ALJs

ALJ Lord Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Navigation Products (337-TA-900)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
14
Further to our November 12 and November 21, 2013 posts, on December 6, 2013 ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 7 setting the procedural schedule 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).

According to the Order, ALJ Lord determined that a Markman hearing will commence on March 6, 2014; the evidentiary hearing will commence on August 25, 2014; and any final initial determination will issue no later than November 14, 2014.  The target date for completion of the investigation is March 16, 2015 (which is approximately sixteen months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Terminates Investigation In Certain Wireless Communications Base Stations (337-TA-871)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
16
On December 13, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 35 granting Complainant Adaptix, Inc.'s (“Adaptix”) motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on withdrawal of the complaint in Certain Wireless Communications Base Stations and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-871).

According to the Order, while no party objected to the withdrawal of the complaint and termination of the investigation, Respondents Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson Inc. (collectively, “Ericsson”) alleged that Adaptix engaged in sanctionable conduct, that their service of a proposed sanctions motion caused Adaptix to reconsider pursuing its complaint, and that Ericsson has not paid any consideration for Adaptix's withdrawal of the complaint.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain Optoelectronic Devices For Fiber Optic Communications (337-TA-860)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
17
On December 13, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a notice regarding his Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Optoelectronic Devices for Fiber Optic Communications, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-860).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a complaint and letters supplementing the complaint filed by Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation and sale of certain optoelectronic devices for fiber optic communications, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,947,456 (“the ‘456 patent”) and 5,596,595 (“the ‘595 patent”).  See our September 26, 2012 post for more details about the complaint.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Terminates Investigation As To American Omni Trading And Dunlap & Kyle In Certain Tires (337-TA-894)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
17
On December 13, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 19 in Certain Tires and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-894).

According to the Order, 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. filed a motion to terminate the investigation as to Respondents American Omni Trading Co. and Dunlap & Kyle d/b/a Gateway Tire and Service based on a settlement agreement entered into between the parties.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Aker Respondents In Certain Omega-3 Extracts From Marine Or Aquatic Biomass (337-TA-877)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
18
On December 17, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 40 in Certain Omega-3 Extracts from Marine or Aquatic Biomass and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-877).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex granted Complainants Neptune Technologies & Bioressources Inc. and Ascati Pharma Inc. and Respondents Aker BioMarine AS, Aker BioMarine Antarctic AS, and Aker BioMarine Antarctic USA, Inc.’s (collectively, the “Aker Respondents”) joint motion to terminate the investigation as to the Aker Respondents on the basis of a settlement agreement reached between the parties.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motions To Terminate Investigation In Certain Tires (337-TA-894)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
20
On December 13, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order Nos. 18 and 20 in Certain Tires and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-894).

According to Order No. 18, ALJ Bullock granted 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.’s (collectively, “Toyo”) motion to terminate the investigation as to Respondent Weifang Shunfuchang Rubber & Plastic Co., Ltd. based on a consent order stipulation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies-In-Part Summary Determination Motion On Domestic Industry In Certain Windshield Wipers (337-TA-881)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
20
On December 18, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 22 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”) moved for summary determination that they satisfy both the economic and technical prongs of the domestic industry requirement.  Respondents Trico Products Corporation and Trico Componentes SA de CV (collectively, “Trico”) along with the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) filed responses to the motion and did not dispute that Federal-Mogul has satisfied the existence of the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.  Both Trico and OUII, however, opposed the motion as to the technical prong. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Denies Motion To Quash In Certain Digital Media Devices (337-TA-882)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
23
On December 13, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 33 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).  In the Order, ALJ Shaw denied non-party sMedio America Inc.’s (“SMA”) motion to quash a subpoena ad testificandum that had been issued based on the application of Complainant Black Hills Media, LLC (“BHM”).  ALJ Shaw also denied BHM’s cross-motion to certify a request to the Commission for enforcement of the subpoena ad testificandum, as well as for the enforcement of a subpoena duces tecum.

