How to Search
ALJ Bullock

ALJ Bullock Denies Motions for Summary Determination in Certain Mobile Communications and Computer Devices (337-TA-704)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
30
On August 26, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 31, Order No. 34, and Order No. 35 in Certain Mobile Communications and Computer Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-704).

In Order Nos. 31 and 34, ALJ Bullock denied Respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc.’s (collectively, “Nokia”) motions for summary determination of invalidity and for Complainant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) alleged failure to satisfy the domestic industry requirement.  Similarly, in Order No. 35, ALJ Bullock denied Apple’s summary determination motion that Nokia is not licensed to practice three of the disputed patents.  In denying the three motions, ALJ Bullock determined that genuine issues of material fact remained and thus summary determination was inappropriate.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Notice In Certain Foam Footwear (337-TA-567)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
01
On August 26, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice regarding the remand proceeding in Certain Foam Footwear (Inv. No. 337-TA-567).  The notice follows a February 24, 2010 judgment of the Federal Circuit overturning the ITC’s July 25, 2008 final determination of no violation of Section 337 and remanding the investigation.  See our July 9, 2010 and February 24, 2010 posts for more details.

In the August 26 notice, ALJ Bullock noted that the ITC “remanded this Investigation to the undersigned for further ‘proceedings consistent with the February 24, 2010 judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Crocs, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010), including a determination regarding the outstanding issue of enforceability of the ‘858 and ‘789 patents.’”  ALJ Bullock determined in the notice that “the issue of enforceability was tried before the undersigned and fully briefed by the parties in their post-trial submissions…[and thus] the remand proceedings will proceed on the evidence already of record.”

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Flat Panel Digital Televisions (337-TA-733)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
14
On September 10, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 4 in Certain Flat Panel Digital Televisions And Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-733).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set the procedural schedule for the investigation and included provisions for the early exchange of expert reports on claim construction and Markman briefs.  ALJ Bullock also scheduled a Markman hearing for December 21-22, 2010.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Certain Respondents In Certain Stringed Musical Instruments (337-TA-708)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
15
On September 7, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 15 in Certain Stringed Musical Instruments and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-708).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Geoffrey McCabe and Respondents Hoshino (U.S.A.) Inc. and Hoshino Gakki Co., Ltd. to terminate the investigation based on a patent license and settlement agreement.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Notice Regarding Tutorial And Markman Hearing In Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software (337-TA-721)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
16
On September 10, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice in Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-721).

According to the notice, ALJ Bullock scheduled the technology tutorial and Markman hearing to take place on October 25, 2010.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Initial Determination In Certain Flash Memory Chips (337-TA-664)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
25
On October 22, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) in Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-664).

The Complainants in this investigation are Spansion, Inc. and Spansion LLP (collectively, “Spansion”).  The Respondents are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung International Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”), Shanghai Lenovo Electronic Co. Ltd., Asustek Computer Inc., Asus Computer International Inc., Apple, Inc. (“Apple”), Transcend Information Inc., Transcend Information, Inc. (US), Transcend Information Inc. (Shanghai Factory), Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology (Shanghai) Co. Ltd., Kingston Technology Far East Co., Kingston Technology Far East (Malaysia), PNY Technologies, Inc., Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB NYA Vattentornet, Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA), Inc. Beijing Se Putian Mobile Communications Co., Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd., Verbatim Americas LLC, Verbatim Corp., Research In Motion, Ltd., and Research In Motion Corporation (collectively, “Respondents”).

Read More

ALJ Bullock Rules On Motion To Supplement Notice Of Prior Art In Certain Mobile Communications And Computer Devices (337-TA-704)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
27
On October 26, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 49 (dated October 12, 2010) in Certain Mobile Communications and Computer Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-704).  In the order, ALJ Bullock denied Respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc.’s (collectively, “Nokia”) motion for leave to supplement their Notice of Prior Art.

