By Eric Schweibenz
On May 17, 2012, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 21 (dated April 13, 2012) denying Complainant OSRAM AG’s (“OSRAM”) motion for summary determination that it satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement in Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-784).

According to the Order, OSRAM argued that it devoted substantial resources in the United States, including investments in domestic engineering and research and development of products incorporating LEDs, at its two domestic subsidiaries, OSRAM Opto Semiconductors, Inc. and OSRAM Sylvania Inc.  OSRAM further contended that these investments related to work on OSRAM LEDs with chip level conversion technology, which OSRAM asserts are covered by the claims of one of the patents-in-suit.

In opposition, Respondents LG Electronics, Inc., LG Innotek Co., Ltd., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Innotek U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “LG”) did not take issue with OSRAM’s claimed investments, but instead argued that OSRAM failed to show that products containing OSRAM LEDs with chip level conversion technology are in fact articles protected by the patents-in-suit.  LG also asserted that OSRAM provided evidence that only the Golden Dragon Plus LUW W5AM and the LCW G6CP LEDs practice the patents-in-suit, and that OSRAM did not demonstrate that these two products are representative of all OSRAM LEDs with chip level conversion technology.

After considering the parties’ arguments, ALJ Shaw found that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether OSRAM satisfies the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.  Accordingly, OSRAM’s motion for summary determination was denied.