How to Search
ALJ Bullock

Update Regarding Certain Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment Appliances (337-TA-562)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
16

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain Video Game Systems (337-TA-770)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
04
On August 31, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination on Violation (“ID”) in Certain Video Game Systems and Wireless Controllers and Components Thereof(337-TA-770).

By way of background, the Complainants in this matter are Creative Kingdoms, LLC and New Kingdoms, LLC and the Respondents are Nintendo of America, Inc. and Nintendo Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Nintendo”). 

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Motion To Compel In Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Controls Technology (337-TA-820)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
11
On September 4, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 33 in Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and Parental Controls Technology (Inv. No. 337-TA-820).

According to the Order, Complainants Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc., United Video Properties, Inc., Gemstar Development Corporation, and Index Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Rovi”) moved to compel Respondent VIZIO, Inc. (“Vizio”) to produce discs containing the source code of its primary OEM that are allegedly in Vizio’s possession. 

Read More

Update Regarding Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets (337-TA-855)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
27

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Motion For Protective Order in Certain Rubber Resins (337-TA-849)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
02
On September 26, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 7 (dated September 6, 2012) denying Respondents’ motion for a protective order in Certain Rubber Resins and Processes for Manufacturing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-849).

The investigation is based on a May 21, 2012 complaint and June 12, 2012 letter supplementing the complaint filed by SI Group, Inc. (“SI Group”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain rubber resins made using misappropriated SI Group trade secrets.  See our June 22, 2012 post for more details.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Quash Subpoena In Certain Wiper Blades (337-TA-816)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
03
On September 26, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 49 (dated September 11, 2012) granting non-party Jeffrey S. Ginsberg’s motion to quash Respondents’ subpoena ad testificandum in Certain Wiper Blades (Inv. No. 337-TA-816).

According to the Order, Mr. Ginsberg (trial counsel for Complainant Robert Bosch LLC) moved to quash the subpoena issued to him by Respondents ADM21 Col, Ltd. and ADM21 Co. (North America) Ltd. (collectively, “ADM”).  Mr. Ginsberg argued that ADM could not establish that “(i) no other means exist to obtain the evidence, (ii) the information sought is relevant and not privileged, and (iii) the information is crucial to the preparation of the case,” as required to justify a deposition of opposing counsel.  In particular, Mr. Ginsberg argued that the information sought by ADM’s subpoena had already been obtained through previous deposition testimony given by Mr. Ginsberg in co-pending litigation and, to the extent ADM sought additional information beyond his previous testimony, that such information is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion For Summary Determination of Invalidity In Certain Wiper Blades (337-TA-816)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
05
On October 2, 2012, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 51 in Certain Wiper Blades (Inv. No. 337-TA-816).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted Respondents’ motion for summary determination of invalidity of claims 1-6 and 8-10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,611,988 (“the ‘988 patent”) and all claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,553,607 (“the ‘607 patent”), 6,836,926 (“the ‘926 patent”), and 6,973,698 (“the ‘698 patent”).

By way of background, ALJ Bullock recently issued Order No. 45, finding claim terms in each of the ‘988, ‘607, ‘926, and ‘698 patents to be indefinite.  Due to its size, we have broken Order No. 45 into the following three parts: part 1, part 2, and part 3.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Video Game Systems (337-TA-770)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
12
On September 26, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version (dated August 31, 2012) of the Initial Determination (“ID”) finding no Section 337 violation in Certain Video Game Systems and Wireless Controllers and Components Thereof (337-TA-770).  Due to its size, we have split the ID in three parts here:  part 1, part 2, and part 3.

By way of background, the Complainants in this matter are Creative Kingdoms, LLC and New Kingdoms, LLC (collectively, “CK”) and the Respondents are Nintendo of America, Inc. and Nintendo Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Nintendo”).  CK alleged that Nintendo violated Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,850,527 (the ‘527 patent), 7,500,917 (the ‘917 patent), and 7,896,742 (the ‘742 patent) (collectively, “the patents-at-issue”).  The subject matter of these patents is video game systems, wireless controllers, and components thereof.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Target Date in Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets (337-TA-855)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
15
Further to our September 19, 2012 post, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock on October 12, 2012, issued Order No. 18 in Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets, Methods of Making Same, and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-855).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set March 21, 2014 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is approximately eighteen months after institution of the investigation), due to the unusually large number of respondents and number of claims involved.  ALJ Bullock also stated that, "a Markman hearing will be beneficial and assist in streamlining the issues for the evidential hearing."