According to the order, Nokia argued in its motion that it needed to supplement its Notice of Prior Art to include certain references relating to the sync() software function.  Nokia stated that after the Court issued its Markmanorder in the case (see our August 9, 2010 post for more details), Apple served a supplemental expert report that allegedly raised new claim construction and infringement issues.  In response to this supplemental expert report, Nokia filed a motion to strike in which it noted that if the supplemental report were allowed, it would seek leave to amend its Notice of Prior Art to include an additional prior art reference.  According to the Order, Nokia stated that after it became “aware of the need to supplement,” it worked diligently to identify relevant prior art related to the sync() function.  Further, Nokia argued that it could not have identified this prior art before filing its Notice of Prior Art, and that it would be “significantly prejudiced if it were not permitted to rely on the prior art nature of the functionality Apple accuses of satisfying a key claim limitation.”

Read More

ALJ Bullock Rules on Motions for Summary Determination in Certain Mobile Communications and Computer Devices (337-TA-704)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
27
On October 26, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public versions of Order Nos. 48 and 52 in Certain Mobile Communications and Computer Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-704).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and the Respondents are Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”).

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Compel In Certain Mobile Communications And Computer Devices (337-TA-704)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
28
On October 26, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 43 (dated September 17, 2010) in Certain Mobile Communications and Computer Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-704) granting Complainant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) motion to compel Respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”) to produce certain deposition testimony, documents, and interrogatory responses that Apple alleged were “central to the infringement allegations in this Investigation.”

According to the order, Apple asserted that Nokia failed to (1) designate witnesses on a number of properly noticed topics that Apple narrowed down in an effort to resolve the issue without judicial intervention, and refused to do so unless Apple agreed to an extension of the overall case schedule; (2) produce documents sufficient to show all tests run on the functioning of the accused phones, as well as a number of allegedly relevant marketing documents, on the basis that Nokia had no continuing obligation to produce such documents because fact discovery had closed; and (3) rectify deficient interrogatory responses regarding the patents-in-suit.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Orders On Evidentiary Motions In Certain Mobile Communications and Computer Devices (337-TA-704)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
04
On October 28, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 60, and on October 29, 2010, issued the public versions of Order No. 54 (dated October 19, 2010) and Order No. 55 (dated October 21, 2010) in Certain Mobile Communications and Computer Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-704).

In Order No. 54, ALJ Bullock granted-in-part and denied-in-part Respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc.’s (collectively, “Nokia”) motion in limine seeking to preclude Complainant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) from relying on its purported licensing activities to establish the domestic industry requirement.  In support of the motion, Nokia asserted that Apple should be precluded from submitting evidence of its purported licensing activities because “Apple has neither pled a licensing-based domestic industry nor sought leave to amend its Complaint to do so.”  Further, Nokia asserted that Apple should be precluded from offering any evidence not timely disclosed.  Alternatively, Nokia moved to compel Apple “to update its domestic industry contentions and provide complete responses to Nokia’s request for 30(b)(6) deposition testimony and documents related to its alleged licensing activities.”  In opposition, Apple asserted that (i) it did allege a domestic industry requirement in its Complaint, (ii) “it unambiguously disclosed its intention to rely on licensing activities in response to Nokia’s interrogatories,” and (iii) “Nokia has taken substantial discovery on these same contentions.”  Regarding Nokia’s motion to compel, Apple asserted that (i) Nokia failed to show good cause, (ii) Nokia “had multiple opportunities to take discovery on Apple’s exploitation of the patents at issue”, (iii) Apple “produced all the documents on which it intends to rely for its domestic industry theory”, and (iv) Nokia seeks documents allegedly “protected from discovery.”  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) filed a response to the motion.  In particular, OUII asserted that because Nokia had notice of Apple’s intent, Apple “should be allowed to raise a licensing-based domestic industry” but “should not be allowed to rely on evidence it failed to timely disclose.”  In granting-in-part and denying-in-part the motion in limine, ALJ Bullock found that Nokia had “notice of Apple’s intention to rely on its licensing activities as a basis for establishing domestic industry” and that Apple “proffer[ed] no explanation as to why [it] could not and did not [timely] supplement its discovery responses.”  Accordingly, ALJ Bullock ordered that “Apple is hereby limited to the licenses and licensing activities specifically disclosed in the Complaint and in its [timely served interrogatory responses].”

