ALJ Charneski

Update Regarding Certain Machine Vision Software And Systems (337-TA-680)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
21
Further to our July 14 post, on August 21, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 6 in Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-680).

According to the Order, ALJ Charneski set November 16, 2010 as the target date for completion of this investigation (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Charneski further indicated that the initial determination on violation shall be due on July 16, 2010.

Share

Read More

Update Regarding Certain Machine Vision Software (337-TA-680)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
25
Further to our July 14 and August 21 posts, on August 24, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 8: Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-680).

According to the Order, ALJ Charneski set May 3-12, 2010 for the evidentiary hearing in this matter.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Sets Target Date And Procedural Schedule For Enforcement Proceeding In Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-617)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
09
Further to our September 8 post, on October 6, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 4: Target Date and Order No. 5: Procedural Schedule in Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-617).

In Order No. 4, ALJ Charneski set September 27, 2010 as the target date and further determined that the Enforcement Initial Determination is due on May 27, 2010.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Initial Determination In Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels (337-TA-655)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
19
On October 16, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination  (“ID”) in Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Certain Processes For Manufacturing Or Relating To Same And Certain Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-655).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Amsted Industries Inc. and the Respondents are Standard Car Truck Co., Inc., Barber Tianrui Railway Supply, LLC, Tianrui Group Company Limited, and Tianrui Group Foundry Company Limited (collectively, “Respondents”).

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Recommended Determination On Remedy And Bonding In Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines (337-TA-641)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
22
On October 21, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version (dated August 21, 2009) of the Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding (“RD”) in Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-641).  In the RD, ALJ Charneski recommended (1) that a limited exclusion order issue; (2) a cease and desist order not issue as to any respondent; and (3) if the Commission issues an exclusion order, the Presidential review period bond should be set at 100% of the entered value of any covered product.

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is General Electric Co. (“GE”) and the Respondents are Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (“MHI”), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc. (“MHIA”), and Mitsubishi Power System, Inc. (“MPSA”) (collectively, “Mitsubishi”).  On August 7, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued the initial determination in this investigation, finding that a violation of Section 337 had occurred in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain variable speed wind turbines and components thereof.  See our August 10 and October 8 posts for more details about the current status of this investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version of Initial Determination In Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines (337-TA-641)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
29
Further to our August 10 post, on October 21, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated August 7, 2009) in Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-641).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is General Electric Co. (“GE”) and the Respondents are Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (“MHI”), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc. (“MHIA”), and Mitsubishi Power System, Inc. (“MPSA”) (collectively, “Mitsubishi”).  On August 7, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued the ID in this investigation finding that a violation of Section 337 had occurred in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain variable speed wind turbines and components thereof.  According to the ID, ALJ Charneski held that Mitsubishi’s turbines infringe claim 121 of the asserted ‘039 patent, and claim 15 of the asserted ‘985 patent.  Additionally, while ALJ Charneski determined that Mitsubishi’s turbines infringe claims 5, 7, and 8 of the asserted ‘221 patent, he also determined that GE did not practice any claim of the asserted ‘221 patent, and therefore did not satisfy the domestic industry (technical prong) requirement for the ‘221 patent.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Determines To Reopen Record In Certain Connecting Devices (337-TA-587)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
09
On November 5, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 16 in Certain Connecting Devices (“Quick Clamps”) For Use With Modular Compressed Air Conditioning Units, Including Filters, Regulators, and Lubricators (“FRL’s”) That Are Part Of Larger Pneumatic Systems and the FRL Units They Connect (Inv. No. 337-TA-587).  Please note that Oblon Spivak represents Respondents SMC Corporation and SMC Corporation of America (“SMC”) in this matter.

In the Order, ALJ Charneski provides that the “parties are directed to confer with the goal of achieving a joint proposal for the dates of expert reports, rebuttal expert reports, expert depositions, and a hearing.  A joint report that details the result of the parties’ conference shall be filed by November 16, 2009.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Sets Remand Procedural Schedule In Certain Connecting Devices (337-TA-587)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
20
On November 18, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 17: Procedural Schedule in Certain Connecting Devices (“Quick Clamps”) For Use With Modular Compressed Air Conditioning Units, Including Filters, Regulators, and Lubricators (“FRL’s”) That Are Part Of Larger Pneumatic Systems and the FRL Units They Connect (Inv. No. 337-TA-587).  Please note that Oblon Spivak represents Respondents SMC Corporation and SMC Corporation of America in this matter.

