ALJs

ALJ Shaw Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps (337-TA-872)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
03
On February 3, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued a notice of the Final Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps, Products Containing Same and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-872).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Andrzej Bobel and Neptun Light, Inc. (collectively, “Neptun”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain compact fluorescent reflector lamps (“reflector CFLs”) and products and components containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,053,540 (the ‘540 patent).  See our January 30, 2013 and March 1, 2013 posts for more details on Neptun’s complaint and the Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Joint Motion To Stay Evidentiary Hearing In Certain Wiper Blades (337-TA-816)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
04
On February 3, 2014, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 106 (dated January 31, 2014) 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 and November 28, 2011 posts for more details on Bosch’s complaint and the Notice of Investigation, respectively. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Denies Motion To Amend The Priority Date In Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems (337-TA-890)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
05
On February 4, 2014, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of Order No. 10 (dated January 24, 2014) in Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-890).

According to the Order, Complainants ResMed Corp., ResMed Inc., and ResMed Ltd. (collectively, “ResMed”) filed a motion to amend the priority date they submitted with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,926,487 (the ‘487 Patent).  ResMed argued that one of the named inventors for the ‘487 patent provided additional information that would support a conception and reduction to practice date for the ‘487 patent of June 15, 1999, which is earlier than the May 15, 2000 priority date identified in ResMed’s Priority Date Disclosure.  ResMed asserted that it did not have an opportunity to meet with the named inventor until November 4, 2013, which was several weeks after it submitted its Priority Date Disclosure on October 11, 2013.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Wireless Devices, Including Mobile Phones And Tablets II (337-TA-905)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
06
On February 4, 2014, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 3 in Certain Wireless Devices, Including Mobile Phones And Tablets II (Inv. No. 337-TA-905).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Pragmatus Mobile, LLC of Alexandria, Virginia alleging violations of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless devices, including mobile phones and tablets, that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,149,124 and 8,466,795.  See our December 19, 2013 and January 23, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Terminates Investigation As To En Jinn Industrial Co., Ltd. In Certain Cases For Portable Electronic Devices (337-TA-861/867)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
07
On February 6, 2014, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of Order No. 22 (dated February 5, 2014) in Certain Cases For Portable Electronic Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-861/867).

According to the Order, ALJ Pender granted Complainant Speculative Product Design, LLC’s motion to terminate the investigation as to Respondent En Jinn Industrial Co. Ltd. based upon a Consent Order Stipulation and Settlement Agreement.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Terminates Investigation As To Sharp In Certain Point-To-Point Network Communication Devices (337-TA-892)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
07
On February 5, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 18 in Certain Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-892).

According to the Order, ALJ Shaw granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Straight Path IP Group, Inc. and Respondents Sharp Corporation and Sharp Electronics Corporation based on a settlement and patent license agreement. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Declines To Issue Sanctions And Denies Cross-Motion To Enforce Subpoena In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
10
On February 6, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 58 and 64 in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).

According to Order No. 58, nonparty Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc. (“Hillcrest”) filed a motion on August 20, 2013 seeking to quash or limit the subpoena duces tecum and ad testifcandum served on it by Complainant STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“STM”).  Although that motion was granted-in-part in Order No. 30, ALJ Gildea found that at least one of Hillcrest’s claims was misleading, that Hillcrest “ha[d] not produced so much as a single document in good faith,” “that only a portion of [Hillcrest’s] arguments have merit, and that even in that instance [Hillcrest] certainly had counsel sophisticated enough to negotiate a reasonable solution without the Administrative Law Judge’s assistance had it chosen to do so.”  Hillcrest was ordered to promptly produce responsive non-privileged documents and material and to produce one or more knowledgeable witnesses.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Grants Motions To Terminate Investigation In Certain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills (337-TA-895)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
10
On February 6, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public versions of Order No. 19 and No. 20 in Certain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-895).

