ALJ Bullock

ALJ Bullock Denies Motion To Compel Discovery From Third-Party In Certain Automated Media Library Devices (337-TA-746)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
28
On June 24, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 14 denying Complainant Overland Storage, Inc.’s (“Overland”) motion to compel discovery from third-party Spectra Logic Corporation (“Spectra Logic”) in Certain Automated Media Library Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-746).

In support of its motion, Overland argued that Spectra Logic, an OEM customer of certain respondents, “possesses evidence that is highly relevant to Overland’s claims of indirect infringement against Respondents, and Overland’s claim that [certain respondents’] customers directly infringe the asserted patents.”  Spectra Logic opposed the motion and argued that Overland’s motion was “procedurally defective” since it was brought before the wrong authority and “substantively improper because it exceeds the bounds of discovery established under Rule 26 … as that Rule applies to non-parties.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Rules On Motions Relating To Apple Source Code In Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software (337-TA-721)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
28
On June 22, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 52 (dated June 7, 2011) in Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-721).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock (i) granted-in-part Complainant HTC Corp.’s (“HTC”) motion seeking an order requiring Respondent Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) to provide complete copies of certain admitted trial exhibits that contain Apple source code, and (ii) granted-in-part Apple’s motion for protective order to prohibit HTC from filing portions of Apple source code with HTC’s final exhibit list. 

According to the Order, Apple understood that the private parties had agreed to special procedures for the admission of trial exhibits containing Apple’s highly confidential source code, but in view of the opposing motions, there was either a miscommunication between counsel for the private parties or the agreement was no longer in force.  In any event, ALJ Bullock determined that he “will not enforce informal agreements among the parties that fall apart.”  ALJ Bullock also determined that in the interest of having a complete evidentiary record, the subject Apple source code files should be submitted in their entirety.  ALJ Bullock further determined that “the protective order in this Investigation provides enhanced protections and safeguards against the potential disclosure of Apple’s proprietary information.”  Accordingly, ALJ Bullock ordered Apple to provide complete copies of certain exhibits for inclusion in HTC’s final set of trial exhibits.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule in Certain Wireless Communication Devices and Systems (337-TA-775)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
01
Further to our June 7, 2011 and June 14, 2011 posts, on June 30, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 3: Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Wireless Communication Devices and Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-775).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Linex Technologies, Inc. of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and the Respondents are Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto, California, Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California, Aruba Networks, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California, Meru Networks of Sunnyvale, California, and Ruckus Wireless of Sunnyvale, California.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Rules On Motion To Compel In Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters (337-TA-739)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
11
On July 7, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock. issued the public version of Order No. 53 (dated June 28, 2011) in Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-739).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted-in-part Respondent Zhejiang Trimone Electric Science & Technology Co., Ltd.’s (“Trimone”) motion to compel Complainant Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. (“Leviton”) to respond to certain interrogatories relating to Leviton’s domestic activities, respond to certain interrogatories and produce certain documents relating to Leviton’s foreign activities, and provide additional deposition testimony on Leviton’s foreign activities.

According to the Order, Trimone argued that “Leviton has selectively produced information favoring its own theory of domestic industry, while denying Respondents the evidence need [sic] to advance their own arguments.”  In particular, with respect to the interrogatories relating to Leviton’s domestic activities, Trimone argued that Leviton had failed to provide the information requested, including, e.g., the nature of different Leviton employees’ domestic activities and the amount of time spent by each individual on these activities.  Trimone further argued with respect to one interrogatory in particular that the documents identified by Leviton in its response did not reveal the requested information and that the “burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer from the referenced documents is not substantially the same for Trimone as for Leviton.” (emphasis omitted).  With respect to the interrogatories and document requests relating to Leviton’s foreign activities, Trimone argued that Leviton’s responses were insufficient because they either referred only to non-responsive documents or were incomplete.  Lastly, with respect to the requested deposition testimony, Trimone argued that Leviton was improperly refusing to produce a witness on certain deposition topics relating to Leviton’s foreign activities on the purported basis that Trimone had already taken a deposition on domestic industry generally.  Trimone argued that it had not inquired about Leviton’s foreign activities during the domestic industry deposition because, at the time, Leviton’s allegations regarding domestic industry did not include foreign activities and it was not until after the deposition that Leviton produced “key documents” relating to the economic prong.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Turbomachinery Blades (337-TA-751)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
27
On July 25, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 8 (dated July 25, 2011) in Certain Turbomachinery Blades, Engines and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-751). 