According to the Order, SMA argued that the subpoena ad testificandum should be quashed because the information sought by BHM relates to technologies developed and manufactured by SMA’s parent company sMedio Inc. and sister company sMedio Technology (Shanghai) Inc.  SMA argued that it does not control its parent and sister companies and that it has no knowledge concerning the documents, things, or information created by those companies that relate to BHM’s subpoena.  Accordingly, SMA argued that requiring it to provide a witness in response to BHM’s subpoena would be moot and unduly burdensome to SMA.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Denies Motion To Prevent Disclosure Of Confidential Business Information To Expert In Certain Crawler Cranes (337-TA-887)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
24
On December 18, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 11 in Certain Crawler Cranes and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-887).  In the Order, ALJ Shaw denied Complainant Manitowoc Cranes, LLC’s (“Manitowoc Cranes”) motion to prevent disclosure of its confidential business information to Mr. Thomas K. Becker.

According to the Order, Manitowoc Cranes argued that Respondents had identified Mr. Becker as an expert on Respondents’ behalf in the investigation, and that Mr. Becker had been previously employed by Manitowoc Cranes’ parent company for 25 years.  Manitowoc Cranes objected to Mr. Becker’s proposed role as an expert for three reasons.  First, Manitowoc Cranes argued that there was significant risk that Mr. Becker would disclose confidential information to which he had been exposed during his previous employment with the parent company.  Second, Manitowoc Cranes argued that Mr. Becker’s recent employment with a crane manufacturer that competes with Manitowoc Cranes should preclude him from receiving confidential information in the investigation.  Third, Manitowoc Cranes argued that Respondents appeared to be deliberately using Mr. Becker for his knowledge of confidential information from his previous employment with the parent company.  Respondents and the Commission Investigative Staff opposed the motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Terminates Investigation As To Unicorn Tire In Certain Tires (337-TA-894)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
24
On December 23, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 23 in Certain Tires and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-894).

According to the Order, ALJ Bullock granted 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.’s motion to terminate the investigation as to Respondent Unicorn Tire Corp. based on a settlement agreement entered into between the parties.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets 15-Month Target Date In Certain Windshield Wipers (337-TA-902)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
26
Further to our November 25, 2013 post, on December 23, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 4 in Certain Windshield Wipers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-902).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex set February 26, 2015 as the target date for completion of the investigation (which is approximately 15 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Essex further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on October 26, 2014 and that the evidentiary hearing will commence on June 23, 2014.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Vision-Based Driver Assistance System Cameras (337-TA-899)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
27
Further to our November 8, 2013 post, on December 19, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 4 in Certain Vision-Based Driver Assistance System Cameras and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-899).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set the procedural schedule for the investigation.  The ALJ determined that the Markman hearing shall take place on February 19, 2014, the evidentiary hearing will commence on July 28, 2014, any final initial determination will issue no later than November 14, 2014, and the target date for completion of the investigation is March 16, 2015.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Terminates Investigation As To MHT Luxury Alloys In Certain Tires (337-TA-894)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
02
On December 30, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 25 in Certain Tires and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-894).

According to the Order, 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. filed a motion to terminate the investigation as to Respondent MHT Luxury Alloys based on a consent order stipulation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Denies Sanctions Motion, But Orders Machine Inspections In Certain Crawler Cranes (337-TA-887)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
02
On December 23, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 12 in Certain Crawler Cranes and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-887).  In the Order, ALJ Shaw denied Complainant Manitowoc Cranes, LLC’s (“Manitowoc Cranes”) motion for sanctions.

According to the Order, Manitowoc Cranes argued that Respondents Sany Heavy Industry Co., Ltd. and Sany America, Inc. (collectively, “Sany”) should be sanctioned for failing to make certain accused cranes available for inspection in both Ohio and China.  ALJ Shaw determined that Manitowoc Cranes did not establish that Sany engaged in the type of discovery abuse justifying sanctions under Commission Rule 210.27 and thus denied Manitowoc Cranes’s motion.  ALJ Shaw also determined that Manitowoc Cranes was entitled to observe the subject crane “perform[ing] a pick, move and set operation” and thus ordered Sany to provide a firm inspection date for the two cranes at issue by December 31, 2013.  ALJ Shaw concluded the order by noting that “Sany raises the possibility that an inspection of the SC8500 crane may not be permissible in China.  The parties should not contravene Chinese law.  Sany has failed, however, to establish that any such prohibition exists under Chinese law.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Three Discovery-Related Orders in Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof (337-TA-868)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
02
On December 27, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public versions of Order Nos. 82-84  in Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-868). 

