ALJ Rogers

ALJ Rogers Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Integrated Circuits (337-TA-786)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
17
Further to our July 11, 2011 and July 26, 2011 posts, on August 15, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 6: Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions (Inv. No. 337-TA-786).

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 May 23, 2012.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Video Analytics Software (337-TA-795)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
17
Further to our August 1, 2011 and August 5, 2011 posts, on August 16, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 8: Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Video Analytics Software, Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-795).

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 18, 2012.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Grants Motion to Terminate Investigation In Certain Gemcitabine (337-TA-766)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
17
On August 16, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 15 (dated August 16, 2011) in Certain Gemcitabine and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-766).  

According to the Order, ALJ Rogers granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) and Respondents Hospira, Inc. (“Hospira”) and Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (“Intas”) to terminate the investigation based on settlement agreements between Lilly and Hospira and Lilly and Intas (the “Agreements”).  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the Agreements, ALJ Rogers granted the joint motion filed by Lilly, Hospira and Intas.

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
26
On August 22, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 24C 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 granted-in-part and denied-in-part Complainants Thomson Licensing SAS and Thomson Licensing LLC’s (collectively, “Thomson”) motion to strike untimely prior art contentions and related portions of expert reports.

According to the Order, Thomson asserted that it served contention interrogatories in October and December 2010 requesting claim charts for the prior art Respondents intended to rely upon. Although Respondents Chimei Innolux Corp., Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., Innolux Corp. (collectively, “CMI”); Qisda Corp., Qisda America Corp., Qisda (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Qisda”); BenQ Corp., BenQ America Corp., BenQ Latin America (collectively, “BenQ”); AU Optronics Corp., and AU Optronics Corp. America (collectively, “AUO”) provided timely responses to the contention interrogatories, Thomson argued that Respondents improperly supplemented those interrogatories in May and June 2011 to include claim charts for additional prior art references. Thomson asserted that this supplementation was untimely and thus, the supplemental prior art contentions and expert opinions related to those contentions should be stricken.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets 17-Month Target Date In Certain Light-Emitting Diodes (337-TA-798)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
30
Further to our August 17, 2011 post, on August 24, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 4 in Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-798).

In the Order, ALJ Rogers set January 17, 2013 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is approximately 17 months after instituting the investigation) due to the ALJ’s current caseload, and the investigation including more than 70 asserted patent claims and four respondents (i.e., OSRAM GmbH, OSRAM Opto Semiconductors GmbH of Germany, OSRAM Opto Semiconductors Inc., and OSRAM Sylvania Inc., named by Complainants Samsung LED Co., Ltd. of Korea and Samsung LED America, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia).  Also, any final initial determination shall be due September 17, 2012.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion for Depositions In Certain Starter Motors and Alternators (337-TA-755)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
02
On August 24, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 26 in Certain Starter Motors and Alternators(Inv. No. 337-TA-755), denying Complainants Remy International, Inc. and Remy Technologies, Inc.’s (collectively, “Remy”) motion for leave to take the depositions of Jeffrey Sween and Douglas Moul after the close of fact discovery.

According to the Order, Messrs. Sween and Moul are employees of Respondent Wetherill Associates, Inc. d/b/a WAI Global (“WAI”).  Remy sought to depose both witnesses (1) after ALJ Rogers denied on August 9, 2011, WAI’s motion for a protective order to prevent the depositions of both witnesses; (2) after the August 15, 2011, close of fact discovery; and (3) after WAI produced documents from both witnesses, asserting that counsel for WAI agreed that the depositions of Messrs. Sween and Moul could proceed after the close of fact discovery.  WAI responded that the motion violates Ground Rule 3.2 because counsel for Remy did not provide the necessary two business day notice prior to filing the motion, and that it agreed to offer Messrs. Sween and Moul for deposition on August 16, 2011, the day after fact discovery closed, but no later.  WAI further explained that (1) the parties agreed early in the investigation to a discovery protocol involving “A list” and “B list” document custodians under which documents from the “A list” and “B list” custodians would be preserved, but only documents from the “A list” custodians would be produced; (2) Remy had an opportunity to confer regarding the WAI employees placed on each list; (3) Messrs. Sween and Moul were not placed on either list; and (4) WAI nevertheless worked to produce responsive, non-privileged documents from both witnesses prior to August 16.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets 17-Month Target Date In Certain Light-Emitting Diodes (337-TA-802)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
08
On September 6, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 4 in Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-802).

