ALJs

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion For Protective Order In Certain Consumer Electronics With Display And Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
30
On September 23, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 30 denying Respondents Toshiba Corporation and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.’s (collectively, “Toshiba”) motion seeking a protective order in Certain Consumer Electronics With Display and Processing Capabilities (Inv. No. 337-TA-884).

By way of background, the Commission instituted this investigation on June 20, 2013 based on a complaint filed by Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. (“GPH”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain consumer electronics with display and processing capabilities that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,650,327, 8,144,158 and/or 5,717,881.  See our May 21, 2013 and June 24, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Wiper Blades (337-TA-816)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
30
On September 30, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 103 in Certain Wiper Blades (Inv. No. 337-TA-816).

According to the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Robert Bosch LLC and Respondents Corea Autoparts Producing Corporation, CAP America, Inc. and PIAA Corporation USA to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Order Regarding Respondent’s Jurisdiction Argument In Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps (337-TA-830)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
01
On September 23, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 6 regarding Respondent MaxLite, Inc.’s (“MaxLite”) jurisdiction argument in Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-830).

By way of background, the Commission instituted this investigation on February 22, 2012 based on a complaint filed by Neptun Light, Inc. and Andrzej Bobel (collectively, “Neptun”) alleging violation of Section 337 by reason of infringement of various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,434,480 and 8,035,318 by several respondents, including MaxLite.  See our February 23, 2012 post for more details.  On July 25, 2012, the Commission terminated the investigation as to MaxLite and entered a consent order preventing MaxLite from importing dimmable compact fluorescent lamps (“CFLs”) that infringed claim 9 of the ‘480 patent.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Claim Construction Order In Certain Windshield Wipers (337-TA-881)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
02
On September 27, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 11 construing the disputed terms of the asserted claims in Certain Windshield Wipers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-881).

By way of background, this investigation was instituted by the ITC on June 11, 2013 based on a complaint filed by Federal-Mogul Corporation and Federal-Mogul S.A. (collectively, “FM”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondents Trico Corporation, Trico Products, and Trico Components SA de CV (collectively, “Trico”) in the importation and/or sale of certain windshield wiper devices and components thereof that infringe claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,347,449 (the ‘449 patent).  See our May 13, 2013 and June 10, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.

Read More

ALJ Essex Denies-In-Part Motion To Compel In Certain Wireless Communications Base Stations (337-TA-871)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
03
On September 30, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 13 (dated September 4, 2013) denying-in-part Respondents Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson Inc.’s (collectively, “Ericsson”) motion to compel Complainant Adaptix, Inc. (“Adaptix”) to provide discovery from its parent company, Acacia Research Corporation (“Acacia”) in Certain Wireless Communications Base Stations and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-871).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a January 24, 2013 complaint filed by Adaptix alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless communications base stations and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,870,808.  See our January 25, 2013 and February 26, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Respondents’ Motion to Supplement Invalidity Contentions in Certain Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-873)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
04
On September 27, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 28 (dated September 12, 2013) in Certain Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-873).

According to the Order, Respondents filed a motion to supplement their invalidity contentions in response to discovery that Intel Corporation (“Intel”), a nonparty, provided related to Intel prior art products and inventive activities (collectively, the “Intel Prior Art”). 

Read More

ALJ Bullock Rules On Motions In Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities And Components Thereof (337-TA-868)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
04
On September 26, 2013, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public versions of Order Nos. 65 and 66 (both dated September 13, 2013) in Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-868).

According to Order No. 65, Complainants InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “InterDigital”) filed a motion to compel Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd; Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) to provide certain discovery.  Parts of the motion were later withdrawn leaving only a request for an additional corporate deposition regarding Deposition Topic No. 5.

Read More

ALJ Lord Denies Motion To Amend Protective Order In Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices (337-TA-854)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
07
On September 24, 2013, ALJ Sandra (Dee) Lord issued Order No. 15 denying DeLorme Publishing Company, Inc. and DeLorme InReach, LLC’s (collectively, “DeLorme”) motion to amend the protective order in Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices, System and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-854). 