According to Order No. 19, ALJ Shaw granted Complainants A&J Manufacturing, LLC and A&J Manufacturing, Inc.'s (collectively, "A&J") motion to terminate the investigation as to Respondent Ningbo Spring Communication Technologies Co., Ltd. based on a consent order stipulation, proposed consent order, and confidential settlement agreement.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Terminates Investigation As To Fellowes, Inc. In Certain Cases For Portable Electronic Devices (337-TA-861/867)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
11
On February 6, 2014, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of Order No. 23 in Certain Cases For Portable Electronic Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-861/867).

According to the Order, ALJ Pender granted Complainant Speculative Product Design, LLC’s motion to terminate the investigation as to Respondent Fellowes, Inc. based upon a settlement agreement.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Terminates Investigation In Certain Wireless Communications Equipment (337-TA-866)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
11
On February 10, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 62 in Certain Wireless Communications Equipment and Articles Therein (Inv. No. 337-TA-866).

According to the Order, ALJ Gildea granted a joint motion filed by Complainants Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC and Respondents Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on a settlement agreement.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Terminates Investigation As To Panasonic In Certain Consumer Electronics With Display And Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
11
On February 10, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 50 in Certain Consumer Electronics With Display And Processing Capabilities (Inv. No. 337-TA-884).

According to the Order, ALJ Gildea granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. and Respondents Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America (collectively, "Panasonic") to terminate the investigation as to Panasonic based on a settlement agreement.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Terminates Investigation As To Shandong Yongtai In Certain Tires (337-TA-894)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
11
On February 10, 2014, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 33 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 Shandong Yongtai Chemical Group Co., Ltd. based on a settlement agreement.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motions In Limine In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
11
On February 11, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public versions of Order No. 62 and No. 63 in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).

According to Order No. 62, Complainant STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“STM”) filed a motion in limine seeking an order striking what it alleged were new invalidity arguments inappropriately set forth in Respondents’ rebuttal expert report.  Specifically, STM argued that Respondents carried the burden of proof on invalidity and did not challenge the validity of claim 11 of the asserted ‘954 patent in their initial interrogatory responses, instead alleging it for the first time in their domestic industry rebuttal report.  Additionally, STM argued that Respondents changed the allegedly invalidating prior art reference in their pre-hearing brief.  Respondents opposed the motion, contending that they properly responded to STM’s expert report regarding domestic industry, that they timely disclosed the prior art at issue in their Notice of Prior Art, and that STM was able to adequately depose their expert with respect to his invalidity theories, resulting in no prejudice.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motion To Strike In Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities (337-TA-868)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
12
On February 4, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 85 (dated December 23, 2013) in Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No 337-TA-868).

According to the Order, Complainants InterDigital Communications, Inc.; InterDigital Technology Corporation; IPR Licensing, Inc.; and InterDigital Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “InterDigital”) filed a motion to strike portions of the expert reports of Dr. James Olivier regarding assertions made relating to U.S. Patent No. 7,502,406 (the ‘406 patent).  InterDigital argued that Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC’s (“Samsung”) contention interrogatories did not support assertions made in Dr. Olivier’s report relating to the ‘406 patent’s priority date.  Specifically, Dr. Olivier’s report asserted that the ‘406 patent is not entitled to a priority date based on U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/000,775 (“the ‘775 provisional”) because the ‘775 provisional does not support certain claim terms.  Additionally, InterDigital argued that Samsung’s non-infringement contentions did not support certain non-infringement contentions contained in Dr. Olivier’s rebuttal report.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Grants Motion To Show Cause In Certain Cases For Portable Electronic Devices (337-TA-861/867)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
12
On February 10, 2014, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 24 granting Complainant Speculative Product Design, LLC’s (“Speck”) motion for an order to show cause why Respondents Global Digital Star Industry, Ltd. (“Global”) and SW-Box.com (“SW-Box”) should not be found in default in Certain Cases For Portable Electronic Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-861/867).

