By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
09
On June 3, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 25 in Certain Automotive Multimedia Display and Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-657).  In the Order, ALJ Essex denied three separate motions for summary determination of invalidity filed by certain respondents determining for each that “summary determination is not appropriate” since “every aspect of the motion[s]” was opposed by Complainant Honeywell International, Inc., and “genuine issues of material facts remain.”

In the order, ALJ Essex first denied respondents Denso Corporation, Denso International America, Inc., Alpine Electronics, Inc., Alpine Electronics of America, Inc., Pioneer Corporation, and Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc.’s motion for summary determination of invalidity of claims 1-7 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,308,132.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
08
Further to our June 5 post, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued a notice indicating that ALJ Theodore R. Essex will handle Certain Course Management System Software Products (337-TA-677).

In addition, according to the Notice of Investigation, the ITC “has determined not to institute an investigation with respect to claims 1-35 [of the asserted ‘138 patent] as these claims are the subject of a valid and final judgment of invalidity issued by the district court for the Eastern District of Texas.”  The Notice of Investigation further notes that the asserted ‘138 patent is currently involved in a reexamination proceeding at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and an appellate proceeding at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  Although the ITC makes no determination in the Notice of Investigation whether the investigation should be stayed, it notes that “the presiding administrative law judge may wish to consider whether a stay is warranted at an early date in this proceeding.”  Lastly, the Notice of Investigation provides that “[t]he instant complaint also raises questions relating to, inter alia, (1) the scope of coverage under Section 337, and (2) possible claim preclusion with respect to claims 36-44 of the asserted ‘138 patent in light of [a] prior district court contempt proceeding and a pending appeal before the Federal Circuit.”


Share

Read More

On June 3, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued a press release indicating that it voted to institute an investigation of Certain Course Management System Software Products (337-TA-677).

According to a May 15, 2009 letter from ITC Secretary Marilyn Abbott, the ITC postponed its vote on institution of this investigation in view of a request from counsel for Blackboard.


Share

Read More

On May 29, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 23 (dated April 28, 2009) in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (337-TA-665).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted-in-part and denied-in-part Complainant Qimonda AG’s (“Qimonda”) motion to compel Respondent LSI Corporation (“LSI”) to produce certain documents and witnesses and granted-in-part and denied-in-part non-party Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing Inc.’s (“Chartered USA”) motion to quash and/or limit a subpoena served by Qimonda.

As an initial matter, ALJ Rogers analyzed Qimonda’s and Chartered USA’s motions together because they both related to the definition of the term “Relevant Products” used in Qimonda’s discovery requests.  Qimonda’s definition of the term “Relevant Products” included seven defined categories.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
05
On May 29, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public versions of Order No. 28 (dated April 30, 2009) and Order No. 34 (dated May 6, 2009) in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-665).  In Order No. 28, ALJ Rogers denied respondent LSI Corp.’s (“LSI”) motion for summary determination that it does not infringe the asserted claims of complainant Qimonda AG’s (“Qimonda”) U.S. Patent No. 5,213,670 (the “‘670 patent”).  In Order No. 34, ALJ Rogers granted-in-part and denied-in-part LSI’s motion for summary determination that it does not infringe the asserted claims of Qimonda’s U.S. Patent No. 6,103,456 (the “‘456 patent”).  The public versions of the orders are heavily redacted.

LSI filed both motions for summary determination on April 8, 2009.  Qimonda filed oppositions on April 20, 2009.  The Commission Investigative Staff filed responses opposing the motion for summary determination of non-infringement of the ‘670 patent but supporting the motion for summary determination of non-infringement of the ‘456 patent on April 20, 2009.


Share

Read More

www.xxx-clips-online.com