ALJ Orders

ALJ Gildea Sets Target Date In Certain Video Displays (337-TA-687)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
21
Further to our September 14 and September 17 posts, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 1: Protective Order; and Order No. 2: Notice of Ground Rules and Setting Target Date and Date for Submission of Proposed Procedural Schedule in Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-687).

In Order No. 2, ALJ Gildea set January 18, 2011 as the target date for completion of the investigation (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  Also, any final initial determination is due to be issued no later than September 18, 2010.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Target Date In Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers (337-TA-686)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
21
On September 18, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 7: Setting Target Date in Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (Inv. No. 337-TA-686).

According to the Order, the Initial Determination will be due on August 9, 2010, and the target date for completion of this investigation is December 7, 2010 (which is 15 months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination Finding No Violation In Certain 3G Mobile Handsets (337-TA-613)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
23
Further to our August 17 post, on September 17, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the heavily redacted public version of his 245 page August 14, 2009 Final Initial and Recommended Determinations (“ID”) in Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components (Inv. No. 337-TA-613).

By way of background, InterDigital Communications, LLC and InterDigital Technology Corp. (“InterDigital”) filed a complaint against Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corp. (“Nokia”) in August 2007 alleging that importation, sale for importation, and sale within the U.S. after importation of certain 3G mobile handsets and components infringed InterDigital’s ‘004, ‘966, ‘847 and ‘579 patents.  According to the ID, ALJ Luckern found no violation of Section 337, determined that the asserted claims are not invalid and not infringed, and also determined that a domestic industry exists with respect to the patents-in-suit.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Enforcement Initial Determination Finding No Violation Of Consent Order In Certain R-134a Coolant (337-TA-623)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
24
On September 21, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued a notice regarding his Enforcement Initial Determination (“EID”) in Certain R-134a Coolant (Otherwise Known as 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane) (Inv. No. 337-TA-623).  In the notice, ALJ Luckern determined that the enforcement respondent Sinochem Environmental Protection Chemicals (Taicang) Co., Ltd. (“Sinochem”) did not violate the Consent Order issued by the Commission on September 11, 2008.

By way of background, INEOS Fluor Holdings Ltd., INEOS Fluor Ltd. and INEOS Fluor Americas LLC (collectively, “INEOS”) filed a complaint in December 2007 alleging violations of Section 337 by several respondents including Sinochem in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain R-134a coolant (otherwise known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane) by reason of infringement of certain patents, including U.S. Patent No. 5,559,276.  See our April 6 post for more details.  On August 15, 2008, the Sinochem respondents moved for partial termination of the investigation based on the entry of a consent order specific to their “old” process for manufacture of R-134a coolant.  On August 20, 2008, the ALJ issued an initial determination (“ID”) granting the motion and terminating the investigation with respect to the “old” process.  The Commission determined not to review the ALJ’s ID and issued a Consent Order on September 11, 2008.  On December 12, 2008, INEOS filed a complaint, requesting that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding to investigate an alleged violation of the Consent Order relating to the “old” process.  On February 18, 2009, the Commission issued a notice instituting a formal enforcement proceeding.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Public Version of Initial Determination Finding No Violation In Certain Semiconductor Chips (337-TA-630)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
01
Further to our September 1 post, on September 24, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of his Final Initial and Recommended Determinations (“ID”) in Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-630).  The Complainant in this investigation is Tessera, Inc. (“Tessera”) and the Respondents are Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation, Elpida Memory, Inc., Elpida Memory (USA) Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, Nanya Technology Corporation, Nanya Technology Corporation U.S.A., Powerchip Semiconductor Corporation, ProMOS Technologies, Inc., Ramaxel Technology, Ltd., Centon Electronics, Inc., SMART Modular Technologies, Inc., TwinMOS Technologies, Inc., and TwinMOS Technologies USA Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”).