By way of background, this investigation was based on a complaint filed by Speck against proposed Respondents Body Glove, Anbess Electronics Co. Ltd., Fellowes, Inc., ROCON Digital Technology Corp., SW-Box, Trait Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Hongkong Wexun Ltd., En Jinn Industrial Co. Ltd., Shengda Huanqiu Shijie, Global, JWIN Electronics Corp. d/b/a iLuv, Project Horizon, Inc. d/b/a InMotion Entertainment, Superior Communications, Inc. d/b/a PureGear, and Jie Sheng Technology.  Speck asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,204,561 (the ‘561 patent) in the complaint, and alleged that its CandyShell line of phone cases, sold in the U.S., practice 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 the investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Terminates Investigation In Certain Wiper Blades (337-TA-816)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
13
On February 11, 2014, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 107 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 remaining Respondents ADM21 Co., Ltd., AMD21 Co. (North America) Ltd., Cequent Consumer Products, Inc., Daewoo International Corp., and Raineater, LLC to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on a settlement agreement.

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
14
On February 5, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 39 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, Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) moved for partial summary determination of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,214,873 (the ‘873 patent).  Specifically, Samsung argued that the ‘873 patent specification fails to include the required written description support for the “without user input” limitation in the asserted claims.  Complainant Back Hills Media, LLC and the Commission Investigative Staff opposed the motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets 15-Month Target Date In Certain Acousto-Magnetic Electronic Article Surveillance Systems (337-TA-904)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
18
Further to our January 10, 2014 post, on February 12, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 4 in Certain Acousto-Magnetic Electronic Article Surveillance Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-904).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a December 11, 2013 complaint and December 23, 2013 letter supplementing the complaint filed by Tyco Fire & Security GmbH of Switzerland, Sensormatic Electronics, LLC of Boca Raton, Florida, and Tyco Integrated Security, LLC of Boca Raton, Florida alleging violations of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain acousto-magnetic electronic article surveillance devices that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,729,200 and 6,181,245.  See our December 13, 2013 post for more details on the complaint.  According to the Notice of Investigation, the Commission has identified Ningbo Signatronic Technologies, Ltd. of China, All-Tag Security Americas, Inc. of Boca Raton, Florida, All-Tag Security Hong Kong Co. Ltd. of Hong Kong, All-Tag Europe SPRL of Belgium, All-Tag Security UK, Ltd. of the United Kingdom, Best Security Industries of Delray Beach, Florida, and Signatronic Corporation of Boca Raton, Florida as respondents in the investigation.  See our January 10, 2014 post for more details on the Notice of Investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Sets 14-Month Target Date In Certain Soft-Edged Trampolines (337-TA-908)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
18
Further to our January 27, 2014 post, on February 12, 2014 ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 3 in Certain Soft-Edged Trampolines and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-908).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a December 24, 2013 complaint and December 31, 2013 and January 14, 2014 supplements to the complaint filed by Springfree Trampoline, Inc., Springfree Trampoline USA Inc., and Springfree Limited Partnership – all of Canada – alleging violations of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain soft-edged trampolines and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,319,174.  See our December 31, 2013 post for more details on the complaint.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Rules On Motions For Summary Determination In Certain Crawler Cranes (337-TA-887)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
19
On February 12, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 17 and No. 18 in Certain Crawler Cranes and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-887).

According to Order No. 17, Complainant Manitowoc Cranes, LLC (“Manitowoc”) moved for summary determination that it satisfies the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement and that it satisfies the domestic industry requirement for trade secret misappropriation.  Respondents Sany Heavy Industry Co., Ltd. and Sany America, Inc. (collectively, “Sany”) stipulated to and did not oppose the motion.  Sany’s response, however, indicated that although it stipulated to the motion with respect to the economic prong, Manitowoc had dedicated a significant portion of the motion to the technical prong, straying from the scope of Sany’s consent.  Regardless, ALJ Shaw determined that the “central question” – whether the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement is satisfied – could still be determined.

Share

Read More