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters (337-TA-739)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
11
Further to our October 7, 2010 post, on November 9, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 7: Setting the Procedural Schedule in Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-739).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock determined that the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on July 25, 2011, the Initial Determination is due on November 8, 2011, and the target date for completion of this investigation is March 8, 2012 (which is 17 months after institution of the investigation).

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Target Date In Certain Automated Media Library Devices (337-TA-746)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
26
Further to our November 22, 2010 post, on November 24, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 2 in Certain Automated Media Library Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-746).

According to the Order, ALJ Bullock set March 24, 2012 as the target date (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  In addition, the Order directs the parties to submit a discovery statement on or before December 17, 2010.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motions To Terminate Investigation In Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters (337-TA-739)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
30
On November 22, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 8 and Order No. 9 in Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-739).

In Order No. 8, ALJ Bullock granted a motion filed by Complainant Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. (“Leviton”) to terminate the investigation as to Respondent Deerso Inc. based on a settlement agreement.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Underground Cable And Pipe Locators (337-TA-727)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
10
On December 1, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 6 in Certain Underground Cable and Pipe Locators (Inv. No. 337-TA-727).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Radiodetection, Ltd. and Respondents Vivax Corporation, Metrotech Corporation, and SebaKMT Holding GmbH to terminate the investigation as to all Respondents, including Leidi Utility Supply (Shanghai) Ltd. based on a settlement agreement.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Automated Media Library Devices (337-TA-746)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
28
On December 22, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 6 in Certain Automated Media Library Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-746).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock determined that the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on September 1, 2011, the Initial Determination is due on November 23, 2011, and the target date for completion of this investigation is March 24, 2012 (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Turbomachinery Blades (337-TA-751)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
11
Further to our December 10, 2010 post, on January 10, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 3: Setting The Procedural Schedule in Certain Turbomachinery Blades, Engines, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-751).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock provides for an evidentiary hearing commencing on October 17, 2011, an Initial Determination due on December 14, 2011, and a sixteen month April 16, 2012 target date for completing this investigation.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Third Party Request For Costs In Responding To Subpoenas In Certain Portable Electronic Devices (337-TA-721)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
13
On January 10, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 28: Denying StarView Solutions’ Application for Costs in Response to Complying with Subpoena Duces Tecum and Subpoena Ad Testificandum in Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-721).

According to the Order, third-party StarView Solutions (“StarView”) filed an application requesting $21,650.00 as reimbursement for costs and expenses incurred in responding to subpoenas served by Complainants HTC Corporation (“HTC”) requesting documents and witness testimony.  StarView requested these costs to be borne by HTC and Respondent Apple, Inc. (“Apple”).   HTC responded that it would provide any witness fees associated with its subpoena requesting testimony, and reimburse StarView for copying costs associated with its subpoena requesting documents, but that HTC was not required to reimburse routine legal expenses associated with duly issued subpoenas.  Apple responded that it should incur no liability for the subpoena expenses, given that Apple played no role in requesting or administering the subpoenas.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Flat Panel Digital Televisions (337-TA-733)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
27
On January 26, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 10 in Certain Flat Panel Digital Televisions And Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-733).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Vizio, Inc. and Respondents LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics USA, Inc. to terminate the investigation based upon settlement and licensing agreements.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Target Date In Certain Mobile Telephones And Modems (337-TA-758)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
03
Further to our January 31, 2011 post, on February 2, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 2: Initial Determination Setting the Target Date; Notice of Ground Rules; and Order Setting Date for Submission of Discovery Statements in Certain Mobile Telephones and Modems (Inv. No. 337-TA-758).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set August 2, 2012 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is 18 months after institution of the investigation).

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Claim Construction Order In Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software (337-TA-721)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
04
On January 28, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order 29 construing the terms of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit in Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-721).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is HTC Corp. of Taiwan (“HTC”).  HTC is alleging a violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain portable electronic devices and related software that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,999,800 (“the ‘800 patent”), 7,716,505 (“the ‘505 patent”), 5,541,988 (“the ‘988 patent”) and 6,320,957 (“the ‘957 patent”) by Respondent Apple, Inc. (“Apple”).  A Markman hearing was held on October 25-26, 2010.

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.