ALJs

Chief ALJ Luckern Issues Order Regarding Witness Statements And Admissibility Of Expert Reports In Certain Video Game Machines (337-TA-658)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
25
On March 24, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 21 in Certain Video Game Machines and Related Three-Dimensional Pointing Devices (337-TA-658).  In the Order, Chief ALJ Luckern determined that “written testimony for direct testimony of witnesses will be limited to non-controversial testimony” and “expert reports are not to be admitted with evidence.”

According to the Order, the parties made submissions on March 20, 2009 regarding the issue of witness statements and expert reports.  With respect to witness statements, all of the parties agreed that the use of witness statements should be permitted in lieu of live direct testimony on certain non-controversial matters, such as, for example, witness qualifications, educational history, work experience, etc. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Denies Motion to Amend Complaint To Assert Additional Patent Claims In Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization (337-TA-648)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
31
On March 26, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 60 in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same (337-TA-648).  In the Order, ALJ Charneski denied Complainants LSI Corporation’s and Agere Systems Inc.’s (“Complainants”) motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to assert two additional patent claims against respondent Magnachip Semiconductor, Ltd. (“MagnaChip”).

According to the Order, Complainants’ motion failed to meet the good cause standard set forth in Commission Rule 210.14(b)(1) as it relates to post-institution motions to amend the complaint and notice of investigation.  Specifically, ALJ Charneski noted, among other things, that initial expert reports had already been filed, rebuttal expert reports are due on April 6, 2009, and the deadline for fact and expert discovery is April 17, 2009.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Stays Evidentiary Hearing in Certain Composite Wear Components (337-TA-644)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
01
On March 31, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 24 in Certain Composite Wear Components and Products Containing Same (337-TA-644).  In the Order, ALJ Essex stayed the evidentiary hearing scheduled to begin on April 13, 2009. 

On March 23, respondents AIA Engineering Ltd. and Vega Industries Ltd. filed a notice that “it will not participate any further in this investigation, except in connection with appeals or other challenges to the denial by the ALJ of [its] Termination Motion . . . .”  The notice stated that AIAE intended to seek redress against complainant Magotteaux S/A and Magotteaux, Inc. (Magotteaux) for incorrect allegations of patent infringement in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Order Regarding The Admissibility Of Certain Exhibits Without A Sponsoring Witness In Certain Laser Imageable Lithographic Printing Plates (337-TA-636)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
01
On March 30, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 26 in Certain Laser Imageable Lithographic Printing Plates (337-TA-636).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted in part respondents VIM Technologies, Ltd., Hanita Coatings RCA, Ltd., AteCe Canada, Guaranteed Service & Supplies, Inc., Recognition Systems, Inc., and Spicers Paper, Inc.’s (“Respondents”) requests for receipt of certain exhibits without a sponsoring witness, but denied the majority of the requests.

According to the Order, Respondents requested, pursuant to Ground Rule 9.8.12, that the ALJ receive several exhibits into evidence without a sponsoring witness.  Respondents argued that “there is good cause to admit these exhibits into evidence because they are relevant, material, reliable and non-controversial, and their admission would streamline the hearing process without prejudicing any party to this Investigation.”

Share

Read More

ITC Institutes Investigation (337-TA-674) Regarding Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips, Laser Diode Chips And Products Containing Same

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
02
On March 31, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission voted to institute an investigation of Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips, Laser Diode Chips and Products Containing Same (337-TA-674). 

The investigation is based on a March 2, 2009 complaint filed by Professor Gertrude Rothschild of Columbia University in New York.  As we explained in our March 4 post, the complaint alleges that the following companies unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain light emitting diode (LED) chips, laser diode chips and products containing those devices that infringe claims 10, 12, 13, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 5,252,499:

Share

Read More

Update Regarding Certain Electronic Devices Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (337-TA-673)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
02
As indicated in our March 27 post, on March 25, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission voted to institute an investigation of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (337-TA-673).

Since our March 27 post, Chief ALJ Luckern issued a notice indicating that ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. will handle this investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants in Part Respondents’ Joint Motion to Compel in Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components (337-TA-650)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
03
On April 2, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 17 granting in part Respondents’ joint motion to compel Complainant to fully respond to specific discovery requests in Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-650).

According to the order, Respondents Fu Ching Technical Industry Co. Ltd.  and Gem Electronics, Inc. (“Respondents”) moved to compel Complainant John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC, Inc. (“PPC”) to fully respond to an interrogatory and a request for admission, and produce documents responsive to a request for production, relating to whether representatives of PPC had separated the locking member of Respondents’ accused products from the connector body and whether the locking member has a radially protruding shoulder circumscribing the member at a first position.  Respondents argued that PPC waived all privilege with respect to separation of the locking member of the accused products from the connector body because PPC disclosed that its counsel had accomplished such a separation in 2004.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Rejects Private Parties’ Proposed Redactions To The Initial Determination In Certain Computer Products (337-TA-628)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
03
On April 2, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a Notice regarding the public version of his initial determination in Certain Computer Products, Computer Components and Products Containing Same (337-TA-628).  In the notice, ALJ Essex rejected the private parties’ redactions as being “inappropriate” and inconsistent with the definition of “Confidential Business Information” (“CBI”) as set forth in 19 C.F.R. § 201.6 (a)(1).