According to Order No. 82(dated December 16, 2013), Respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”) filed a motion to modify the order of issues presented at the hearing such that testimony relating to U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151 (the ‘151 patent) would be offered first.  The ‘151 patent is the only patent asserted against Nokia.  Complainants InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “InterDigital”) opposed Nokia’s motion 

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Procedural Schedule For Advisory Opinion Proceeding In Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems (337-TA-879)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
03
Further to our December 16, 2013 and December 23, 2013 posts, on December 20, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 13 in Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-879). 

In the Order, ALJ Gildea set the procedural schedule for the advisory opinion proceeding which includes an exchange of disputed claim constructions and expert discovery.  ALJ Gildea also determined that an evidentiary hearing shall be held on March 10-12, 2014.

Share

Read More

ALJ Lord Rules On Motions In Certain Integrated Circuit Chips (337-TA-859)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
03
On December 26, 2013, ALJ Dee Lord issued public versions of Order Nos. 32 (dated November 14, 2013) and 34 (dated December 6, 2013) in Certain Integrated Circuit Chips and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-859).

According to Order No. 32, Respondents LSI Corporation and Seagate Technology (collectively, “Respondents”) filed a motion to strike certain opinions of Dr. Martin G. Walker regarding infringement and the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for U.S. Patent No. 6,787,928 (the ‘928 patent).  Respondents argued that several of Dr. Walker’s assertions were not disclosed in Realtek Semiconductor Corporation’s (“Realtek”) responses to contention interrogatories.  Furthermore, Respondents asserted that Dr. Walker’s opinions should be stricken for failing to comply with Ground Rule 6 because they were conclusory and inadequately disclosed in his expert report.

Share

Read More

ALJ Lord Denies Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Mindset Television In Certain TV Programs, Literary Works For TV Production And Episode Guides (337-TA-886)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
06
On January 2, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 16 in Certain TV Programs, Literary Works For TV Production And Episode Guides Pertaining to Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-886).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a complaint filed by E.T. Radcliffe, LLC of Dallas, Texas and Emir Tiar of Coto De Caza, California alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain TV programs, literary works for TV production and episode guides pertaining to same that infringe copyrights asserted by the Complainants. The complaint also alleges violations of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S., sale for importation, and sale after importation of certain TV programs, literary works for TV production and episode guides pertaining to same, by reason of unfair methods of competition and unfair acts, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States.  See our June 10, 2013 post for more details on the complaint and our July 12, 2013 post for more details on the notice of investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Discovery-Related Motions In Certain Consumer Electronics With Display And Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
07
On December 20, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public versions of Order Nos. 43 (dated December 4, 2013), 44 (dated December 5, 2013), 45 (dated December 5, 2013) and 46 (dated December 6, 2013) in Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities (Inv. No. 337-TA-884).

According to Order No. 43, Respondent Vizio, Inc. (“Vizio”) moved to compel Complainant Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. (“GPH”) to respond to Interrogatory No. 52 regarding the identification of non-infringing alternatives which Vizio alleged is relevant to its non-infringement defense and to one of the Commission’s public interest factors.  Vizio also argued that GPH waived privilege by asserting that products with “advanced ARM cores” infringe the asserted patents.  In opposition, GPH asserted that it does not have the requested information, and that Vizio’s waiver arguments are “incomprehensible.”  ALJ Gildea denied the motion, finding that (1) Vizio’s interrogatory is not limited to GPH’s contentions with respect to whether non-infringing alternatives exists that can supply demand in the U.S. market, but instead is designed to elicit GPH’s legal contentions as to what products do not infringe the asserted patents; and (2) Vizio failed to articulate that GPH has waived any privilege, and appears to have misunderstood the standards involved.

Share

Read More