In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainant United Technologies Corporation (“UTC”) and Respondents Rolls-Royce plc and Rolls-Royce Group plc (collectively, “Rolls-Royce”) to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement between the parties.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Bullock granted the joint motion filed by UTC and Rolls-Royce.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters (337-TA-739)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
27
On July 25, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 58 (dated July 25, 2011) in Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-739). 

In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. (“Leviton”) and Respondents Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. and Central Purchasing, LLC (collectively, the “Respondents”) to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement between the parties.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Bullock granted the joint motion filed by Leviton and the Respondents.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Target Date In Certain Static Random Access Memories (337-TA-792)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
01
Further to our July 26, 2011 post, on July 28, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 2: Notice of Ground Rules and Target Date; Order Setting Date for Submission of Discovery Statements in Certain Static Random Access Memories and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-792).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set November 28, 2012 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is sixteen months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets 18-Month Target Date In Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-789)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
03
Further to our July 15, 2011 post, on August 2, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 5 in Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-789).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set January 21, 2013 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is eighteen months after institution of the investigation) due to the complexity of the asserted technology, the large number of respondents, and the number of claims at issue.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Microprocessors (337-TA-781)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
04
Further to our June 30, 2011 and July 1, 2011 posts, on August 2, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 5: Setting the Procedural Schedule in Certain Microprocessors, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-781).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is X2Y Attenuators, LLC of Erie, Pennsylvania and the Respondents are Intel Corporation of Santa Clara, California, Componentes Intel de Costa Rica S.A. of Costa Rica, Intel Malaysia Sdn. Bhd of Malaysia, Intel (Philippines) of the Philippines, Intel Products (Chengdu) Ltd. of China, Intel Products (Shanghai) Ltd. of China, Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California, and Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto, California. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets 18-Month Target Date In Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices (337-TA-796)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
08
Further to our August 2, 2011 and August 4, 2011 posts, on August 5, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 2 in Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-796).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set February 5, 2013 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is eighteen months after institution of the investigation) due to the “number of asserted patents (i.e., 7) and claims, the [ALJ’s] current caseload, and the complexity of the technology at issue.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Motions To Terminate Investigation As To Sony Ericsson In Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices And Image Display Devices (337-TA-773)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
08
On August 5, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 24 (dated August 5, 2011) in Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices And Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-773). 

In Order No. 24, ALJ Gildea granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Ogma, LLC (“Ogma”) and Respondents Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. and Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB (collectively, “Sony Ericsson”) to terminate the investigation based on a license agreement with non-party RPX Corp. (“RPX”).  According to the Order, Sony Ericsson’s parent company executed a Membership and License Agreement with RPX, and RPX is a licensee of the asserted patents.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreements, ALJ Gildea granted the joint motion filed by Ogma and Sony Ericsson.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Reassignment Notices In Certain Investigations In Light Of ALJ Luckern Retirement

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
10
On August 4, 2011, acting Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued notices to the parties in several pending investigations in light of the recent retirement of former Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern.  See our August 4, 2011 post for more details. 

For all but one of the notices, ALJ Bullock indicated that he will be temporarily reassigned as the presiding ALJ “until the arrival of a new administrative law judge.”  Regarding Inv. No. 337-TA-745, ALJ Bullock suspended all dates in the investigation and indicated that “dates will be rescheduled once the Investigation has been permanently reassigned to an administrative law judge.”   

