By Eric Schweibenz
On July 6, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 37 (dated June 24, 2010) in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same (Inv. 337-TA-692) denying Respondents Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc. (collectively “Samsung”) motion for summary determination of non-infringement of U.S. Patents 6,014,309 (the ‘309 patent) and 6,377,439 (the ‘439 patent).

In support of the motion, Samsung argued that any Samsung multilayer ceramic capacitors (“MLCC”) that were not designated by Complainants Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. (collectively “Murata”) as infringing claim 3 of  the ‘309 patent or claims 1-3 and 5 of the ‘439 patent should be considered non-infringing.  In opposition, Murata argued that Samsung was seeking an unauthorized advisory opinion since the motion presumed that simply because a particular Samsung MLCC is not alleged to be infringing, it consequently does not infringe.  Murata further argued that Samsung did not satisfy the burden of proof required by a party seeking summary determination on the issue of non-infringement.

In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied the motion for summary determination related to the ‘439 as the issue was moot in view of Murata’s unopposed motion requesting partial termination of the Investigation based on the ‘439 patent.  Regarding the ‘309 patent, ALJ Gildea determined that “the Respondents are not entitled to summary determination that their non-accused MLCC are non-infringing as that issue is outside the scope of this Investigation.”  ALJ Gildea further determined that there was a lack of any statements of fact or supporting evidence to show the non-accused MLCC did not meet the limitations of the ‘309 patent.