ALJs

ALJ Luckern Rules On Motion To Quash Subpoena In Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems (337-TA-670)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
05
On September 29, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 18 quashing a subpoena served by Respondents CompX International, Inc. and Waterloo Furniture Corporation Ltd. (collectively, “CompX”) on Complainant Humanscale Corp.’s (“Humanscale”) attorneys, Alston & Byrd LLP (“A&B”), in Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-670).

In support of its motion to quash, A&B argued that (1) when A&B ceased to represent Humanscale in 2007, A&B returned to Humanscale all documents that were not work product or confidential; (2) CompX’s subpoena seeks documents already obtained from Humanscale; (3) the requested documents are not relevant to this investigation; (4) compliance with CompX’s subpoena would pose undue burden on A&B; and (5) the burden of reviewing and logging the requested documents outweighs any alleged need for the documents.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion To Compel In Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits (337-TA-666)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
05
On September 30, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 28 (dated September 16, 2009) in Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-666).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied a motion to compel filed by Complainants O2 Micro International Ltd. and O2 Micro Inc.  (collectively, “O2 Micro”) seeking sales and/or importation data stored in the electronic systems of Respondents Asustek Computer, Inc. and Asus Computer International (collectively, “ASUS”).

In support of its motion, O2 Micro argued that (1) ASUS did not provide an export of sales and/or importation data that is stored on ASUS’s electronic systems, including order management systems referred to as “TipTop”; (2) ASUS provided only a partial list of the fields of the data stored on ASUS’s electronic systems, rather than a full identification of the fields of data; and (3) ASUS did not supplement its document productions to include recent sales or importation data.  In response, ASUS argued that (1) ASUS complied with its discovery obligations and responded to all of O2 Micro’s discovery requests, including its production of “over three million pages of documents (as well as nearly one million additional pages from a subsidiary)”; (2) none of O2 Micro’s discovery requests sought the “export” of sales and importation data; and (3) “O2 Micro possesses current sales data through June 30, 2009 and ‘a complete set of sales data for the time period of August 26, 2008, through June 30, 2009.’”

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Target Date In Certain MLC Flash Memory Devices (337-TA-683)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
07
Further to our August 25 and September 1 posts, on October 6, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 5: Setting Target Date and Date for Submission of Proposed Procedural Schedules in Certain MLC Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-683).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex set November 30, 2010 as the target date (which is approximately 15 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Essex further indicated that any final initial determination on violation should be filed no later than July 30, 2010.  In addition, ALJ Essex noted that the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on March 22, 2010.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Sets Target Date And Procedural Schedule For Enforcement Proceeding In Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-617)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
09
Further to our September 8 post, on October 6, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 4: Target Date and Order No. 5: Procedural Schedule in Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-617).

In Order No. 4, ALJ Charneski set September 27, 2010 as the target date and further determined that the Enforcement Initial Determination is due on May 27, 2010.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Public Version of Enforcement Initial Determination In Certain R-134a Coolant (337-TA-623)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
09
Further to our September 24 post, on October 7, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of the Enforcement Initial Determination (“EID”) in Certain R-134a Coolant (Otherwise Known as 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane) (Inv. No. 337-TA-623).  In the EID, ALJ Luckern determined that enforcement Respondent Sinochem Environmental Protection Chemicals (Taicang) Co., Ltd. (“Sinochem”) did not violate the Consent Order issued by the Commission on September 11, 2008.  ALJ Luckern also determined that no enforcement measures are appropriate should the Commission find a violation of the Consent Order.

By way of background, INEOS Fluor Holdings Ltd., INEOS Fluor Ltd. and INEOS Fluor Americas LLC (collectively, “INEOS”) filed a complaint in December 2007 alleging violations of Section 337 by several respondents including Sinochem in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain R-134a coolant (otherwise known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane) by reason of infringement of certain patents, including U.S. Patent No. 5,559,276.  See our April 6 post for more details.  On August 15, 2008, the Sinochem respondents moved for partial termination of the investigation based on the entry of a Consent Order specific to their “old” process for manufacture of R-134a coolant.  On August 20, 2008, the ALJ issued an initial determination (“ID”) granting the motion and terminating the investigation with respect to the “old” process.  The Commission determined not to review the ALJ’s ID and issued a Consent Order on September 11, 2008.  On December 12, 2008, INEOS filed a complaint, requesting that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding to investigate an alleged violation of the Consent Order relating to the “old” process.  On February 18, 2009, the Commission issued a notice instituting a formal enforcement proceeding.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Suspends Procedural Schedule In Certain Collaborative System Products (337-TA-682)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
15
Further to our September 14 post, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 6:  Suspension of Procedural Schedule in Certain Collaborative System Products and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-682).

According to the Order, the procedural schedule has been suspended in view of the fact that the Complainant eInstruction Corporation and Respondent Qomo HiteVision, LLC “have reached a tentative settlement.”  Additionally, ALJ Gildea orders the parties to report back to the ALJ no later than October 30, 2009 regarding their settlement status.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Initial Determination In Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors (337-TA-650)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
15
On October 13, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued a notice regarding the Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) in Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-650).