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Light-Emitting Diodes (337-TA-785)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
10
Further to our July 7, 2011 post, on August 9, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 3: Setting the Procedural Schedule in Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing the Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-785).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is OSRAM GmbH of Germany and the Respondents are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, Samsung LED Co., Ltd. of Korea, Samsung LED America, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, LG Electronics, Inc. of South Korea, LG Innotek Co., Ltd. of South Korea, LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, and LG Innotek U.S.A., Inc. of San Diego, California.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Mobile Telephones And Modems (337-TA-758)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
15
On August 11, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 17 (dated August 11, 2011) in Certain Mobile Telephones and Modems (Inv. No. 337-TA-758).

According to the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Sony Corporation (“Sony”) and Respondents LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “LG”) to terminate the investigation based on their having entered into a memorandum of understanding (the “Agreement”).  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the Agreement, ALJ Bullock granted the joint motion filed by Sony and LG.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Electronic Devices Having A Digital Television Receiver (337-TA-774)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
15
On August 11, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 5 (dated August 11, 2011) in Certain Electronic Devices Having A Digital Television Receiver and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-774).

According to the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Zenith Electronics LLC  (“Zenith”) and Respondents Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, and Sony Electronics Inc. (collectively, “Sony”) to terminate the investigation based on their having entered into a memorandum of understanding (the “Agreement”).  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the Agreement, ALJ Bullock granted the joint motion filed by Zenith and Sony.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants-In-Part Motion For Partial Summary Determination In Certain Automated Media Library Devices (337-TA-746)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
18
On August 15, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 19 (dated July 19, 2011) granting-in-part Respondent International Business Machine’s (“IBM”) motion for partial summary determination that U.S. Patent No. 6,328,766 (“the ‘766 patent”) is not entitled to priority to “related” U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 08/786,702 (“the ‘702 application”), and that certain IBM products and documents describing same qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C § 102(a) and/or 102(b) in Certain Automated Media Library Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-746).

According to the Order, IBM asserted in its motion that Complainant Overland Storage, Inc. (“Overland”), admitted in response to requests for admission that the ‘766 patent is not entitled to the filing date of the ‘702 application, and that it is undisputed that several prior art publications and products qualify as prior art under 102(a) and/or 102(b) based on Overland’s allegations regarding conception of the alleged inventions.  Overland did not contest that the ‘766 patent is not entitled to priority of the earlier filed application, but disputed that IBM’s asserted products and corresponding documents qualify as prior art under 102(a) and/or 102(b), arguing that IBM failed to offer corroborated proof that (1) its products were on sale before the critical date, and (2) its documents qualify as printed publications since “a print date on a document is legally insufficient to establish that a document qualifies as prior art under section 102.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-789)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
22
Further to our August 3, 2011 post, on August 19, 2011, Acting Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 11, setting the procedural schedule in Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-789).

In the Order, ALJ Rogers included provisions for the early exchange of claim terms and proposed constructions, and a Markman hearing on December 5-6, 2011.  The schedule recites March 2, 2012, as a proposed date to issue a claim construction order, which precedes the close of fact discovery and exchange of initial expert reports.  The evidentiary hearing is scheduled for June 25-29, 2012.  The Initial Determination is due September 21, 2012 and the target date for completing the investigation is January 21, 2013.

Share

Read More

ITC Determines that ALJ Bullock’s July 19, 2011 Initial Determination (ID) Is An Order, Rather Than ID in Certain Automated Media Library Devices (337-TA-746)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
25
On August 18, 2011, the Commission issued a notice in Certain Automated Media Library Devices(Inv. No. 337-TA-746).  The notice stated that ALJ Bullock’s July 19, 2011 Order No. 19,  which granted-in-part Respondent IBM’s motion for partial summary determination and found that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,328,766 (“the ’766 patent”) were not entitled to claim priority to an earlier application, should not have issued as an initial determination.  See our August 18, 2011 postfor more information on ALJ Bullock’s Order No. 19. 

The Commission determined that the priority matter decided in Order No. 19 was uncontested, and by operation of Commission Rule 210.31(d) (19 C.F.R. §210.31(d)), matters admitted in response to requests for admissions are conclusively established.  The Commission further determined that to the extent a ruling under Commission Rule 210.31(d) is appropriate, where uncontested, such ruling should be by order rather than summary determination under Commission Rule 210.18 (19 C.F.R. § 210.18).

Share

Read More