How to Search
Remand Determinations

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Remand Determination In Certain Semiconductor Integration Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization (337-TA-648)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
29
On January 29, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Remand Determination (dated January 14, 2010) in Certain Semiconductor Integration Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-648).

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are LSI Corporation and Agere Systems Inc. and the Respondents are Tower Semiconductor, Ltd., Jazz Semiconductor, Qimonda AG, Powerchip Semiconductor Corporation, Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation, Integrated Device Technology, Inc., Spansion, Inc., and Nanya Technology Corporation (collectively, “Respondents”).  On September 21, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued an initial determination (“ID”) finding no violation of Section 337.  In this respect, ALJ Charneski determined that “it was established by clear and convincing evidence that claims 1, 3, and 4 of [U.S. Patent No. 5,227,335 (the ‘335 patent)] are invalid due to anticipation in view of IBM Process A.”  On November 23, 2009, the Commission issued a notice determining to review-in-part the ID finding no violation of Section 337 and determining to remand a portion of the investigation related to obviousness back to ALJ Charneski.  See our November 30, 2009 post for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Public Version Of Remand Determination In Certain R-134a Coolant (337-TA-623)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
10
Further to our April 6, 2009 post, on May 3, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of the Remand Determination (“RD”) (dated April 1, 2009) in Certain R-134a Coolant (Otherwise Known as 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane) (Inv. No. 337-TA-623).  Prior to the issuance of the public version of the RD, the Commission determined to review the RD in its entirety on June 1, 2009.  See our June 3, 2009 post for more details.  Subsequently on September 21, 2009, the Commission issued the public version of its opinion reversing the RD’s finding that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,559,276 (the ‘276 patent) is not obvious.  See our September 23, 2009 post for further details.

By way of background, this investigation was instituted in December 2007 based on a complaint filed by INEOS Fluor Holdings Ltd., INEOS Fluor Ltd. and INEOS Fluor Americas LLC (“INEOS”).  INEOS’ complaint alleged violations of Section 337 by Respondents Sinochem Modern Environmental Protection Chemicals (Xi’an) Co. Ltd., Sinochem Ningbo Ltd., Sinochem Environmental Protection Chemicals (Taicang) Co., Ltd., and Sinochem (U.S.A.) Inc. (collectively, “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-tetrafluorothane) by reason of infringement of certain patents, including the ‘276 patent.  On December 1, 2008, ALJ Luckern issued a final initial and determination (“ID”) finding a violation of Section 337.  On January 30, 2009, the Commission issued a notice determining to review-in-part the ID finding a violation of Section 337 and remanding a portion of the investigation “for a remand determination addressing issues related to anticipation and obviousness [of claim 1 of the ‘276 patent] with respect to certain references” identified by the Commission.
Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
28
On May 27, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued a noticeregarding a Remand Initial Determination (“RID”) in Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-650).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC, Inc. (“PPC”) and the Respondents are Fu Ching Technical Industry Co. Ltd., Gem Electronics, Inc. (collectively, the “Active 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”).  The investigation was instituted on May 30, 2008.  On October 13, 2009, ALJ Gildea issued his Initial Determination (“ID”) finding, inter alia, that the Defaulting Respondents were in violation of Section 337 by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,470,257, 6,558,194, D519,076, and D440,539 (the ‘539 patent).  See our November 10, 2009 postfor more details.
Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
16
Further to our May 28 post, on June 15, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of the Remand Initial Determination (“RID”) (dated May 27, 2010) in Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-650).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC, Inc. (“PPC”) and the Respondents are Fu Ching Technical Industry Co. Ltd., Gem Electronics, Inc. (collectively, the “Active 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”).  The investigation was instituted on May 30, 2008.  On October 13, 2009, ALJ Gildea issued his Initial Determination (“ID”) finding, inter alia, that the Defaulting Respondents were in violation of Section 337 by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,470,257, 6,558,194, D519,076, and D440,539 (the ‘539 patent).  See our November 10, 2009 post for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Remand Initial Determination In Certain Connecting Devices (337-TA-587)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
13
Further to our August 13, 2010 post, on August 25, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Remand Initial Determination (“RID”) (dated August 5, 2010) 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 (collectively, “SMC”) in this matter.

