ALJ Charneski

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Recommended Determination On Remedy And Bonding In Certain Mobile Telephones (337-TA-663)

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 December 23, 2009) in Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communications Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-663).

By way of background, on December 17, 2009, ALJ Charneski determined that there was a violation of Section 337 in connection with the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation, of certain Samsung mobile telephones or wireless communication devices featuring digital cameras, or components thereof, that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,493,335 and 6,292,218.  See our December 21, 2009 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Rules On Motion To Compel In Certain Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices And Systems (337-TA-694)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
11
On March 10, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 13 denying as premature a motion to compel the attendance of Complainants Pioneer Corporation and Pioneer Electronics (USA)’s (collectively, “Pioneer”) Japanese employees to attend their depositions outside of Japan in Certain Multimedia Display Navigation Devices and Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-694).

According to the Order, Article 17 of the United States - Japan Bilateral Consular Convention of 1963 imposes procedural requirements on attorneys who wish to take a deposition in Japan.  One such requirement under Article 17 is that depositions in Japan must be taken either at the United States Embassy in Tokyo or at one of several regional U.S. consular offices.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Denies Motion to Supplement Expert Report in Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-617)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
11
On March 10, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 25 (dated February 18, 2010) in connection with the enforcement proceeding in Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-617).  The Order denied Respondents TPV Technology, Ltd., TPV International (USA), Inc., Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co., Ltd., Envision Peripherals, Inc. (“EPI”), and Top Victory Investments, Ltd.’s (collectively, “TPV”) motion for leave to file a Supplemental Expert Report of Phillip Green (“Green”).

According to the Order, TPV requested that Green’s expert report be supplemented to include information regarding the manner in which EPI is compensated for its role in the distribution of TPV-manufactured products and EPI’s financial circumstances.  The Order noted that Green’s original expert report was served December 23, 2009, but that TPV’s motion to supplement was not filed until January 28, 2010.  In accounting for this gap in time, TPV explained that its motion was prompted by a line of questioning posed by the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) during expert depositions.  In response to those questions, TPV made a supplemental document production, and sought to supplement Green’s expert report.  TPV also argued that, although the hearing in this matter was set to begin March 1, 2010, the Complainants Funai Electric Co., Ltd. and Funai Corporation, Inc. (collectively, “Funai”) would not be prejudiced by entry of the supplemental report.  TPV additionally offered to make Green available for a brief deposition on the subject of the supplemental report.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Order Denying Motion For Summary Determination of No Inequitable Conduct In Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines (337-TA-641)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
11
On March 10, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 32 (dated April 28, 2009) in Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-641) denying a motion for summary determination of no inequitable conduct.

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is General Electric Company (“GE”).  The Respondents are Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, America, Inc., and Mitsubishi Power Systems, Inc. (collectively, “MHI”).

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
12
On March 9, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated December 17, 2009) in Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communications Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-663).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”).  The original Respondents were Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”), LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc., and LG Electronics MobileComm USA, Inc. (collectively, “LGE”).  Prior to the issuance of the ID, LGE was terminated from the investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Sets Target Date in Certain Flash Memory (337-TA-685)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
18
On March 17, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 10: Initial Determination Setting Target Date in Certain Flash Memory and Product Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-685).  In the order, ALJ Charneski noted that the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case Nos. 09-10690 and 09-11480), “by its Order of October 15, 2009, stayed the present ITC investigation against respondents Spansion, Inc., Spansion LLC, and Spansion Japan Limited, as well as against the remaining respondents in this investigation who are Spansion’s customers.”

Pursuant to a further Bankruptcy Court order, and as confirmed by the parties in a conference with ALJ Charneski, the stay of the ITC action would be lifted, and the parties would be able to participate in the investigation no later than April 30, 2010.   “To assist the parties in preparing for the future conduct of the investigation,”  ALJ Charneski issued an initial determination “that the target date for completion of the investigation is June 28, 2011, and thus the initial determination on the question of violation of section 337 is due on February 28, 2011.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Enforcement Initial Determination Finding Violation Of Limited Exclusion Order In Certain Voltage Regulators (337-TA-564)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
19
On March 18, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued a notice regarding his Enforcement Initial Determination (“EID”) in Certain Voltage Regulators, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-564).  In the notice ALJ Charneski found “a violation of the limited exclusion order issued by the Commission on September 24, 2007.”  The notice further stated that the EID recommended “that a cease and desist order issue against the respondent.”

By way of background, the Commission instituted the violation phase of the investigation on March 22, 2006 based on a complaint filed by Linear Technology Corporation (“Linear”) of Milpitas, California, naming Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc. (“AATI”) of Sunnyvale, California as the sole respondent. On September 24, 2007, the Commission issued its Final Determination on the question of violation finding that certain AATI products infringed claims 2, 3, and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,580,258.  The Commission also issued a limited exclusion order directed toward AATI.  Linear thereafter filed a complaint requesting that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding against AATI for alleged violation of the limited exclusion order.  On October 1, 2008, the Commission issued its Notice of Institution of Formal Enforcement Proceeding against AATI “to determine whether AATI is in violation of the Commission’s limited exclusion order issued in the investigation, and what, if any, enforcement measures are appropriate.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Flash Memory (337-TA-685)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
29
On March 23, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 11 in Certain Flash Memory and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-685).

