ALJ Rogers

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 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 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 Rogers Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination Denying Motion For Temporary Relief In Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-695)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
15
Further to our March 25 post, on April 6, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of the Initial Determination on Complainant’s Motion for Temporary Relief (“ID”) (dated March 24, 2010) in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-695).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Knowles Electronics LLC (“Knowles”), and the Respondent is Analog Devices, Inc. (“ADI”).  On November 12, 2009, Knowles filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337 concerning certain ADI silicon microphone packages and products containing the same that allegedly infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,781,231 (the ‘231 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 7,242,089 (the ‘089 patent).  On the same day, Knowles also filed a motion for temporary relief seeking a temporary exclusion order and a temporary cease and desist order against ADI.  See our November 17, 2009 post for more details.  The investigation was formally instituted on December 17, 2009, and an evidentiary hearing regarding Knowles’s motion for temporary relief was held from February 17-19, 2010.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Rules On Motion For Sanctions In Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers (337-TA-686)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
19
On April 16, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 30 (dated January 8, 2010) in Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (Inv. No. 337-TA-686).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied former Respondent Atlantic China Welding Consumables, Inc.’s ("Atlantic") motion for sanctions against Complainants The Lincoln Electric Company and Lincoln Global, Inc. (collectively, “Lincoln”) for Lincoln's alleged failure to conduct a reasonable pre-filing investigation to confirm that the products it tested were actually manufactured by or on behalf of Atlantic.

In support of their motion, Atlantic asserted that Lincoln violated Commission Rule 210.4(c)(3) by asserting that Atlantic's products infringed the patents-in-suit because those products were not Atlantic's products.  According to the Order, Atlantic further asserted that “Lincoln's belief that the identified products were Atlantic's products was not objectively reasonable under the circumstances, and that Lincoln failed to perform an adequate pre-filing inquiry,” with respect to Lincoln’s original complaint, and also its amended complaint after being informed by Atlantic that the products in Lincoln’s original complaint were not Atlantic products.  Atlantic argued that Lincoln should have known that the products Lincoln obtained were not Atlantic products, because the “retainer rings in the alleged Atlantic containers that Lincoln examined are clearly different than the retainer rings used by Atlantic in their products,” and Lincoln should appreciate such differences given that “Lincoln has asserted a retainer ring patent against Atlantic in a district court litigation.”  Atlantic also argued that it was unreasonable for Lincoln to fail to investigate the unique ISO certificate number of the products tested by Lincoln with Atlantic’s ISO certificate number that “can be found on its website,” and “that if Lincoln had done so, it would have learned that Atlantic did not manufacture the products.”   Atlantic sought “monetary sanctions comprising: (l) the attorneys' fees and costs Atlantic has been forced to incur by the existence of this investigation; and (2) a monetary penalty in an amount that is greater than or equal to Atlantic's attorneys' fees and costs.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Rules On Motions To Preclude Complainants From Relying On Certain Evidence In Certain Printing And Imaging Devices (337-TA-690)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
26
On April 16, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 20 (dated March 31, 2010) in Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-690) granting-in-part Respondents Oki Data Corporation and Oki Data Americas, Inc.’s (collectively “Oki Data”) motions to preclude Complainants Ricoh Company, Ltd., Ricoh Americas Corporation, and Ricoh Electronics, Inc. (collectively, “Ricoh”) from relying on certain evidence related to earlier invention dates and evidence of licensing in support of a domestic industry (Motion No. 690-009) and contentions about conception and reduction to practice (Motion No. 690-010).

Oki Data’s Motion No. 690-009 addressed two separate issues of invention dates and licensing issues.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion For Summary Determination of Invalidity In Certain Printing And Imaging Devices (337-TA-690)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
26
On April 22, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 25 in Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Component Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-690) denying Respondents Oki Data Corporation and Oki Data Americas, Inc.’s (collectively “Oki Data”) motion for summary determination of invalidity of claims 18-21 of U.S. Patent No. 6,212,343 (the ‘343 patent).

