ALJ Orders

ALJ Luckern Sets Target Date And Procedural Schedule For Enforcement Proceeding In Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices (337-TA-631)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
30
Further to our December 15 and 16 posts, on December 29, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 27 in Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-631).

According to the Order, ALJ Luckern set November 18, 2010 as the target date (which is 11 months after institution of the formal enforcement proceeding).  ALJ Luckern further indicated that any enforcement initial determination on violation should be filed no later than July 19, 2010.  In addition, in connection with the procedural schedule, ALJ Luckern noted that the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on April 7, 2010.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion To Preclude Respondents From Relying On Prior Art In Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers (337-TA-686)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
31
On December 28, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 25 in Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (Inv. No. 337-TA-686).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Complainants The Lincoln Electric Company and Lincoln Global, Inc.’s (collectively, “Lincoln”) motion to preclude Respondents Kiswel Co., Ltd. (“Kiswel”), Atlantic China Welding Consumables, Inc. (“Atlantic”), The ESAB Group, Inc. (“ESAB”), and Sidergas SpA (“Sidergas”) from relying on prior art not specified in their prior art notices.

While Kiswel and Atlantic were included in the motion, Lincoln’s argument in its accompanying memorandum focused solely on ESAB and Sidergas.  Specifically, Lincoln argued that the prior art notices filed by ESAB and Sidergas were deficient under the Ground Rules for the investigation because they did not include sufficient detail about alleged invalidating prior use of the claimed invention by ESAB and Sidergas.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Procedural Schedule And Target Date In Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-695)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
04
On December 30, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 5:  Setting Procedural Schedule and Order No. 6:  Setting Target Date in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-695).

In Order No. 5, ALJ Rogers sets the procedural schedule for the investigation (Exhibit A) and includes provisions for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions.  The procedural schedule also indicates that the evidentiary hearing in this investigation will commence on July 7, 2010.  Order No. 5 also includes a procedural schedule in connection with Complainant Knowles Electronics LLC’s (“Knowles”) motion for temporary relief (Exhibit B).  According to Exhibit B, the hearing regarding Knowles’ motion for temporary relief will commence on February 17, 2010.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Ceramic Capacitors (337-TA-692)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
04
On January 4, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 4:  Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-692).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea sets the procedural schedule for the investigation and includes provisions for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions and also includes a deadline for proposals requesting a Markman hearing.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Target Date In Certain Restraining Systems For Transport Containers (337-TA-696)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
04
On January 4, 2010, 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 Restraining Systems For Transport Containers, Components Thereof, and Methods of Using Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-696).

In Order No. 2, ALJ Gildea set April 29, 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 in the investigation no later than December 29, 2010.

Share

Read More

ITC Grants Joint Motion To Terminate Investigation Based On Settlement Agreement In Certain Automotive Multimedia Display And Navigation Systems (337-TA-657)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
06
On January 4, 2010, the International Trade Commission issued a notice determining to grant a joint motion to terminate the investigation in Certain Automotive Multimedia Display and Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-657).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Honeywell International, Inc. (“Honeywell”).  The original Respondents were Alpine Electronics, Inc.; Alpine Electronics of America, Inc.; Denso Corporation; Denso International America, Inc.; Pioneer Corp.; Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc.; Kenwood Corp.; and Kenwood USA Corp.  However, all of the Respondents other than Pioneer Corp. and Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. (collectively, “Pioneer”) were terminated from the investigation before ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the initial determination (“ID”) on September 22, 2009 finding no violation of Section 337.  See our November 4 post for more details.  On November 23, 2009, the Commission decided to review the ID in part.  See our November 25 post for more details.  On December 22, 2009, Honeywell and Pioneer filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.  On December 24, 2009, the Commission Investigative Staff filed a response that recommended that the Commission grant the motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion to Preclude Respondents From Relying On Prior Art Not Produced In Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers (337-TA-686)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
06
On January 4, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 26 in Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (Inv. No. 337-TA-686).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Complainants The Lincoln Electric Company and Lincoln Global, Inc.’s (collectively, “Lincoln”) motion to preclude Respondents The ESAB Group, Inc. (“ESAB”), and Sidergas SpA (“Sidergas”) (collectively, “Respondents”) from relying on any prior art that has not been produced, or alternatively, to compel Respondents to produce prior art.

