ALJs

ALJ Bullock Denies Motion for Summary Determination of Non-Infringement In Certain Tires (337-TA-894)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
07
On December 19, 2013 ALJ Bullock issued Order No. 21 in Certain Tires and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-894).

According to the Order, Respondents South China Tire and Rubber Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou South China Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Respondents”) moved for summary determination of non-infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D487,424.  Both Complainants and the Commission Investigative Staff opposed the motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Lord Denies Joint Motion to Terminate Investigation As To HEB Grocery Company In Certain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills (337-TA-895)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
07
On December 17, 2013, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 15 in Certain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills and Parts Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-895).

According to the Order, Complainants A&J Manufacturing, LLC and A&J Manufacturing, Inc. (collectively, “A&J”) and Respondent HEB Grocery Company, LP, d/b/a/ H-E-B (“HEB”) filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation as to HEB based on a settlement agreement and entry of a consent order.  Additionally, the Parties requested a stay of the investigation as to HEB.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion for Protective Order In Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-888)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
08
On December 19, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 14 (dated December 5, 2013) denying Complainant Knowles Electronics, LLC’s (“Knowles”) motion for the entry of a protective order in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-888).

By way of background, the Commission instituted this investigation on July 23, 2013 based on a complaint filed by Knowles alleging a violation of Section 337 by Respondents GoerTek, Inc. and GoerTek Electronics, Inc. (collectively, “GoerTek”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain silicon microphone packages and products containing the same that infringe, or that are made by a process that infringes, one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,439,616, 8,018,049, and 8,121,331.  See our June 25, 2013 and July 24, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Motion to Strike New Claim Construction Argument In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
09
On December 20, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 50 (dated December 16, 2013) in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).  The order addressed a motion filed by Complainant STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“STM”) to strike what it alleged was a new claim construction set forth by the Respondents in the investigation with regard to the language “region doped with a dopant” which appears in multiple claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,034,419, one of the patents at issue in the investigation.

Specifically, STM argued that, in violation of the Ground Rules, Respondents first sought to define this language in their rebuttal Markman brief and expert report.  Respondents opposed stating that their expert was merely responding to Complainant’s construction thus they did not propose a new definition of the term.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Claim Construction Order In Certain Opaque Polymers (337-TA-883)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
09
On January 2, 2014, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of Order No. 13 construing the disputed claim terms from the asserted patents in Certain Opaque Polymers (Inv. No. 337-TA-883).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Rohm and Haas Company, Rohm and Haas Chemicals, and The Dow Chemical Company (collectively, “Dow”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain opaque polymers that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,020,435 (the ‘435 patent); 6,252,004 (the ‘004 patent); 7,435,783; and 7,803,878.  See our May 22, 2013 and June 20, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Windshield Wipers (337-TA-902)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
10
Further to our November 25, 2013 and December 26, 2013 posts, on January 8, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 5 in Certain Windshield Wipers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-902).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex set the procedural schedule for the investigation.  The ALJ determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on June 23, 2014, any final initial determination will issue no later than October 26, 2014, and the target date for completion of the investigation is February 26, 2015 (which is approximately 15 months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Notice Of Initial Determination And Recommended Determination On Enforcement And Modification In Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps (337-TA-830)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
14
On January 10, 2014, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued a Notice of Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Enforcement and Modification (“EID”) 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, Inc. (“MaxLite”).  See our February 23, 2012 post for more details on the Notice of Investigation.  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.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Respondents’ Motion for Summary Determination in Certain Tires (337-TA-894)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
15
On January 13, 2014, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 27 in Certain Tires and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-894). 

According to the Order, Respondents South China Tire and Rubber Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou South China Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Respondents”) moved for summary determination of patent misuse by Complainants and an order terminating the Investigation as to Respondents as a consequence of Complainants’ patent misuse.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Initial Determination Granting Complainants’ Motion for Summary Determination in Certain Windshield Wiper Devices (337-TA-881)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
15
On January 13, 2014, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 21 (dated December 13, 2013) in Certain Windshield Wiper Devices 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 for summary determination that the importation requirement of Section 337 is satisfied with respect to Respondents Trico Products Corporation and Trico Componentes SA de CV (collectively, “Trico”).  Trico filed a response stating that it agreed that it imported the products listed in the original complaint, but maintained that it does not import infringing products under Section 337.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Two Discovery Related Orders in Certain Windshield Wiper Devices (337-TA-881)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
16
On January 13, 2014, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public versions of Order Nos. 16 (dated November 12, 2013) and 19 (dated November 26, 2013) in Certain Windshield Wiper Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-881).