In the motion, Oki Data asserted that claims 18-21 of the ‘343 patent are invalid because they are indefinite.  Specifically, Oki Data argued that the specification fails to shed light on the meaning of the claim language “configured to have a length that enables the narrow-width part to be bent in a direction orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the developing roller between the sides seals arranged at sides of the toner exit” because the parties’ experts do not dispute that there are an infinite number of potential “longitudinal direction[s] of the developing roller.”  The OUII supported Oki Data’s motion.  Complainants Ricoh Company, Ltd., Ricoh Americas Corporation, and Ricoh Electronics, Inc. (collectively “Ricoh”) opposed the motion, arguing that: (1) it is irrelevant whether the location of the “longitudinal direction of the developing roller” could be any of an infinite number of locations because as long as the narrow-width part of the blade can be “bent in a direction orthogonal to” any of the allegedly infinitely-located longitudinal directions, then the claim limitation is met; (2) one of ordinary skill in the art would have no trouble identifying a “longitudinal direction” of the developing roller as the direction along the length-wise part of the roller; (3) Oki Data disproves its argument by admitting in its motion that “[t]he longitudinal direction of a cylinder is any chord, or line, drawn between the two ends of a cylinder and parallel to the axis or one side of the cylinder;” and (4) the claim language states “a direction orthogonal,” with “a” signifying “one or more,” the plain meaning of which is a direction along a line running perpendicular or radial to a line running parallel to the central length-wise axis of the developing roller.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges With Printheads (337-TA-711)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
26
On April 22, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 5: Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges With Printheads and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-711).

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 November 30, 2010.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion To Compel And Amends Procedural Schedule In Certain Notebook Computer Products (337-TA-705)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
30
On April 28, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 7 in Certain Notebook Computer Products and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-705).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Complainant Toshiba Corporation’s (“Toshiba”) motion to compel Respondents Wistron Corporation, Wistron InfoComm (Texas) Corporation, and Wistron InfoComm Technology (America) Corporation (collectively, “Wistron”) to respond to Toshiba’s Interrogatory Nos. 47 and 48.  ALJ Rogers also amended the procedural schedule in the investigation.

Interrogatory Nos. 47 and 48 are both directed to Wistron’s invalidity contentions in the investigation.  Specifically, Interrogatory No. 47 seeks Wistron’s contentions regarding invalidity of the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and Interrogatory No. 48 seeks Wistron’s contentions regarding invalidity of the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  According to Toshiba, Wistron responded to the interrogatories by objecting to them as premature, and stating that it will supplement its responses at a later time.  In its motion, Toshiba argued that that the interrogatories are not premature, and that Wistron should be compelled to answer the interrogatories immediately.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion for Summary Determination Regarding Invalidity In Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers (337-TA-686)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
04
On April 30, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 39 (dated March 1, 2010) in Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (Inv. No. 337-TA-686), denying Respondent The ESAB Group, Inc.’s (“ESAB”) motion for summary determination that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,708,864 (the ‘864 patent) were invalid under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) due to a prior public use or sale.   Respondent Sidergas SpA joined ESAB’s motion, while Complainants The Lincoln Electric Company and Lincoln Global, Inc. (collectively, “Lincoln”) and the Commission Investigative Staff opposed.

ALJ Rogers found genuine issues of material fact regarding two factual assertions underlying ESAB’s motion: namely, (1) that a particular wire currently manufactured by Lincoln meets all asserted claims of the ‘864 patent, and (2) that the wire sold by Lincoln prior to the critical date is the same product as the particular wire currently manufactured by Lincoln.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion for Summary Determination Regarding Economic Prong of The Domestic Industry Requirement In Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers (337-TA-686)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
04
On April 30, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 41 (dated March 3, 2010) in Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (Inv. No. 337-TA-686), denying Complainants The Lincoln Electric Company and Lincoln Global, Inc.’s (collectively, “Lincoln”) motion for summary determination that they satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.  Respondents The ESAB Group, Inc. and Sidergas SpA, as well as the Commission Investigative Staff opposed Lincoln’s motion.

