How to Search
Recommended Determinations

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Recommended Determination On Remedy And Bonding In Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines (337-TA-641)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
22
On October 21, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version (dated August 21, 2009) of the Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding (“RD”) in Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-641).  In the RD, ALJ Charneski recommended (1) that a limited exclusion order issue; (2) a cease and desist order not issue as to any respondent; and (3) if the Commission issues an exclusion order, the Presidential review period bond should be set at 100% of the entered value of any covered product.

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is General Electric Co. (“GE”) and the Respondents are Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (“MHI”), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc. (“MHIA”), and Mitsubishi Power System, Inc. (“MPSA”) (collectively, “Mitsubishi”).  On August 7, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued the initial determination in this investigation, finding that a violation of Section 337 had occurred in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain variable speed wind turbines and components thereof.  See our August 10 and October 8 posts for more details about the current status of this investigation.
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Recommended Determination On Remedy And Bonding In Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels (337-TA-655)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
10
On March 9, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding (“RD”) (dated October 29, 2009) in Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Certain Processes For Manufacturing Or Relating To Same And Certain Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-655).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Amsted Industries Inc. (“Amsted”).  The Respondents are Tianrui Group Co. Ltd, Tianrui Group Foundry Co. Ltd, Standard Car Truck Company, Inc., and Barber Tianrui Railway Supply (collectively, “Respondents”).  On October 16, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) finding that a violation of Section 337 had occurred in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain cast steel railway wheels or products containing the same by reason of trade secret misappropriation.  See our October 19, 2009 and December 4, 2009 posts for more details.  On December 17, 2009, the Commission issued a notice determining not to review the ID.  See our December 18, 2009 post for more details.  On February 16, 2010, the Commission issued a notice of Issuance Of A Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Order; Termination of the Investigation.  See our February 19, 2010 post for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Recommended Determination On Remedy And Bonding In Certain Mobile Telephones (337-TA-663)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
10
On March 9, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding (“RD”) (dated December 23, 2009) in Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communications Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-663).

By way of background, on December 17, 2009, ALJ Charneski determined that there was a violation of Section 337 in connection with the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation, of certain Samsung mobile telephones or wireless communication devices featuring digital cameras, or components thereof, that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,493,335 and 6,292,218.  See our December 21, 2009 post for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version of Recommended Determination On Remedy And Bonding In Certain Machine Vision Software (337-TA-680)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
16
On August 13, 2010 ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding (“RD”) (dated July 23, 2010) in Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-680).

By way of background, on July 16, 2010, ALJ Charneski determined that there was no violation of Section 337 in this investigation.  More specifically, he determined that none of the accused products practiced U.S. Patent Nos. 7,016,539 (the ‘539 patent) and 7,065,262 (the ‘262 patent), certain claims of the ‘262 patent were invalid as anticipated, and all asserted claims of the ‘262 and ‘539 patents were invalid for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter.  See our July 16, 2010 post for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond in Certain Wireless Communication Devices (337-TA-745)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
30
On May 21, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of the Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“RD”) (dated May 9, 2012) in Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers, and Components Thereof (337-TA-745).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“Motorola”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondent Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless communications devices, portable music and data processing devices, computers, and components thereof that infringe certain U.S. Patents.  See our October 8, 2010 post for more details.  On April 24, 2012, ALJ Pender issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) which found that a violation of Section 337 has occurred in this investigation by Apple by reason of infringement of certain valid claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,246,697 (the ‘697 patent).  See our May 1, 2012 post for more details on the ID.  
Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Issues Recommended Determination On Remedy And Bonding In Certain Gaming And Entertainment Consoles (337-TA-752)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
31
On May 18, 2012, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of the Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding (“RD”) (dated May 7, 2012) in Certain Gaming and Entertainment Consoles, Related Software, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-745).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Motorola Mobility, Inc. and General Instrument Corporation (collectively, “Motorola”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondent Microsoft Corp. (“Microsoft”) for its importation into the U.S. and sale of certain gaming and entertainment consoles, related software, and components thereof that infringe  certain U.S. Patents.  See our November 24, 2010 post for more details.  On April 23, 2012, ALJ Shaw issued the Initial Determination (“ID”) which found that a violation of Section 337 occurred in this investigation by Microsoft by reason of infringement of certain valid claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,357,571 (the ‘571 patent); 6,069,896 (the ‘896 patent); 6,980,596 (the ‘596 patent); and 7,162,094 (the ‘094 patent).  See our May 24, 2012 post for more details on the public version of the ID. 
Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Issues Recommendation On Modification Of Remedial Orders In Certain Ink Cartridges (337-TA-565)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
15
On May 22, 2012, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of his Recommendation on Modification of Remedial Orders (“RD”) (dated February 21, 2012) in the consolidated advisory opinion and modification proceedings in Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-565).