In support of the motion, Lincoln asserted that Respondents “failed to timely produce all relevant documents related to the prior art that [Respondents] seek to rely on in this investigation.”  In particular, Lincoln noted that Sidergas failed to make its prior art bulk welding wire containers, that are available for inspection in Italy, also available for inspection in Washington, D.C., and that ESAB failed to timely provide discovery responses on December 7, 2009.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Terminate The Investigation In Certain Articulated Coordinate Measuring Arms (337-TA-684)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
07
On January 5, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 10 in Certain Articulated Coordinate Measuring Arms and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-684).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainants Hexagon Metrology AB and Hexagon Metrology, Inc. and Respondents Nikon Metrology N.V., Metris U.S.A., Inc., Mitutoyo Corporation, and Mitutoyo America Corporation to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement between the parties.

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 Rogers Denies Motion To Disqualify Counsel In Certain Printing And Imaging Devices And Components Thereof (337-TA-690)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
12
On January 11, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 10 (dated December 10, 2009) in Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Component Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-690) denying Complainants Ricoh Company, Ltd. and Ricoh Electronics, Inc.’s (collectively “Ricoh”) motion to disqualify the law firm of Nagashima & Hashimoto (“N&H”) from representing Respondents Oki Data Corporation and Oki Data Americas, Inc. (collectively “Oki Data”).

In support of its motion, Ricoh asserted that N&H’s representation of Oki Data in the investigation violated ABA Model Rules 1.7 and 1.9 regarding concurrent and former representation, respectively.  In particular, Ricoh asserted that Mr. Nagashima, an attorney affiliated with the law firm, “has been Ricoh’s lawyer handling patent, licensing, and antitrust matters and now seeks to represent Oki Data in a matter where he would be directly adverse to Ricoh” and that Mr. Nagashima’s work for Ricoh is substantially related to his current representation of Oki Data.  In opposition, Oki Data asserted that Ricoh consented to Mr. Nagashima’s representation of Oki Data in this investigation and that the work he performed for Ricoh was not related to the subject matter of this investigation.  The Commission Investigative Staff supported Ricoh’s motion asserting that ABA Model Rule 1.9 was violated because “Mr. Nagashima’s antitrust and licensing work for Ricoh is substantially related to his current representation of Oki Data” and “the prejudice to Ricoh caused by Mr. Nagashima’s participation in this investigation outweighs the prejudice to Oki Data from being deprived of its counsel of choice.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Target Date In Certain MEMS Devices (337-TA-700)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
13
Further to our January 4 post, on January 12, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 4: Setting Target Date in Certain MEMS Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-700).

According to the Order, the Initial Determination will be due on January 4, 2011, and the target date for completion of this investigation is May 4, 2011 (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Foldable Stools (337-TA-693)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
14
Further to our  December 4, December 7 and December 11 posts, on January 14, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 3 in Certain Foldable Stools (Inv. No. 337-TA-693).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set the procedural schedule for the investigation, including a June 28, 2010 start date for the evidentiary hearing and a December 9, 2010 deadline for issuing the Initial Determination.

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 Rogers Denies Motion For Leave To File A Motion For Summary Determination In Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-695)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
20
On January 19, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 10 in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-695).

In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Respondent Analog Devices, Inc.’s  (“Analog”) motion for leave to file a summary determination motion on the issue of likelihood of success on the merits.  ALJ Rogers determined that “[w]ith less than 30 days before the start of the hearing, I find that it is a better use of Commission and private resources for all parties to focus on preparing for the hearing on the motion for temporary relief instead of devoting time to Analog’s motion for summary determination.”  ALJ Rogers further determined that “Analog will have a sufficient opportunity to raise the issues addressed in its motion for summary determination” at the hearing.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Modifies Target Date And Calls For Additional Briefing In Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits (337-TA-666)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
21
On January 15, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 45 in Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-666).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea “determined that is necessary for additional briefing by the parties” regarding “construction of the claim language ‘when said first voltage signal exceeds a predetermined threshold for said predetermined duration’” as set forth in claims 1 and 8 “of the ‘382 patent.”  Specifically, ALJ Gildea listed seven questions in the Order and requested that the parties answer the questions “giving your detailed and clearly explained reasons, including citations to the language of the patent claims themselves, the specification, the patent history, the testimony of the witnesses, and legal precedent.”

In light of the additional briefing, ALJ Gildea also determined in the Order that good cause existed to extend the target date by two months.  Accordingly, the new target date in the investigation is August 20, 2010, with the final determination due on April 20, 2010.

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 Bullock Grants Motion To Terminate The Investigation In Certain Digital Cameras (337-TA-671)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
23
On January 21, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 19 in Certain Digital Cameras (337-TA-671).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainants Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Respondent Eastman Kodak Company to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement between the parties.

Share

Read More

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