By Eric Schweibenz
On July 27, 2011 ALJ Luckern issued public versions of three orders denying motions for summary determination in Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions, Media Players, and Cameras (Inv. No. 337-TA-709). 

Order No. 21 (dated October 13, 2010) denied Respondents’ Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Victor Company of Japan Limited, JVC Americas Corp., Best Buy.com, LLC, Best Buy Purchasing, LLC, Best Buy Stores, L.P., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp., Buy.com Inc., Liberty Media Corporation, QVC, Crutchfield Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Computer Nerds International (collectively, the “Respondents’) motion for summary determination that Complainant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (“Freescale”) had failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,199,306.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) opposed the motion.

According to the Order, ALJ Luckern found that, based on the record and the fact that all reasonable inferences are to be drawn in Freescale’s favor, the Respondents did not meet their burden of establishing failure to satisfy the technical prong.

Order No. 22 (dated October 15, 2010) denied Freescale’s motion for summary determination of infringement of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,715,014 by the Respondents. 

In support of their opposition, Respondents argued, in part, that there are clearly issues of factual dispute and Freescale failed to construe the claim.  OUII opposed the motion because Freescale conducted an infringement analysis without a proper construction of the claim which would allow Respondents the opportunity to come forward with disputed material facts.  OUII further opposed the motion as it was filed before expert discovery had been taken which deprived the ALJ of beneficial expert opinions.  ALJ Luckern denied the motion based on the existence of disputed facts which were brought to light in Respondents’ response to Freescale’s statement of allegedly undisputed facts filed in support of its motion.

Order No. 23 (dated October 19, 2010) denied Freescale’s motion for summary determination of infringement of claims 1 and 2 of the ‘306 patent by the Respondents.

Respondents argued, among other things, that Freescale could not meet its burden of showing no triable issue of fact and had failed to provide a claim construction.  OUII did not respond to the motion.  ALJ Luckern held that Freescale’s failure to construe claim terms was fatal to its motion.