By way of background, on October 6, 2006, Norgren Inc. (“Norgren”) filed a complaint with the ITC against SMC alleging violation of Section 337.  ALJ Charneski issued an initial determination on February 13, 2008 in which he found no violation of Section 337.  Norgren petitioned for review, and the Commission rendered a final decision on April 14, 2008 adopting the ALJ’s initial determination.  Norgren appealed the Commission’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Remand Determination Finding No Violation Of Section 337 By Apple Or Research In Motion In Certain Mobile Telephones And Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras (337-TA-703)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
23
On May 21, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination on Remand (the “Remand ID”) in Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-703).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Eastman Kodak Company and the Respondents are Research in Motion, Ltd. and Research in Motion Corp. (collectively, “RIM”) and Apple Inc. (“Apple”).  On January 24, 2011, former Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued an initial determination (“ID”) finding that there was no violation of Section 337.  See our March 18, 2011 post for more details.  On June 30, 2011, the Commission issued a notice determining to affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand-in-part the findings in the ID.  See our July 6, 2011 and August 8, 2011 posts for more details. 
Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Public Version Of Remand Determination In Certain Mobile Telephones And Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras (337-TA-703)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
02
On June 27, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of the Initial Determination on Remand (the “Remand ID”) (dated May 21, 2012) in Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-703).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”) and the Respondents are Research in Motion, Ltd. and Research in Motion Corp. (collectively, “RIM”) and Apple Inc. (“Apple”).  On January 24, 2011, former Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued an initial determination (“ID”) finding that there was no violation of Section 337.  See our March 18, 2011 post for more details.  On June 30, 2011, the Commission issued a notice determining to affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand-in-part the findings in the ID.  See our July 6, 2011 and August 8, 2011 posts for more details.  In the notice, the Commission determined to modify the ALJ’s claim constructions and remand questions regarding infringement and validity in view of the modified constructions. 
Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Remand Determination Finding No Violation Of Section 337 By Apple In Certain Wireless Communication Devices (337-TA-745)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
02
On December 18, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination on Remand (the “Remand ID”) in Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-745).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“Motorola”) and the Respondent is Apple Inc. (“Apple”).  On May 16, 2012, ALJ Pender issued an initial determination (“ID”) finding that a violation of Section 337 had occurred by Apple regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,246,697.  However, ALJ Pender found no violation of Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,272,333, 6,246,862 (the ‘862 patent), and 5,636,223.  See our May 31, 2012 post for more details on the ID.  On September 17, 2012, the Commission issued a notice determining to affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand-in-part the findings in the ID.  Specifically, the Commission remanded the case to the ALJ for further proceedings on claim construction, the remaining invalidity challenges, infringement, and domestic industry in relation to the ‘862 patent.  See our September 20, 2012 post for more details on the Commission's decision. 
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Remand Initial Determination In Certain Static Random Access Memories (337-TA-792)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
27
On February 25, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice regarding the Remand Initial Determination on Validity and Enforceability (“RID”) in Certain Static Random Access Memories and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-792). 

By way of background, the Complainant in this matter is Cypress Semiconductor Corporation and the remaining Respondents are GSI Technology, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc.; and Avnet, Inc.  The patents at issue in the investigation are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,651,134 (the ‘134 patent); 6,262,937 (the ‘937 patent); 7,142,477 (the ‘477 patent); and 6,534,805 (the ‘805 patent).  See our July 26, 2011 post for more information about this investigation.  On December 21, 2012, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) determined to review ALJ Bullock’s October 25, 2013 Initial Determination (“ID”) which found no violation of Section 337.  Further, the Commission issued an order remanding the investigation back to ALJ Bullock.  Specifically, the Commission determined to review the “final ID in its entirety” and remand the investigation to the ALJ to consider the parties’ invalidity and unenforceability arguments and make appropriate findings.  See our December 28, 2012 post for more details on the Commission’s notice. 
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Notice of Remand Initial Determination In Certain Devices For Improving Uniformity Used In A Backlight Module (337-TA-805)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
06
On February 28, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a notice in connection with the Initial Determination on Remand regarding Validity and Enforceability (“RID”) in Certain Devices for Improving Uniformity Used in a Backlight Module and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (337-TA-805).  