According to the Order, a one-day evidentiary hearing in this remand proceeding will take place on April 21, 2010.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version of Initial Determination Finding Violation of Section 337 in Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels (337-TA-655)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
04
Further to our October 19 post, on November 20, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated October 16, 2009) in Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Certain Processes For Manufacturing Or Relating To Same And Certain Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-655).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Amsted Industries Inc. (“Amsted”).  The Respondents are Tianrui Group Co. Ltd, Tianrui Group Foundry Co. Ltd, Standard Car Truck Company, Inc., and Barber Tianrui Railway Supply (collectively, “Tianrui”).  On October 16, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued the ID in this investigation finding that a violation of Section 337 “ha[d] occurred in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain cast steel railway wheels or products containing the same by reason of trade secret misappropriation.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Grants Motion To Compel In Certain Digital Televisions Enforcement Proceeding (337-TA-617)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
09
On December 8, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 16 (dated November 19, 2009) granting in part a motion to compel filed by Respondents Vizio, Inc. and AmTran Technology (collectively, “Respondents”) in Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-617).

In support of their motion to compel, Respondents argued that Complainants Funai Electric Co. and Funai Corporation, Inc. (collectively, “Funai”) failed to provide substantive responses to certain interrogatories propounded by Respondents in the instant enforcement proceeding.  According to the Order, the subject interrogatories fell into four categories, and Funai provided insufficient responses relating to two of these categories: (i) interrogatories seeking the basis for Funai’s allegations made in its enforcement complaint that Respondents knowingly submitted false and incomplete information to persuade U.S. Customs to rule that the redesigned products, which are the subject of the enforcement proceeding, are outside the scope of the exclusion order issued by the ITC in the underlying investigation; and (ii) interrogatories seeking the basis for Funai’s allegations in its enforcement complaint that U.S. Customs ignored Commission findings and disregarded the record in making its ruling with respect to the redesigned products.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Initial Determination In Certain Mobile Telephones (337-TA-663)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
21
On December 17, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communications Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-663).

According to the notice, ALJ Charneski held that there was a violation of Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,493,335 (the ‘335 patent) and 6,292,218 (the ‘218 patent).  Specifically, ALJ Charneski determined that “Samsung’s accused products” literally infringe certain claims of the ‘335 and ‘218 patents.  ALJ Charneski also determined that certain claims of the ‘335 and ‘218 patents are not invalid due to anticipation, obviousness, obviousness-type double patenting, or failure to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.  ALJ Charneski further determined that it “has not been shown that the ‘218 patent is unenforceable.”  Lastly, ALJ Charneski determined that the “domestic industry requirement is satisfied with respect to the ‘335 patent and the ‘218 patent.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Denies Motion To Compel Relating To Opinions Of Counsel In Certain Digital Televisions Enforcement Proceeding (337-TA-617)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
11
On January 8, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 19 (dated December 30, 2009) in Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-617) denying Complainants Funai Electric Co., Ltd. and Funai Corporation, Inc.’s (collectively, “Funai”) motion to compel Respondents Vizio, Inc., AmTran Technology Co., Ltd., Suzhou Raken Technology, Ltd., TPV Technology, Ltd., TPV International (USA), Inc., Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co., Ltd., Envision Peripherals, Inc., and Top Victory Investments, Ltd. (collectively, “Respondents”) to produce communications relating to opinions of counsel or alternatively preclusion of such opinions.

In the Order, ALJ Charneski determined that it was unclear from Funai’s motion just what Funai was seeking to compel by way of discovery.  According to the Order, “Funai generally seeks that discovery be compelled with respect to [an opinion letter]” provided to Respondents by opinion counsel” concerning the subject of the new design around DTVs.  In opposition, Respondents asserted that Funai has not identified “a single Request for Production, Interrogatory, or deposition topic as to which the [Respondents refused to permit such discovery]” and that only Funai’s attempted discovery into Respondents’ communication with trial counsel has been blocked.  The Commission Investigative Staff supported Funai’s motion “insofar as it seeks production of any information that has not already been disclosed concerning the opinion letters . . . [but did] not support the motion insofar as it seeks disclosure of communications between the Enforcement Respondents and trial counsel.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Grants Motion To Terminate The Investigation As To LG Respondents In Certain Mobile Telephones (337-TA-663)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
19
On January 14, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 54 in Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communications Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-663).

In the Order, ALJ Charneski granted a December 16, 2009 joint motion filed by Complainant Eastman Kodak Company and Respondents LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc., and LG Electronics MobileComm USA, Inc. to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement between the parties.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Sets Target Date And Procedural Schedule In Certain Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices And Systems (337-TA-694)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
20
Further to our December 14, 2009 post, on January 19, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 5: Procedural Schedule and Order No. 6: Setting Target Date in Certain Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices And Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-694).

