By Eric Schweibenz
On November 19, 2013, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 11 denying Complainants A&J Manufacturing, LLC and A&J Manufacturing, Inc.’s (collectively, “A&J”) motion to terminate the investigation in part with respect to Respondent Guangdong Canbo Electrical Co., Ltd. (“Canbo”) based on a consent order in Certain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills and Parts Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-895).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a complaint filed by A&J alleging violation of Section 337 by over 20 proposed respondents in the importation and sale of certain multiple mode outdoor grills and parts thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,381,712, D660,646, and D662,773.  See our August 22, 2013 and September 23, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.

According to the Order, ALJ Lord denied the motion based on the following:  (1) the Consent Order Stipulation attached to the motion failed to address the Commission’s subject matter jurisdiction of the investigation, as required by Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)(i)(A); (2) the actual “stipulated” portion of the Consent Order Stipulation did not identify the asserted claims, and did not state whether the stipulation calls for cessation of importation, distribution, sale, or other transfers (other than exportation) of subject articles and/or specific terms relating to the disposition of existing U.S. inventories of subject articles, as required by Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)(i)(B); (3) the Consent Order Stipulation omitted the language “for other Commission actions” as required by Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)(i)(G); (4) the Consent Order Stipulation omitted the language “that has expired” as required by Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)(ii)(A), but added the language “and with respect to any articles that have been found or adjudicated not to infringe all claims of the Asserted Patents, provided that such finding or judgment has become final and nonreviewable,” which improperly limits the language required by the foregoing rule; and (5) the Proposed Consent Order did not comply with Commission Rule 210.21(c)(4) since it contained a typographical error, and also contradictorily stated that Canbo “has not entered an appearance … [and] does not join the motion,” while also stating that Canbo “has filed a Joint Motion for Termination of this Investigation.”