ALJ Charneski

ALJ Charneski Sets Target Date In Certain Gaming And Entertainment Consoles (337-TA-752)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
14
Further to our December 21, 2010 post, on January 13, 2011, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 5 in Certain Gaming and Entertainment Consoles, Related Software, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-752).

According to the Order, ALJ Charneski set May 23, 2012 as the target date for completing this investigation (which is approximately 17 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Charneski further indicated that an initial determination on any violation of Section 337 shall be due on January 23, 2012.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Gaming And Entertainment Consoles (337-TA-752)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
17
Further to our January 14, 2011 post, on January 13, 2011, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 6 in Certain Gaming and Entertainment Consoles, Related Software, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-752).

According to the Order, ALJ Charneski provides for an evidentiary hearing commencing on September 26, 2011, an initial determination on any violation of Section 337 due on January 23, 2012, and a target date for completing this investigation on May 23, 2012.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Denies Motion to Disqualify Counsel In Certain Large Scale Integrated Circuit Semiconductor Chips (337-TA-716)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
25
On January 24, 2011, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 8 (dated July 23, 2010) in Certain Large Scale Integrated Circuit Semiconductors Chips and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-716).  The Order denied a motion filed by Respondents Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (“Freescale”) to disqualify Ms. Shamita Etienne-Cummings and the law firm of White & Case LLP (“W&C”) from representing Complainant Panasonic Corporation, Ltd. (“Panasonic”).

According to the Order, Panasonic’s complaint in the present investigation was signed by Ms. Etienne-Cummings.  Respondents argued that Ms. Etienne-Cummings’ representation of Panasonic violated the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.9(a) and 1.9(b) because she previously represented Freescale’s predecessor-in-intrest, Motorola Inc. (“Motorola”), in a substantially related matter.  Respondents argued that W&C’s representation of Panasonic violated ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10, as Ms. Etienne-Cummings is a partner with W&C, and thus the basis for her individual disqualification is imputed to the firm. Panasonic and the Commission Investigative Staff opposed the motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Collaborative System Products And Components (337-TA-728)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
25
On January 24, 2011, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 20 in Collaborative System Products and Components (II) (Inv. No. 337-TA-728).

In the Order, ALJ Charneski granted a motion filed by Complainant eInstruction Corporation to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.  According to the Order, Respondents Promethean Inc., Promethean Limited, and Promethean Technology Shenzhen, Ltd. consented to the relief sought in Complainant’s motion.  Also, the Commission Investigative Staff supported the motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Grants-In-Part Motion To Compel Discovery In Certain Personal Data And Mobile Communications Devices (337-TA-710)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
27
On January 24, 2011, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 61 (dated December 7, 2010) granting-in-part Complainants Apple Inc. and NeXT Software Inc.’s (collectively, “Apple”) motion to compel in Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-710).

According to the order, Apple moved to compel Respondents HTC Corp., HTC America, Inc., and Exedea, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”)  to produce certain outstanding discovery.  In particular, Apple asserted that HTC should be compelled to provide (i) witness testimony in the United States on Android 2.2, since HTC belatedly produced the Android 2.2 source code after the depositions of HTC’s key technical witnesses, (ii) knowledgeable witnesses to testify in response to Deposition Topic Nos. 59 and 61 “regarding components in the Accused HTC Android Products,” and (iii) discovery regarding “[d]ata on the use, testing, marketing, customer complaints, and other dealings with customers [] relevant to, inter alia, direct infringement and induced infringement.”  HTC opposed Apple’s motion asserting that (i) “it promptly produced the Android 2.2 source code . . . as it became available after [its] products were upgraded to Android 2.2,” (ii) the witnesses it provided to testify regarding Deposition Topic Nos. 59 and 61 “were knowledgeable, ‘to the extent that HTC has knowledge,’” and (iii) the data sought by Apple was either “not relevant to the present investigation” or “moot in light of HTC’s production of its sales and revenue data.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version of Initial Determination In Certain Multimedia Display And Navigation Devices And Systems (337-TA-694)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
11
Further to our December 21, 2010 post, on January 26, 2011, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Initial Determination (dated December 16, 2010) (“ID”) in Certain Multimedia Display And Navigation Devices And Systems (337-TA-694).