By way of background, the Complainants in this matter are Industrial Technology Research Institute and ITRI International, Inc. (collectively, “ITRI”) and the Respondents are LG Corporation, LG Electronics, Inc., and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “LG”).  ITRI alleged that LG violated Section 337 by the importation and/or sale of LCD televisions and monitors that infringed claims 6, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,883,932 (the ‘932 patent).  The subject matter of the ‘932 patent is an apparatus for improving uniformity used in backlight modules using light sources, a reflective housing, and at least one structured arc sheet.  See our September 12, 2011 post for more details.  In his October 22, 2012 ID, ALJ Essex determined that LG’s accused products do not infringe the asserted claims of the ‘932 patent – either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents – because the accused products failed to meet the “structured arc sheet” limitation of independent claim 6.  Additionally, ALJ Essex found that ITRI’s domestic industry product does not satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.  Based on his finding of no infringement and no domestic industry, ALJ Essex did not reach the issues of invalidity and unenforceability.  See our November 6, 2012 post for more details.  On December 21, 2012, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice determining to review the “final ID in its entirety” and remand-in-part the investigation.  According to the accompanying order, the Commission remanded-in-part the investigation back to ALJ Essex to consider the parties’ invalidity and unenforceability arguments and make appropriate findings.  See our December 27, 2012 post for more details on the Commission’s remand notice and order.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Public Version Of Remand Initial Determination Finding No Violation Of Section 337 in Certain Devices For Improving Uniformity Used In A Backlight Module (337-TA-805)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
13
On March 11, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of the Initial Determination on Remand regarding Validity and Enforceability (“RID”) (dated February 28, 2013) in Certain Devices for Improving Uniformity Used in a Backlight Module and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (337-TA-805).

By way of background, the Complainants in this matter are Industrial Technology Research Institute and ITRI International, Inc. (collectively, “ITRI”) and the Respondents are LG Corporation, LG Electronics, Inc., and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “LG”).  ITRI alleged that LG violated Section 337 by the importation and/or sale of LCD televisions and monitors that infringed claims 6, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,883,932 (the ‘932 patent).  Seeour September 12, 2011 post for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Public Version Of Remand Initial Determination On Validity And Enforceability In Certain Static Random Access Memories (337-TA-792)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
20
Further to our February 27, 2013 post, on March 15, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of the Remand Initial Determination (“RID”) (dated February 25, 2013) in Certain Static Random Access Memories and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-792). 

By way of background, the Complainant in this matter is Cypress Semiconductor Corporation (“Cypress”) and the remaining Respondents are GSI Technology, Inc. (“GSI”), Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”); and Avnet, Inc. (“Avnet”) (collectively, “Respondents”).  The patents at issue in the investigation are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,651,134 (the ‘134 patent); 6,262,937 (the ‘937 patent); 7,142,477 (the ‘477 patent); and 6,534,805 (the ‘805 patent).  See our July 26, 2011 post for more information about this investigation.
Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Issues Notice Of Remand Initial Determination In Certain Gaming And Entertainment Consoles (337-TA-752)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
25
On March 22, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued a notice of the final initial remand determination (“RID”) in Certain Gaming and Entertainment Consoles, Related Software, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-752). 

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Motorola Mobility, Inc. and General Instrument Corporation alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondent Microsoft Corp. for its importation into the U.S. and sale of certain models of Microsoft’s popular Xbox product.  See our November 24, 2010 post for more details.  On April 23, 2012, ALJ Shaw issued an ID which found that a violation of Section 337 occurred 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.  On June 29, 2012, the ITC issued a notice determining to review the ID in its entirety.  The Commission also remanded the investigation to the ALJ to “(1) apply the Commission’s opinion in Certain Electronic Devices with Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-724, Comm’n Op. (Dec. 21, 2011); (2) rule on Microsoft’s motion for partial termination of the investigation …; and (3) set a new target date for completion of the investigation,” which allows four months for Commission review.  See our July 3, 2012 post for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Notice Of Remand Initial Determination In Certain Automated Media Library Devices (337-TA-746)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
28
On March 26, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the remand initial determination on violation of Section 337 in Certain Automated Media Library Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-746).

