How to Search
Enforcement Determinations

ALJ Luckern Issues Enforcement Initial Determination In Certain Ink Cartridges (337-TA-565)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
21
On April 17, 2009, ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued a Notice of his Enforcement Initial Determination (“ED”) which included the non-confidential title page, conclusions of law, and the order in Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof (337-TA-565).  According to the Notice, ALJ Luckern determined that enforcement respondents Ninestar Technology Company Ltd., Ninestar Technology Co., Ltd. and Town Sky, Incorporated violated the orders issued at the conclusion of Investigation No. 337-TA-565.

ALJ Luckern determined that the Ninestar and Town Sky compatible and remanufactured cartridges at issue are “covered products” under the Cease and Desist Order issued against it by the Commission on October 19, 2007.  ALJ Luckern also determined that Ninestar and Town Sky failed to meet their burden to demonstrate their affirmative defenses and were “jointly and severally liable for violations of the Cease and Desist Orders in the amount of $20,504,974.16.”
Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Public Version Of Enforcement Initial Determination In Certain Ink Cartridges (337-TA-565)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
16
On July 14, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of the April 17, 2009 Enforcement Initial Determination (“ED”) in Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof (337-TA-565).  See our April 21 post.  The underlying investigation was requested by Complainants Seiko Epson Corporation, Epson America, Inc., and Epson Portland Inc. (“Epson”).

The ED found that certain Respondents violated a Limited Exclusion Order, a General Exclusion Order and a Cease and Desist Order issued by the Commission on October 19, 2007.  The Respondents at issue were Ninestar Technology Co. Ltd. and Ninestar Technology Company Ltd. (collectively, “Ninestar”), Town Sky Inc., Mipo International, Ltd. and Mipo America, Ltd. (collectively, “Mipo”), Ribbon Tree (USA) Inc. and Apex Distributing, Inc.
Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Enforcement Initial Determination Finding No Violation Of Consent Order In Certain R-134a Coolant (337-TA-623)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
24
On September 21, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued a notice regarding his Enforcement Initial Determination (“EID”) in Certain R-134a Coolant (Otherwise Known as 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane) (Inv. No. 337-TA-623).  In the notice, ALJ Luckern determined that the enforcement respondent Sinochem Environmental Protection Chemicals (Taicang) Co., Ltd. (“Sinochem”) did not violate the Consent Order issued by the Commission on September 11, 2008.

By way of background, INEOS Fluor Holdings Ltd., INEOS Fluor Ltd. and INEOS Fluor Americas LLC (collectively, “INEOS”) filed a complaint in December 2007 alleging violations of Section 337 by several respondents including Sinochem in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain R-134a coolant (otherwise known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane) by reason of infringement of certain patents, including U.S. Patent No. 5,559,276.  See our April 6 post for more details.  On August 15, 2008, the Sinochem respondents moved for partial termination of the investigation based on the entry of a consent order specific to their “old” process for manufacture of R-134a coolant.  On August 20, 2008, the ALJ issued an initial determination (“ID”) granting the motion and terminating the investigation with respect to the “old” process.  The Commission determined not to review the ALJ’s ID and issued a Consent Order on September 11, 2008.  On December 12, 2008, INEOS filed a complaint, requesting that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding to investigate an alleged violation of the Consent Order relating to the “old” process.  On February 18, 2009, the Commission issued a notice instituting a formal enforcement proceeding.
Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Public Version of Enforcement Initial Determination In Certain R-134a Coolant (337-TA-623)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
09
Further to our September 24 post, on October 7, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of the Enforcement Initial Determination (“EID”) in Certain R-134a Coolant (Otherwise Known as 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane) (Inv. No. 337-TA-623).  In the EID, ALJ Luckern determined that enforcement Respondent Sinochem Environmental Protection Chemicals (Taicang) Co., Ltd. (“Sinochem”) did not violate the Consent Order issued by the Commission on September 11, 2008.  ALJ Luckern also determined that no enforcement measures are appropriate should the Commission find a violation of the Consent Order.

