ALJ Orders

ALJ Bullock Issues Supplemental Initial Determination In Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-501)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
23
On March 22, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice of Supplemental Initial Determination (“Supplemental ID”) in Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-501).  According to the notice, in the Supplemental ID, ALJ Bullock modified his previous finding of violation and determined that no violation of Section 337 had occurred.

By way of background, the ITC issued a notice and order on February 18, 2010 reversing ALJ Bullock’s October 30, 2009 Supplemental Initial Determination finding that non-party ASAT’s LPCC invention is not prior art to the patents-in-suit and remanding the investigation to the ALJ to make “necessary findings on anticipation and obviousness in view of the Commission’s determination that the ASAT LPCC invention is prior art to Amkor’s asserted patents.”  See our February 22, 2010 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Mobile Communications And Computer Devices (337-TA-704)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
24
Further to our February 22, 2010 post, on March 22, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 3 in Certain Mobile Communications And Computer Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-704).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set the procedural schedule for the investigation, including a June 14-15, 2010 date for the Markman hearing, an October 4, 2010 start date for the evidentiary hearing, and a February 24, 2011 deadline for issuing the Initial Determination.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion For Temporary Relief In Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-695)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
25
On March 24, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) on Complainant Knowles Electronics LLC’s (“Knowles”) motion for temporary relief in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-695).  Please see our November 17, 2009 and December 18, 2009 posts for more details on this investigation.

According to the notice, a complete public version of the ID will be issued when all the parties have submitted their redactions and the ALJ has had an opportunity to review them.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Flash Memory (337-TA-685)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
29
On March 23, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 11 in Certain Flash Memory and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-685).

In the Order, ALJ Charneski sets the procedural schedule for the investigation, including a December 6, 2010 start date for the evidentiary hearing.

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 Luckern Grants Motion For Summary Determination Of Non-Infringement In Certain Dual Access Locks (337-TA-689)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
30
On March 23, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 6 (dated March 18, 2010) in Certain Dual Access Locks and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-689), granting Respondents motion for summary determination of non-infringement and terminating the investigation.

By way of background, Complainants Safe Skies, LLC and David Tropp (collectively, “Safe Skies”) alleged violations of Section 337 against several respondents regarding certain dual access locks, which allegedly infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,021,537 (the ‘537 patent) and 7,036,728 (the ‘728 patent).  See our September 17, 2009 and October 19, 2009 posts for more details.  According to the Order, on February 23, 2010, the Respondents filed a motion for summary determination of non-infringement of all asserted claims of the ‘537 and ‘728 patents.  On February 24, 2010, the Commission Investigative Staff filed a motion for summary determination that the accused products do not infringe the asserted claims of the ‘537 and ‘728 patents.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motion to Compel in Certain Electronic Devices (337-TA-701)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
30
On March 29, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 4 in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, and Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-701).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted in part the motion of Complainants Nokia Corp. and Nokia, Inc. (collectively “Nokia”), seeking to compel Respondent Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) to produce certain documents and witnesses.

According to the Order, Nokia served document requests on January 26 and February 11, 2010.  Nokia served its Notice of Examination of Apple’s corporate witnesses on February 15, 2010.  Apple did not produce any documents or identify any witnesses.  On March 15, 2010, Nokia filed its motion, seeking an order compelling Apple to (1) produce responsive documents within ten days, and (2) make corporate-designee witnesses available for deposition no later than March 31, 2010.  Nokia also asked ALJ Gildea to order Apple to produce those corporate witnesses without the condition that Nokia take the deposition of those witnesses in their individual capacities at the same time.

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

ALJ Charneski Issues Enforcement Initial Determination In Certain Voltage Regulators (337-TA-564)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
02
Further to our March 19, 2010 post, on March 31, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Enforcement Initial Determination (“EID”) (dated March 18, 2010) in Certain Voltage Regulators, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-564).  In the EID, ALJ Charneski found that a violation had occurred of the ITC’s limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and recommended that a cease-and-desist order issue against Respondent Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc. (“AATI”).

By way of background, the ITC issued its Final Determination on September 24, 2007 finding that a representative AATI voltage regulator infringed claims 2, 3 and 34 of Complainant Linear Technology Corporation’s (“Linear”) U.S. Patent No. 6,580,258 (the ‘258 patent).  The ITC issued an LEO directed to AATI with respect to voltage regulators covered by the asserted claims.  Linear thereafter filed a complaint requesting that the ITC institute a formal enforcement proceeding against AATI for alleged violation of the LEO.  On October 1, 2008, the ITC issued a Notice of Institution of Formal Enforcement Proceeding.  A tutorial was held in the enforcement proceeding on January 5 and an evidentiary hearing was held on January 11-13, 2010.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Remand Target Date In Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors (337-TA-650)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
02
Further to our April 1, 2010 post, on April 1, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 29 in Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-650).

According to the Order, the Commission determined in its March 31, 2010 Opinion and Remand Order that ALJ Gildea must make a determination on the question of “whether PPC has made a substantial investment in the exploitation of [U.S. Patent No. D440,539] in a manner consistent with the principles set forth in the Commission’s Opinion.”  Accordingly, in the Order, ALJ Gildea set August 30, 2010 as the target date for the remand investigation and May 28, 2010 as the deadline for the issuance of the remand initial determination.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Sets Procedural Schedule And Makes Comments Regarding Markman Hearing In Certain Mobile Telephones And Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras (337-TA-703)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
05
On March 31, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 5, setting the procedural schedule in Certain Mobile Telephones And Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-703).