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Target Date For Enforcement Proceeding In Certain Prepregs, Laminates, And Finished Circuit Boards (337-TA-659)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
26
Further to our August 22, 2012 post, on October 24, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 14 in Certain Prepregs, Laminates, and Finished Circuit Boards (Inv. No. 337-TA-659). 

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set November 5, 2013 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is approximately thirteen months after institution of the investigation).

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Initial Determination In Certain Static Random Access Memories (337-TA-792)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
26
On October 25, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination on Violation (“ID”) in Certain Static Random Access Memories and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-792).

By way of background, the Complainant in this matter is Cypress Semiconductor Corporation and the Respondents are GSI Technology, Inc.; Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericcson; Ericcson Inc.; Motorola Mobility, Inc.; Motorola Solutions, Inc.; Cisco Systems, Inc.; Avnet, Inc.; and Hewlett-Packard Company/Tipping Point (collectively, the “Respondents”).  See our July 26, 2011 post for more information about this investigation.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Summary Determination of Noninfringement In Certain Wiper Blades (337-TA-816)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
29
On October 25, 2012, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 52 (dated October 2, 2012) in Certain Wiper Blades (Inv. No. 337-TA-816).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted Respondents Danyang UPC Auto Parts Co., Ltd., Pylon Manufacturing Corp., and Scan Top Enterprise Co., Ltd.’s (collectively, “the Pylon Respondents”) motion for summary determination of noninfringement of all asserted claims in a subset of the patents at issue in this investigation (the “Bosch Wiper Blade Patents”).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Robert Bosch LLC (“Bosch”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain “flat” or “beam-type” wiper blade devices that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,523,218, 6,553,607, 6,611,988, 6,675,434, 6,836,926, 6,944,905, 6,973,698, 7,293,321, and 7,523,520.  See our October 27, 2011 post for more details.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Initial Determination In Certain Computer Forensic Devices (337-TA-799)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
31
On October 26, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination on Violation (“ID”) in Certain Computer Forensic Devices and Products Containing The Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-799).

By way of background, the Complainant in this matter is MyKey Technology Inc. and the Respondents are CRU Acquisitions Group LLC d/b/a CRU Data-Port LLC, Guidance Software, Inc., Guidance Tableau LLC, and Digital Intelligence, Inc.  See our August 26, 2011 post for more information about this investigation.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Strike In Certain Static Random Access Memories (337-TA-792)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
01
On October 26, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 45 (dated March 8, 2012) in Certain Static Random Access Memories and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-792).

According to the Order, the respondents moved to strike complainant Cypress Semiconductor Corporation’s (“Cypress”) amended pre-trial statement, to preclude Cypress from offering late-filed exhibits, and to preclude a previously undisclosed witness from testifying at the evidentiary hearing.  The respondents argued that all of Cypress’s submissions were late under the procedural schedule and would be extremely prejudicial to the respondents, and that Cypress could have determined during the discovery period all of the facts it claimed to have recently learned.  The respondents also argued that Cypress should not be permitted to offer testimony from John Boyd because he was not disclosed on either Cypress’s tentative witness list or its final list of trial witnesses, and because his testimony would be in violation of Ground Rule 9.3 since Cypress neither submitted a witness statement for Mr. Boyd nor attempted to show that he is an adverse witness.  In opposition, Cypress argued, inter alia, that the respondents did not disclose certain relevant facts until two business days before the close of discovery, that Cypress did not learn other relevant facts until after the discovery period, and that Cypress only intends to use the newly discovered evidence if necessary (e.g., for impeachment purposes).

