities (337-TA-868)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
27
On September 26, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 59 (dated August 26, 2013) granting in part Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“Samsung”), Respondents Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., and Futurewei Technologies, Inc. (“Huawei”), Respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. (“Nokia”) and Respondents ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.’s (“ZTE”) (collectively, “Respondents”) motion to compel discovery in Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities (Inv. No. 337-TA-868).

According to the Order, Respondents argued that Complainants InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital Holdings , Inc. (“InterDigital”) should be compelled to produce certain categories of documents related to the prosecution of the ‘151 patent.  Respondents had previously asserted the defense of inequitable conduct, based on the failure to disclose “the Siemens reference” during the patent’s prosecution, to support the claim that the ‘151 patent is unenforceable.  In response, InterDigital argued that the failure to disclose the reference was unintentional as the reference was inadvertently omitted by a paralegal for InterDigital’s outside prosecution counsel. 

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
30
On September 30, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 103 in Certain Wiper Blades (Inv. No. 337-TA-816).

According to the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Robert Bosch LLC and Respondents Corea Autoparts Producing Corporation, CAP America, Inc. and PIAA Corporation USA to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Claim Construction Order In Certain Windshield Wipers (337-TA-881)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
02
On September 27, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 11 construing the disputed terms of the asserted claims in Certain Windshield Wipers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-881).

By way of background, this investigation was instituted by the ITC on June 11, 2013 based on a complaint filed by Federal-Mogul Corporation and Federal-Mogul S.A. (collectively, “FM”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondents Trico Corporation, Trico Products, and Trico Components SA de CV (collectively, “Trico”) in the importation and/or sale of certain windshield wiper devices and components thereof that infringe claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,347,449 (the ‘449 patent).  See our May 13, 2013 and June 10, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More