ALJ Rogers

ALJ Rogers Denies Complainant’s Motion To Compel Discovery in Certain Starter Motors and Alternators (337-TA-755)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
03
On June 2, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 16 in Certain Starter Motors and Alternators (Inv. No. 337-TA-755).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Complainant Remy International, Inc.’s (“Remy”) motion to compel Respondent Wetherill Associates, Inc. d/b/a WAI Global (“WAI”) to answer requests for admission, and follow-on interrogatories and requests for documents related to WAI’s non-infringement positions.

According to the Order, Remy asserted that WAI improperly refused to respond to the requested discovery, and that during an April 7, 2011 Discovery Committee meeting, it requested WAI to retract its objections and provide substantive responses.  Remy stated it renewed its request on April 11, and that WAI renewed its objection on April 15, and in its belief that Remy exhausted all attempts to resolve the issue, it informed WAI’s counsel that Remy would file this motion to compel, which it proceeded to do on May 2, 2011.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Rules on Motion to Quash In Certain Gemcitabine (337-TA-766)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
07
On June 2, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 7 (dated May 18, 2011) in Certain Gemcitabine and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-766).

In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted-in-part and denied-in-part Complainant Eli Lilly and Company’s (“Lilly”) motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum directed to two members of Lilly’s trial team.  In its motion, Lilly sought a protective order precluding Respondent Intas Pharmaceutical Ltd. (“Intas”) from further attempting to depose Lilly’s trial counsel on issues pertaining to evidence of importation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Rules On Motion To Compel In Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices (337-TA-741/749)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
09
On June 8, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 13C in Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, and Modules, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-741/749).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Respondents Chimei Innolux Corp., Innolux Corp., and Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc.’s (collectively, “CMI”) motion to compel Complainants Thomson Licensing SAS and Thomson Licensing LLC (collectively, “Thomson”) to produce certain documents allegedly withheld by Thomson as protected attorney-client communications and attorney work product.

According to the Order, CMI argued that Thomson was improperly withholding from production several categories of documents listed on Thomson’s privilege log.  CMI stated that it had sent letters concerning the disputed privilege issues to Thomson on March 25, April 13, and April 14, 2011, and that Thomson had responded by letter on April 20 and April 26, 2011.  According to CMI, the letter from Thomson dated April 26 stated that Thomson was undertaking a review of its privilege log “to assess whether revisions are appropriate” and that Thomson expected to complete its review “over the next few weeks.”  However, on May 9, 2011, CMI filed its motion to compel stating that it “can no longer afford to wait for Thomson to conduct an internal review before deciding whether further revisions to its lists of privileged documents would … be appropriate.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Designates Investigation More Complicated And Sets Hearing Date On Motion For Temporary Relief In Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms (337-TA-777)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
16
On June 14, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 4: Designating Investigation “More Complicated” in Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-777).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a May 11, 2011 complaint filed by Thompson/Center Arms Co., Inc. and Smith & Wesson Corp. alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain muzzle-loading firearms and components thereof that allegedly infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,908,781; 7,814,694; 7,140,138; 6,604,311; 5,782,030; and 5,639,981.  The Respondents are Dikar Sociedad Cooperativa Limitada, Bergara Barrels Europe, Blackpowder Products Inc., Connecticut Valley Arms, Bergara Barrels North America, Ardesa Firearms, and Traditional Sporting Goods, Inc. d/b/a Traditions Sporting Firearms.  See our June 16, 2011 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Flash Memory Chips (337-TA-735)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
21
On June 20, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers issued the public version of Order No. 42 in Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-735).

By way of background, this Investigation was based on an August 6, 2010 complaint filed by Spansion LLC (“Spansion”), of Sunnyvale, California alleging violation of Section 337 by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of South Korea, and several of its affiliated entities (collectively, “Samsung”) as well as several downstream manufacturers such as Apple, Inc. of Cupertino, California, Research In Motion Ltd. of Canada, and Sirius XM Radio, Inc. through infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,018,922; 6,900,124; 6,459,625; and/or 6,369,416.  See our August 11, 2010 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Target Date In Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms (337-TA-777)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
23
Further to our June 16, 2011 post, on June 22, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 5: Setting Target Date in Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-777).