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are Pioneer Corporation and Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. (collectively, “Pioneer”) and the Respondents are Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin Corp. (collectively, “Garmin”).  The three patents at issue, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,365,448 (the ‘448 patent), 5,424,951 (the ‘951 patent), and 6,122,592 (the ‘592 patent) relate to how information can be stored, retrieved, or displayed on Global Positioning System (“GPS”) navigation systems.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Finds A Number Of Respondents In Default In Certain Toner Cartridges (337-TA-740)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
24
On February 18, 2011, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order Nos. 17 and 18, and on February 22, 2011, issued Order No. 19 in Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-740).

In Order No. 17, ALJ Charneski found Respondent IJSS Inc. (d/b/a TonerZone.com Inc. and Inkjet Superstore) in default.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Initial Determination In Certain Flash Memory (337-TA-685)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
01
On February 28, 2011, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Flash Memory and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-685).

By way of background, and according to the notice, the Complainant in this investigation is Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. and the Respondents are Spansion, Inc., Spansion LLC, D-Link Corp., D-Link Systems, Inc., Alpine Electronics, Inc., Alpine Electronics of America, Inc., and Egreat USA.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Large Scale Integrated Circuit Semiconductor Chips (337-TA-716)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
03
On February 28, 2011, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 35 in Certain Large Scale Integrated Circuit Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-716).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Panasonic Corporation and Respondents Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., Freescale Semiconductor Japan Ltd., Freescale Semiconductor Malaysia Sdn. Bhd., Freescale Singapore Pte. Ltd., Freescale Semiconductor Taiwan Ltd., Freescale Qiangxin (Tianjin) IC Design Co., Ltd., Freescale Semiconductor (China) Limited, Mouser Electronics, Inc, Motorola, Inc., Newark Electronics Corporation, and Newark Corporation to terminate the investigation based on a settlement and license agreement.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Denies Motion To Amend Response To Complaint In Certain Personal Data And Mobile Communications Devices (337-TA-710)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
28
On March 22, 2011, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 91 (dated February 17, 2011) denying Respondents HTC Corp, HTC America, Inc., and Exedea, Inc.’s (collectively, “HTC”) motion for leave to amend their response to the complaint filed by Apple Inc. and NeXT Software Inc. (collectively, “Apple”) to assert the affirmative defense of inequitable conduct with respect to the ‘647 and ‘721 patents in Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-710).

HTC’s motion with respect to the ‘647 patent was based on emails previously redacted by Apple that the ALJ ordered produced in unredacted form which, according to HTC, shows that material references were withheld from the PTO during prosecution.  First, ALJ Charneski rejected HTC’s argument as untimely, observing that HTC was in possession of one of the “critical” unredacted emails during the pendency of its first motion to amend its response to the complaint, and did not bring the document to the ALJ’s attention until after that motion was denied.  Second, the ALJ rejected HTC’s motion on the grounds that HTC did not identify exactly what portion of the withheld references were material or withheld from the PTO with deceptive intent, nor did HTC refer to a single asserted claim or limitation therein which the withheld references were relevant to, in violation of the heightened pleading standard for inequitable conduct articulated in Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Rules On Motions To Compel And Motion To Quash In Certain Adjustable-Height Beds (337-TA-734)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
28
On March 22, 2011, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public versions of Order No. 16 (dated March 2, 2011), Order No. 18 (dated March 4, 2011), and Order No. 19 (dated March 4, 2011) in Certain Adjustable-Height Beds and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-734).  In Order No. 16, ALJ Charneski granted-in-part Respondent Medical Depot, Inc., d/b/a Drive Medical Design and Manufacturing’s (“Drive Medical”) motion to compel Complainant Invacare Corporation (“Invacare”) to respond to certain interrogatories and requests for production of documents and things.  In Order No. 18, the ALJ granted-in-part Invacare’s motion to compel Drive Medical to produce documents relevant to certain document requests and to respond to certain interrogatories.  In Order No. 19, ALJ Charneski granted-in-part Drive Medical’s motion to quash subpoenas directed at Drive Medical’s former patent counsel and the patent counsel’s former law firm.