According to the Order, ALJ Rogers set January 30, 2013 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 October 1, 2012.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Light-Emitting Diodes (337-TA-798)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
16
Further to our August 17 and August 30, 2011 posts, on September 8, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 6: Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-798).

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 August 13, 2012.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Rules On Motion For Sanctions In Certain Starter Motors And Alternators (337-TA-755)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
19
On September 12, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 28 in Certain Starter Motors and Alternators (Inv. No. 337-TA-755).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Complainants Remy International, Inc. and Remy Technologies, Inc.’s (collectively, “Remy”) motion for sanctions for alleged improper conduct by counsel for Respondent Wetherill Associates, Inc. d/b/a WAI Global (“WAI”).

According to the Order, Remy’s motion related to the deposition of Dr. Vincent Winstead, an expert witness for WAI.  During the deposition, counsel for Remy questioned Dr. Winstead about an obviousness argument raised by the Examiner during prosecution of one of the patents asserted in the investigation.  Counsel for Remy asked if the argument was a “losing argument” at the Patent Office.  Before Dr. Winstead could answer, counsel for WAI objected, and added “[i]n fact, it was a winning argument.”  Dr. Winstead later stated that he could not recall whether the argument was a losing argument.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets 17.5-Month Target Date In Certain Devices For Improving Uniformity Used In A Backlight Module (337-TA-805)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
20
Further to our September 12, 2011 post, on September 16, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 4 in Certain Devices For Improving Uniformity Used In A Backlight Module and Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-805).

According to the Order, ALJ Rogers set February 28, 2013 as the target date (which is 17.5 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Rogers further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on October 29, 2012.

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
26
On September 22, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 28C 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., Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., and Innolux Corp’s. (collectively, “CMI”) motion to reopen the record for the limited purpose of admitting certain exhibits.

According to the Order, CMI sought to reopen the record to admit certain exhibits that were inadvertently omitted from the exhibit list accompanying an expert’s rebuttal witness statement.  CMI argued, among other things, that excluding the exhibits would unfairly penalize CMI for a clerical oversight.  Complainants Thomson Licensing SAS and Thomson Licensing LLC opposed the motion and argued that CMI sought to do exactly what ALJ Rogers warned the parties they could not do – reopen their cases because they forgot to offer an exhibit into evidence.  Thomson also argued that CMI did not offer sufficient justification for the extraordinary relief sought. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Grants Motion To Compel In Certain Light-Emitting Diodes (337-TA-798)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
28
On September 23, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 9:  Granting Complainant’s Motion To Compel in Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-798).

According to the Order, Complainant Samsung LED Co., Ltd. (“SLED”) filed a motion to compel Respondents OSRAM GmbH, OSRAM Opto Semiconductors GmbH, OSRAM Opto Semiconductors Inc., and OSRAM Sylvania Inc. (collectively, “OSRAM”) to produce discovery regarding OSRAM’s customers.  In support of the motion, SLED argued that it needed the discovery so that it could amend its complaint to add OSRAM’s downstream customers as respondents in this investigation.  SLED further argued that the requested information was not publicly available and must be obtained from OSRAM.  In addition, SLED noted in response to certain interrogatories on this subject, OSRAM recited Commission Rule 210.29(c) and only identified a single “unusable” document from its production – rather than providing a narrative response to the interrogatory.  OSRAM opposed the motion and noted that it produced the requested information in a usable format.  OSRAM further argued that its document production comported with the parties’ agreement to produce electronic documents in TIFF format. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets 17-Month Target Date In Certain Digital Photo Frames And Image Display Devices (337-TA-807)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
30
Further to our September 23, 2011 post, on September 29, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 4 in Certain Digital Photo Frames And Image Display Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-807).