By way of background, INEOS Fluor Holdings Ltd., INEOS Fluor Ltd. and INEOS Fluor Americas LLC (collectively, “INEOS”) filed a complaint in December 2007 alleging violations of Section 337 by several respondents including Sinochem in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain R-134a coolant (otherwise known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane) by reason of infringement of certain patents, including U.S. Patent No. 5,559,276.  See our April 6 post for more details.  On August 15, 2008, the Sinochem respondents moved for partial termination of the investigation based on the entry of a Consent Order specific to their “old” process for manufacture of R-134a coolant.  On August 20, 2008, the ALJ issued an initial determination (“ID”) granting the motion and terminating the investigation with respect to the “old” process.  The Commission determined not to review the ALJ’s ID and issued a Consent Order on September 11, 2008.  On December 12, 2008, INEOS filed a complaint, requesting that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding to investigate an alleged violation of the Consent Order relating to the “old” process.  On February 18, 2009, the Commission issued a notice instituting a formal enforcement proceeding.
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Enforcement Initial Determination Finding Violation Of Limited Exclusion Order In Certain Voltage Regulators (337-TA-564)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
19
On March 18, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued a notice regarding his Enforcement Initial Determination (“EID”) in Certain Voltage Regulators, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-564).  In the notice ALJ Charneski found “a violation of the limited exclusion order issued by the Commission on September 24, 2007.”  The notice further stated that the EID recommended “that a cease and desist order issue against the respondent.”

By way of background, the Commission instituted the violation phase of the investigation on March 22, 2006 based on a complaint filed by Linear Technology Corporation (“Linear”) of Milpitas, California, naming Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc. (“AATI”) of Sunnyvale, California as the sole respondent. 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 Charneski Issues Enforcement Initial Determination In Certain Voltage Regulators (337-TA-564)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
02
Further to our March 19, 2010 post, on March 31, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Enforcement Initial Determination (“EID”) (dated March 18, 2010) in Certain Voltage Regulators, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-564).  In the EID, ALJ Charneski found that a violation had occurred of the ITC’s limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and recommended that a cease-and-desist order issue against Respondent Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc. (“AATI”).

By way of background, the ITC issued its Final Determination on September 24, 2007 finding that a representative AATI voltage regulator infringed claims 2, 3 and 34 of Complainant Linear Technology Corporation’s (“Linear”) U.S. Patent No. 6,580,258 (the ‘258 patent).  The ITC issued an LEO directed to AATI with respect to voltage regulators covered by the asserted claims.  Linear thereafter filed a complaint requesting that the ITC institute a formal enforcement proceeding against AATI for alleged violation of the LEO.  On October 1, 2008, the ITC issued a Notice of Institution of Formal Enforcement Proceeding.  A tutorial was held in the enforcement proceeding on January 5 and an evidentiary hearing was held on January 11-13, 2010.
Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Issues Public Version Of Enforcement Initial Determination In Certain DC-DC Controllers (337-TA-698)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
07
On November 30, 2012, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of the Enforcement Initial Determination (“EID”) (dated June 8, 2012) in Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-698).

By way of background, the Commission instituted this enforcement proceeding on September 6, 2011 based on an enforcement complaint filed by Richtek Technology Corp. and Richtek USA, Inc. (collectively, “Richtek”).  The enforcement complaint alleged that Respondents uPI Semiconductor Corp. (“uPI”) and Sapphire Technology Limited (“Sapphire”) had violated consent orders that issued in the underlying investigation on August 13, 2010.  The alleged violations included the continued importing, offering for sale, and selling for importation of DC-DC controllers that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,315,190 (the ‘190 patent); 6,414,470 (the ‘470 patent); and 7,132,717 (the ‘717 patent) and/or that make use of certain misappropriated Richtek trade secrets.  See our July 25, 2011 and September 5, 2011 posts for more details.  On March 20, 2012, ALJ Shaw issued an initial determination granting a joint motion to terminate the enforcement proceeding as to Sapphire based on a settlement agreement.  See our March 22, 2012 post for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Notice Of Initial Determination And Recommended Determination On Enforcement And Modification In Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps (337-TA-830)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
14
On January 10, 2014, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued a Notice of Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Enforcement and Modification (“EID”) in Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-830).

By way of background, the Commission instituted this investigation on February 22, 2012 based on a complaint filed by Neptun Light, Inc. and Andrzej Bobel (collectively, “Neptun”) alleging violation of Section 337 by reason of infringement of various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,434,480 and 8,035,318 by several respondents, including MaxLite, Inc. (“MaxLite”).  See our February 23, 2012 post for more details on the Notice of Investigation.  On July 25, 2012, the Commission terminated the investigation as to MaxLite and entered a consent order preventing MaxLite from importing dimmable compact fluorescent lamps (“CFLs”) that infringed claim 9 of the ‘480 patent.
Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
14
On March 7, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued a notice regarding the Enforcement Initial Determination (“EID”) 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’s (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 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 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

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.