By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
08
On April 6, 2009, the Commission issued a Notice in the matter of Certain Sucralose, Sweeteners Containing Sucralose, and Related Intermediate Compounds Thereof (337-TA-604).  The Commission also issued a limited exclusion order against eleven companies that defaulted or failed to participate in the investigation.

The full opinion of the Commission is confidential.  We will provide an update with more information once the public version of the opinion is issued.


Share
By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
08
On April 6, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 25 in Certain Laser Imageable Lithographic Printing Plates (337-TA-636).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied respondents VIM Technologies, Ltd., Hanita Coatings RCA, Ltd., AteCe Canada, Guaranteed Service & Supplies, Inc., Recognition Systems, Inc., and Spicers Paper, Inc.’s (“Respondents”) motion to preclude complainant Presstek, Inc.’s (“Presstek”) 2009 VIM plate testing conducted by Presstek’s expert and all documents, testimony and arguments relating thereto (“Respondents’ Motion”).

According to the Order, in a previous ruling issued by ALJ Essex, Respondents were permitted to substitute Dr. Yoash Carmi (an employee of Respondent Hanita Coatings RCA, Ltd.) for their previously identified expert (Dr. Richard Goodman), with the understanding that Dr. Carmi’s opinions would be limited to those set forth in Dr. Goodman’s previously submitted expert reports.  The same previous ruling by ALJ Essex permitted Presstek to introduce into evidence Dr. Goodman’s deposition testimony and also permitted Presstek to supplement its expert reports to rebut any new theories advanced by Dr. Carmi.


Share

Read More

On April 2, 2009, the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential order denying Respondent Cypress Semiconductor Corporation’s (“Cypress”) petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Commission to halt its investigation in the matter of Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same (337-TA-648).

The patent-in-suit held by Complainants Agere Systems Inc. and LSI Corporation (“Agere”) was previously the subject of an infringement suit brought by Agere against Atmel Corporation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which ruled the patent invalid.  After judgment was entered, the parties settled and, on motion, the district court vacated its summary judgment orders, the jury verdict and the judgment.  When Agere then submitted a complaint to the Commission alleging infringement of the same patent, Cypress filed a motion for summary determination arguing that Agere is precluded from relitigating validity in light of the district court’s rulings.  The ALJ denied the motion, and the Commission affirmed.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
06
On April 1, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued a Remand Determination in the matter of Certain R-134a Coolant (Otherwise Known as 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluorothane) (337-TA-623) affirming that Respondents Sinochem Modern Environmental Protection Chemicals (Xi’an) Co. Ltd. and Sinochem Ningbo Ltd. (“Sinochem”) imported coolant that infringed a process patent held by Complainants INEOS Fluor Holdings Ltd., INEOS Fluor Ltd. and INEOS Fluor Americas LLC (“INEOS”).

The investigation was instituted in December 2007.  On December 1, 2008, ALJ Luckern issued a final initial determination (“ID”) that Sinochem infringed the patent-in-suit and failed to establish that the patent-in-suit was invalid.  Following submissions by the parties, the Commission reviewed the ID with respect to invalidity and issued an order on January 30, 2009 remanding the investigation to the ALJ for further proceedings related to anticipation and obviousness because the disposition of these issues was unclear from the ALJ’s ID.


Share

Read More

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
03
On April 2, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a Notice regarding the public version of his initial determination in Certain Computer Products, Computer Components and Products Containing Same (337-TA-628).  In the notice, ALJ Essex rejected the private parties’ redactions as being “inappropriate” and inconsistent with the definition of “Confidential Business Information” (“CBI”) as set forth in 19 C.F.R. § 201.6 (a)(1).

By way of example, ALJ Essex focused on two proposed redactions in particular.  First, complainant IBM sought to redact one of its legal arguments relating to claim construction, which the ALJ noted was not redacted in IBM’s public version of its initial post hearing brief.  Second, IBM sought to redact the ALJ’s claim construction ruling in the initial determination.  ALJ Essex determined that both of the redactions requested were inappropriate because neither of the items to be redacted disclosed any CBI.


Share

Read More

www.xxx-clips-online.com