In the 185-page ID, ALJ Essex determined that no violation of Section 337 had occurred in connection with the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, or the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain semiconductor chips with minimized chip package size and products containing same in connection with certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106 (the ‘106 patent), U.S. Patent No. 5,679,977 (the ‘977 patent), and U.S. Patent No. 6,133,627 (the ‘627 patent).  Further, ALJ Essex determined that a domestic industry exists that practices the patents-in-suit.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Three Motions in Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits (337-TA-666)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
02
On September 30, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 29 in Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-666).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied: (1) respondents Asustek Computer, Inc.’s, Asus Computer International’s, and Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.’s (collectively, “Respondents”) motion to strike the rebuttal expert report of complainants O2 Micro International Ltd.’s and O2 Micro Inc.’s  (collectively, “O2 Micro”) expert witness and prevent him from testifying at the evidentiary hearing about the contents of his report; (2) O2 Micro’s motion to strike the expert report of Respondents’ expert witness and prevent him from testifying at the evidentiary hearing about the contents of his report; and (3) O2 Micro’s motion for summary determination as to the invention date of one of the asserted patents in the investigation and to strike any portions of any expert reports that challenge that invention date.

As to the first motion, Respondents argued that O2 Micro’s expert report should be stricken because O2 Micro had failed to disclose its expert at the time set forth in the Ground Rules.  O2 Micro responded that its expert report was a timely opposition to an expert report submitted by Respondents’ expert.  According to O2 Micro, Respondents’ expert report contained unanticipated arguments and therefore O2 Micro could not have disclosed its rebuttal expert at the time set forth in the Ground Rules.  O2 Micro argued that it promptly disclosed its expert as soon as it was aware that his testimony would be needed to refute the unanticipated arguments in Respondents’ expert report.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“the Staff”) agreed with O2 Micro that Respondents’ expert report covered “unexpectedly raised” topics that merited a rebuttal expert report, and therefore opposed Respondents’ motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Rules On Motion To Quash Subpoena In Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems (337-TA-670)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
05
On September 29, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 18 quashing a subpoena served by Respondents CompX International, Inc. and Waterloo Furniture Corporation Ltd. (collectively, “CompX”) on Complainant Humanscale Corp.’s (“Humanscale”) attorneys, Alston & Byrd LLP (“A&B”), in Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-670).

In support of its motion to quash, A&B argued that (1) when A&B ceased to represent Humanscale in 2007, A&B returned to Humanscale all documents that were not work product or confidential; (2) CompX’s subpoena seeks documents already obtained from Humanscale; (3) the requested documents are not relevant to this investigation; (4) compliance with CompX’s subpoena would pose undue burden on A&B; and (5) the burden of reviewing and logging the requested documents outweighs any alleged need for the documents.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion To Compel In Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits (337-TA-666)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
05
On September 30, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 28 (dated September 16, 2009) in Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-666).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied a motion to compel filed by Complainants O2 Micro International Ltd. and O2 Micro Inc.  (collectively, “O2 Micro”) seeking sales and/or importation data stored in the electronic systems of Respondents Asustek Computer, Inc. and Asus Computer International (collectively, “ASUS”).

In support of its motion, O2 Micro argued that (1) ASUS did not provide an export of sales and/or importation data that is stored on ASUS’s electronic systems, including order management systems referred to as “TipTop”; (2) ASUS provided only a partial list of the fields of the data stored on ASUS’s electronic systems, rather than a full identification of the fields of data; and (3) ASUS did not supplement its document productions to include recent sales or importation data.  In response, ASUS argued that (1) ASUS complied with its discovery obligations and responded to all of O2 Micro’s discovery requests, including its production of “over three million pages of documents (as well as nearly one million additional pages from a subsidiary)”; (2) none of O2 Micro’s discovery requests sought the “export” of sales and importation data; and (3) “O2 Micro possesses current sales data through June 30, 2009 and ‘a complete set of sales data for the time period of August 26, 2008, through June 30, 2009.’”

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Target Date In Certain MLC Flash Memory Devices (337-TA-683)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
07
Further to our August 25 and September 1 posts, on October 6, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 5: Setting Target Date and Date for Submission of Proposed Procedural Schedules in Certain MLC Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-683).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex set November 30, 2010 as the target date (which is approximately 15 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Essex further indicated that any final initial determination on violation should be filed no later than July 30, 2010.  In addition, ALJ Essex noted that the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on March 22, 2010.

