ALJ Charneski

ALJ Charneski Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-617)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
01
On May 28, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 33 in Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-617).

In the Order, ALJ Charneski granted a joint motion filed by Complainants Funai Electric Co., Ltd. and Funai Corporation, Inc. and Respondents Vizio, Inc., AmTran Technology Co., Ltd., and Suzhou Raken Technology, Ltd. (the “Vizio Respondents”) to terminate the enforcement proceeding as to the Vizio Respondents based on settlement and licensing agreements.

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
04
On June 3, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 5 in Certain Large Scale Integrated Circuit Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-716).

In the Order, ALJ Charneski set the procedural schedule for the investigation, including a February 17, 2011 start date for the evidentiary hearing.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Appro In Certain Flash Memory (337-TA-685)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
21
On June 18, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 15 in Certain Flash Memory and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-685).

In the Order, ALJ Charneski granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd and Respondent Appro International, Inc. to terminate the investigation based on a consent order stipulation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Flash Memory (337-TA-685)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
02
On July 1, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 16 in Certain Flash Memory and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-685).

In the Order, ALJ Charneski granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd and Respondents Synology Inc. and Synology America Corporation to terminate the investigation based on a consent order stipulation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Sets Target Date And Procedural Schedule In Certain Automotive Vehicles (337-TA-722)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
08
Further to our June 15, 2010 post, on July 2, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 5: Setting Target Date and Order No. 6: Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Automotive Vehicles and Designs Therefore (Inv. No. 337-TA-722).

According to Order No. 5, ALJ Charneski set October 17, 2011, as the target date (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Charneski further indicated that the Initial Determination on violation shall be due June 17, 2011.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Versions of Orders on Evidentiary and Discovery Matters In Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization (337-TA-648)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
09
On July 2, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued public versions of Order Nos. 49, 86, 87, 89, 90, and 109 in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-648).

In Order No. 49 (dated March 5, 2009), ALJ Charneski denied Respondent Tower Semiconductor Ltd.’s (“Tower”) motion to compel Complainants LSI Corp. and Agere Systems, Inc. (“Complainants”) to provide an index to more than 565,000 electronic document images submitted to Tower during discovery.  Tower complained that an index was necessary because the documents were not produced as they were kept in the ordinary course of business and not cross-referenced to document requests propounded by Tower on November 11, 2008.  ALJ Charneski determined that although Complainants produced the documents in October-November 2008, Tower did not move for an index until February 12, 2009.  Additionally, ALJ Charneski determined that Complainants had provided text-searchable files, which was the practice both by Complainant and other Respondents.  Based on the above, ALJ Charneski denied Tower’s motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Rules On Motion To Compel In Certain Electronic Devices Having Image Capture Or Display Functionality (337-TA-672)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
10
On July 2, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 14 (dated October 27, 2009) in Certain Electronic Devices Having Image Capture or Display Functionality and Components Thereof (337-TA-672).  In the Order, ALJ Charneski denied Complainant LG Electronics, Inc.’s (“LGE”) motion to compel certain discovery from Respondent Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”).

LGE’s motion sought an order compelling Kodak to produce (i) technical information “relating to face detection, auto-focusing, and the system architecture of the processors of Kodak’s accused products,” and (ii) a corporate representative to testify regarding certain deposition topics.  In opposition, Kodak argued that it properly complied with LGE’s discovery requests, including “producing more than 1.8 million pages of documents” and “tens of thousands” of pages of responsive third-party documents.  Kodak also argued that the documents sought by LGE were either already produced, or were not the subject of a previous meet and confer.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version of Order Disqualifying Counsel In Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices (337-TA-710)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
13
On July 9, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 10 disqualifying Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, LLP (“AMS”) as counsel for Complainants Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc. (“Apple”) in Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-710).  Respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc. (“Nokia”) filed the motion based on AMS’s representation of Nokia in a previous ITC action.  Apple and the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) opposed.