According to Order No. 16, Complainants Federal-Mogul Corporation and Federal-Mogul SA (collectively, “Federal-Mogul”) moved to compel Respondents Trico Products Corporation and Trico Componentes SA de CV (collectively, “Trico”) to produce documents responsive to certain requests for production (“RFP”) which sought documents and things related to the design, conception, construction, testing, and manufacture of the spoilers, spline, heat stakes, and end caps of the accused products. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets 16-Month Target Date In Certain Antivenom Compositions (337-TA-903)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
16
Further to our December 12, 2013 post, on January 14, 2014, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 4 in Certain Antivenom Compositions and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-903).

By way of background, the investigation is based on an October 20, 2013 complaint filed by BTG International Inc. of West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania alleging violations of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain antivenom compositions and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,048,414.  See our November 1, 2013 post for more details on the complaint.  According to the Notice of Investigation, the Commission has identified Veteria Laboratories of Mexico; BioVeteria Life Sciences of Prescott, Arizona; Instituto Bioclon S.A. de C.V. of Mexico; Laboratories Silanes SA de CV of Mexico; The Silanes Group of Mexico; and Rare Disease Therapeutics, Inc. of Franklin, Tennessee as the respondents in this investigation.  See our December 2, 2013 post for more details on the Notice of Investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Terminates Investigation As To Huawei In Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof (337-TA-868)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
17
On January 16, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 90 in Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-868).  Due to its large electronic size, we have split the order into part 1, part 2, and part 3.   

According to the Order, Complainants InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “InterDigital”) and Respondents Huawei Technologies, Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., and Future Wei Technologies, Inc. (collectively, “Huawei”) filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation with respect to Huawei on the basis of a settlement and arbitration agreement reached between InterDigital and Huawei. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Denies Summary Determination Of Invalidity In Certain Digital Media Devices (337-TA-882)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
21
On January 15, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public versions of Order No. 36 (dated January 14, 2014) and Order No. 37 (dated January 14, 2014) 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).

According to Order No. 36, Respondent LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “LG”) moved for summary determination that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,045,952 (the ‘952 patent) and 8,050,652 (the ‘652 patent) are invalid due to improper inventorship.  Specifically, LG argued that the testimony of the two named inventors, as well as Complainant Black Hills Media LLC’s (“BHM”) interrogatory responses, showed that a third individual contributed to at least one asserted claim of each patent.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) supported LG’s motion.  ALJ Shaw denied the motion, however, finding that the evidence showed only that the allegedly omitted inventor (1) had discussions with the named inventors regarding the general business goal of allowing immigrants to listen to radio stations from their homeland, and (2) worked on the initial business concept that led to the formation of company where all three individuals worked, neither of which demonstrated clearly and convincingly that the allegedly omitted inventor contributed significantly to the claimed inventions.  Likewise, the ALJ found that BHM’s interrogatory response relied on by LG merely identified the allegedly omitted inventor as a person with knowledge of the inventors of the ‘952 and ‘652 patents, and does not state that such person is himself an inventor.

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
22
Further to our December 17, 2013 post, on January 9, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of his Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination of Remedy and Bond (“ID”) (dated December 13, 2013) in Certain Optoelectronic Devices for Fiber Optic Communications, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-860).  Due to the large size of the ID, we have split the document into part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4.

By way of background, this investigation is based on a complaint filed by Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. (collectively, “Avago”) 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 and October 30, 2012 posts for more details about the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Claim Construction Order in Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems (337-TA-890)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
22
On January 16, 2014, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 8 construing the disputed claim terms of the asserted patents in Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-890).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by ResMed Corporation, ResMed Incorporated, and ResMed Limited (collectively, “ResMed”) alleging violation of Section 337 by BMC Medical Co., Ltd., 3B Medical, inc, and 3B Products, L.L.C. (collectively, “Respondents”) in the importation and/or sale of certain sleep-disordered breathing treatment systems and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,997,267 (the ‘267 patent), 7,614,398 (the ‘398 patent), 7,928,116 (the ‘116 patent), 7,341,060 (the ‘060 patent), 8,312,883 (the ‘883 patent), 7,178,527 (the ‘527 patent), 7,950,392 (the ‘392 patent), and 7,926,487 (the ‘487 patent).  See our July 22, 2013 and August 20, 2013 posts for more details on ResMed’s complaint and the Notice of Investigation, respectively. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Denies Summary Determination Relating To Economic Prong Of The Domestic Industry Requirement In Certain Digital Media Devices (337-TA-882)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
27
On January 23, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 38 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).

