ALJs

ALJ Gildea Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
19
On February 28, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 65 in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“STM”) alleging violation of Section 337 by certain Respondents, including Black & Decker (U.S.), 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; 7,409,291; 6,928,872; 6,370,954; and 6,034,419.  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 Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Vision-Based Driver Assistance System Cameras (337-TA-907)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
21
On March 20, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 4 in Certain Vision-Based Driver Assistance System Cameras And Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-907).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a December 23, 2013 complaint filed by Magna Electronics Inc. of Auburn Hills, Michigan against TRW Automotive U.S. LLC of Livonia, Michigan alleging violations of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain vision-based driver assistance system cameras that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,116,929 and 8,593,521.  See our December 30, 2013and January 24, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Lord Issues Public Version Of Enforcement Initial Determination In Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices (337-TA-854)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
24
Further to our March 14, 2014 post, on March 19, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued the public version of the Enforcement Initial Determination (“EID”) (dated March 7, 2014) in Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices, System and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-854).

By way of background, the Commission instituted the underlying investigation on September 18, 2012 based on BriarTek IP, Inc.’s (“BriarTek”) complaint of August 17, 2012.  See our September 19, 2012 post for more details.  On March 15, 2013, former ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. granted a motion by DeLorme Publishing Co., Inc. and DeLorme InReach, LLC (collectively, “DeLorme”) to terminate the investigation and for entry of a proposed consent order (“the consent order”).  See our March 19, 2013 post for more details.  In the consent order, DeLorme agreed that it would not import or sell two-way global satellite communication devices, systems, or components thereof that infringe BriarTek’s U.S. Patent No. 7,991,380 (the ‘380 patent) after April 1, 2013.  On April 10, 2013, BriarTek filed an enforcement complaint alleging that DeLorme violated the consent order.  See our April 11, 2013 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Lord Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain Integrated Circuit Chips (337-TA-859)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
24
On March 21, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Integrated Circuit Chips and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-859).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Realtek Semiconductor Corp. (“Realtek”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain integrated circuit chips and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,787,928 (the ‘928 patent) and 6,963,226 (the ‘226 patent).  See our September 20, 2012 and October 22, 2012 posts for more details on Realtek’s complaint and the Notice of Investigation, respectively.  On January 30, 2013, former ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. partially terminated the investigation with respect to the ‘226 patent.  See our February 1, 2013 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Terminates Investigation As To Aumed In Certain Handheld Magnifiers (337-TA-901)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
25
On March 20, 2014, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 4 in Certain Handheld Magnifiers and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-901).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a September 26, 2013 complaint filed by Freedom Scientific, Inc. alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondents Aumed Group Corp. and Aumed Inc. (collectively, “Aumed”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain handheld magnifiers and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. D624,107 and 8,264,598.  See our September 27, 2013 and November 12, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Grants-in-Part Motions Seeking to Quash or Limit Subpoenas in Certain Standards Cell Libraries (Inv. No. 337-TA-906)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
25
On March 19, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 11 in Certain Standard Cell Libraries, Products Containing or Made Using the Same, Integrated Circuits Made Using the Same, and Products Containing Such Integrated Circuits (Inv. No. 337-TA-906).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a December 23, 2013 complaint filed by Tela Innovations, Inc. (“Tela”) alleging violations of Section 337 by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC North America in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain standard cell libraries, products containing or made using the same, integrated circuits made using the same, and products containing such integrated circuits that infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,490,043.  See our December 31, 2013 and January 24, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Terminates Investigation In Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices (337-TA-898)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
26
On March 24, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 12 in Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-898).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a September 20, 2013 complaint filed by Navico, Inc. and Navico Holding AS of Norway (collectively, “Navico”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Raymarine, Inc., Raymarine UK Ltd. (collectively, “Raymarine”), and In-Tech Electronics Ltd. (collectively, the “Respondents”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain marine sonar imaging devices, products containing the same, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,305,840 and 8,300,499.  See our September 24, 2013 and November 7, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Lord Rules On Discovery Motions In Certain Optical Disc Drives (337-TA-897)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
26
On March 21, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 40 in Certain Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-897).  In the Order, ALJ Lord ruled on six discovery motions that had been discussed during a telephone conference on March 20, 2014.