By way of background, the complainant in this matter is Overland Storage, Inc. and the remaining respondents are BDT AG, BDT-Solutions GmbH & Co. KG, BDT Products, Inc., BDT Automation Technology (Zhuhai FTZ) Co., Ltd., and BDT de México, S. de R.L. de C.V.  Asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 6,328,766 (the ‘766 patent) and 6,353,581 (the ‘581 patent) are directed to automated media library devices, also known as tape libraries.  In his June 20, 2012 Initial Determination, ALJ Bullock determined that (1) the ‘766 and ‘581 patents are not infringed by BDT; (2) the patents are not invalid except for claim 15 of the ‘581 patent; and (3) a domestic industry in the United States exists for the ‘766 patent, but not for the ‘581 patent.  See our July 27, 2012 post for more details.  On October 25, 2012, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued a notice and order remanding the investigation.  See our our October 31, 2012 and November 28, 2012 posts for more information on the Commission’s decision to review and remand the investigation.
Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Issues Remand Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337 in Certain Gaming and Entertainment Consoles (337-TA-752)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
05
On April 2, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of the Remand Initial Determination (“RID,” dated March 22, 2013) in Certain Gaming and Entertainment Consoles, Related Software, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-752).

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 models of Microsoft’s popular Xbox product.  See our November 24, 2010 post for more details. 
Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Remand Initial Determination In Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices (337-TA-796)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
08
On April 4, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of the Remand Initial Determination (“RID”) (dated March 26, 2013) in Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-796).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) alleging a violation of Section 337 by Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) for importation into the U.S. and sale of certain electronic digital media devices.  See our August 2, 2011 post for more details on the Notice of Investigation in this matter.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Public Version Of Remand Determination Finding No Violation Of Section 337 In Certain Automated Media Library Devices (337-TA-746)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
29
On April 23, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of the Remand Initial Determination (the “Remand ID”) (dated March 26, 2013) finding no violation of section 337 in Certain Automated Media Library Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-746).

By way of background, the complainant in this matter is Overland Storage, Inc. (“Overland”) and the remaining respondents are BDT AG, BDT-Solutions GmbH & Co. KG, BDT Products, Inc., BDT Automation Technology (Zhuhai FTZ) Co., Ltd., and BDT de México, S. de R.L. de C.V.  Overland asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 6,328,766 (the ‘766 patent) and 6,353,581 (the ‘581 patent) which are directed to automated media library devices, also known as tape libraries.  In his June 20, 2012 Initial Determination, ALJ Bullock determined that (1) the ‘766 and ‘581 patents are not infringed by BDT; (2) the patents are not invalid except for claim 15 of the ‘581 patent; and (3) a domestic industry in the United States exists for the ‘766 patent, but not for the ‘581 patent.  See our July 27, 2012 post for more details.  On October 25, 2012, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice and order remanding the investigation.  See our October 31, 2012 and November 28, 2012 posts for more information on the Commission’s decision to review and remand the investigation.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Notice Regarding Remand Determination In Certain Video Game Systems And Wireless Controllers (337-TA-770)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
09
On May 7, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice of Remand Determination ("RD") in Certain Video Game Systems and Wireless Controllers and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-770).

By way of background, on August 31, 2012, ALJ Bullock issued an initial determination finding no violation of Section 337 by Respondents Nintendo of America, Inc. and Nintendo Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Nintendo”) in this investigation with respect to the patents-at-issue.  See our October 12, 2012 post for more details.  On November 6, 2012, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice indicating that the Commission revised the claim construction of “toy wand,” and in light of this construction, remanded the case to ALJ Bullock to determine infringement, validity, and domestic industry of the ‘917 and ‘742 patents.  See our November 8, 2012 and November 12, 2012 posts for more information about the Commission’s prior notice and opinion.
Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Final Initial Remand Determination Of No Violation In Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems (337-TA-890)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
08
On November 29, 2016, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version (dated November 10, 2016) of the Final Initial Remand Determination on Remand (“RID”) of no violation 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 Respondents BMC Medical Co., Ltd., 3B Medical, Inc., and 3B Products, L.L.C. (collectively, “BMC”) 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 the complaint and the Notice of Investigation, respectively. On August 22, 2014, ALJ Pender issued a notice of his Initial Determination (“ID:) finding a violation of Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,178,527 (“the ’527 patent”); 7,950,392 (“the ’392 patent”); 7,997,267 (“the ’267 patent”); 7,341,060 (“the ’060 patent”); 8,312,883 (“the ’883 patent”); and RE 44,453 (“the ’453 patent”). ALJ Pender further determined that there was no violation with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,926,487 (“the ’487 patent”). See our August 25, 2014 post for more details regarding the ID. On December 23, 2014, the Commission affirmed the finding of a violation of Section 337 for several of the asserted patents and issued (1) a limited exclusion order and (2) cease-and-desist orders directed to the domestic respondents. See our December 30, 2014 post for more details regarding the Commission’s determination.
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.