On January 25, 2011, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice determining to affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr.’s September 23, 2010 Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-690) and to terminate the investigation with a final determination of no violation of Section 337.

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are Ricoh Company, Ltd., Ricoh Americas Corporation, and Ricoh Electronics, Inc (collectively, “Ricoh”).  The Respondents are Oki Data Corporation and Oki Data Americas, Inc. (collectively, “Oki Data”).  On September 23, 2010, ALJ Rogers issued the ID determining that Oki Data had violated Section 337 in connection with the infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,863,690 (the ‘690 patent).  Additionally, ALJ Rogers determined that Oki Data had not violated Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,212,343 (the ‘343 patent), 6,209,048 (the ‘048 patent), 6,388,771 (the ‘771 patent), and 5,746,866 (the ‘866 patent).  See our September 27, 2010 post for more details.

On November 22, 2010, the Commission determined to review the ID as to the ‘343 and ‘690 patents and to request additional briefing on the issues under review as well as on remedy, the public interest, and bonding.  See our November 30, 2010 post for more details.

After examining the record of the investigation, including the ID and all the written submissions, the Commission determined to affirm ALJ Rogers’s finding that Oki Data had not violated Section 337 with respect to the ‘343 patent, but to reverse the ALJ’s finding that a violation had occurred with respect to the ‘690 patent.  As to both the ‘343 and ‘690 patents, the Commission determined to reverse ALJ Rogers’s finding that Ricoh had satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.  As to the ‘343 patent, the Commission determined to modify the ALJ’s construction of “a lower edge” and to affirm, on modified grounds, his findings that (1) Oki Data does not infringe the asserted claims of the ‘343 patent and (2) Ricoh does not meet the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.  As to the ‘690 patent, the Commission determined to reverse ALJ Rogers’s finding that claims 1, 5, 9, and 13 are not anticipated by the prior art.  Lastly, the Commission determined to deny an outstanding request for oral argument filed on December 23, 2010 as moot, and terminated the investigation.