ALJ Essex

ALJ Essex Issues Initial Determination Finding Violation Of Section 337 In Certain Semiconductor Chips (337-TA-661)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
25
On January 22, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-661).

The Complainant in this investigation is Rambus Inc. and the Respondents are NVIDIA Corp.; Asustek Computer Inc.; ASUS Computer International, Inc.; BFG Technologies, Inc.; Biostar Microtech (U.S.A.) Corp.; Biostar Microtech International Corp.; Diablotek Inc.; EVGA Corp.; G.B.T. Inc.; Giga-byte Technology Co., Ltd.; Hewlett-Packard Co.; MSI Computer Corp.; Micro-star International Co., Ltd.; Palit Multimedia Inc.; Palit Microsystems Ltd.; Pine Technology Holdings, Ltd.; and Sparkle Computer Co., Ltd.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Target Date In Certain Authentication Systems (337-TA-697)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
16
Further to our December 30, 2009 and December 31, 2009 posts, on February 12, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 3: Setting Target Date and Date for Submission of Proposed Procedural Schedules in Certain Authentication Systems, Including Software and Handheld Electronic Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-697).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex set April 5, 2011 as the target date (which is 15 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Essex further indicated that any final initial determination on violation should be filed no later than December 3, 2010.  In addition, ALJ Essex noted that the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on August 30, 2010.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Authentication Systems (337-TA-697)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
04
On March 1, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 4: Setting The Procedural Schedule in Certain Authentication Systems, Including Software and Handheld Electronic Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-697).

According to the Order, the parties submitted a joint proposed procedural schedule on February 26, 2010 agreeing on almost all dates “except as to whether the ALJ should hold a Markman hearing.”  Specifically, Respondents Research In Motion, Ltd. and Research In Motion Corp. argued in favor of a Markman hearing and Complainant Prism Technologies LLC and the Commission Investigative Staff argued that such a hearing was not necessary.  In the Order, ALJ Essex determined that “it is not necessary to hold a Markman hearing” since the investigation involves “a single patent and specification.”  ALJ Essex further determined that “the parties can adequately address claim construction issues in their pre-hearing and post-hearing briefs and at the evidentiary hearing.”  ALJ Essex did find, however, that a technology tutorial would be beneficial and scheduled the tutorial for June 3, 2010.  Although the procedural schedule set by ALJ Essex did not include a Markman hearing, it does include provisions for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions, and further provides that the evidentiary hearing in this investigation will begin on August 30, 2010.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Initial Determination Finding Violation Of Section 337 In Certain Optoelectronic Devices (337-TA-669)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
16
On March 12, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Optoelectronic Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-669).

The Complainants in this investigation are Avago Technologies Fiber IP Pte. Ltd., Avago Technologies General IP Pte. Ltd., and Avago Technologies Ltd.  The sole Respondent is Emcore Corporation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Denies Motion For Summary Determination On Domestic Industry In Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles (337-TA-688)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
29
On March 23, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 5 (dated February 26, 2010) in Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-688).  In the Order, ALJ Essex denied Complainant Paice LLC’s (“Paice”) motion for summary determination that it has satisfied the domestic industry requirement with respect to the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 (the ‘970 patent).

In its motion, Paice argued that it had made substantial investments in research and development related to the ‘970 patent through compensation of outside vendors, compensation of employees and consultants, and investments relating to the development of a relationship with an unidentified entity whose name had been redacted from the public version of the Order.  Additionally, Paice argued that it had made substantial investments relating to licensing through negotiations with third parties, litigation with Toyota, and patent prosecution.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Summary Determination In Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles (337-TA-688)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
29
On March 23, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 6 (dated March 3, 2010) granting Complainant Paice LLC’s (“Paice”) motion for summary determination on infringement, validity and enforceability, and denying Respondents Toyota Motor Corp., Toyota Motor North America, and Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.’s (collectively, “Toyota”) cross motion for summary determination terminating the investigation for claim preclusion in Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-688).

At issue is whether claim preclusion and/or issue preclusion apply in this investigation in light of the district court’s ruling in Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. et al., C.A No. 2:04-cv-211-DF (“Paice I”).

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Optoelectronic Devices (337-TA-669)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
01
Further to our March 16, 2010 post, on March 29, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of the Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) in Certain Optoelectronic Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-669).

