ALJs

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
19
On February 11, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public versions of Order Nos. 91, 92 and 93 (dated January 24, January 30 and January 30, 2014, respectively) in Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-868).

According to Order No. 91, Respondents Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) fied a motion for partial summary determination that Samsung does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,502,406 (“the ‘406 patent”).  Subsequent to Samsung’s Motion, in another ITC investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-800) where Complainants InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “InterDigital”) asserted the ‘406 patent, the ITC construed the term “power control bit.”  See our January 3, 2014 post for more details on the ITC’s claim construction.  Based on the ITC’s claim construction in the ‘800 investigation, InterDigital and Samsung filed a joint stipulation under which the parties agreed to terminate the investigation as to the ‘406 patent based on non-infringement.  Accordingly, ALJ Essex found that Samsung is entitled to summary determination of non-infringement of the asserted claims of the ‘406 patent.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Terminates Investigation In Certain Thermal Support Devices For Infants (337-TA-896)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
21
On February 14, 2014, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 7 in Certain Thermal Support Devices For Infants, Infant Incubators, Infant Warmers, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-896).

By way of background, this investigation is based on an August 29, 2013 complaint filed by Draeger Medical Systems, Inc. (“Draeger”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain thermal support devices for infants, infant incubators, infant warmers, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,483,080 and 7,335,157.  According to the Notice of Investigation, the Commission identified Atom Medical International, Inc. (“Atom”) as the sole respondent in this investigation.  See our August 30, 2013 and October 21, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Denies Motion For Summary Determination In Certain Crawler Cranes (337-TA-887)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
24
On February 20, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 19 in Certain Crawler Cranes and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-887).

According to the Order, Complainant Manitowoc Cranes, LLC (“Manitowoc”) filed a motion for summary determination that assignor estoppel prohibited respondents Sany America Inc. and Sany Heavy Industry Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Sany”) from challenging the validity of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,546,928 (the ‘928 patent) and 7,967,158 (the ‘158 patent) (collectively, “the asserted patents”).  Manitowoc argued that there was no genuine issue of material fact that would cast doubt on whether Sany was prohibited from challenging the validity of the asserted patents due to assignor estoppel based on the following reasons: (1) assignor estoppel prevents the assignor of the patent, and those in privy with the assignor, from challenging the validity of the patent; (2) John Lanning is a named inventor and assignor of the ‘158 patent and, as such, is estopped from challenging the validity of the patent; (3) Sany is in privity with Mr. Lanning and therefore estopped from challenging the validity of the ‘158 patent; (4) Mr. Lanning is in privity with the named inventors of the ‘928 patent; (5) Mr. Lanning was involved in the design and development of Sany’s Crane, which is accused of infringing both of the asserted patents; and (6) because Mr. Lanning is in privity with the assignors of the ‘928 patent and Sany is in privity with Mr. Lanning, Sany is estopped from challenging the validity of both of the asserted patents.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Claim Construction Order In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
24
On February 5, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 53 (dated January 29, 2014) in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).  Due to its large electronic size, we have split Order No. 53 into part 1, part 2, and part 3

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“STM”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain microelectromechanical systems (“MEMS devices”) and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,450,332 (the ‘332 patent); 7,409,291 (the ‘291 patent); 6,928,872 (the ‘872 patent); 6,370,954 (the ‘954 patent); and 6,034,419 (the ‘419 patent).  The Respondents are InvenSense, Inc.; Roku, Inc.; and Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc.  See our March 12, 2013 and April 10, 2013 posts for more details on STM’s complaint and the Notice of Investigation for this matter, respectively. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Rules On Motion For Partial Summary Determination in Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities (337-TA-868)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
25
On February 19, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 96 (dated February 5, 20140, an initial determination granting-in-party and denying-in-part respondent Samsung’s motion for summary determination that it does not infringe certain patents in Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities And Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-868). 

According to the Order, Respondents Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) filed a motion for summary determination that it does not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,706,830 (the ‘830 patent), 8,009,636 (the ‘636 patent), 7,190,966 (the ‘966 patent), and 7,286,847 (the ‘847 patent) (collectively, “the Power Ramp-Up patents”).  Respondents Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., Future Wei Technologies, Inc., ZTE Corporation, and ZTE (USA) joined the motion in part with respect to the ‘966 and ‘847 patents.  Complainants InterDigital Communications Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDitigal Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “InterDigital”) filed an opposition. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters (337-TA-739)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
26
On February 19, 2014, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 83 in Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-739).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set the procedural schedule for this advisory opinion proceeding.  The ALJ determined that the “[t]rial” will commence on August 13, 2014.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Respondents’ Motion to Strike Untimely Infringement Contentions In Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-888)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
28
On February 20, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 24 denying respondents’ motion to strike untimely infringement contentions in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-888). 