In Order No. 5, ALJ Charneski set the procedural schedule for the investigation, including a September 13, 2010 start date for the evidentiary hearing.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Grants Motion To Terminate The Investigation As To Honeywell In Certain Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices And Systems (337-TA-694)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
22
On January 20, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 7 in Certain Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices And Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-694).

In the Order, ALJ Charneski granted a joint motion filed by Complainants Pioneer Corporation and Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. and Respondent Honeywell International Inc. to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement between the parties.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Grants Motion To Terminate The Investigation As To Amistar In Certain Machine Vision Software (337-TA-680)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
22
On January 20, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 24 in Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-680).

In the Order, ALJ Charneski granted a joint motion filed by Complainants Cognex Corporation and Cognex Technology & Investment Corporation and Respondent Amistar Automation, Inc. to terminate the investigation based on a consent order and settlement agreement between the parties.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Remand Determination In Certain Semiconductor Integration Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization (337-TA-648)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
29
On January 29, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Remand Determination (dated January 14, 2010) in Certain Semiconductor Integration Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-648).

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are LSI Corporation and Agere Systems Inc. and the Respondents are Tower Semiconductor, Ltd., Jazz Semiconductor, Qimonda AG, Powerchip Semiconductor Corporation, Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation, Integrated Device Technology, Inc., Spansion, Inc., and Nanya Technology Corporation (collectively, “Respondents”).  On September 21, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued an initial determination (“ID”) finding no violation of Section 337.  In this respect, ALJ Charneski determined that “it was established by clear and convincing evidence that claims 1, 3, and 4 of [U.S. Patent No. 5,227,335 (the ‘335 patent)] are invalid due to anticipation in view of IBM Process A.”  On November 23, 2009, the Commission issued a notice determining to review-in-part the ID finding no violation of Section 337 and determining to remand a portion of the investigation related to obviousness back to ALJ Charneski.  See our November 30, 2009 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Semiconductor Integration Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization (337-TA-648)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
02
On January 29, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Initial Determination (dated September 21, 2009) in Certain Semiconductor Integration Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-648).

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are LSI Corporation and Agere Systems Inc. (collectively, “Complainants”) and the Respondents are Tower Semiconductor, Ltd. (“Tower”), Jazz Semiconductor (“Jazz”), Qimonda AG, Powerchip Semiconductor Corporation (“Powerchip”), Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (“Grace”), Integrated Device Technology, Inc. (“IDT”), Spansion, Inc. (“Spansion”), and Nanya Technology Corporation (“Nanya”) (collectively, “Respondents”).

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Permits Filing Of Supplemental Expert Report In Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-617)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
02
On February 1, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 23 in Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-617) granting Complainants Funai Electric Co., Ltd. and Funai Corporation, Inc.’s (collectively, “Funai”) motion to file a supplemental expert report of V. Michael Bove, Jr.  The Order simultaneously denied a motion by Respondents Vizio, Inc., AmTran Technology Co., Ltd., Suzhou Raken Technology, Ltd., TPV Technology, Ltd., TPV International (USA), Inc., Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co., Ltd., Envision Peripherals, Inc., and Top Victory Investments, Ltd. (collectively, “Respondents”) to strike the supplemental expert report of V. Michael Bove.

Funai argued that its motion to supplement was necessitated by new arguments raised within Respondents’ expert report, which “to Dr. Bove’s surprise,” opined that VCTs that fit into single packets are “hypothetical” or a “remote” likelihood, and that VCTs are not routinely placed at the start of packets.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Recommended Determination On Remedy And Bonding In Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels (337-TA-655)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
10
On March 9, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding (“RD”) (dated October 29, 2009) in Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Certain Processes For Manufacturing Or Relating To Same And Certain Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-655).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Amsted Industries Inc. (“Amsted”).  The Respondents are Tianrui Group Co. Ltd, Tianrui Group Foundry Co. Ltd, Standard Car Truck Company, Inc., and Barber Tianrui Railway Supply (collectively, “Respondents”).  On October 16, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) finding that a violation of Section 337 had occurred in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain cast steel railway wheels or products containing the same by reason of trade secret misappropriation.  See our October 19, 2009 and December 4, 2009 posts for more details.  On December 17, 2009, the Commission issued a notice determining not to review the ID.  See our December 18, 2009 post for more details.  On February 16, 2010, the Commission issued a notice of Issuance Of A Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Order; Termination of the Investigation.  See our February 19, 2010 post for more details.

Share

Read More