In Order No. 16, ALJ Charneski determined that Invacare should be compelled to respond to certain Drive Medical interrogatories because the interrogatories are relevant to public interest considerations in the investigation.  However, the ALJ limited the scope of Invacare’s responses by only requiring Invacare to respond to the interrogatories with respect to information dating from August 2, 2010 or later, as opposed to the original interrogatory language requiring responses concerning information dating from January 1, 2006 or later.  ALJ Charneski also determined to compel Invacare to produce documents in response to a number of Drive Medical document requests, although he again limited the scope to August 2, 2010 or later.  Lastly, the ALJ denied Drive Medical’s motion to compel with respect to certain other document requests after finding those requests overly broad.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Sets 17 Month Target Date And Procedural Schedule In Certain Display Devices, Including Digital Televisions and Monitors (337-TA-765)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
01
Further to our March 9, 2011 post, on March 30, 2011, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order Nos. 5 and 6 in Certain Display Devices, Including Digital Televisions and Monitors (Inv. No. 337-TA-765).

In Order No. 5, ALJ Charneski set August 13, 2012 as the target date for completing this investigation (which is approximately 17 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Charneski determined that “a 17-month target date is reasonable given the complexity of the technology and the number of patents and claims in issue in this investigation.”  ALJ Charneski further determined that an initial determination on any violation of Section 337 shall be due on April 13, 2012.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Flash Memory and Products Containing Same (337-TA-685)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
01
Further to our March 1, 2011 post, on March 24, 2011, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated February 28, 2011) in Certain Flash Memory and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-685).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) and the remaining Respondents are Spansion, Inc. and Spansion LLC, (collectively, “Spansion”) and D-Link Corp. and D-Link Systems, Inc. (collectively, “D-Link”).  The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 5,740,065 (the “’065 patent”), relates to a method for manufacturing semiconductor devices, such as silicon wafers, where certain process variables or parameters can be automatically set based on certain past process variables or parameters.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Denies Motion For Summary Determination Of No Unenforceability in Certain Personal Data And Mobile Communications Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-710)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
06
On March 31, 2011, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 100 (dated March 23, 2011) in Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-710).  In the Order, ALJ Charneski denied Complainants Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc.’s (collectively, "Apple") motion for summary determination that U.S. Patent No. 6,275,983 (the ‘983 patent) is not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

According to the order, Respondents HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., and Exedea, Inc. (collectively, "HTC") opposed the motion and asserted that the ‘983 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct based upon the non-disclosure of an operating system and 1992 manual during the ‘983 patent’s prosecution.  Although the Order was significantly redacted, it appears from the Order that for purposes of the motion, Apple did not dispute the materiality of at least the 1992 manual, and Apple alleged that HTC cannot prove that the relevant person(s) intended to deceive the Patent Office by not disclosing the operating system and 1992 manual.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Denies Motion For Summary Determination Of Noninfringement In Certain Personal Data And Mobile Communications Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-710)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
10
On April 7, 2011, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 105 in Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-710).  In the Order, ALJ Charneski denied a motion filed by Respondents HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., and Exedea, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) for summary determination that Complainants Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc.’s (collectively, “Apple”) failed to establish that the accused HTC products infringe claims 5, 6 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 5,481,721.