According to the Order, respondents GoerTek, Inc. and GoerTek Electronics, Inc. (collectively, “GoerTek”) filed a motion to strike allegedly untimely infringement contentions served by Complainant Knowles Electronics, LLC (“Knowles”).  GoerTek stated that Knowles served two supplements to its contention interrogatory responses after the deadline for initial contention interrogatory responses and that the first supplement was served only nine days before the close of fact discovery and contained substantial new arguments based on discovery previously available to Knowles. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Grants Motions To Quash Subpoenas In Certain Digital Media Devices (337-TA-882)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
28
On February 18, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 45 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, intervenor Google Inc. (“Google”) and respondent Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) both filed motions to quash a subpoena ad testificandum.  The subpoenas at issue were served by complainant Black Hills Media, LLC (“BHM”) seeking the testimony of live witnesses at the evidentiary hearing in the investigation, scheduled to commence on February 18, 2014 and to conclude no later than February 26, 2014. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Denies Two Motions For Summary Determination In Certain Wireless Devices With 3G AND/OR 4G Capabilities (337-TA-868)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
03
On February 19, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued  the public versions of Orders No. 94 and 95 (both dated February 4, 2014) in Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities And Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-868).

According to Order No. 94, Complainants InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “InterDigital”) filed a motion for summary determination that U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151 (the ‘151 patent) is not unenforceable based on inequitable conduct of the inventors or prosecuting law firm.  InterDigital also sought an order, if the motion were denied, specifying that all facts are without substantial controversy and therefore deemed established.  Respondents Samsung Electronics C. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA), Inc., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, INc., Future Wei Technologies, Inc., Nokia Corporation, and Nokia, Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”) filed an opposition.

Share

Read More

ALJ Lord Grants Motion For Summary Determination Of No Copyright Infringement In Certain TV Programs (337-TA-886)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
04
On February 20, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued the public version of Order No. 18 (dated February 6, 2014) granting Thunderbird Films, Inc., Mindset Television, Inc., and The Walt Disney Company’s (collectively, “Respondents’”) motion for summary determination of no copyright infringement.  The Order simultaneously denied Complainants’ motion to strike evidence related to the motion for summary determination in Certain TV Programs, Literary Works For TV Production and Episode Guides (Inv. No. 337-TA-886).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by E.T. Radcliffe, LLC and Emir Tiar (collectively, “Complainants”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain TV programs, literary works for TV production and related episode guides that infringe Complainants’ copyrighted works. The Complainants’ works relate to a television show called Student Teacher, in which a boy teaches students of his own age group.  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 related episode guides 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 and July 12, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants-In-Part Summary Determination Motion On Domestic Industry In Certain Windshield Wiper Devices (337-TA-881)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
04
On February 24, 2014, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 33 (dated January 27, 2014) in Certain Windshield Wiper Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-881).

According to the Order, Complainants Federal-Mogul Corp. 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 Corp. 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.  On December 18, 2013, ALJ Bullock issued an order denying Federal-Mogul’s motion as to the technical prong, but noting that a separate order would issue as to the economic prong.  See our December 20, 2013 post for more details. 

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
04
On February 19, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 21 (dated February 6, 2014) in Certain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-895).

According to the Order, ALJ Shaw granted Complainants A&J Manufacturing, LLC and A&J Manufacturing, Inc.’s motion to terminate the investigation as to Respondents Kmart Corp., Sears Brands Management Corp., and Sears, Roebuck & Company (collectively, "Respondents") based on withdrawal of the complaint as to these Respondents.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Terminates Investigation In Certain Tires (337-TA-894)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
04
On February 24, 2014, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 35 in Certain Tires and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-894).

According to the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a 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. to terminate the investigation as to Respondents South China Tire and Rubber Co., Ltd and Guangzhou South China Tire based on a settlement agreement.

Share

Read More

ALJ Lord Terminates Investigation In Certain Portable Electronic Communications Devices, Including Mobile Phones (337-TA-885)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
04
On February 25, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 23 in Certain Portable Electronic Communications Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-885).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a May 23, 2013 complaint filed by Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain portable electronic communications devices, including mobile phones and components thereof that infringe one more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,035,189; 6,373,345; 6,711,211; 7,187,945; 8,140,650; and 8,363,824.  The Respondents in this investigation are HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) and Google, Inc.  See our June 24, 2013 and July 19, 2013 posts for more details on this investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Complainant’s Motion for Summary Determination in Certain Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-873)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
05
On February 25, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 58 denying Complainant’s motion for summary determination that the asserted claim terms are valid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶¶ 1 and 2 in Certain Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-873).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Complainant Tela Innovations, Inc. (“Tela”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain integrated circuit devices and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,264,049; 8,264,044; 8,258,550; 8,258,547; 8,217,428; 8,258,552; and/or 8,030,689.  See our February 11, 2013 and March 14, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and the Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Permits Trial Testimony By Way Of Videoconference In Certain Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-873)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
06
On February 25, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 57 in Certain Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-873).