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 Luckern Issues Public Version of Enforcement Initial Determination In Certain R-134a Coolant (337-TA-623)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
09
Further to our September 24 post, on October 7, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of the Enforcement Initial Determination (“EID”) in Certain R-134a Coolant (Otherwise Known as 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane) (Inv. No. 337-TA-623).  In the EID, ALJ Luckern determined that enforcement Respondent Sinochem Environmental Protection Chemicals (Taicang) Co., Ltd. (“Sinochem”) did not violate the Consent Order issued by the Commission on September 11, 2008.  ALJ Luckern also determined that no enforcement measures are appropriate should the Commission find a violation of the Consent Order.

By way of background, INEOS Fluor Holdings Ltd., INEOS Fluor Ltd. and INEOS Fluor Americas LLC (collectively, “INEOS”) filed a complaint in December 2007 alleging violations of Section 337 by several respondents including Sinochem in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain R-134a coolant (otherwise known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane) by reason of infringement of certain patents, including U.S. Patent No. 5,559,276.  See our April 6 post for more details.  On August 15, 2008, the Sinochem respondents moved for partial termination of the investigation based on the entry of a Consent Order specific to their “old” process for manufacture of R-134a coolant.  On August 20, 2008, the ALJ issued an initial determination (“ID”) granting the motion and terminating the investigation with respect to the “old” process.  The Commission determined not to review the ALJ’s ID and issued a Consent Order on September 11, 2008.  On December 12, 2008, INEOS filed a complaint, requesting that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding to investigate an alleged violation of the Consent Order relating to the “old” process.  On February 18, 2009, the Commission issued a notice instituting a formal enforcement proceeding.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Suspends Procedural Schedule In Certain Collaborative System Products (337-TA-682)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
15
Further to our September 14 post, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 6:  Suspension of Procedural Schedule in Certain Collaborative System Products and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-682).

According to the Order, the procedural schedule has been suspended in view of the fact that the Complainant eInstruction Corporation and Respondent Qomo HiteVision, LLC “have reached a tentative settlement.”  Additionally, ALJ Gildea orders the parties to report back to the ALJ no later than October 30, 2009 regarding their settlement status.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Initial Determination In Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors (337-TA-650)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
15
On October 13, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued a notice regarding the Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) in Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-650).

The Complainant in this investigation is John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC, Inc. (“PPC”) and the Respondents are Fu Ching Technical Industry Co. Ltd. and Gem Electronics, Inc. (“Respondents”).

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Issues Initial Determination In Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits (337-TA-665)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
19
On October 14, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination On Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-665).

The Complainant in this investigation is Qimonda AG (“Qimonda”) and the Respondents are LSI Corporation, Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Memory Products (US) Corporation, Seagate Technologies International (Singapore), and Seagate (US) LLC (collectively “Respondents”).

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Grants Motion To Strike Supplemental Expert Report In Certain Electronic Devices (337-TA-667/673)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
19
On October 13, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 34C (dated August 28, 2009) in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-667/673).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted a motion to strike the supplemental expert report of Complainant Saxon Innovations, LLC’s (“Saxon”) expert witness filed by Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLP (collectively, “Samsung”).

In support of the motion to strike, Samsung argued that Saxon’s supplemental expert report was untimely because the deadline for initial expert reports was July 24, 2009, but Saxon’s supplemental report had been filed on August 17, 2009.  Further, Samsung argued that since the supplemental expert report relied on documents and information that had already been available to Saxon before the July 24, 2009 deadline, there was no issue of later-acquired information that might have justified a supplemental expert report under Commission Rule 210.27(c).

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 Essex Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain MLC Flash Memory Devices (337-TA-683)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
19
On October 15, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 7: Setting Procedural Schedules in Certain MLC Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-683).

In the Order, ALJ Essex set the procedural schedule for the investigation.  He included a provision for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions, and scheduled the evidentiary hearing to begin on March 22, 2010.

Share

Read More