ALJs

ALJ Shaw Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Point-To-Point Network Communication Devices (337-TA-892)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
29
On October 28, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 9 in Certain Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-892).

In the Order, ALJ Shaw included provisions for the early exchange of claim terms and proposed constructions.  In addition, ALJ Shaw determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on May 13, 2014; the Initial Determination is due on September 9, 2014; and the target date for completing the investigation is January 9, 2015 (which is approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Rules On Motions For Summary Determination In Certain Cases For Portable Electronic Devices (337-TA-861/867)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
30
On October 17, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of Order Nos. 15 and 16 (dated September 10, 2013 and September 17, 2013, respectively) granting-in-part Complainant Speculative Product Design, LLC’s (“Speck”) motion for partial summary determination regarding domestic industry and granting Respondent Body Glove International, LLC’s (“Body Glove”) motion for summary determination that it has not violated Section 337 in Certain Cases For Portable Electronic Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-861/867).

By way of background, Speck is the Complainant in this investigation and the Respondents are Body Glove, Anbess Electronics Co. Ltd., Fellowes, Inc. (“Fellowes”), ROCON Digital Technology Corp., SW-Box.com, Trait Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Hongkong Wexun Ltd., En Jinn Industrial Co. Ltd., Shengda Huanqiu Shijie, Global Digital Star Industry, Ltd., JWIN Electronics Corp. d/b/a iLuv, Project Horizon, Inc. d/b/a InMotion Entertainment, Superior Communications, Inc. d/b/a PureGear (“Superior”), and Jie Sheng Technology.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) is also a party to the investigation.  Speck has asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,204,561 (the ‘561 patent) against Respondents.  Speck alleges that its CandyShell line of phone cases, sold in the U.S., practices one or more claims of the ‘561 patent.  See our November 16, 2012, January 29, 2013, and July 9, 2013 posts for more background on this investigation. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets 16-Month Target Date In Certain Tires (337-TA-894)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
31
Further to our September 16, 2013 post, on October 25, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 5 in Certain Tires and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-894).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set January 20, 2015 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is approximately sixteen months after institution of the investigation).  In addition, ALJ Bullock directed the parties to submit proposed procedural schedules by November 4, 2013.  ALJ Bullock further noted that the evidentiary hearing in this investigation will commence on May 5, 2014, for purposes of preparing proposed procedural schedules.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Denies Motion To Declassify Identity Of Licensees In Certain Digital Media Devices (337-TA-882)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
31
On October 28, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 26 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.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Terminates Investigation As To Superior Communications In Certain Cases For Portable Electronic Devices (337-TA-861/867)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
01
On October 29, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 19 in Certain Cases For Portable Electronic Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-861/867).

By way of background, Speculative Product Design, LLC (“Speck”) is the Complainant in this investigation and the Respondents are Body Glove, Anbess Electronics Co. Ltd., Fellowes, Inc. (“Fellowes”), ROCON Digital Technology Corp., SW-Box.com, Trait Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Hongkong Wexun Ltd., En Jinn Industrial Co. Ltd., Shengda Huanqiu Shijie, Global Digital Star Industry, Ltd., JWIN Electronics Corp. d/b/a iLuv, Project Horizon, Inc. d/b/a InMotion Entertainment, Superior Communications, Inc. d/b/a PureGear (“Superior”), and Jie Sheng Technology.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) is also a party to the investigation.  Speck has asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,204,561 (the ‘561 patent) against Respondents.  Speck alleges that its CandyShell line of phone cases, sold in the U.S., practices one or more claims of the ‘561 patent.  See our November 16, 2012, January 29, 2013, and July 9, 2013 posts for more background on this investigation.  

Share

Read More

ALJ Lord Sets 16-Month Target Date In Certain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills (337-TA-895)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
01
Further to our September 23, 2013 post, on October 30, 2013, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 7 in Certain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills and Parts Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-895).

In the Order, ALJ Lord set January 26, 2015 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is approximately sixteen months after institution of the investigation).  In addition, ALJ Lord directed the parties to submit proposed procedural schedules by November 5, 2013.  ALJ Lord further noted that the evidentiary hearing in this investigation will commence on July 14, 2014 and the Initial Determination on alleged violation of Section 337 will be issued on September 26, 2014.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants-In-Part Motion To Compel In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
04
On October 28, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 32 (dated September 20, 2013) granting-in-part Respondents’ motion to compel in Certain Microeletrcomechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).