According to the Order, ALJ Rogers set October 16, 2012 as the target date (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Rogers further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on June 18, 2012.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms (337-TA-777)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
06
On June 30, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 6 in Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-777).

In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Complainant Thompson/Center Arms Company, Inc.’s (“Thompson/Center”) motion to terminate the investigation in part with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,908,781 and 7,140,138.  No other parties to the investigation opposed the motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Respondent Yun Sheng (U.S.A.) Inc. In Certain Starter Motors and Alternators (337-TA-755)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
06
On June 30, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 19 (dated June 6, 2011) in Certain Starter Motors and Alternators (Inv. No. 337-TA-755).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted a motion filed by Complainants Remy International, Inc. and Remy Technologies LLC (collectively, “Remy”) to terminate the investigation as to Respondent Yun Sheng (U.S.A.) Inc. based on a settlement agreement.

After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Rogers granted the motion filed by Remy.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Respondent Linhai Yongei In Certain Starter Motors and Alternators (337-TA-755)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
13
On July 12, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 20 (dated July 12, 2011) in Certain Starter Motors and Alternators (Inv. No. 337-TA-755).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted a motion filed by Complainants Remy International, Inc. and Remy Technologies LLC (collectively, “Remy”) to terminate the investigation as to Respondent Linhai Yongei based on a settlement agreement.

After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Rogers granted the motion filed by Remy.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Target Date In Certain Integrated Circuits (337-TA-786)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
26
Further to our July 11, 2011 post, on July 20, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 5: Setting Target Date in Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions (Inv. No. 337-TA-786).

According to the Order, ALJ Rogers set November 13, 2012 as the target date (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Rogers further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on July 13, 2012.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets 17-Month Target Date In Certain Coenzyme Q10 Products (337-TA-790)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
26
Further to our July 15, 2011 post, on July 20, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 4: Setting Target Date in Certain Coenzyme Q10 Products and Methods of Making Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-790).

According to the Order, ALJ Rogers set December 18, 2012 as the target date (which is 17 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Rogers further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on August 20, 2012.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Target Date And Procedural Schedule In Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices (337-TA-782)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
27
Further to our June 30, 2011 and July 1, 2011 posts, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 4: Setting Target Date and Order No. 7: Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing the Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-782).

In Order No. 4, ALJ Rogers set November 6, 2012 as the target date (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Rogers further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on July 6, 2012.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets 17-Month Target Date In Certain Video Analytics Software (337-TA-795)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
05
Further to our August 1, 2011 post, on August 3, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 4: Setting Target Date in Certain Video Analytics Software, Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-795).

According to the Order, ALJ Rogers set December 31, 2012 as the target date (which is 17 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Rogers further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on August 31, 2012.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion To Strike Complainants’ Claim Constructions In Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms (337-TA-777)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
09
On August 3, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 12 in Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-777).  The Order denied a motion filed by certain Respondents to strike Complainants’ allegedly late-disclosed claim constructions.

By way of background, this investigation is based on a May 11, 2011 complaint filed by Thompson/Center Arms Co., Inc. and Smith & Wesson Corp. (collectively, “Complainants”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain muzzle-loading firearms and components thereof that allegedly infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,908,781; 7,814,694; 7,140,138; 6,604,311; 5,782,030; and 5,639,981.  The Respondents are Dikar Sociedad Cooperativa Limitada, Bergara Barrels Europe, Blackpowder Products Inc., Connecticut Valley Arms, Bergara Barrels North America, Ardesa Firearms, and Traditional Sporting Goods, Inc. d/b/a Traditions Sporting Firearms (the latter two, collectively, “TSG Respondents”).  See our June 16, 2011 postfor more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Rules On Motion To Quash And/Or Limit Subpoenas In Certain Gemcitabine (337-TA-766)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
09
On August 5, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 9 (dated June 20, 2011) in Certain Gemcitabine and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-766).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted-in-part and denied-in-part non-parties Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc.’s (collectively, “Teva”) motion to quash and/or limit the subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum issued upon application of Complainant Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”).