Lincoln relied primarily on a declaration by its president to support its motion, but ALJ Rogers determined that “the statements in the declaration describe investments and expenditures related to Lincoln’s bulk welding wire and bulk welding wire containers in general, but do not address investments and expenditures related to any specific products that are asserted to practice the patents.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Rules On Motion To Compel In Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers (337-TA-686)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
05
On April 30, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 40 (dated March 2, 2010) in Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (Inv. No. 337-TA-686), granting in part Respondent Sidergas SpA’s (“Sidergas”) motion to compel Complainants The Lincoln Electric Company and Lincoln Global, Inc. (collectively, “Lincoln”) to respond to Sidergas’ Interrogatories Nos. 23-33, Requests for Production of Documents and Things Nos. 123-124 and 126-213, and Requests for Admission Nos. 323-359.

According to the Order, Sidergas contended that its discovery was relevant to its affirmative defenses alleging patent misuse and lack of domestic industry.  Lincoln and the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) opposed the motion, asserting that Sidergas’ previously served interrogatories 1-22, when considering subparts, exceeded that 175 interrogatory limit outlined in Ground Rule 4.5.  Lincoln and OUII also argued that Sidergas had not properly pled patent misuse, and “that no portion of any patent misuse defense could have survived Order Nos. 21, 34, and 36 in this Investigation, which struck Sidergas' inequitable conduct defense, denied Sidergas' motion to amend its answer regarding inequitable conduct and patent misuse defenses, and denied Sidergas' motion for summary determination of non-infringement, respectively.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Rules On Motion For Summary Determination of Invalidity In Certain Printing And Imaging Devices (337-TA-690)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
07
On May 4, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 29 in Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Component Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-690) granting-in-part Respondents Oki Data Corporation and Oki Data Americas, Inc.’s (collectively “Oki Data”) motion for summary determination of invalidity of certain means-plus-function or step-plus-function claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,388,771 (the ‘771 patent), 6,209,048 (the ‘048 patent) and 5,764,866 (the ‘866 patent) asserted by Complainants Ricoh Company, Ltd., Ricoh Americas Corporation, and Ricoh Electronics, Inc. (collectively “Ricoh”).

The motion focused on various limitations of the asserted claims, each of which Oki Data argued should be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.  Oki Data argued that each of the limitations implements a computer-based function, thus requiring the specifications to disclose a computer or processor containing a specific algorithm for performing the claimed function, which Oki Data asserted the specifications failed to disclose in violation of § 112, ¶ 2.  For the reasons explained below, ALJ Rogers granted the motion in part, finding claim 3 of the ‘771 patent invalid for indefiniteness, but otherwise denied the motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Target Date In Certain Digital Imaging Devices And Related Software (337-TA-717)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
24
Further to our May 14, 2010 post, on May 21, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 4: Setting Target Date in Certain Digital Imaging Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-717).

According to the Order, ALJ Rogers set September 19, 2011, as the target date (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Rogers further indicated that any final initial determination on violation shall be due May 18, 2011.

Share

Read More

ITC Decides To Review In Part Initial Determination Denying Temporary Relief And On Review To Take No Position On Likelihood Of Success On The Merits In Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-695)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
24
On May 21, 2010, the International Trade Commission issued a notice determining to review in part an Initial Determination (“ID”) issued by ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. on March 24, 2010 denying a motion for temporary relief in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-695), and on review, to take no position on likelihood of success on the merits.

