22
Mar
By Eric Schweibenz
On March 14, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 25 in Certain Digital Photo Frames And Image Display Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-807).

In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied an unnopposed motion filed by Respondent Eastman Kodak Company (“Eastman”) which sought termination of the investigation based on the entry of a consent order.  Specifically, ALJ Rogers determined that Kodak’s consent order stipulation failed to comply with the requirements established by Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3). 

According to the Order, Commission Rule 201.21 requires that a consent order stipulation contain “an admission of all jurisdictional facts.”  Because Kodak’s consent order stipulation addressed only in rem and in personam jurisdiction, but did not contain any statement regarding subject matter jurisdiction, it was deficient.  ALJ Rogers further noted that Kodak’s consent order stipulation contained other language that was inconsistent with Commission Rule 210.21, including a clause that permitted Kodak to retain the right to challenge the validity or enforceability of the asserted patents “in any other proceeding.” 

Accordingly, ALJ Rogers denied Kodak’s motion, but determined that Kodak may re-file its motion with a consent order stipulation that complies with the Commission Rules.