By way of background, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) instituted the underlying investigation on September 18, 2012 based on BriarTek IP, Inc.’s (“BriarTek”) complaint of August 17, 2012.  See our September 19, 2012 post for more details.  On March 15, 2013, ALJ Robert K. Rogers granted a motion by DeLorme to terminate the investigation and for entry of a proposed consent order (“the consent order”).  See our March 19, 2013 post for more details.  In the consent order, DeLorme agreed that it would not import or sell two-way global satellite communication devices, systems, or components thereof that infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,991,380 (the ‘380 patent) after April 1, 2013.  On April 10, 2013, BriarTek filed an enforcement complaint alleging that DeLorme violated the consent order.  See our April 11, 2013 post for additional details.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Notice Regarding Evidentiary Issues In Certain Wiper Blades (337-TA-816)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
08
On September 24, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice to the parties regarding certain evidentiary issues in Certain Wiper Blades (Inv. No. 337-TA-816).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Robert Bosch LLC (“Bosch”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation and sale of certain “flat” or “beam-type” wiper blade devices that infringe one or more claims of the asserted patents.  See our October 27, 2011 post for more details on Bosch’s complaint.  As explained in our November 2, 2012 post, the Commission determined to review Order Nos. 51 and 52 and the claim constructions those orders turned upon.  Further, the details of the Commission’s subsequent opinion reversing the ALJ’s initial determination can be found in our April 29, 2013 post.

Read More

ALJ Essex Denies Motion To Terminate Investigation For Lack Of Standing In Certain Wireless Communications Base Stations (337-TA-871)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
09
On September 30, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 14 (dated September 4, 2013) denying Respondents Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson Inc.’s (collectively, “Ericsson”) motion to terminate the investigation for lack of standing in Certain Wireless Communications Base Stations and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-871).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a January 24, 2013 complaint filed by Adaptix, Inc. (“Adaptix”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless communications base stations and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,870,808.  See our January 25, 2013 and February 26, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Samsung’s Motion For Summary Determination With Respect to the Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry Requirement in Certain Wireless Communications Equipment (337-TA-866)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
11
On September 26, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 41 (dated September 11, 2013) in Certain Wireless Communications Equipment and Articles Therein (Inv. No. 337-TA-866).

According to the Order, Complainants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) filed a motion for summary determination that Samsung satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement based on activities related to Samsung’s base station business.  Samsung’s motion was unopposed.  Samsung asserted that it had made a significant investment in plant and equipment, a significant investment in labor and capital, and a substantial investment in engineering and research and development activities.  Samsung relied on its significant investments in rent, construction, infrastructure improvements, and equipment to show a significant investment in plant and equipment.  To show a significant investment in labor and capital, Samsung relied on its investments in salaries and benefits for employees, the use of third-party contractors, and the use of other contractors associated with the Asserted Base Station Patents.  Finally, Samsung relied on its investments in labor, overhead, and operating costs for LTE activities related to base stations practicing at least one claim of the Asserted Base Station Patents to demonstrate a substantial investment in engineering and research and development activities.

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants-In-Part Nonparty Motion To Limit Subpoena In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
14
On September 30, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 30 (dated September 19, 2013) granting-in-part nonparty Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc.’s (“Hillcrest”) motion to quash or limit the subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum served on it by Complainant STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“STM”) in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).

According to the Order, Hillcrest questioned in its motion the relevance of the discovery requested by the subpoena, arguing that the subpoena was not narrowly tailored, was burdensome, was duplicative of discovery in the possession of Respondents InvenSense, Inc. (“Invensense”) and Roku, Inc. (“Roku”), and that information sought was otherwise publicly available.  Hillcrest added that the subpoena also sought discovery that should not be provided to certain of STM’s experts.  In opposition, STM argued that it had already narrowed the subpoena scope in discussions with Hillcrest and that Hillcrest is the “critical link” between InvenSense and Roku, possessing discovery related to infringement.  STM also stated that it had attempted to get the necessary discovery from Roku and Invensense, but both Respondents directed STM to Hillcrest.  Accordingly, STM argued that its need outweighed the burden imposed on Hillcrest to obtain the discovery.  With regard to the motion to quash, STM argued that quashing the subpoena would be improper, that protections were available under the Protective Order, and offered that it would limit its two experts’ access to certain of Hillcrest’s confidential business information.