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Knowles Electronics LLC (“Knowles”), and the Respondent is Analog Devices, Inc. (“ADI”).  On November 12, 2009, Knowles filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337 concerning certain ADI silicon microphone packages and products containing the same that allegedly infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,781,231 and 7,242,089.  On the same day, Knowles also filed a motion for temporary relief seeking a temporary exclusion order and a temporary cease and desist order against ADI.  The investigation was formally instituted on December 17, 2009, and an evidentiary hearing regarding Knowles’s motion for temporary relief was held from February 17-19, 2010.  On March 24, 2010, ALJ Rogers issued the ID denying Knowles’s motion for temporary relief.  See our April 15, 2010 postfor more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Complainant’s Motion to Compel In Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-695)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
25
On May 21, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 19 in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing the Same (337-TA-695).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Complainant Knowles Electronics LLC’s (“Knowles”) motion to compel the production of two categories of documents against Respondent Analog Devices, Inc. (“Analog”).

According to the Order, Knowles requested Analog to produce unredacted versions of notebook pages from an Analog employee, where the notebook had been redacted due to relevance.  Knowles also requested “leave to file a motion for adverse inferences as necessary based on the redacted information in the notebooks.”  Analog reportedly admitted redacting the notebook pages for relevance, arguing that its employee worked on packaging of MEMS products beyond just the accused MEMS microphones, and that such additional products are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Analog additionally asserted that Knowles did not follow ALJ Rogers’ Ground Rules by “never engag[ing] in intensive good faith efforts to resolve the present dispute at least two business days prior to filing its motion,” and never raising the redacted notebook issue at a Discovery Committee meeting.  ALJ Rogers denied Knowles’ motion to compel the unredacted notebook pages due to Knowles’ failure to follow Ground Rule 4.1.1, which states: “[n]o motion to compel discovery may be filed unless the subject matter of the motion has first been brought to the Discovery Committee and the Committee has reached an impasse in resolving the matter.”  Although he did not reach the substance of this issue, ALJ Rogers stated in a footnote that “redacting documents based on relevance is improper,” citing Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits & Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-665, Order No. 41 (May 12, 2009).

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Digital Imaging Devices And Related Software (337-TA-717)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
04
On June 3, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 5 in Certain Digital Imaging Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-717).

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 indicates that the evidentiary hearing in this investigation will commence on January 31, 2011.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Rules On Motion For Summary Determination In Certain Printing And Imaging Devices (337-TA-690)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
28
On April 9, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 21 in Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-690).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Respondent’s motion for summary determination of non-infringement of claims not asserted in expert reports.

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are Ricoh Co., Ltd., Ricoh Americas Corp., and Ricoh Electronics, Inc. (collectively “Ricoh”); and the Respondents are Oki Data Corp. and Oki Data Americas, Inc (collectively “Oki Data”).  The investigation was instituted on October 20, 2010 based on Ricoh’s complaint of September 18, 2010.  See our October 21, 2009 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion For Summary Determination In Certain Printing And Imaging Devices (337-TA-690)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
29
On June 24, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 24 (dated April 21, 2010) in Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-690) denying Complainants Ricoh Company, Ltd., Ricoh Americas Corporation, and Ricoh Electronics, Inc.’s (collectively, “Ricoh”) motion for summary determination that Ricoh met the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.

In support of its motion, Ricoh asserted that it satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement through its significant investments in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor or capital, and substantial investment in the exploitation of the asserted patents.  Respondents Oki Data Corporation and Oki Data Americas, Inc.’s (collectively “Oki Data”) opposed the motion arguing that genuine issues of material fact remained in dispute.  Specifically, Oki Data argued that the motion improperly relied on declarations provided after the close of fact discovery and that Ricoh failed to provide necessary deductive steps to demonstrate that the claimed investments actually related to the asserted domestic products, and not to other products.  Oki Data’s response also included a cross-motion to preclude Ricoh from relying on the late-produced discovery.  The Commission Investigative Staff filed a response opposing the motion, arguing that the information Ricoh relied on was previously requested by Oki Data and that Ricoh should not be rewarded for withholding information relating to its alleged domestic activities.

Share

Read More