By way of example, ALJ Essex focused on two proposed redactions in particular.  First, complainant IBM sought to redact one of its legal arguments relating to claim construction, which the ALJ noted was not redacted in IBM’s public version of its initial post hearing brief.  Second, IBM sought to redact the ALJ’s claim construction ruling in the initial determination.  ALJ Essex determined that both of the redactions requested were inappropriate because neither of the items to be redacted disclosed any CBI.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Upholds Initial Determination in Certain R-134a Coolant (337-TA-623)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
06
On April 1, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued a Remand Determination in the matter of Certain R-134a Coolant (Otherwise Known as 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluorothane) (337-TA-623) affirming that Respondents Sinochem Modern Environmental Protection Chemicals (Xi’an) Co. Ltd. and Sinochem Ningbo Ltd. (“Sinochem”) imported coolant that infringed a process patent held by Complainants INEOS Fluor Holdings Ltd., INEOS Fluor Ltd. and INEOS Fluor Americas LLC (“INEOS”).

The investigation was instituted in December 2007.  On December 1, 2008, ALJ Luckern issued a final initial determination (“ID”) that Sinochem infringed the patent-in-suit and failed to establish that the patent-in-suit was invalid.  Following submissions by the parties, the Commission reviewed the ID with respect to invalidity and issued an order on January 30, 2009 remanding the investigation to the ALJ for further proceedings related to anticipation and obviousness because the disposition of these issues was unclear from the ALJ’s ID.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion to Preclude Expert Testing And All Related Documents And Testimony In Certain Laser Imageable Lithographic Printing Plates (337-TA-636)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
08
On April 6, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 25 in Certain Laser Imageable Lithographic Printing Plates (337-TA-636).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied respondents VIM Technologies, Ltd., Hanita Coatings RCA, Ltd., AteCe Canada, Guaranteed Service & Supplies, Inc., Recognition Systems, Inc., and Spicers Paper, Inc.’s (“Respondents”) motion to preclude complainant Presstek, Inc.’s (“Presstek”) 2009 VIM plate testing conducted by Presstek’s expert and all documents, testimony and arguments relating thereto (“Respondents’ Motion”).

According to the Order, in a previous ruling issued by ALJ Essex, Respondents were permitted to substitute Dr. Yoash Carmi (an employee of Respondent Hanita Coatings RCA, Ltd.) for their previously identified expert (Dr. Richard Goodman), with the understanding that Dr. Carmi’s opinions would be limited to those set forth in Dr. Goodman’s previously submitted expert reports.  The same previous ruling by ALJ Essex permitted Presstek to introduce into evidence Dr. Goodman’s deposition testimony and also permitted Presstek to supplement its expert reports to rebut any new theories advanced by Dr. Carmi.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Precludes Complainant From Offering Constructions For Certain Claim Terms In Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits (337-TA-665)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
09
On April 8, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 19 in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (337-TA-665).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted-in-part respondents LSI Corporation, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Memory Products (US) Corporation, Seagate Technologies International (Singapore), and Seagate (US) LLC’s (collectively “Respondents”) motion to preclude complainant Qimonda AG (“Qimonda”) from offering claim constructions for any claim term for which Qimonda’s proposed construction was “plain and ordinary meaning” or “plain meaning.”

In the Order, ALJ Rogers noted that his procedural schedule required the parties to (i) exchange lists of claim construction terms, and (ii) submit a joint list showing each party’s proposed claim constructions.  ALJ Rogers further noted that “Qimonda’s proposed constructions for many of the disputed claim terms is stated as ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ or ‘plain meaning.’”  Respondents objected to this approach and argued that Qimonda’s constructions were “nothing more than a strategic placeholder” and that Qimonda “was required to offer an actual definition, and not simply state that the term should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Initial Determination in Certain Refrigerators 337-TA-632

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
10
As indicated in our March 2 post, on February 26, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued his initial determination in the matter of Certain Refrigerators and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-632).  On April 6, ALJ Essex issued the public version of his Initial Determination.

In the ID, ALJ Essex determined that Respondents LG Electronics Corp., Inc., LG Electronics, USA, Inc., and LG Electronics Monterrey, Mexico S.A. de C.V. (collectively “LG”) did not violate section 337 through their admitted importation, sale for importation, and sale after importation of certain refrigerators because the refrigerators do not infringe Complainants Whirlpool Corp., Whirlpool Manufacturing Corp., Whirlpool Patent Corp., and Maytag Corp.’s (collectively “Whirlpool’s”) U.S. Patent No. 6,082,130.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Procedural Schedule and Target Date In Certain Electronic Devices Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (337-TA-673)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
13
On April 8, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order Nos. 4 and 5 in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (337-TA-673).

