How to Search
ALJs

ALJ Essex Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Automotive Multimedia Display And Navigation Systems (337-TA-657)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
04
On October 27, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated September 22, 2009) in Certain Automotive Multimedia Display and Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-657).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Honeywell International, Inc. (“Honeywell”).  The original Respondents were Alpine Electronics, Inc.; Alpine Electronics of America, Inc.; Denso Corporation; Denso International America, Inc.; Pioneer Corp.; Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc.; Kenwood Corp.; and Kenwood USA Corp.  However, all of the Respondents other than Pioneer Corp. and Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. (collectively, “Pioneer”) were terminated from the investigation before the issuance of the ID as a result of settlement agreements with Honeywell.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Video Displays (337-TA-687)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
05
On November 3, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 6: Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-687).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea noted that he “set the deadlines for construction of claim terms relatively early in the Investigation…[so as] to avoid a shifting sands approach to claim construction.”
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Target Date In Certain Ceramic Capacitors (337-TA-692)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
06
Further to our October 29 and October 30 posts, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 1: Protective Order; and Order No. 2: Notice of Ground Rules and Setting Target Date and Date for Submission of Proposed Procedural Schedule in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-692).

In Order No. 2, ALJ Gildea set March 4, 2011 as the target date for completion of the investigation (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  Also, any final initial determination is due to be issued in the investigation no later than November 4, 2010.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Amended Procedural Schedule In Certain Flash Memory Chips (337-TA-664)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
09
On November 5, 2009, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 18: Setting the Amended Procedural Schedule in Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-664).

According to the Order, a Markman hearing will take place on November 10; the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on May 3, 2010; the Initial Determination is due on September 18, 2010; and the target date for completion of this investigation is January 18, 2011.
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Determines To Reopen Record In Certain Connecting Devices (337-TA-587)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
09
On November 5, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 16 in Certain Connecting Devices (“Quick Clamps”) For Use With Modular Compressed Air Conditioning Units, Including Filters, Regulators, and Lubricators (“FRL’s”) That Are Part Of Larger Pneumatic Systems and the FRL Units They Connect (Inv. No. 337-TA-587).  Please note that Oblon Spivak represents Respondents SMC Corporation and SMC Corporation of America (“SMC”) in this matter.

In the Order, ALJ Charneski provides that the “parties are directed to confer with the goal of achieving a joint proposal for the dates of expert reports, rebuttal expert reports, expert depositions, and a hearing.  A joint report that details the result of the parties’ conference shall be filed by November 16, 2009.”
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Modifies Target Date In Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits (337-TA-666)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
10
On November 6, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 42: Initial Determination Modifying Target Date Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.51(a) in Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-666).

According to the Order, “[g]iven the breadth of the hearing record and the complexity of the issues raised by the parties therein, the Administrative Law Judge has determined that there is good cause to extend the target date in order to provide time for meaningful consideration of the parties’ positions.”  Accordingly, ALJ Gildea extended the target date to June 21, 2010, with the final initial determination due on February 19, 2010.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Public Version of Initial Determination In Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors (337-TA-650)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
10
Further to our October 15 post, on November 4, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of the October 13, 2009 Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-650).

The Complainant in this investigation was John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC, Inc. (“PPC”).  PPC alleged that Fu Ching Technical Industry Co. Ltd. and Gem Electronics, Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”) were engaged in the manufacture and sale for importation, and the importation and sale after importation of coaxial cable connectors that infringed claims of United States Patent No. 5,470,257 (the ‘257 patent).  Four other respondents, Hanjiang Fei Yu Electronics Equipment Factory, Zhongguang Electronics, Yangzhou Zhongguang Electronics Co., Ltd., and Yangzhou Zhongguang Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. (collectively, the “Defaulting Respondents”), were previously found to be in default and were alleged to be in violation of Section 337 for reasons of infringement of the ‘257 patent, as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 6,558,194 (the ‘194 patent); D440,539 (the ‘539 patent); and D519,076 (the ‘076 patent).
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Target Date In Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles (337-TA-688)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
11
Further to our October 6 and October 7 posts, on November 9, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 3: Setting Target Date and Date for Submission of Proposed Procedural Schedules in Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-688).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex set November 9, 2010 as the target date (which is 13 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Essex further indicated that any final initial determination on violation should be filed no later than July 9, 2010.  In addition, ALJ Essex noted that the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on April 19, 2010.
Share

Read More

Update Regarding Certain Printing And Imaging Devices (337-TA-690)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
11
Further to our October 21 and October 30 posts, on November 9, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 6: Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-690).

In the Order, ALJ Rogers sets the procedural schedule for the investigation and includes provisions for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions.  The procedural schedule also indicates that the evidentiary hearing in this investigation will commence on May 17, 2010.
Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Sets Target Date In Certain Dual Access Locks (337-TA-689)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
16
Further to our October 16 and October 19 posts, on November 12, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 3: Setting Target Date in Certain Dual Access Locks and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-689).