In particular, ALJ Lord:

  • denied Respondents MediaTek, Inc., MediaTek USA, Inc., Panasonic Corp., Panasonic Corp. of North America, Nintendo Co., Ltd., Nintendo of America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics, U.S.A., Inc., Lenovo Group Ltd., Lenovo (United States) Inc., Toshiba Corp., and Toshiba America Information Systems Inc.’s (collectively, “Respondents”) motion to compel a supplemental interrogatory response;

  • denied LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics, U.S.A., Inc.’s motion for an extension of time to respond to Complainant Optical Devices, LLC’s (“Optical Devices”) requests for admission;

  • granted Respondents’ request for expedited briefing on its motion to compel additional deposition time with a Ryan Fry;

  • granted Respondents’ motion to compel Optical Devices to provide corporate deponents and deposition designations;

  • denied Optical Devices’ cross-motion for a protective order as moot; and

  • denied Optical Devices’ motion for leave to file a reply to Respondents’ opposition to Optical Devices’ cross-motion for a protective order as moot.


In addition, ALJ Lord ordered the parties to serve privilege logs for any objections based on attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, or common interest privilege made during the deposition of Ryan Fry and any future depositions within one business day of receiving the transcript of the deposition.

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
26
On March 24, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 25 in Certain Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-892).  In the Order, ALJ Shaw denied Complainant Straight Path IP Group, Inc.’s (“Straight Path”) motion to compel certain discovery from Respondents Sony Corp., Sony Corp. of America, Sony Electronics Inc., Sony Mobile Communications AB, Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc., and Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (collectively, “Sony”).

According to the Order, Straight Path sought to compel production of discovery “relating to the video, voice, and text chat functionality on the accused Sony PlayStation products at issue in this Investigation.”  Straight Path argued that this subject matter was within the scope of the investigation and that Sony had impermissibly refused to produce discovery on it.

Share

Read More

ALJ Lord Sets 16-Month Target Date In Certain Television Sets (337-TA-910)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
27
On March 25, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 4 in Certain Television Sets, Television Receivers, Television Tuners, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-910).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a January 28, 2014 complaint filed by Cresta Technology Corp. of Santa Clara, California alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain television sets, television receivers, television tuners, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,075,585, 7,265,792, and 7,251,466.  See our January 30, 2014 and March 24, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Rules On Motion To Strike Reliance On Belatedly Identified Priority Evidence In Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems (337-TA-890)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
27
On March 20, 2014, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of Order No. 13 (dated March 14, 2014) in Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-890).

According to the Order, Respondents BMC Medical Co., Ltd.; 3B Medical, Inc.; and 3B Products, LLC (collectively “Respondents”) moved to strike the reliance of Complainant ResMed Corp., ResMed Inc., and ResMed Ltd. (collectively “ResMed”) on certain documents, portions of ResMed’s expert’s report, and ResMed’s amended notice of priority dates regarding U.S. Patent No. RE 44,453 (the ‘453 patent).  Respondents argued that ResMed’s amended notice of priority dates after the close of discovery and the submission of expert reports was highly prejudicial.  Respondents further asserted that ResMed’s production of certain documents failed to comply with Ground Rule 7.1.2 because they cited more than 43,000 pages of documents without separately identifying which documents related to which patent and, more specifically, which documents related to conception, diligence, or reduction to practice.  Lastly, Respondents argued that ALJ Pender should strike the testimony of Mr. Virr because he lacked personal knowledge regarding the conception of the ‘453 patented invention in January 2000.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets 15-Month Target Date In Certain Lithium Silicate Materials (337-TA-911)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
28
On March 27, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 2 in Certain Lithium Silicate Materials and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-911).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a February 19, 2014 complaint filed by Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc., and Ivoclar Vivadent Manufacturing Inc. alleging violation of Section 337 by Dentsply International Inc., Dentsply Prosthetics U.S. LLC, and DeguDent GmbH in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain lithium silicate materials and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,047,021 and 8,444,756.  See our February 20, 2014 and March 24, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and the Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Compel Production Of Samples In Certain Antivenom Compositions (337-TA-903)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
08
On April 4, 2014, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 17 (dated March 14, 2014) in Certain Antivenom Compositions and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-903).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted Complainant BTG International Inc.’s (“BTG”) motion to compel Respondents Laboratorios Silanes, S.A. de C.V., Instituto Bioclon, S.A. de C.V., and Rare Disease Therapeutics, Inc. (collectively, “Silanes”) to produce samples of the accused snake antivenom compositions.