According to the Order, HTC asserted that “Apple has not identified any one object that performs the required claim limitations.”  In response, Apple, contended that HTC’s motion should be denied because it relied exclusively on a new theory that HTC never disclosed during discovery and it raised numerous issues of fact which precluded summary determination.  The Commission Investigative Staff agreed with Apple that HTC’s motion should be denied on the grounds that genuine issues of material fact exist.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Denies Motion To Quash Subpoena In Certain Personal Data And Mobile Communications Devices (337-TA-710)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
14
On April 13, 2011, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 111 denying Complainants Apple Inc. and NeXT Software Inc.’s (collectively, “Apple”) motion to quash a subpoena issued upon application of Respondents HTC Corp., HTC America, Inc., and Exedea, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) in Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-710).

According to the Order, Apple’s motion argued that HTC’s subpoena of non-party Brian Holtz should be quashed because (1) Mr. Holtz was not identified on HTC’s September 30, 2010, witness list; (2) HTC did not seek leave to add Mr. Holtz as a witness after the September 30 deadline; (3) HTC did not have good cause to so move; and (4) Apple would be substantially prejudiced if the subpoena were not quashed.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Adjustable-Height Beds (337-TA-734)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
15
On April 13, 2011, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 21 in Certain Adjustable-Height Beds and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-734).

By way of background this Investigation was based on an August 5, 2010 complaint filed by Invacare Corporation of Elyria, Ohio (“Invacare”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Medical Depot, Inc., d/b/a Drive Medical Design and Manufacturing of Port Washington, New York and Shanghai Shunlong Physical Therapy Equipment Co., Ltd. of Shanghai, China (collectively “Respondents”) through their infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,983,495; 6,997,082; 7,302,716; and 7,441,289.  See our September 13, 2010 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Grants-In-Part Motion In Limine In Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices (337-TA-710)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
17
On April 14, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 115, granting in part Complainants Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc.’s (collectively “Apple”) motion in limine to preclude Respondents HTC Corp., HTC America, Inc., and Exedea, Inc. (collectively, "HTC") from calling at the final hearing certain witnesses not identified on HTC's September 30, 2010, witness list, or introducing, relying upon or using declarations from such individuals in Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software (Investigation No. 337-TA-710).

According to the Order, HTC did not dispute that the individuals at issue were not identified on HTC’s witness list.  ALJ Charneski divided the HTC witnesses into three groups.  The first group included witnesses testifying only concerning the authentication of documents.  ALJ Charneski determined that individuals within this group could testify, given the limited nature of their testimony, and Apple would not suffer undue prejudice, due to Apple’s ability to cross-examine these witnesses.  ALJ Charneski determined that a second group of HTC witnesses may not testify at the hearing due to the substantive nature of their expected testimony and the HTC’s failure to include these individuals on HTC’s witness list.  The court was unable to locate the subject declarations of a third group of HTC witnesses, and therefore deferred ruling on these witnesses until the April 15, prehearing conference.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Sets 18-Month Target Date And Procedural Schedule In Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Mobile Tablets, Portable Music Players, And Computers (337-TA-771)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
12
Further to our April 26, 2011 post, on May 11, 2011, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order Nos. 4 and 5 in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Mobile Tablets, Portable Music Players, and Computers, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-771).

In Order No. 4, ALJ Charneski set October 29, 2012 as the target date for completing this investigation (which is approximately 18 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Charneski determined that “an 18-month target date is reasonable given the complexity of the technology and the number of patents and claims in issue in this investigation.”  ALJ Charneski further determined that an initial determination on any violation of Section 337 shall be due on June 29, 2012.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Mobile Tablets, Portable Music Players, And Computers (337-TA-771)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
22
On June 17, 2011, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 8 in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Mobile Tablets, Portable Music Players, and Computers, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-771).

By way of background, this Investigation was based on a March 28, 2011 complaint filed by Nokia Corporation of Finland, Nokia Inc. of White Plains, New York, and Intellisync Corporation of White Plains, New York alleging violation of Section 337 by Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California through its infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,209,911; 6,212,529; 6,141,664; 7,558,696; 6,445,932; 5,898,740; and 7,319,874.  See our April 26, 2011 post for more details.

Share

Read More