According to the Order, Respondents sought to compel Complainant STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“STM”) to produce its U.S. tax returns and certain documents relating to foreign investments on the grounds that the requested discovery will allow Respondents to see how STM characterizes its employee activities, and allow Respondents to engage in a “contextual domestic industry analysis.”  STM countered that there is no precedent to support a contextual domestic industry analysis when domestic industry is asserted pursuant to Section 337(a)(3)(C), and that the request for tax returns is cumulative of other discovery already provided.  STM also argued that IRS regulations require certain characterizations for tax reporting purposes that may differ significantly from what the Commission is concerned with for domestic industry expenditures, and that the request will therefore generate confusion.  STM further pointed out that Respondents waited two months after STM’s provided its discovery responses to bring their motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones And Tablet Computers (337-TA-847)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
04
Further to our September 23, 2013 post, on October 24, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of his Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) (dated September 23, 2013) in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-847).  Due to the large size of the ID, we have split the document into part 1 and part 2.  

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Nokia Corp.; Nokia, Inc.; and Intellisync Corporation (collectively, “Nokia”) alleging violation of Section 337 by HTC Corp.; HTC America, Inc.; and Exedea, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”)  in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain electronic devices that infringe one or more claims of certain patents.  See our May 3, 2012 and June 7, 2012 posts for more details on Nokia’s complaint and the notice of investigation, respectively.  On August 7, 2012, ALJ Pender granted Google, Inc. status as an Intervenor, but denied status as a respondent.  See our August 10, 2012 post for more details. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices (337-TA-853)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
05
On October 24, 2013, ALJ James E. Gildea issued the public versions (dated September 6, 2013) of his Initial Determination (“ID”) and Recommended Determination (“RD”) on remedy and bond in Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-853).  Due to its large size, we have separated the ID into part 1, part 2, and part 3.

By way of background, this investigation is based on a July 24, 2012 complaint filed by Technology Properties Limited LLC and Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC, both of Cupertino, California, and Patriot Scientific Corporation of Carlsbad, California (collectively, “Complainants”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless consumer electronics devices and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 (the ‘336 patent).  See our July 26, 2012 and August 24, 2012 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Flash Memory Chips (337-TA-893)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
06
Further to our September 9, 2013 and September 11, 2013 posts, on November 5, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 5 in Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-893).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea set the procedural schedule for the investigation and provided for the early exchange of claim terms and proposed constructions.  ALJ Gildea also determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on May 27, 2014, any final initial determination will issue no later than September 12, 2014, and the target date for completion of the investigation is January 12, 2015 (which is approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Tires (337-TA-894)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
11
Further to our September 16, 2013 and October 31, 2013 posts, on November 7, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 6 in Certain Tires and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-894).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set the procedural schedule for the investigation.  The ALJ determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on May 5, 2014, any final initial determination will issue no later than September 19, 2014, and the target date for completion of the investigation is January 20, 2015 (which is approximately sixteen months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Order To Show Cause In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
11
On November 8, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 44 requiring that Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (“Finnegan”), counsel for nonparty Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc. (“Hillcrest”), show cause why they should not be sanctioned in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).

By way of background, ALJ Gildea had previously issued Order No. 30 granting-in-part Hillcrest’s motion to quash a subpoena served by Complainant STMicroelectronics, Inc., and ordering Hillcrest to produce documents and one or more knowledgeable witnesses for deposition in connection with discovery related to infringement.  See our October 14, 2013 post for more details.  However, instead of complying with Order No. 30, Hillcrest filed a motion for reconsideration which the ALJ denied in Order No. 39.  In doing so, ALJ Gildea made specific findings that the motion appeared to be “frivolous and calculated to create delay,” including putting Hillcrest on notice that the ALJ would consider whether “it would be productive to issue an order to show cause why [Finnegan] should not be sanctioned pursuant to Commission Rule 210.4(c) and (d)(1)(ii).”  ALJ Gildea added that he “has issued warnings, but never issued sanctions pursuant to this rule; yet if there was ever an example of a motion that appeared to warrant a show cause order, it is this motion for reconsideration.”  See our October 28, 2013 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion In Limine In Certain Wiper Blades (337-TA-816)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
11
On November 1, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 87 (dated September 24, 2013) in Certain Wiper Blades (Inv. No. 337-TA-816).

According to the Order, Complainant Robert Bosch LLC (“Bosch”) filed a motion in limine to preclude Respondents ADM21 Co., Ltd.; ADM21 Co. (North America) Ltd.; Cequent Consumer Products, Inc.; RainEater, LLC; and Daewoo International Corp. (collectively, “Respondents”) from calling Bosch’s trial counsel, Mr. Ginsberg, to testify at the evidentiary hearing.  Bosch argued that Mr. Ginsberg’s testimony is cumulative of other evidence in the record and that his testimony is not crucial to Respondents’ defense.  Alternatively, if ALJ Bullock denied Bosch’s motion, Bosch requested that Mr. Ginsberg be permitted to act as advocate and testify in accordance with the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.  In opposition, Respondents argued that Mr. Ginsberg’s testimony was not cumulative of any other evidence and was necessary for ALJ Bullock to assess Mr. Ginsberg’s intent and credibility.  Furthermore, Respondents asserted that Mr. Ginsberg was the primary and most senior participant in the events at the 2010 APEX trade show, which are some of the events at-issue in the evidentiary hearing.