By way of background, on October 19, 2007, the Commission issued, inter alia, a general exclusion order (“GEO”) and cease and desist orders in the underlying investigation.  The GEO prohibits the unlicensed entry of ink cartridges covered by one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,615,957; 5,622,439; 5,158,377; 5,221,148; 5,488,401; 6,502,917; 6,550,902; 6,955,422; 7,008,053; and 7,011,397.  The cease and desist orders were directed toward certain domestic Respondents, including Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd. (“Ninestar US”).
Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Issues Recommended Determination On Remedy And Bonding In Certain Light-Emitting Diodes (337-TA-784)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
15
On August 8, 2012, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of the Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding (“RD”) (dated July 23, 2012) in Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-784).  In the RD, ALJ Shaw recommended that should the Commission find a violation, a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) should issue directed to Respondents’ infringing LEDs, and that the LEO should not cover Respondents’ downstream products.  ALJ Shaw further recommended that the Commission not issue any cease and desist order, and also recommended that Respondents post a bond during the Presidential review period.

By way of background, the investigation is based on a June 3, 2011 complaint filed by OSRAM GmbH (“OSRAM”) alleging that Respondents LG Electronics, Inc., LG Innotek Co., Ltd., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Innotek U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “LG”) violated Section 337 by infringing various patents.  See our July 7, 2011 post for more details.  On July 9, 2012, ALJ Shaw issued a notice holding that a violation of Section 337 had occurred in this investigation by LG by reason of infringement of certain valid claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,151,283.  See our July 12, 2012 post for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Recommended Determination On Remedy And Bonding In Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices (337-TA-796)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
22
On December 28, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version (dated November 7, 2012) of the Recommended Determination On Remedy And Bonding (“RD”) in Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-796). 

By way of background, ALJ Pender determined that a violation of Section 337 has occurred in this investigation by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) by reason of infringement of certain valid claims of U.S. Patent Nos. D618,678 (the ‘678 patent), 7,479,949 (the ‘949 patent), RE 41,922 (the ‘922 patent), and 7,912,501 (the ‘501 patent).  See October 26, 2012 and January 22, 2013 posts for more details on the initial determination in this investigation.
Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond in Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices (337-TA-823)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
07
On February 1, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version (dated January 22, 2013) of the Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“RD”) in Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-823).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a December 2, 2011 complaint filed by Standard Innovation Corporation and Standard Innovation (US) Corp. (collectively, “Standard Innovation”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain kinesiotherapy devices and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,931,605 and D605,779.  See our December 6, 2011 post for more details on the complaint.
Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Public Version Of Recommended Determination On Remedy And Bond In Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps (337-TA-830)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
03
On March 26, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version (dated March 1, 2013) of the Recommended Determination On Remedy And Bond (“RD”) in Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-830).

By way of background, ALJ Pender determined that no violation of Section 337 has occurred in this investigation by Respondents Technical Consumer Products, Inc.; TCP (Shanghai) Tiancanbao Lighting Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Qiangling Electronics Co. Ltd.; Zhejiang Qiang Ling Electronic Co. Ltd.; U Lighting America Inc.; and Golden U Lighting Manufacturing (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Respondents”).   See our March 7, 2013 post for more details on the initial determination in this investigation.
Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Issues Notice Of Initial Determination On Violation Of Section 337 In Certain Digital Models, Digital Data, And Treatment Plans For Use, In Making Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment Appliances Made Therefrom (337-TA-833)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
08
On May 6, 2013, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued a notice regarding his Initial Determination ("ID") on violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination ("RD") on remedy and bond in Certain Digital Models, Digital Data, and Treatment Plans for Use, in Making Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment Appliances Made Therefrom, and Methods of Making the Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-833)