In the Order, ALJ Charneski sets the procedural schedule for the investigation, including a December 6, 2010 start date for the evidentiary hearing.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Enforcement Initial Determination In Certain Voltage Regulators (337-TA-564)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
02
Further to our March 19, 2010 post, on March 31, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Enforcement Initial Determination (“EID”) (dated March 18, 2010) in Certain Voltage Regulators, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-564).  In the EID, ALJ Charneski found that a violation had occurred of the ITC’s limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and recommended that a cease-and-desist order issue against Respondent Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc. (“AATI”).

By way of background, the ITC issued its Final Determination on September 24, 2007 finding that a representative AATI voltage regulator infringed claims 2, 3 and 34 of Complainant Linear Technology Corporation’s (“Linear”) U.S. Patent No. 6,580,258 (the ‘258 patent).  The ITC issued an LEO directed to AATI with respect to voltage regulators covered by the asserted claims.  Linear thereafter filed a complaint requesting that the ITC institute a formal enforcement proceeding against AATI for alleged violation of the LEO.  On October 1, 2008, the ITC issued a Notice of Institution of Formal Enforcement Proceeding.  A tutorial was held in the enforcement proceeding on January 5 and an evidentiary hearing was held on January 11-13, 2010.

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
08
On April 6, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 44 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 Respondents Fuji Machine Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Fuji America Corporation to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement between the parties.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Rules On Motion To Compel In Certain Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices And Systems (337-TA-694)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
12
On April 9, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 21 denying a motion to compel filed by Respondents Garmin Corporation and Garmin International, Inc. (collectively, "Garmin") against Complainants Pioneer Corporation and Pioneer Electronics (USA) (collectively, “Pioneer”) in Certain Multimedia Display Navigation Devices and Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-694).

According to the Order, Garmin sought to compel the production of documents that included, “at a minimum, documents relating to Pioneer's navigation products that have been offered for sale or sold since 1994.”  Garmin argued “that the requested documents directly bear upon ‘potential claims of obviousness or non-obviousness under § 103’ and ‘enablement and the potential range of equivalents under § 112, ¶6.’”  Both Pioneer and the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) opposed Garmin’s motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Rules On Motion To Compel In Certain Machine Vision Software (337-TA-680)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
15
On April 14, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 54 in Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-680).

In the Order, ALJ Charneski denied a motion filed by Respondent MVTec Software GmbH (“MVTec”) to compel production of documents concerning a former product made by Complainants Cognex Corporation and Cognex Technology & Investment Corporation (“Cognex”) known as “CNLPAS” or “CONLPAS” that MVTec believed to invalidate claims of the asserted ‘262 patent.  The ALJ considered the “three brief paragraphs” offered by MVTec in its supporting memorandum explaining why it believed it was entitled to the subject documents and determined that there was an insufficient basis upon which to order the requested discovery.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Grants Motion for Summary Determination On The Economic Prong Of The Domestic Industry Requirement in Certain Machine Vision Software (337-TA-680)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
20
On April 15, 2010 ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 41 (dated March 31, 2010), in Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-680).

In the Order, ALJ Charneski granted a motion filed by complainants Cognex Corporation and Cognex Technology & Investment Corporation (collectively, “Cognex”) for summary determination on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.  Cognex argued that it satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with regard to its PatMax and PatQuick software tools (“the asserted products”) as they relate to the asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 7,016,539 and 7,065,262 (the “patents at issue”).  According to the Order, the Respondents did not oppose the motion and the Commission Investigative Staff supported the motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Sets Target Date And Procedural Schedule In Certain Personal Data And Mobile Communications Devices (337-TA-710)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
21
Further to our April 1, 2010 and April 2, 2010 posts, on April 19, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 6, setting an 18 month target date in Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-710).  The order noted that the parties must be provided “an opportunity to address the ten patents and over 80 claims at issue in the investigation.”  According to the Order, the initial determination shall be due on June 6, 2011, and the target date for completion of this investigation is October 6, 2011.

Additionally, on April 20, 2010, ALJ Charneski issued Order No. 7, setting the procedural schedule for the investigation, including a March 7, 2011 start date for the evidentiary hearing.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Rules On Motion For Summary Determination Of Invalidity In Certain Machine Vision Software (337-TA-680)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
07
On May 3, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 63 in Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-680).  In the Order, ALJ Charneski denied Respondent MVTec Software GmbH’s (“MVTec”) motion for summary determination that all of the asserted claims of Complainants Cognex Corporation and Cognex Technology & Investment Corporation’s (collectively, “Cognex”) U.S. Patent No. 7,016,539 (the ‘539 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 7,065,262 (the ‘262 patent) are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter.