Order No. 4 sets the procedural schedule for this investigation and includes a provision 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 October 26, 2009.

Share

Read More

Update Regarding Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems (337-TA-670)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
13
Further to our March 11 post, on April 6, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 3 – setting target date in Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof (337-TA-670).

In the Order, Chief ALJ Luckern set a 15 month target date (i.e., June 14, 2010).  The 15 month target date was set despite an argument from respondents CompX International Inc. and Waterloo Furniture Components Limited d/b/a CompX Waterloo that an 18 month target date is required in view of “the complexity and multiplicity of factual and legal issues involved in the investigation.”  The complainant requested a 14 month target date and the ITC Staff requested a 15 month target date.  According to the Order, any final initial determination will be filed no later than February 15, 2010.  Also, the evidentiary hearing is scheduled to commence on December 1, 2009.

Share

Read More

Update Regarding Certain Optoelectronic Devices (337-TA-669)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
13
Further to our March 6 and 17 posts, on April 6, 2009 ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 3 - Setting Target Date in Certain Optoelectronic Devices, Components Thereof, And Products Containing the Same (337-TA-669).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex set June 10, 2010 as the target date for completion of the investigation (which is 15 months after institution of the investigation).  Also, any final initial determination is due to be issued no later than February 10, 2010.  In the Order, ALJ Essex further provides that the pre-hearing conference and the evidentiary hearing will take place at the U.S. District Courthouse for the District of Columbia “[d]ue to lack of courtroom availability.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Grants Motion to Compel in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization (337-TA-648)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
13
On April 6, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 63 granting a motion to compel filed by Complainants Agere Systems Inc. and LSI Corporation (“Agere”) related to the identification of prior art.

Agere moved to compel the respondents to comply with the procedural schedule (Order No. 10) and amend their Joint Notice of Prior Art (“Notice”) to identify “the prior art upon which Respondents realistically intend to rely.”  According to the Order, Respondents had identified 478 prior art references in the Notice.  The Staff supported Agere’s motion to compel.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Initial Determination in Certain Flash Memory Controllers, Drives, Memory Cards, and Media Players (337-TA-619)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
14
On April 10, 2009, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a Notice regarding his Initial Determination in Certain Flash Memory Controllers, Drives, Memory Cards, and Media Players and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-619). 

According to the notice, ALJ Bullock held that no violation of Section 337 had occurred in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, or the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain flash memory controllers, drives, memory cards, and media players and products containing same, in connection with claims 17, 24, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 6,763,424 (the ‘424 patent) and claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 7,137,011 (the ‘011 patent).  The notice further indicated that the Complainant satisfied the domestic industry requirement for both the ‘424 and ‘011 patents.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Order Relating to Third Party Discovery In Certain Video Game Machines (337-TA-658)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
15
On April 13, 2009, the public version of Order No. 14 (which was issued by Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern on February 27, 2009) was made available in Certain Video Game Machines and Related Three-Dimensional Pointing Devices (337-TA-658).  In the Order, ALJ Luckern denied third-party James D. Richards III’s motion for sanctions and for a new protective order, and denied his motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum, ordering Richards to comply with the subpoena.

According to the 17-page order, Richards moved for sanctions against respondents Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. (“Nintendo”) because Nintendo violated the protective order by disclosing Richards’ confidential trade secrets by including information obtained from its expert witness, Donald Odell, and by retaining Odell as an expert.  Odell is the named inventor on a patent that Nintendo asserted as prior art.  Odell was formerly employed at Selectech, Inc. under the supervision of Richards.  Richards also requested removal of two Nintendo attorneys for their disclosure of this supposed confidential business information, which included customer identities.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Permits Invalidity Defense In Enforcement Proceeding In Certain Voltage Regulators (337-TA-564)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
15
On April 10, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 10 in Certain Voltage Regulators, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (337-TA-564).  In the Order, ALJ Charneski granted, in part, Complainant Linear Technology Corporation’s (“Linear”) motion to strike certain affirmative defenses of respondent Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc. (“AATI”).  Specifically, ALJ Charneski granted Linear’s motion to strike a number of AATI’s affirmative defenses, but denied Linear’s motion to strike AATI’s patent invalidity defense as premature. 

By way of background, on September 24, 2007, the Commission issued its Final Determination on the question of violation finding that certain AATI products infringed claims 2, 3, and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,580,258.  The Commission also issued a limited exclusion order directed toward AATI.  Linear thereafter filed a complaint requesting that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding against AATI for alleged violation of the limited exclusion order.  On October 1, 2008, the Commission issued its Notice of Institution of Formal Enforcement Proceeding against AATI “to determine whether AATI is in violation of the Commission’s limited exclusion order issued in the investigation, and what, if any, enforcement measures are appropriate.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Optoelectronic Devices (337-TA-669)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
16
On April 15, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 4 in Certain Optoelectronic Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (337-TA-669).

In the Order, ALJ Essex set the procedural schedule for the investigation.  He included a provision for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions, and scheduled the evidentiary hearing to begin on October 19, 2009.

Share

Read More