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Motion to Enforce Order In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
15
On September 30, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 28 (dated September 18, 2013) in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted Complainant STMicroelectronics, Inc.’s (“STM”) motion to enforce Order No. 7 against Respondent InvenSense, Inc. (“InvenSense”).

By way of background, in Order No. 7, InvenSense was ordered to produce documents responsive to numerous document requests by no later than July 1, 2013.  See our July 3, 2013 post for further details.  In its motion to enforce, STM argued that InvenSense had not complied with Order No. 7 because the deposition of InvenSense’s corporate witness demonstrated that it had been withholding nonparty material responsive to STM’s discovery requests. STM’s motion also requested sanctions if InvenSense should further fail to produce the requested discovery. 

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (337-TA-850)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
18
On September 30, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-850).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a May 23, 2012 complaint filed by FlashPoint Technology, Inc. of Peterborough, New Hampshire alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain electronic imaging devices that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,400,471 (the ‘471 patent), 6,222,538 (the ‘538 patent), 6,504,575, and 6,223,190 (the ‘190 patent).  See our June 27, 2012 postfor more details on this investigation.

Read More

ALJ Shaw Terminates Investigation As To Sharp In Certain Digital Media Devices (337-TA-882)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
23
On October 21, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 23 in Certain Digital Media Devices, Including Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets and Mobile Phones, Components Thereof and Associated Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-882).

By way of background, this investigation was instituted on June 12, 2013 and is based on a May 13, 2013 complaint filed by Black Hills Media, LLC (“BHM”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain digital media devices that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,028,323; 8,214,873; 8,230,099; 8,045,952; 8,050,652 and 6,618,593.  See our May 16, 2013 and June 20, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and the notice of investigation, respectively.

Read More

ALJ Shaw Sets Target Date And Orders Discovery Statements In Certain Point-To-Point Network Communication Devices (337-TA-892)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
24
On October 21, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order Nos. 6 and 7 setting the target date for completion of the investigation and ordering a discovery statement from the parties, respectively, in Certain Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-892).

According to Order No. 6, the Initial Determination is due on September 9, 2014 and the target date for completion of the investigation is January 9, 2015 (which is approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Nonparty Hillcrest’s Motion for Reconsideration in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
28
On October 23, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 39 in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).

According to the Order, on September 27, 2013 Nonparty Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc. (“Hillcrest”) filed a motion seeking reconsideration of Order No. 30 regarding Hillcrest’s motion to quash or limit the subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum served on it by Complainant STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“Complainant”). 

Read More

ALJ Pender Sets 16-Month Target Date In Certain Thermal Support Devices For Infants (337-TA-896)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
28
Further to our October 21, 2013 post, on October 23, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 3 in Certain Thermal Support Devices For Infants, Infant Incubators, Infant Warmers, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-896).

According to the Order, ALJ Pender set the target date for completion of this investigation as February 3, 2015 (which is approximately sixteen months after institution of the investigation).  In addition, ALJ Pender set the procedural schedule for the investigation and provided for the early exchange of claim terms and proposed constructions.  ALJ Pender also determined that a Markman hearing will commence on January 22, 2014; the evidentiary hearing will commence on June 9, 2014; and any final initial determination will issue no later than October 3, 2014.

Read More

ALJ Lord Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Mobile Handset Devices And Related Touch Keyboard Software (337-TA-864)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
28
On October 23, 2013, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 22 in Certain Mobile Handset Devices and Related Touch Keyboard Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-864.

According to the Order, Complainants Nuance Communications, Inc., Swype, Inc., and Tegic Communications, Inc. and Respondent Shanghai HanXiang (CooTek) Information Technology Co., Ltd. filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on a settlement agreement.  ALJ Lord granted the motion, determining that the terms of the settlement have no negative effect on the public health and welfare or competitive conditions in the U.S.

Read More

ALJ Lord Sets 16-Month Target Date In Certain Optical Disc Drives (337-TA-897)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
29
Further to our October 23, 2013 post, on October 28, 2013, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 3 in Certain Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-897).

According to the Order, ALJ Lord set the target date for completion of this investigation as February 25, 2015 (which is approximately sixteen months after institution of the investigation).  In addition, ALJ Lord determined that any initial determination will issue no later than October 24, 2014.

Read More