Share

Read More

ALJ Lord Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills (337-TA-895)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
14
Further to our September 23, 2013 and November 1, 2013 posts, on November 12, 2013, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 9 in Certain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills and Parts Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-895).

In the Order, ALJ Lord set the procedural schedule for the investigation.  The ALJ determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on July 14, 2014, any final initial determination will issue no later than September 26, 2014, and the target date for completion of the investigation is January 26, 2015 (which is approximately sixteen months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Terminates Investigation As To Tirecrawler.com In Certain Tires (337-TA-894)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
14
On November 12, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 9 in Certain Tires and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-894).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainants Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd., Toyo Tire Holdings of Americas Inc., Toyo Tire U.S.A. Corp., Nitto Tire U.S.A. Inc., and Toyo Tire North America Manufacturing Inc. and Respondent Tirecrawler.com based on a settlement agreement.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants-In-Part Motion To Compel In Certain Windshield Wipers (337-TA-881)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
15
On November 13, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 8 (dated September 13, 2013) granting-in-part Complainants’ Motion to Compel in Certain Windshield Wipers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-881).

According to the Order, Complainants Federal-Mogul Corporation and Federal-Mogul SA (collectively, “Federal-Mogul”) filed a motion to compel Respondents Trico Products Corporation and Trico Componentes SA de CV (collectively, “Trico”) to provide complete responses to certain interrogatories and produce documents in response to certain document requests.  Federal-Mogul argued that Trico was withholding information responsive to contention interrogatories until the deadline for final responses.  Additionally, Federal-Mogul asserted that Trico was withholding documents created after April 8, 2013, the date Trico filed its complaint.  In opposition, Trico argued that it supplemented its interrogatory responses, rendering Federal-Mogul’s motion with respect to the interrogatories moot.  Trico also asserted that it is not refusing to produce documents created after April 8, 2013, but rather is waiting for the ALJ’s ruling on the issue as contained in the parties’ Joint Discovery Statement.  The Commission Investigative Staff agreed with Federal-Mogul’s arguments with respect to the document production and agreed with Trico’s arguments regarding the interrogatories.

Share

Read More

ALJ Lord Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Optical Disc Drives (337-TA-897)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
15
Further to our October 23, 2013 and October 29, 2013 posts, on November 13, 2013, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 7 in Certain Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-897).

In the Order, ALJ Lord set the procedural schedule for the investigation.  The ALJ determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on August 4, 2014, any final initial determination will issue no later than October 24, 2014, and the target date for completion of the investigation is February 25, 2015 (which is approximately sixteen months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Grants Motion To Compel In Certain Crawler Cranes (337-TA-887)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
19
On November 15, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 8 granting Complainant Manitowoc Cranes, LLC’s (“Manitowoc”) motion to compel Respondents Sany Heavy Industry, Ltd. and Sany America, Inc. (collectively, “Sany”) to provide complete English translations of invalidity contentions and the foreign-language references identified therein in Certain Crawler Cranes and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-887).

According to the Order, Manitowoc argued that Sany “obfuscated” the substance of its invalidity contentions and was “attempting to require Manitowoc to incur the burden and expense of translating” those contentions “without Manitowoc knowing how Respondents will later contend that those references should be translated.”  Sany countered that it already provided the requested translations and would provide revised claim charts.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Denies Motion To Compel In Certain Omega-3 Extracts From Marine Or Aquatic Biomass (337-TA-877)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
21
On November 15, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 33 in Certain Omega-3 Extracts from Marine or Aquatic Biomass and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-877).

According to the Order, complainants Neptune Technologies & Bioressources Inc. and Ascati Pharma Inc. (collectively “Neptune”) filed a motion to compel respondents Enzymotec Ltd. and Enzymotec USA, Inc. (collectively, “Enzymotec”) to produce emails in response to Neptune’s email requests.  Neptune argued that Enzymotec conducted its email search using extremely narrow search parameters.  Neptune asserted that their proposed search terms are needed to produce information relevant to “indirect infringement, secondary considerations of non-obviousness, and the public interest.”  Neptune further argued that “consistency” required granting Neptune’s motion because the ALJ granted Enzymotec’s motion to compel.

Share

Read More

ALJ Lord Sets 16-Month Target Date In Certain Navigation Products (337-TA-900)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
21
Further to our November 12, 2013 and November 14, 2013 posts, on November 20, 2013, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 3 in Certain Navigation Products, Including GPS Devices, Navigation and Display Systems, Radar Systems, Navigational Aids, Mapping Systems and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-900).

In the Order, ALJ Lord set March 16, 2015 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is approximately sixteen months after institution of the investigation).  In addition, ALJ Lord noted that the Initial Determination on alleged violation of Section 337 will be issued on November 14, 2014.

Share

Read More