According to the Order, ALJ Luckern set December 21, 2010 as the target date (which is 14 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Luckern further indicated that any final initial determination on violation should be filed no later than August 23, 2010.  In addition, ALJ Luckern noted that the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on May 24, 2010.
Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Requests Written Submissions From Parties In Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips (337-TA-674)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
17
On November 16, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 23 (dated October 27, 2009) in Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips, Laser Diode Chips and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-674).  In the order, ALJ Luckern requested that the parties file written submissions answering various questions relating to claim construction, infringement, validity, and enforceability of the patents asserted in the investigation.  In total, ALJ Luckern posed 23 questions to Complainant Gertrude Neumark Rothschild (“Rothschild”) and 14 questions to Respondents Toshiba Corp. and Pansonic Corp. (collectively, “Respondents”).

The order required that Rothschild and Respondents file their answers to ALJ Luckern’s questions by noon on November 3, 2009.  Responses to the opposing party’s answers were required by the close of business on November 6, 2009.  The Commission Investigative Staff’s (“Staff”) responses to the private parties’ answers and responses were due by noon on November 9, 2009.  Finally, the private parties were required to file reply submissions, along with statements indicating by exhibit number which exhibits supported their initial answers to the ALJ’s questions, by noon on November 12, 2009.
Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Grants Motion To Terminate The Investigation With Respect To Toshiba In Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips (337-TA-674)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
17
On November 16, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 25) (dated October 29, 2009) in Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips, Laser Diode Chips and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-674).  In the ID, ALJ Luckern granted the October 28, 2009 motion of Complainant Gertrude Neumark Rothschild (“Rothschild”), seeking termination of the investigation with respect to Toshiba Corporation (“Toshiba”).

According to the ID, Toshiba did not oppose Rothschild’s motion and the Commission Investigative Staff supported the motion.  Further, in support of the motion, Rothschild argued that “in its recently-filed pre-hearing statement, Toshiba has represented that it has ceased (or intends to cease) importation into the United States of the accused product and accordingly, termination of Toshiba from the investigation is appropriate; and that pursuant to Commission rule 210.21(a)(1), [Rothschild] affirms that there exists no agreements, written or oral, express or implied between [Rothschild] and Toshiba that concern the subject matter of this investigation.”
Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Denies Motion Requesting Mandatory Settlement Conference In Certain Energy Drink Products (337-TA-678)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
17
On November 16, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 9 (dated August 7, 2009) in Certain Energy Drink Products (Inv. No. 337-TA-678).  In the Order, ALJ Luckern denied a motion filed by Respondents India Imports, Inc., d/b/a/ International Wholesales Club and Washington Food and Supply of D.C., Inc., d/b/a Washington Cash & Carry (collectively, “Respondents”) to order Complainants Red Bull GmbH and Red Bull North America, Inc. (collectively, “Red Bull”) to attend a mandatory settlement conference presided over by the Administrative Law Judge.

In support of their motion, Respondents argued that Red Bull had refused to respond to concrete offers for settlement proffered by Respondents, including specific monetary offers of settlement and that in the meantime, Respondents “continue to incur litigation costs imposed by a large, well-funded adversary with little apparent motivation to settle this matter.”  In opposition, Red Bull asserted that Respondents had not provided enough information for Red Bull to give adequate consideration of Respondents’ settlement offers.  The Commission Investigative Staff opposed Respondents’ motion.
Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Summary Determination Motions Regarding Invalidity and Inequitable Conduct in Certain Electronic Devices (337-TA-673/667)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
18
On November 17, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 47C (dated October 14, 2009).  The order denied summary determination motions filed by Complainant Saxon Innovations, LLC (“Saxon”) and Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLP (collectively, “Samsung”) in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-667/673).

Both parties filed motions for summary determination on August 25, 2009.  Saxon’s motion sought a determination that U.S. Patent No. 5,608,873 (the ‘873 patent) was not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and was not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.  Samsung filed a motion seeking summary determination that the ‘873 patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Releases Public Version of Initial Determination Granting Saxon’s Summary Determination Motion Regarding The Economic Prong Of The Domestic Industry Requirement In Certain Electronic Devices (337-TA-667/673)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
19
Further to our November 17 post, where we reported that the International Trade Commission issued a notice determining not to review ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr.’s October 15, 2009 Initial Determination (“ID”) granting Complainant Saxon Innovations, LLC’s (“Saxon”) motion for summary determination that it has met the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-667/673), the public version of the October 15 ID was released on November 18.

According to the ID, Saxon filed a motion for summary determination that it has met the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement based on the activities of its licensee, Motorola, Inc., pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(C).  Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLP (collectively, “Samsung”), Research In Motion, Ltd. and Research In Motion Corp. (collectively, “RIM”, no longer a party to the investigation based on a settlement agreement), and Palm, Inc. (“Palm”) filed a joint response opposing the motion.  In addition, Samsung and RIM filed a joint motion for summary determination of no violation based upon Saxon’s failure to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.  The Commission Investigative Staff filed a combined response to the parties’ motions and supported Saxon’s position that it satisfied the economic prong as a matter of law due to substantial investments in relevant technology made by Saxon’s licensee, Motorola.
Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion For Summary Determination Of Invalidity In Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers (337-TA-686)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
19
On November 17, 2009 ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 13: Denying Respondent Sidergas SpA’s (“Sidergas”) Motion for Summary Determination of Invalidity of Claims 3, 4, 6, 12, & 13 of U.S. Patent No. 6,708,864 (the ‘864 patent) in Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (Inv. No. 337-TA-686).