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule For Enforcement Proceeding In Certain Prepregs, Laminates, And Finished Circuit Boards (337-TA-659)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
05
Further to our August 22, 2012 and October 26, 2012 posts, on November 1, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 15 in Certain Prepregs, Laminates, and Finished Circuit Boards(Inv. No. 337-TA-659). 

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set the procedural schedule for the enforcement proceeding and included provisions for an early meet and confer to “limit [the] number of disputed claim terms” as well as a Markman hearing.  ALJ Bullock determined that the tutorial will take place on November 26, 2012; a Markman hearing will be held on November 27, 2012; the evidentiary hearing will commence on April 16, 2013; any initial determination is due no later than July 5, 2013; and November 5, 2013 is the target date for completing the enforcement proceeding (which is approximately 13 months after institution of the proceeding).

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets (337-TA-855)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
05
Further to our September 19, 2012 and October 15, 2012 posts, on November 1, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 22 in Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets, Methods of Making Same, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-855). 

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set the procedural schedule for the investigation and included provisions for the early exchange of claim terms and proposed claim constructions as well as a Markman hearing.  ALJ Bullock determined that the tutorial will take place on December 17, 2012; a Markman hearing will be held on December 18, 2012; the evidentiary hearing will commence on June 10, 2013; any initial determination is due no later than November 21, 2013; and March 21, 2014 is the target date for completing the enforcement proceeding (which is approximately 18 months after institution of the investigation).

Read More

ALJ Bullock Rules On Motion To Disqualify In Certain Rubber Resins (337-TA-849)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
13
On November 6, 2012, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 13 in Certain Rubber Resins and Processes for Manufacturing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-849).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock denied Complainant SI Group, Inc.’s (“SI Group”) motion to: (1) disqualify attorney Ruixue Ran, attorney Zhaohui Wang, and the Jun He Offices (collectively, the “Counsel”), (2) preclude Counsel from accessing SI Group’s Confidential Business Information (“CBI”), and (3) order the Counsel to withdraw from representing Jack Xu in a related Chinese litigation.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Food Storage Containers (337-TA-835)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
19
On November 14, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 11 in Certain Food Storage Containers, Cups, Plates, Cutlery, and Related Items and Packaging Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-835).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a motion filed by Complainant Fabri-Kal Corporation and Respondents Trans World International (New York), Inc., Green Wave International, Inc., and John Calarese & Co. (collectively, the “Green Wave Respondents”) to terminate the investigation as to Green Wave Respondents on the basis of a settlement agreement.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Bullock granted the motion.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets (337-TA-855)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
20
On November 14, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 27 in Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets, Methods of Making Same, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-855). 

According to the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainants Hitachi Metals, Ltd. and Hitachi Metals North Carolina, Ltd. and Respondent Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. (“Taylor Made”) to terminate the investigation as to Taylor Made based on a consent order stipulation, proposed consent order, and a settlement agreement.  ALJ Bullock determined that the consent order stipulation complied with Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3), and that there is no evidence of record that terminating the investigation as to Taylor Made would be contrary to the public interest. 

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Summary Determination Motion For Failure To Meet And Confer In Certain Ink Application Devices (337-TA-832)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
21
On November 19, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 12 in Certain Ink Application Devices and Components Thereof and Methods of Using The Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-832).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock denied a motion filed by Respondent T-Tech Tattoo Device, Inc. (“T-Tech”) for summary determination that Complainants have not satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the asserted patents.  ALJ Bullock noted that Ground Rule 3.2 requires a moving party to include a certification in all motions that it made reasonable, good-faith efforts to resolve the matter with the other parties at least two business days prior to filing the motion.  According to the Order, T-Tech’s motion failed to include the required certification and neither the Complainants nor the Commission Investigative Attorney had any prior notice that T-Tech planned to file the motion.  Accordingly, ALJ Bullock denied T-Tech’s motion for failure to comply with Ground Rule 3.2.

Read More

Copyright © Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. | Disclaimer
The opinions, commentary and characterizations provided to this online forum by the authors and moderators are provided for encouraging discussion, thought and debate on important ITC issues. These postings are in no way representative of the opinions of the Oblon firm, or its clients, but rather the personal views of the individual authors.