According to the Order, BTG asserted that Silanes had failed to comply with a Request for Production (“RFP”) that sought ten samples of each composition of snake antivenom manufactured, imported, offered for sale, sold for importation into the U.S., or sold or offered for sale after importation into the U.S. after January 1, 2010.  BTG argued that FDA regulations did not prevent importation of the samples.  BTG further argued that the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) could not be used to refuse production of samples that were being held within the U.S.  BTG also argued that the production of the requested samples would not be an infringing importation because the samples would only be used for testing purposes in the investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Denies Motion For Summary Determination Of Invalidity In Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems (337-TA-890)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
08
On March 26, 2014, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 14 (dated March 18, 2014) denying Respondents’ motion for summary determination of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. RE 44,453 (“the ‘453 patent”) 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 various patents.  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 Bullock Denies Motion For Summary Determination Of Violation Of Section 337 In Certain Tires (337-TA-894)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
09
On April 4, 2014, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 41 (dated March 14, 2014) in Certain Tires and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-894).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock denied 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 for summary determination of a violation of Section 337 by reason of infringement of the asserted patents by eight defaulting Respondents.

By way of background, Toyo’s complaint in the investigation had only requested a limited exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders, and had not requested a general exclusion order (“GEO”).  See our August 15, 2013 post for more details.  According to Order No. 41, Toyo had moved to amend its complaint to seek a GEO more than three months after the institution of the investigation, but ALJ Bullock had denied that motion after finding that Toyo lacked good cause to amend.  However, in a subsequent motion to terminate Respondent Shandong Hengyu Science and Technology Co., Ltd. (“Shandong Hengyu”)—the last remaining Respondent in the investigation—Toyo stated that it still intended to seek a GEO.  In making this assertion, Toyo cited to Commission Rule 210.16(c)(2), which requires that “[i]n any motion requesting the entry of default or the termination of the investigation with respect to the last remaining respondent in the investigation, the complainant shall declare whether it is seeking a general exclusion order.”  Toyo then filed the instant motion for summary determination of violation based on infringement by eight defaulting Respondents, and sought a GEO.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Complainants’ Motion to Strike in Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities (337-TA-868)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
09
On March 28, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 111 (dated March 6, 2014) granting Complainants’ Motion to Strike in Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities And Components Thereof (Inv. 337-TA-868).

By way of background, the investigation in this matter is based on a January 2, 2013 complaint filed by InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “InterDigital”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless devices with 3G and/or 4G capabilities and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,190,966 (the ‘966 patent); 7,286,847 (the ‘847 patent); 8,009,636; 7,706,830; 7,941,151; 7,616,970 and 7,502,406.  See our January 3, 2013 and February 1, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Lord Denies Third Party Motion To Quash Or Limit Subpoena In Certain Optical Disc Drives (337-TA-897

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
09
On March 27, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 44 denying third party Flashpoint Technologies Inc.’s Motion to Quash or Limit Subpoena in Certain Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-897).

According to the Order, subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum were issued and served upon third party Flashpoint Technologies Inc. (“Flashpoint”) by Respondents MediaTek, Inc., MediaTek USA, Inc., Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Nintendo Co., Ltd., Nintendo of America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics, U.S.A., Inc., Lenovo Group Ltd., Lenovo (United States) Inc., Toshiba Corporation, and Toshiba America Information Systems Inc. (collectively, the “Respondents”).  Flashpoint filed a motion to quash the subpoenas and Respondents filed a response to Flashpoint’s motion to quash. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Lord Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Navico In Certain Navigation Products (337-TA-900)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
09
On April 8, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 14 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).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a September 23, 2013 complaint filed by Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. and Furuno U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “Furuno”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain navigation products, including GPS devices, navigation and display systems, radar systems, navigational aids, mapping systems, and related software that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,084,565, 6,424,292, 7,161,561, and 7,768,447.  See our September 25, 2013 and November 12, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Lord Denies Motion To Compel Deposition In Certain Optical Disc Drives (337-TA-897)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
10
On March 25, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 42 denying Respondents’ motion to compel Complainant’s employee Ryan Fry for an additional day of deposition and to reimburse fees and costs associated therewith in Certain Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-897).

By way of background, the investigation in this case is based on a September 3, 2013 complaint and September 20, 2013 letter supplementing the complaint filed by Optical Devices, LLC (“Optical”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain optical disc drives, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,904,007; 7,196,979; 8,416,651; RE40,927; RE42,913; and RE43,681.  See our September 6, 2013 and October 23, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Lord Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Television Sets (337-TA-910)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
11
On April 2, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 7 in Certain Television Sets, Television Receivers, Television Tuners, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-910).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a January 28, 2014 complaint filed by Cresta Technology Corp. of Santa Clara, California alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain television sets, television receivers, television tuners, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,075,585, 7,265,792, and 7,251,466.  See our January 30, 2014 and March 24, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More