AMS, along with two other law firms, filed the complaint in the instant investigation (the “710 Investigation”) on behalf of Apple.  Nokia was not named as a Respondent in the 710 Investigation.  Nokia was, however, a Respondent in an earlier Investigation involving Apple (Inv. No. 337-TA-704 – the “704 Investigation”).  AMS voluntarily withdrew as counsel in the 704 Investigation based on its previous representation of  Nokia in the Qualcomm investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-578).  While that withdrawal ended any possible conflict of interest in the 704 investigation, when investigations 704 and 710 were partially consolidated, Nokia became a respondent and the conflict issue arose again.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Initial Determination In Certain Machine Vision Software (337-TA-680)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
16
On July 16, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-680).

According to the notice, ALJ Charneski held that there was no violation of Section 337 in this investigation.  Specifically, ALJ Charneski determined that none of the accused products practiced U.S. Patent Nos. 7,016,539 (the ‘539 patent) and 7,065,262 (the ‘262 patent).  ALJ Charneski also determined that certain claims of the ‘262 patent were invalid as anticipated and that all asserted claims of the ‘262 and ‘539 patents were invalid for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter.  Lastly, ALJ Charneski determined that the “domestic industry requirement is satisfied with respect to the ‘539 patent and the ‘262 patent.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Rules on Motion to Strike In Certain Multimedia Display And Navigation Devices And Systems (337-TA-694)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
10
On July 27, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 32 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 Complainants Pioneer Corporation and Pioneer Electronics USA’s (collectively, “Pioneer”) motion to strike portions of the expert report of Respondents Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin Corporation’s (“Garmin”) expert, Dr. William Michalson.

According to the Order, Pioneer argued that portions of Garmin’s expert report were improper because they relied upon alleged prior art that were not timely identified.  ALJ Charneski granted Pioneer’s motion to strike the sections from the expert report to the extent they relied upon the belatedly filed prior art.  The ALJ agreed that the supplemental prior art notice was filed untimely, and without a proper motion for leave to show good cause.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Remand Initial Determination In Certain Connecting Devices (337-TA-587)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
13
On August 5, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued a notice regarding the Remand Initial Determination (ID) 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 notice, ALJ Charneski determined that “it was not found that any asserted claim of United States Patent No. 5, 372,392 is invalid due to obviousness.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version of Recommended Determination On Remedy And Bonding In Certain Machine Vision Software (337-TA-680)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
16
On August 13, 2010 ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding (“RD”) (dated July 23, 2010) in Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-680).

By way of background, on July 16, 2010, ALJ Charneski determined that there was no violation of Section 337 in this investigation.  More specifically, he determined that none of the accused products practiced U.S. Patent Nos. 7,016,539 (the ‘539 patent) and 7,065,262 (the ‘262 patent), certain claims of the ‘262 patent were invalid as anticipated, and all asserted claims of the ‘262 and ‘539 patents were invalid for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter.  See our July 16, 2010 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Machine Vision Software (337-TA-680)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
26
On August 13, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version (dated July 16, 2010) of the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing the Same (337-TA-680).

By way of background, the Complainants in this matter are Cognex Corporation and Cognex Technology & Investment Corporation (“Cognex”).  The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent No. 7,016,539 (the ‘539 patent) and 7,065,262 (the ‘262 patent).  A number of respondents were terminated from the investigation and the remaining respondents are MVTec Software GmbH and MVTec LLC, Omron Corporation, Resolution Technology, Inc., Visics Corp., Daiichi Jitsugyo Viswill Co., Ltd., and Daiichi Jitsugyo (America), Inc. (collectively, the “Respondents”).

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Remand Initial Determination In Certain Connecting Devices (337-TA-587)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
13
Further to our August 13, 2010 post, on August 25, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Remand Initial Determination (“RID”) (dated August 5, 2010) 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 (collectively, “SMC”) in this matter.