The Complainant in this investigation is John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC, Inc. (“PPC”) and the Respondents are Fu Ching Technical Industry Co. Ltd. and Gem Electronics, Inc. (“Respondents”).

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
19
On October 14, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination On Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-665).

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, Seagate Technologies International (Singapore), and Seagate (US) LLC (collectively “Respondents”).

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Grants Motion To Strike Supplemental Expert Report In Certain Electronic Devices (337-TA-667/673)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
19
On October 13, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 34C (dated August 28, 2009) in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-667/673).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted a motion to strike the supplemental expert report of Complainant Saxon Innovations, LLC’s (“Saxon”) expert witness filed by Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLP (collectively, “Samsung”).

In support of the motion to strike, Samsung argued that Saxon’s supplemental expert report was untimely because the deadline for initial expert reports was July 24, 2009, but Saxon’s supplemental report had been filed on August 17, 2009.  Further, Samsung argued that since the supplemental expert report relied on documents and information that had already been available to Saxon before the July 24, 2009 deadline, there was no issue of later-acquired information that might have justified a supplemental expert report under Commission Rule 210.27(c).

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Initial Determination In Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels (337-TA-655)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
19
On October 16, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination  (“ID”) 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. and the Respondents are Standard Car Truck Co., Inc., Barber Tianrui Railway Supply, LLC, Tianrui Group Company Limited, and Tianrui Group Foundry Company Limited (collectively, “Respondents”).

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain MLC Flash Memory Devices (337-TA-683)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
19
On October 15, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 7: Setting Procedural Schedules in Certain MLC Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-683).

In the Order, ALJ Essex set the procedural schedule for the investigation.  He included a provision for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions, and scheduled the evidentiary hearing to begin on March 22, 2010.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Recommended Determination On Remedy And Bonding In Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines (337-TA-641)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
22
On October 21, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version (dated August 21, 2009) of the Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding (“RD”) in Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-641).  In the RD, ALJ Charneski recommended (1) that a limited exclusion order issue; (2) a cease and desist order not issue as to any respondent; and (3) if the Commission issues an exclusion order, the Presidential review period bond should be set at 100% of the entered value of any covered product.

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is General Electric Co. (“GE”) and the Respondents are Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (“MHI”), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc. (“MHIA”), and Mitsubishi Power System, Inc. (“MPSA”) (collectively, “Mitsubishi”).  On August 7, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued the initial determination in this investigation, 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 variable speed wind turbines and components thereof.  See our August 10 and October 8 posts for more details about the current status of this investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants In Part Motion For Summary Determination Of Importation In Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits (337-TA-666)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
22
On October 21, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 31 (dated September 24, 2009) in Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-666).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted in part Complainants O2 Micro International Ltd. and O2 Micro Inc.’s (collectively, “O2 Micro”) motion for summary determination that the activities of Respondent ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (“ASUSTeK”) satisfy the importation requirement of Section 337 and constitute one or more “territorial acts” proscribed under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

In the motion, O2 Micro alleged that ASUSTeK sells its accused products for importation into the United States, imports its accused products into the United States, and sells its accused products within the United States after importation.  Further, O2 Micro contended that the latter two activities, i.e., importing accused products into and selling accused products in the United States, are “predicate elements of infringement” under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version of Initial Determination In Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines (337-TA-641)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
29
Further to our August 10 post, on October 21, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated August 7, 2009) in Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-641).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is General Electric Co. (“GE”) and the Respondents are Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (“MHI”), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc. (“MHIA”), and Mitsubishi Power System, Inc. (“MPSA”) (collectively, “Mitsubishi”).  On August 7, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued the ID in this investigation 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 variable speed wind turbines and components thereof.  According to the ID, ALJ Charneski held that Mitsubishi’s turbines infringe claim 121 of the asserted ‘039 patent, and claim 15 of the asserted ‘985 patent.  Additionally, while ALJ Charneski determined that Mitsubishi’s turbines infringe claims 5, 7, and 8 of the asserted ‘221 patent, he also determined that GE did not practice any claim of the asserted ‘221 patent, and therefore did not satisfy the domestic industry (technical prong) requirement for the ‘221 patent.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Target Date In Certain Printing And Imaging Devices (337-TA-690)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
30
Further to our October 21 post, on October 29, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 4: Setting Target Date in Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-690).

According to the Order, the Initial Determination will be due on September 27, 2010, and the target date for completion of this investigation is January 25, 2011 (which is 15 months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
30
On October 30, 2009, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice regarding the Supplemental Initial Determination (“Supplemental ID”) in Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-501).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Amkor Technology, Inc. and the  Respondents are Carsem (M) Sdn Bhd, Carsem Semiconductor Sdn Bhd, and Carsem, Inc.

Share

Read More