According to the Order, ALJ Rogers set February 26, 2013 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 October 26, 2012.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Light-Emitting Diodes (337-TA-802)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
04
Further to our August 29, 2011 and September 8, 2011 posts, on October 3, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 6 in Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-802).

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 August 20, 2012.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Rules On Motions In Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices (337-TA-782)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
07
On October 4, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 8 in Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-782).  In the Order, the ALJ granted Complainant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.’s (“Samsung”) motion to strike Respondent AU Optronics Corp.’s (“AUO”) thirteenth affirmative defense related to inequitable conduct.  The Order also denied AUO’s provisional cross-motion for leave to file an amended response to the amended complaint.

By way of background, in its August 30, 2011 motion to strike, Samsung asserted that AUO’s thirteenth affirmative defense failed to include sufficient detail to meet the heightened pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and the Federal Circuit’s 2009 Exergen decision.  Samsung argued that it informed AUO of this deficiency, met and conferred with AUO, provided an explanation of its position in writing, and requested a response by August 29, 2011. AUO opposed Samsung’s motion arguing that its pleading was sufficiently detailed and alleging that Samsung’s motion violated Ground Rule 3.2 because Samsung failed to meet and confer to the point of impasse.  AUO additionally argued that it informed Samsung it would likely amend this defense, but that Samsung filed its motion without waiting for response.  AUO asserted that it provided Samsung with amended responses on August 30, 2011 and September 1, 2011, and requested Samsung withdraw its motion, but that Samsung declined.  AUO filed a provisional cross-motion, asking that if Samsung’s motion is granted, it be allowed to amend its response.  Samsung opposed AUO’s motion, arguing that AUO’s proposed amendment was based solely on information it possessed at the time of its original response and that Samsung’s amended complaint did not provide a basis for AUO to materially change its affirmative defenses.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Digital Photo Frames And Image Display Devices (337-TA-807)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
13
Further to our September 23, 2011 and September 30, 2011 posts, on October 12, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 7 in Certain Digital Photo Frames And Image Display Devices and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-807).

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 September 17, 2012.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets 17-Month Target Date In Certain Devices For Mobile Data Communication (337-TA-809)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
28
Further to our October 10 and October 11, 2011 posts, on October 27, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 5 in Certain Devices For Mobile Data Communication (Inv. No. 337-TA-809).

According to the Order, ALJ Rogers set March 12, 2013 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 November 13, 2012.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Grants-In-Part Motion To Strike Portions Of Complainant’s Expert Report And Denies Motions For Summary Determination of Non-Infringement In Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices (337-TA-741/749)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
03
On October 28, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public versions of Order No. 17C (dated July 18, 2011), Order No. 18C (dated July 19, 2011) and Order No. 19C (dated July 19, 2011) in Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, and Modules, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-741/749).

According to Order No. 17C, Respondents Chimei InnoLux Corp., InnoLux Corp., and Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc. (collectively, “CMI”) moved to strike portions of expert reports served by Complainants Thomson Licensing SAS and Thomson Licensing LLC (collectively, “Thomson”).  CMI alleged that Thomson identified only a single CMI product accused of infringing claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 5,375,006 (the ‘006 patent) in its interrogatory response and expert reports, but then identified over 100 accused CMI products five days after expert reports were due.  Thus, CMI sought to preclude Thomson from accusing the over 100 CMI products not timely identified.  Thomson responded that its expert had opined that all CMI accused products using Fuji wide view compensating films infringe claim 7 of the ‘006 patent, and that it disclosed in a supplemental interrogatory response that its infringement contentions extended to further CMI products.  Based on the parties’ submissions, ALJ Rogers denied the motion with respect to claim 7 of the ‘006 patent.  However, ALJ Rogers granted CMI’s motion insofar as all portions of Thomson’s expert reports addressing claim 3 of the ‘006 patent and claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 5,978,063 (the ‘063 patent) were stricken pursuant to Order No. 16C.

Share

Read More