ALJ Orders

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion For Leave To Supplement Notice Of Prior Art In Certain Ceramic Capacitors (337-TA-692)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
04
On March 3, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 11 in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-692) denying Respondents Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc.’s (collectively “Samsung”) motion for leave to supplement their notice of prior art.

According to the Order, Samsung’s motion sought to add 57 additional prior art references that “it was unable to timely identify…because they were in obscure journals that took additional time to locate.”  Complainants Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. (collectively “Murata”) opposed Samsung’s motion on the grounds that Samsung failed to explain why it could not have located the additional references prior to the February 4, 2010 deadline.  The Commission Investigative Staff did not oppose Samsung’s motion for leave.

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 Rogers Sets Target Date In Certain Notebook Computer Products (337-TA-705)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
04
On March 2, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 4:  Setting Target Date in Certain Notebook Computer Products and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-705).

According to the Order, ALJ Rogers set June 23, 2011 as the target date (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Rogers further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation is due on February 23, 2011.

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
08
On February 25, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of the 629 page Initial Determination On Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) (dated October 14, 2009) in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-665).  Due to its large size, the ID has been broken into two parts: Part 1 and Part 2.

By way of background, 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, and Seagate (US) LLC (collectively, “Respondents”).

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Notebook Computer Products (337-TA-705)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
09
On March 8, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 5: Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Notebook Computer Products and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-705).

In the Order, ALJ Rogers sets the procedural schedule for the investigation 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 October 12, 2010.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Recommended Determination On Remedy And Bonding In Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels (337-TA-655)

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 October 29, 2009) 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. (“Amsted”).  The Respondents are Tianrui Group Co. Ltd, Tianrui Group Foundry Co. Ltd, Standard Car Truck Company, Inc., and Barber Tianrui Railway Supply (collectively, “Respondents”).  On October 16, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) finding that a violation of Section 337 had occurred in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain cast steel railway wheels or products containing the same by reason of trade secret misappropriation.  See our October 19, 2009 and December 4, 2009 posts for more details.  On December 17, 2009, the Commission issued a notice determining not to review the ID.  See our December 18, 2009 post for more details.  On February 16, 2010, the Commission issued a notice of Issuance Of A Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Order; Termination of the Investigation.  See our February 19, 2010 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, And Computers (337-TA-701)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
10
On March 9, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 3:  Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, And Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-701).

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 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 Luckern Issues Public Version of Initial Determination In Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems (337-TA-670)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
15
Further to our February 24, 2010 post, on March 8, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of the Final Initial and Recommended Determinations (“ID”) (dated February 23, 2010) in Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-670).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Humanscale Corporation and the Respondents are CompX International, Inc. and Waterloo Furniture Corporation Ltd. d/b/a CompX Waterloo.

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 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 Gildea Issues Recommendation For Samsung To Depose Additional Murata Employee In Japan In Certain Ceramic Capacitors (337-TA-692)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
19
On March 18, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No.13: Recommendation to The United States District Court For The District Of Columbia To Issue An Order/Commission For The Taking Of The Deposition Of Mr. Harunobu Sano in Japan in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-692).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted an application filed by Respondents Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”).  Further to our January 27, 2010 post, Samsung’s application sought a recommendation to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to order the deposition of an additional employee of Complainant Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. to proceed at the U.S. Consulate in Osaka, Japan.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Motion to Depose Japanese Employees Outside Of Japan In Certain Ceramic Capacitors (337-TA-692)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
22
On March 19, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 12 in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-692) granting a motion filed by Respondents to compel deposition of Complainants’ Japanese employees outside of Japan.

According to the Order, Respondents Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc. (collectively, "Samsung") moved for an order compelling Complainants Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. (collectively, "Murata") to provide their Japanese employees for deposition outside of Japan, preferably in the United States.  Samsung argued that “Murata faces almost no restrictions in obtaining discovery from Samsung, while Samsung is ‘saddled with an unreasonable number of procedural hurdles, space and facility limitations, and time constraints.’”  Specifically, Samsung raised apparent difficulties in planning and deposing Murata’s witnesses in the U.S. Consulate in Osaka and that such difficulties would not permit sufficient time to conclude depositions prior to the deadline for expert reports on April 9, 2010.  Samsung further asserted that “because Murata chose to litigate this case in the United States, it should play by the rules that apply in its chosen forum, the United States, as opposed to hiding behind the rules applicable to depositions taken in Japan.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Sets Target Date In Certain Mobile Telephones And Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras (337-TA-703)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
23
Further to our February 18, 2010 post, on March 19, 2010, ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 4 setting a 15 month target date and requiring proposed procedural schedule(s) in Certain Mobile Telephones And Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-703).

According to the Order, the prehearing conference and evidentiary hearing will commence on September 1, 2010, and any final initial determination should be filed no later than January 24, 2011.  The parties are required to submit a proposed procedural schedule(s) by March 24, 2010.

Share

Read More