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are Avago Technologies Fiber IP Pte. Ltd., Avago Technologies General IP Pte. Ltd., and Avago Technologies Ltd. (collectively “Avago”).  The sole Respondent is Emcore Corporation (“Emcore”).  In the ID, ALJ Essex determined that a violation of Section 337 occurred in connection with the importation into the U.S., sale for importation, or sale within the U.S. after importation of certain optoelectronic devices, components thereof, and products containing same because of infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,359,447 (the ‘447 patent).  However, ALJ Essex found no violation of Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent No. 5,761,229 (the ‘229 patent) and claim 6 of the ‘447 patent.  ALJ Essex determined that the asserted claims of the ‘447 patent are valid and enforceable.   ALJ Essex further determined that a domestic industry existed with respect to the ‘447 patent, but not with respect to the ‘229 patent since the technical prong for the ‘229 patent had not been satisfied.  He also found that Emcore did not have an implied license to practice the claims of the ‘447 patent.  Regarding the ‘229 patent, ALJ Essex determined that the asserted claim was valid, but not infringed.

Share

Read More

Update Regarding Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles (337-TA-688)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
26
Further to our April 6, 2010 post, on April 23, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 10: Amending the Procedural Schedule in Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-688).

In the Order, ALJ Essex set the procedural schedule for the investigation, including a July 19, 2010 start date for the evidentiary hearing in this investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Target Date In Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (337-TA-707)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
29
Further to our March 23, 2010 post, on April 28, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 5:  Setting Target Date and Date for Submission of Proposed Procedural Schedules in Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors and Products Containing Same, Including Memory Modules (Inv. No. 337-TA-707).  Please note that Oblon Spivak represents Respondents Buffalo, Inc. and Buffalo Technology (USA), Inc. in this matter.

According to the Order, ALJ Essex set July 25, 2011 as the target date (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Essex further indicated that any final initial determination on violation should be filed no later than March 25, 2011.  In addition, ALJ Essex noted that the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on December 14, 2010.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination in Certain Semiconductor Chips (337-TA-661)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
04
On April 26, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of his 132 page Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated January 22, 2010) in Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-661).

Complainant Rambus, Inc. (“Rambus”) accused Respondents NVIDIA Corporation, Asustek Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer International, Inc., BFG Technologies, Inc., Biostar Microtech (USA) Corp., Biostar Microtech International Corp., Diablotek Inc., EVGA Corp., G.B.T. Inc., Giga-byte Technology Co., Ltd., Hewlett-Packard Co., MSI Computer Corp., Micro-star International Co., Ltd., Palit Multimedia Inc., Palit Microsystems Ltd., Pine Technology Holdings, Ltd., and Sparkle Computer Co. (collectively, “Respondents”) of infringing five patents directed towards memory devices and associated memory controllers used, for example, in personal computers, game systems and mobile phones.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motion to Terminate Investigation With Respect To Buffalo In Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (337-TA-707)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
07
On May 6, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 6: Initial Determination Granting Unilateral Motion to Terminate Investigation as to Respondents Buffalo, Inc. and Buffalo Technology (USA) Inc. (collectively “Buffalo”) Based on Consent Order in Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors and Products Containing Same, Including Memory Modules (Inv. No. 337-TA-707).  Please note that Oblon Spivak represents Buffalo in this matter.

According to the Order, Complainants Infineon Technologies AG and Infineon Technologies North America Corp. did not oppose the motion.  The Commission Investigative Staff filed a response on May 5, 2010, supporting Buffalo’s motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motion To Terminate The Investigation As To SmartOne In Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies (337-TA-691)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
18
On May 14, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 14 in Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-691).

In the Order, ALJ Essex granted a motion filed by Complainant Hewlett-Packard Company to terminate the investigation as to Respondent SmartOne Services LLC d/b/a InkForSale.net on the basis of a settlement agreement between the parties.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets The Procedural Schedule In Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (337-TA-707)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
21
On May 20, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 8:  Setting The Procedural Schedule in Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors and Products Containing Same, Including Memory Modules (Inv. No. 337-TA-707).

In the Order, ALJ Essex set the procedural schedule for the investigation, including a December 14, 2010 start date for the evidentiary hearing.

Share

Read More

ITC Institutes Investigation (337-TA-719) Regarding Certain Lighting Products

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
28
On May 26, 2010, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued a press releaseannouncing that it voted to institute an investigation of Certain Lighting Products (Inv. No. 337-TA-719).

The investigation is based on a May 3, 2010 complaint and a May 24, 2010 letter supplementing the complaint filed by Blumberg Industries, Inc. d/b/a Fine Art Lamps of Miami Lakes, Florida, alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of decorative lighting fixtures that allegedly infringe U.S. Patent No. D570,038, U.S. Copyright Registration Nos. VA 1-399-618 and VA 1-415-353, and U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 3,703,710, 3,703,711, 3,700,479, and 3,700,480.  See our May 6, 2010 postfor more details.

Share

Read More