According to the Order, Teva explained that in the past, it had received “development quantities” of gemcitabine from Respondent ChemWerth, Inc. (“ChemWerth”).  Teva further stated that ChemWerth served as an agent for Respondent Jiangsu Hansoh Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Hansoh”), the supplier of gemcitabine.  Teva argued that discovery relating to any analysis, evaluation, or study of Hansoh’s process for manufacturing the gemcitabine sold to Teva was irrelevant to the investigation.  Rather, Teva claimed that only an analysis of the Respondents’ actual imported products, or the process made to use those products, was relevant.  Teva further asserted that Lilly had not explained how information related to a prior developmental batch of gemcitabine manufactured for a non-party was relevant to the investigation.  Teva also argued that the information sought by Lilly was available from ChemWerth and/or Hansoh, and that Lilly had not exhausted its efforts in seeking the discovery from those Respondents.  Lastly, Teva claimed that the subpoenas were overly burdensome because they sought a wide range of documents and sought discovery from Teva and all of its affiliated companies.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Rules On Motion For A Presumption of Infringement And Motion To Compel In Certain Gemcitabine (337-TA-766)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
09
On August 5, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 10(dated June 22, 2011) in Certain Gemcitabine and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-766).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted-in-part and denied-in-part Complainant Eli Lilly and Company’s (“Lilly”) motion for a presumption of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 295 and a motion to compel.

According to the Order, Lilly argued that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 295, it was entitled to a presumption of infringement with respect to the accused process of Respondent Jiangsu Hansoh Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Hansoh”) for manufacturing gemcitabine.  Lilly claimed that there was a substantial likelihood that Hansoh uses the patented process to manufacture gemcitabine.  In particular, Lilly claimed that Hansoh’s alleged process was not commercially viable, Hansoh had failed to produce sufficient evidence to corroborate its process, and evidence cast doubt on Hansoh’s claim that the process it uses for Respondent Hospira, Inc. (“Hospira”) differs from the process used for all other Hansoh customers.  Lilly further sought to compel an inspection of Hansoh’s facility and to be allowed to conduct a forensic inspection of Hansoh’s original batch records from the facility.  Lilly sought to inspect the original batch records to determine if the original batch records were themselves authentic and also to determine if the copies produced in the investigation were accurate reproductions.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Issues Public Version of Initial Determination in Certain Inkjet Cartridges with Printheads (337-TA-723)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
12
On August 4, 2011, ALJ Rogers issued the public version of his Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated June 10, 2011) in Certain Inkjet Cartridges with Printheads and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-723). 

By way of background, Complainants Hewlett-Packard Company and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (collectively, "HP") accused Respondents MicroJet Technology Co., Ltd. (“MicroJet”); Asia Pacific Microsystems, Inc. (“APM”); Mipo Technology Limited; Mipo Science & Technology Co., Ltd.; Mextec d/b/a Mipo America Ltd.; SinoTime Technologies, Inc.; and PTC Holdings Limited (“PTC”) of infringing certain claims of U.S Patent Nos. 6,234,598; 6,309,053; 6,398,347; 6,412,917; 6,481,817; 6,402,279; and 6,412,917.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Complainant’s Motion To Compel Discovery in Certain Starter Motors and Alternators (337-TA-755)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
12
On August 9, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 24 in Certain Starter Motors and Alternators (Inv. No. 337-TA-755).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Complainant Remy International, Inc.’s (“Remy”) motion to compel Respondent Wetherill Associates, Inc. d/b/a WAI Global (“WAI”) to answer requests for admission and follow-on interrogatories and document requests regarding infringement of WAI products no longer imported or sold.

According to the Order, Remy asserted that WAI improperly refused to respond to the requested discovery, and the fact that WAI claims that the products are no longer imported is irrelevant, at least in part, because information related to such products is still within the scope of discovery allowed by the Commission Rules.  WAI opposed the motion, asserting that the requests for admission call for improper legal conclusions, and that legal conclusions on infringement by products that WAI no longer imports or sells are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  WAI also stated that it had redesigned the originally accused products and re-used many of the same model numbers, and the redesigned products no longer infringe the patents-in-suit.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Coenzyme Q10 Products (337-TA-790)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
17
Further to our July 15, 2011 and July 26, 2011 posts, on August 15, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 6: Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Coenzyme Q10 Products and Methods of Making Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-790).

In the Order, ALJ Rogers set the procedural schedule for the investigation and included provisions for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions.  The procedural schedule also provides that the evidentiary hearing in this investigation will commence on July 9, 2012.

Share

Read More