According to the notice, ALJ Rogers determined that (i) a domestic industry exists that exploits U.S. Patent Nos. 6,217,325 ("the '325 patent"), 6,722,880 ("the '880 patent"), 8,070,487 ("the '487 patent"), 6,471,511 ("the '511 patent"), 6,705,863 ("the '863 patent") and 7,134,874 ("the '874 patent"); (ii) a domestic industry does not exist that exploits U.S. Patent No. 6,626,666 ("the '666 patent"); (iii) claims 1-3, 11, 13, 14, 21, 30-35, 38 and 39 of the '325 patent are infringed and not invalid; (iv) claims 1 and 3 of the '880 patent are infringed and not invalid; (v) claims 1, 3 and 5 of the '487 patent are infringed and not invalid, and claims 7-9 of the '487 patent are not infringed and not invalid; (vi) claim 1 of the '511 patent is infringed and not invalid; (vii) claims 1, 3, 7 and 9 of the '666 patent are infringed and not invalid; (viii) claims 1 and 4-8 of the '863 patent are infringed and not invalid; (ix) claims 1,2, 38, 39, 41 and 62 of the '874 patent are infringed and not invalid; and (x) there is a violation of Section 337 as to the '325, '880, '487, '511, '863 and '874 patents.
Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Issues Recommended Determination On Remedy And Bond In Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Control Technology (337-TA-845)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
16
On July 3, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of his recommended determination (“RD”) on remedy and bond (dated June 13, 2013) in Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and Parental Control Technology (Inv. No. 337-TA-845).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a May 1, 2012 complaint filed by Rovi Corporation; Rovi Guides, Inc.; Rovi Technologies Corporation; Starsight Telecast, Inc.; United Video Properties, Inc.; and Index Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Rovi”) alleging violation of Section 337 by, inter alia, Respondents Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”) and Roku, Inc. (“Roku”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain products containing interactive program guide and parental control technology that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,523; 6,898,762; 7,065,709; 7,103,906; 7,225,455; 7,493,643; and 8,112,776.  See our May 3, 2012 post for more details. 
Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Issues Public Version of Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond In Certain Audiovisual Components (337-TA-837)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
16
On August 14, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued public versions of his Initial Determination (“ID”) and Recommended Determination (“RD”) on remedy and bond in Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-837).  Due to its large size, we have separated the ID into eight parts:  part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, and part 8. 

By way of background, the investigation is based on a March 2, 2012 complaint filed by LSI Corporation and its subsidiary Agere Systems Inc. (collectively, “Complainants”) alleging violation of Section 337 with regard to certain audiovisual components and products containing the same including, certain digital televisions, Blu-ray disc players, home theater systems, DVD players and/or recorders that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,870,087 (the ‘087 patent), 6,982,663 (the ‘663 patent),  6,452,958 (the ‘958 patent), and 6,707,867 (the ‘867 patent).  See our April 13, 2012 post for more details on the investigation.  On March 7, 2013, the ALJ granted a motion to terminate the investigation as to certain claims of those patents.  As of the date of the ID and RD, the remaining respondents in the investigation were Funai Electric Company, Ltd., Funai Corporation, Inc., P&F USA, Inc., and Funai Service Corporation (collectively, “Funai”) and Realtek Semiconductor Corporation (“Realtek”).
Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Issues Public Version Of Recommended Determination In Certain Digital Media Devices (337-TA-882)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
14
On August 7, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of the recommended determination ("RD") (dated July 16, 2014) 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).

By way of background, this investigation was instituted on June 12, 2013 and is based on a May 13, 2013 complaint filed by Black Hills Media, LLC ("BHM") alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain digital media devices that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,028,323; 8,214,873 (the '873 patent); 8,230,099; 8,045,952 (the '952 patent); 8,050,652 (the '652 patent) and 6,618,593 (the '593 patent). See our May 16, 2013 and June 20, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and the notice of investigation, respectively.
Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Issues Recommended Determination On Remedy And Bond In Certain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills (337-TA-895)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
01
On October 9, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of his Recommended Determination ("RD") regarding remedy and bond in Certain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills and Parts Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-895).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a complaint filed by A&J Manufacturing, LLC and A&J Manufacturing, Inc. (collectively, "A&J") alleging violation of Section 337 by over 20 proposed respondents in the importation and sale of certain multiple mode outdoor grills and parts thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,381,712, D660,646 and D662,773.  See our August 22, 2013 and September 23, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Recommends Rescission Of Remedial Orders In Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules (337-TA-929)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
29
On March 27, 2017, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a notice of Initial Determination in Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-929).

By way of background, the underlying investigation is based on an August 4, 2014 complaint filed by Adrian Rivera and Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, “ARM”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain beverage brewing capsules, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,720,320. See our August 6, 2014 and September 11, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively. On March 17, 2016, the Commission issued its final determination and issued a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders directed at Eko Brands, LLC and other respondents based on their infringement of claims 8 and 19.
Share

Read More

Copyright © 2018 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.