According to the Order, MVTec argued that all of the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in view of the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), where the court held that the test for whether subject matter is patentable under § 101 is the “machine-or-transformation” test, namely:  “A claimed process is surely patent eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.”  Id. at 954.  According to MVTec, the asserted claims of the ‘539 and ‘262 patents satisfy neither of the Bilski prongs and are therefore invalid.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Rules On Motion for Summary Determination Of Non-Infringement In Certain Machine Vision Software (337-TA-680)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
11
On May 10, 2010 ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 51 (dated April 13, 2010), in Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-680).  In the Order, ALJ Charneski denied a motion filed by Respondent MVTec Software GmbH (“MVTec”) for summary determination of non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,016,539 (the ‘539 patent) and 7,065,262 (the ‘262 patent).

MVTec argued that its Halcon software does not infringe the ‘262 patent because “there is no dispute that the accused product, the ‘shape-based matching’ portion of MVTec’s Halcon software, does not use a model with any of a field dipole list, a field, and a set of operating parameters,” and because the Halcon software “uses the exact opposite of the claimed ‘pose,’ mapping from the model to the image, instead of from the image to the model.”  MVTec argued that its software does not infringe the ‘539 patent because “Halcon stops evaluating the model points at a given pose when it becomes clear that the pose will not yield a match,” and because Halcon “computes partial match scores for poses that may yield a match, ranks the scores, and then returns a predetermined number of the highest scores, not all scores that exceed a threshold.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Rules On Motion for Summary Determination Regarding Importation In Certain Machine Vision Software (337-TA-680)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
11
On May 10, 2010 ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 60 (dated April 28, 2010), in Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-680).  In the Order, ALJ Charneski granted-in-part Complainants Cognex Corporation and Cognex Technology & Investment Corporation’s (“Cognex”) motion for summary determination that Respondents MVTec Software GmbH, MVTec LLC, Omron Corporation, Resolution Technology, Inc., Subtechnique, Inc., Visics Corporation, Daiichi Jitsugyo Viswill Co., Ltd. and Daiichi Jitsugyo (America) have imported into the U.S., sold for importation into the U.S., and/or sold within the U.S. after importation certain machine vision software, machine vision systems, and products containing same that are the subject of this investigation.

According to the Order, Respondents MVTec Software GmbH, MVTec LLC, Omron Corporation, Daiichi Jitsugyo Viswill Co., Ltd. and Daiichi Jitsugyo (America) submitted no opposition and thus Cognex’s motion was granted as to these named respondents.  Respondents Resolution Technology, Inc., Subtechnique, Inc., and Visics Corporation (the “RSV Respondents”) opposed Cognex’s motion arguing that “they engage in exclusively domestic activities with exclusively domestic entities.”  ALJ Charneski denied Cognex’s motion as to the RSV Respondents determining that general issues of material fact exist and “the record will be greatly enhanced by the development of these facts at the hearing.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Sets Target Date In Certain Large Scale Integrated Circuit Semiconductor Chips (337-TA-716)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
25
Further to our April 30, 2010 post, on May 20, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 4: Setting Target Date in Certain Large Scale Integrated Circuit Semiconductor Ships and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-716).

According to the Order, ALJ Charneski set August 5, 2011, as the target date (which is 15 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Charneski further indicated that the Initial Determination on violation shall be due April 5, 2011.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Grants Motion to Terminate Investigation As To Subtechnique, Inc. In Certain Machine Vision Software (337-TA-680)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
25
On May 24, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 65 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 Subtechnique, Inc. to terminate the investigation as to Subtechnique, Inc. based on a consent order.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Denies Motion To Preclude Expert Testimony In Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-617)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
27
On May 24, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 21 (dated January 21, 2010) in connection with the enforcement proceeding in Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-617).  The Order denied Complainants Funai Electric Co., Ltd. and Funai Corporation, Inc.’s (collectively, “Funai”) motion to preclude Respondents Suzhou Raken Technology Ltd. (“Raken”) and Top Victory Investments, Ltd. (“TVI”) from offering expert testimony regarding the validity of the patent-in-suit.

In support of its motion, Funai argued that Raken and TVI should be precluded under the law of the case doctrine and the doctrine of claim preclusion from offering expert testimony.  In that regard, Funai asserted that the issue of validity of the patent-in-suit “was already definitively litigated in the original investigation and the Commission confirmed the validity of the [patent-in-suit].”  In opposition to the motion, Raken asserted that it was not a party to the underlying infringement proceeding and thus, had a right to challenge the validity of the patent-in-suit.  The Commission Investigative Staff filed an opposition to the motion.  TVI did not file a response.

Share

Read More