In the Order, ALJ Luckern set the procedural schedule for the investigation, including a September 1, 2010 start date for the evidentiary hearing.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Denies Motion To Permit Expert To Receive Confidential Business Information In Certain DC-DC Controllers (337-TA-698)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
06
On April 1, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 11 in Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-698).  In the Order, ALJ Luckern denied Complainants Richtek Technology Corp. and Richtek USA, Inc.’s (collectively, “Richtek”) motion to permit Richtek’s expert, Dr. Chen-huei Wu, to receive confidential business information (“CBI”) under the Protective Order (“PO”).

In its motion, Richtek argued that Dr. Wu is presumptively entitled to receive CBI under the PO, that foreign experts may appropriately subscribe to the PO, and that Dr. Wu does not consult for and is not employed by a party.  Richtek further argued that Respondents uPI Semiconductor Corp. and Sapphire Technology Ltd. (collectively, the “uPI Respondents”) have failed to explain why they believe that Dr. Wu is “less trustworthy, or more likely to violate the terms of the Protective Order, than American experts.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion to Amend Complaint and Notice of Investigation In Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-695)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
06
On April 2, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 14 in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-695). In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Complainant Knowles Electronics, LLC (“Knowles”) motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to assert three additional patent claims against Respondent Analog Devices, Inc. (“Analog”).

In support of its argument, Knowles asserted that recently discovered documents produced by Analog regarding a modified product design provided the basis for adding three dependent claims to the complaint.  According to the Order, this discovery was received on January 8, 2010.  Knowles filed its motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation on March 15, 2010.  With regard to the delay, Knowles stated it was precluded under 19 CFR § 210.57 from expanding the scope of the temporary relief inquiry upon receiving such discovery.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Grants Complainants’ Motion to Compel In Certain DC-DC Controllers (337-TA-698)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
06
On April 2, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 7 (dated March 12, 2010) in Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-698), granting Complainants Richtek Technology Corp. and Richtek USA, Inc.'s (collectively, “Richtek”) motion to compel Respondent uPI Semiconductor Corporation (uPI) to produce documents and information related to uPI's 63xx and 77xx families of products.

Respondents uPI and Sapphire Technology Ltd. (“Sapphire”) filed a joint opposition to Richtek's motion to compel, and the remaining respondents Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Best Data Products, Inc. d/b/a Diamond Multimedia, and Eastcom, Inc. d/b/a XFX Technology USA filed their own separate joint opposition to Richtek's motion to compel.  The Commission Investigative Staff supported the motion to compel.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Wireless Communication System Server Software, Wireless Handheld Devices And Battery Packs (337-TA-706)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
07
On April 6, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 3:  Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Wireless Communication System Server Software, Wireless Handheld Devices And Battery Packs (Inv. No. 337-TA-706).

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 June 24, 2010 date for a Markman hearing and an August 6, 2010 estimated date for a Markmanruling.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Extends Target Date And Sets Date For Markman Hearing In Certain Electronic Devices (337-TA-701)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
08
On April 5, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 7 in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, and Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-701).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea moved the target date for this investigation from May 31, 2011 to August 1, 2011 and the deadline for final initial determination from January 31, 2011 to April 1, 2011.  ALJ Gildea also revised the procedural schedule to include an August 11, 2010 date for a Markman hearing and a September 10, 2010 estimated date for a Markman ruling.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Grants Motion To Terminate The Investigation As To Fuji In Certain Machine Vision Software (337-TA-680)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
08
On April 6, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 44 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 Respondents Fuji Machine Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Fuji America Corporation to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement between the parties.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Rules on Motions To Compel in Certain Flash Memory Chips (337-TA-664)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
09
On April 7, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued public versions of three orders regarding motions to compel filed by Complainants Spansion, Inc. and Spansion LLC (collectively, “Spansion”) in Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-664).

In Order No. 48 (dated March 23, 2010), ALJ Bullock granted Spansion’s motion for an order compelling Respondents Samsung Electronics Corporation, Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung International, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) to produce certain documents and other information relating to Samsung's 27 nm products.  According to the Order, Samsung argued that Spansion’s motion should be denied because their 27 nm products were not prototypes or samples that “have been imported into the United States,” “shown to customers,” or that “will be made or imported into the United States before the close of the evidentiary record.”   Samsung further argued that Spansion’s motion was moot because Samsung was providing the requested discovery.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) supported Spansion’s motion, “[b]ecause the 27 nm products are sufficiently ‘close to completion’ to be ‘relevant to a finding of violation.’”  ALJ Bullock granted Spansion’s motion, to the extent Samsung had not yet produced all discovery sought by Spansion, upon the ground that “said product is sufficiently advanced such that production of information regarding these products is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Supplemental Initial Determination In Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-501)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
09
Further to our March 23, 2010 post, on April 7, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of his Supplemental Initial Determination (“Supplemental ID”) in Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-501), in which he modified his previous finding of violation and determined that no violation of Section 337 had occurred.

By way of background, the ITC issued a notice and order on February 18, 2010 reversing ALJ Bullock’s October 30, 2009 Supplemental Initial Determination finding that non-party ASAT Inc.’s LPCC invention is not prior art to the patents-in-suit and remanding the investigation to the ALJ to make “necessary findings on anticipation and obviousness in view of the Commission’s determination that the ASAT LPCC invention is prior art to Amkor’s asserted patents.”  See our February 22, 2010 post for more details.

Share

Read More