By way of background, on October 6, 2006, Norgren Inc. (“Norgren”) filed a complaint with the ITC against SMC alleging violation of Section 337.  ALJ Charneski issued an initial determination on February 13, 2008 in which he found no violation of Section 337.  Norgren petitioned for review, and the Commission rendered a final decision on April 14, 2008 adopting the ALJ’s initial determination.  Norgren appealed the Commission’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Rules On Motions In Limine In Certain Multimedia Display And Navigation Devices And Systems (337-TA-694)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
14
On September 9 and September 10, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 39, Order No. 40, Order No. 41, Order No. 42, Order No. 43, Order No. 44, Order No. 45, Order No. 46, and Order No. 47 in Certain Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices and Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-694).  In the Orders, ALJ Charneski ruled on four motions in limine filed by Complaints Pioneer Corporation and Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. (collectively, “Pioneer”) and five motions in limine filed by Respondents Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin Corp. (collectively, “Garmin”).

In Order No. 39, ALJ Charneski denied Pioneer’s motion in limine to preclude Garmin’s expert from testifying that the memory structures used to store Point of Interest data in its products do not infringe one of the asserted patents.  Pioneer had argued that the expert’s testimony was based on unreliable hearsay and that Garmin had not sufficiently complied with its discovery obligations regarding the Point of Interest data.  Garmin and the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) opposed the motion, arguing that there was sufficient evidence in the record to provide support for the expert’s expected testimony.  ALJ Charneski found Garmin’s and OUII’s arguments persuasive and denied Pioneer’s motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain GPS Devices (337-TA-602)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
20
On September 17, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 6 setting the procedural schedule in the modification proceeding in Certain GPS Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-602).

By way of background, the Complainants in the underlying investigation were Broadcom Corp. and Global Locate, Inc. (collectively, the “Complainants”).  The Respondents were SiRF Technology, Inc., E-TEN Corp., Pharos Science & Applications, Inc., MiTAC International Corporation, and Mio Technology Limited (collectively, the “Respondents”).  On January 15, 2009, the ITC found a violation of Section 337 by the Respondents and issued a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and several cease and desist orders.  The ITC’s final determination was appealed to the Federal Circuit and the court affirmed the ITC’s findings.  See our April 12, 2010 post for more details.  On April 22, 2010, the Respondents filed a petition seeking modification of the ITC’s LEO and cease and desist orders pursuant to Commission Rule 210.76.  On May 10, 2010, the Complainants also filed a petition seeking modification of the ITC’s remedial orders.  On August 16, 2010, the ITC issued a notice of institution of modification proceedings.  In the notice, the ITC determined that the “Respondents’ petition complies with 19 U.S.C. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(k)(2) and 19 C.F.R. § 210.76(a), but that Complainants’ petition does not.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Sets Target Date In Certain Adjustable-Height Beds (337-TA-734)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
21
Further to our September 13, 2010 post, on September 20, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 4: Setting Target Date in Certain Adjustable-Height Beds and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-734).

In the Order, ALJ Charneski set February 7, 2012 as the target date (which is 17 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Charneski further indicated that the Initial Determination on violation shall be due October 7, 2011.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Adjustable-Height Beds (337-TA-734)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
27
On September 24, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 5: Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Adjustable-Height Beds and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-734).

In the Order, ALJ Charneski set the procedural schedule for the investigation, including a July 18, 2011 start date for the evidentiary hearing.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Revises Procedural Schedule In Certain Collaborative System Products (337-TA-728)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
18
On October 15, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 16: Revising Procedural Schedule in Certain Collaborative System Products and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-728).

In the Order, ALJ Charneski set the revised procedural schedule for the investigation and included a provision for the parties to “exchange proposed constructions for each term that they contend should be construed” and “identify all intrinsic and extrinsic evidence that the party contends supports its proposed construction.”  ALJ Charneski also determined that “[f]or each element that any party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the party should identify the structure corresponding to that element.”

Share

Read More