By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
14
Further to our April 20 post, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 6 – Procedural Schedule in Certain Electronic Devices Having Image Capture or Display Functionality and Components Thereof (337-TA-672).

According to the Order, the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on February 1, 2010.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
12
Further to our March 11 and April 13 posts, on April 20, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 7 – setting procedural schedule in Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof (337-TA-670).

In the Order, ALJ Luckern sets the procedural schedule, including the schedule for the evidentiary hearing which will take place from December 1 – December 4, 2009.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
12
Further to our April 30 post, on May 1, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 2 – Notice of Ground Rules and Setting Target Date in Certain Wireless Communications Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-675).

According to the Order, ALJ Gildea set August 27, 2010 as the target date for completion of the investigation (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  Also, any final initial determination is due to be issued no later than April 27, 2010. 


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
11
On May 6, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 36 in Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines And Components Thereof (337-TA-641).  In the Order, ALJ Charneski denied Respondents Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc., and Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas, Inc.’s (collectively, “MHI”) motion in limine seeking an order precluding complainant General Electric Company (“GE”) from offering rebuttal testimony not identified in GE’s pre-hearing statement.

According to the Order, MHI argued in its motion that “GE’s attempt to hide potential witnesses is improper trial by ambush, procedurally flawed, and severely prejudices MHI’s ability to prepare for the Hearing.”  ALJ Charneski, however, disagreed finding that “GE has identified all potential witnesses who may testify at the hearing” and “GE need not identify rebuttal witnesses at this time inasmuch as MHI has yet to put on its case-in-chief.”


Share
By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
11
On May 6, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 33 in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (337-TA-665).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Complainant Qimonda AG’s (“Qimonda”) motion to compel respondents LSI Corporation, Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Memory Products (US) Corporation, and Seagate (US) LLC’s (collectively “Respondents”) to produce documents relating to importation.

In the Order, ALJ Rogers determined that Qimonda violated Ground Rules 3.2 and 3.5 (requiring parties to make good-faith efforts to resolve discovery disputes without ALJ intervention and to meet and confer to resolve discovery disputes at least two business days prior to filing a motion), as well as Ground Rule 4.1.1 (providing that no motion to compel discovery may be filed unless the subject matter has first been raised to the Discovery Committee and such Committee has reached an impasse) in connection with its motion.  By way of background, according to Ground Rule 4.1.1, the Discovery Committee consists of lead counsel for the private parties and the Commission Investigative Staff Attorney.


Share

Read More