According to the Order, Complainant Black Hills Media, LLC (“BHM”) filed a Motion for Summary Determination of Compliance with the Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry Requirement.  Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America. Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc., Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Toshiba Corporation, and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”) filed a joint opposition to the pending motion.  

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Denies Motion To Quash Subpoena In Certain Point-To-Point Network Communication Devices (337-TA-892)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
28
On January 9, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 16 in Certain Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-892).

According to the Order, non-party Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”) filed a motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum issued upon application by Complainant Straight Path IP Group, Inc. (“Straight Path”).  Netflix raised two main arguments: (1) that the subpoena was overly broad and unduly burdensome, and (2) that the subpoena sought information that was available from the named respondents in the investigation.  Netflix further argued that discovery responsive to many of the subpoenaed topics had been produced by respondents, thereby mooting the topics as to Netflix. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Grants Motion For Leave To Amend Invalidity Contentions in Certain Crawler Cranes (337-TA-887)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
29
On January 27, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 13 in Certain Crawler Cranes and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-887). 

According to the Order, Respondents Sany Heavy Industry Co., Ltd and Sany America, Inc. (collectively, “Sany”) filed a motion for leave to amend their invalidity contentions.  Complainant Manitowoc Cranes, LLC (“Manitowoc”) filed a response supporting the motion in part. 

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
30
On January 22, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public versions of Order Nos. 88 and 89 (dated January 10, 2014 and January 15, 2014, respectively) in Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-868).

According to Order No. 88, Respondents Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) filed a motion to strike various portions of Complainants InterDigital Communications, Inc.; InterDigital Technology Corporation; IPR Licensing, Inc.; and InterDigital Holdings, Inc.’s (collectively, “InterDigital”) expert reports and preclude testimony on the stricken portions.  Specifically at issue were portions of four reports: (1) the Jackson Report, (2) the Haas rebuttal Report, (3) the Brogioli Supplemental Report, and (4) the Prucnal Supplemental Report.  Regarding the Jackson Report, ALJ Essex held that InterDigital adequately disclosed its infringement theory under Samsung’s construction of the phrase “[re]-synchronize[d/ing] to the the/a pilot signal.”  However, ALJ Essex determined that InterDigital’s production of certain documents was untimely and, therefore, granted Samsung’s Motion to Strike the portions of the Jackson Report that relied on those documents.  As to the Haas Rebuttal Report, ALJ Essex granted Samsung’s Motion to Strike only those portions that discussed the “Quick reference” because InterDigital never conducted an element-by-element analysis of the Quick reference.  ALJ Essex granted Samsung’s Motion to Strike the requested portions of the Brogioli Supplemental Report, finding unpersuasive InterDigital’s arguments as to why Dr. Brogioli failed to include the disputed opinions and arguments in his initial expert report.  Lastly, ALJ Essex granted Samsung’s Motion to Strike the requested portions of the Prucnal Supplemental Report because the information cited in the supplemental report was not included in Dr. Prucnal’s initial expert report.  Accordingly, ALJ Essex granted-in-part and denied-in-part Samsung’s Motion to Strike.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion To Compel In Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-888)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
31
On January 24, 2014, ALJ E James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 19 (dated January 15, 2014) in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-888).

According to the Order, Complainant Knowles Electronics, LLC (“Knowles”) filed a motion to compel Respondents GoerTek Inc. and GoerTek Electronics, Inc. (collectively, “GoerTek”) to produce electronically stored information (“ESI”) in the custody of GoerTek employee Tony Wang.  Knowles argued that GoerTek failed to identify Mr. Wang as an employee likely to have responsive ESI despite Mr. Wang being “one of two or three individuals with knowledge of the manufacturing process for MEMS microphones at GoerTek.” In opposition, GoerTek asserted that Knowles should have identified Mr. Wang as a document custodian earlier in discovery because GoerTek produced documents identifying him as a person with knowledge.  Furthermore, GoerTek argued that their production has already produced a number of emails and attachments from/to Mr. Wang and, therefore, the burden of producing the remaining responsive material outweighs the benefit to Knowles. 

Share

Read More