According to the Order, Non-party Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Inc. (“Verizon”) filed a motion to present the testimony of its witness, Anthony Dennis, by videoconference at the evidentiary hearing.  Verizon argued that Mr. Dennis’s schedule would make it very difficult for him to testify in person.  Verizon asserted that it was willing to test the videoconferencing equipment in advance of Mr. Dennis’s testimony to ensure that it was functioning properly.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Denies Motion For Summary Determination In Certain Crawler Cranes (337-TA-887)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
06
On February 25, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 21 (dated February 20, 2014) 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 “summary determination that Complainant’s list of alleged trade secrets are not subject to trade secret protection or that Respondents have not misappropriated them.”  Sany argued that many of Complainant Manitowoc Cranes, LLC’s (“Manitowoc”) alleged trade secrets do not qualify for trade secret protection.  Additionally, Sany asserted that many of Manitowoc’s alleged trade secrets were not secrets.  Lastly, Sany argued that Manitowoc failed to provide evidence that Sany misappropriated the alleged trade secrets.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Summary Determination Of Indefiniteness In Certain Consumer Electronics With Display And Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
10
On February 27, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 53 in Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities (Inv. No. 337-TA-884).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted the Respondents’ motion for summary determination that the sole claim of Complainant Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc.’s (“GPH”) U.S. Patent No. 5,717,881 (the ‘881 patent) is indefinite and therefore invalid as a matter of law.

According to the Order, Respondents argued that the claim terms “instruction decode means” and “instruction issue means” in the sole claim of the ‘881 patent are means-plus-function terms that lack sufficient corresponding structure in the ‘881 specification.  In particular, Respondents argued that the only structure disclosed in the ‘881 specification consisted of empty boxes in one figure in the specification, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art could only guess at what further structure could correspond to the claimed decode and issue functions.  Respondents also represented that the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) supported a finding that the claim at issue is invalid as indefinite based on, inter alia, OUII”s prior Markman briefing.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Grants Summary Determination Of Violation And Recommends General Exclusion Order In Certain Cases For Portable Electronic Devices (337-TA-861/867)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
11
On March 5, 2014, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of Order No. 28 (dated February 21, 2014) in Certain Cases for Portable Electronic Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-861/867).  In the Order, ALJ Pender granted Complainant Speculative Product Design, LLC’s (“Speck”) motion for summary determination that defaulting Respondents Hongkong Wexun Ltd., ROCON Digital Technology Corp., SW-Box.com, Trait Technology Co., Anbess Electronics Co., Ltd., and Global Digital Star Industry, Ltd. (collectively, the “Defaulting Respondents”) have violated Section 337.  The ALJ also recommended that the Commission issue a general exclusion order (“GEO”) and impose a bond of 100 percent on the Defaulting Respondents.

By way of background, this investigation is a consolidation of Inv. Nos. 337-TA-861 and 337-TA-867.  Speck filed a first complaint on September 26, 2012, which led to the institution of the 337-TA-861 investigation.  See our November 16, 2012 post for more details.  On December 26, 2012, Speck filed a second complaint, which led to the institution of the 337-TA-867 investigation and its consolidation with the 337-TA-861 investigation.  See our January 29, 2013 post for more details.  During the course of the consolidated investigation, a number of Respondents either were terminated or defaulted.  On September 10, 2013, ALJ Pender granted-in-part Speck’s motion for partial summary determination that it has satisfied the domestic industry requirement.  See our October 30, 2013 post for more details.  On November 15, 2013, Speck filed the instant motion for summary determination of violation and for entry of a GEO.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion To Strike Portions Of Expert Report In Certain Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-873)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
12
On March 10, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 43 (dated February 10, 2014) in Certain Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-873).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Complainant Tela Innovations, Inc.’s (“Tela”) motion to strike and preclude reliance on portions of Dr. Tsu-Jae King Liu’s expert report on invalidity that were allegedly outside the scope of Respondents’ invalidity contentions.

According to the Order, Tela argued that Dr. Liu’s report included obviousness theories that had not been properly set forth in Respondents’ invalidity contentions.  In particular, Tela argued that Respondents had continued to use an improper “mix-and-match” approach to present obviousness arguments, in violation of a previous order.  Additionally, Tela argued that Dr. Liu’s report included obviousness combinations that had not even been disclosed by the mix-and-match approach in Respondents’ invalidity contentions.  Tela further argued that Dr. Liu’s report improperly relied on new documents that were absent from Respondents’ invalidity contentions.  Moreover, Tela argued that Dr. Liu had contended that certain layouts of Intel products were prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b) despite the fact that Respondents had previously represented that the Intel products would only be asserted as prior art under § 102(g).  In addition, Tela argued that Dr. Liu had presented discussions of motivations to combine specific references, which Tela argued had not been discussed in Respondents’ invalidity contentions.  Lastly, Tela requested that Respondents be precluded from relying on a specific obviousness combination because that combination had not been presented in Dr. Liu’s report.

Share

Read More