According to the Order, Sidergas filed its summary determination motion on October 27, 2009.  Further, Complainants Lincoln Electric Company and Lincoln Global, Inc. (collectively “Lincoln”) as well as the Commission Investigative Staff filed responses on November 6, 2009 opposing the motion.  In addition, Respondents Atlantic China Welding Consumables, Inc., ESAB AB, Hyundai Welding Co., Ltd., and Kiswel Ltd. filed a joint response on November 6, 2009 in support of Sidergas’ motion.
Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Denies Summary Determination Motions In Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems (337-TA-670)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
19
On November 17, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public versions of Order No. 24, Order No. 25, and Order No. 26 (all orders dated November 4, 2009) denying various summary determination motions filed by Respondents CompX International, Inc. and Waterloo Furniture Corporation Ltd. d/b/a CompX Waterloo (collectively, “CompX”) in Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-670).

Regarding Order No. 24, ALJ Luckern denied CompX’s summary determination motion of invalidity due to anticipation and/or obviousness.  In the Order, ALJ Luckern determined that issues of claim construction and whether the asserted claims contain means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 have yet to be resolved.  ALJ Luckern further determined that “the parties’ experts disagree as to the appropriate construction of at least some of these claim terms.”  Additionally, ALJ Luckern noted that he was “not prepared, at the present time, to decide the construction of any means-plus-function limitations.”  Accordingly, ALJ Luckern denied CompX’s motion for summary determination of invalidity due to anticipation and/or obviousness.
Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Grants Motion For Summary Determination On Economic Prong Of The Domestic Industry Requirement In Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems (337-TA-670)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
19
On November 17, 2009 Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the heavily redacted public version of Order No. 27 (dated November 4, 2009) granting Complainant Humanscale Corporation’s (“Humanscale”) motion for summary determination on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement in Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-670).

According to the Order, Humanscale filed its summary determination motion on October 2, 2009.  Respondents CompX International, Inc. and Waterloo Furniture Corporation Ltd. d/b/a CompX Waterloo (collectively, “CompX”) filed an opposition to the motion on October 14, 2009.  While the Commission Investigative Staff (the “Staff”) also filed an opposition to the motion on October 14, 2009, Staff argued that it would not oppose a motion by Humanscale for leave to supplement its motion with a “brief declaration by a competent witness setting forth what portion of its total investment in ‘keyboard support systems’ is attributable to those products Humanscale asserts are covered by the [asserted patent].”  On October 20, 2009, Humanscale filed a motion for leave to file a reply memorandum in further support of its motion “in order to provide additional facts requested by the [Staff]…”  ALJ Luckern granted Humanscale’s motion for leave on October 21, 2009 and ordered the Staff and CompX to respond to Humanscale’s reply no later than October 26, 2009.
Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion For Summary Determination Of Invalidity In Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers (337-TA-686)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
19
On November 18, 2009 ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 14 denying respondent Sidergas SpA’s (“Sidergas”) motion for summary determination of invalidity of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,260,781 (the ‘781 patent) in Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (Inv. No. 337-TA-686).

According to the Order, Sidergas filed its summary determination motion on October 27, 2009.  Complainants Lincoln Electric Company and Lincoln Global, Inc. (collectively “Lincoln”) and the Commission Investigative Staff filed responses on November 6, 2009 opposing the motion.  In addition, respondents Atlantic China Welding Consumables, Inc., ESAB AB, Hyundai Welding Co., Ltd., and Kiswel Ltd. filed a joint response on November 6, 2009 in support of Sidergas’ motion.  On November 12, 2009, Sidergas filed a motion for leave to file a reply in support of its motion, which was denied.
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Sets Remand Procedural Schedule In Certain Connecting Devices (337-TA-587)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
20
On November 18, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 17: Procedural Schedule in Certain Connecting Devices (“Quick Clamps”) For Use With Modular Compressed Air Conditioning Units, Including Filters, Regulators, and Lubricators (“FRL’s”) That Are Part Of Larger Pneumatic Systems and the FRL Units They Connect (Inv. No. 337-TA-587).  Please note that Oblon Spivak represents Respondents SMC Corporation and SMC Corporation of America in this matter.

According to the Order, a one-day evidentiary hearing in this remand proceeding will take place on April 21, 2010.
Share

Read More

Copyright © Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. | Disclaimer
The opinions, commentary and characterizations provided to this online forum by the authors and moderators are provided for encouraging discussion, thought and debate on important ITC issues. These postings are in no way representative of the opinions of the Oblon firm, or its clients, but rather the personal views of the individual authors.