How to Search
ALJ Essex

ALJ Essex Issues Initial Determination In Certain Semiconductor Chips (337-TA-753)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
07
On March 2, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-753).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Rambus, Inc. and the remaining Respondents are Audio Partnership PLC, Cisco Systems, Inc., NVIDIA Corporation, Mediatek, Inc., Oppo Digital, Inc., Asustek Computer Inc., Asus Computer International Inc., Biostar Microtech (U.S.A.) Corp., Biostar Microtech International Corp., Elitegroup Computer Systems, EVGA Corporation, Galaxy Micro Systems Ltd., Garmin International, G.B.T. Inc., Giga-byte Technology Co., Ltd., Gracom Technologies LLC, Hewlett-Packard Company, Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, Jaton Corporation, Jaton Technology TPE, Micro-Star International Co., Ltd., MSI Computer Corporation, Palit Microsystems Ltd., Pine Technology Holdings, Ltd., Sparkle Computer Co., Ltd., Nala Sales, Inc. f/k/a Zotac USA, Inc., Zotac International (MCO), Ltd., LSI Corporation, Seagate Technology, STMicroelectronics N.V., STMicroelecronics, Inc., and Motorola Mobility Inc.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motion to Strike Expert Testimony in Certain Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) Portable Storage Devices, Including USB Flash Drives (337-TA-788)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
08
On March 6, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 15 granting Complainants’ motion to strike Respondents’ rebuttal expert on domestic industry in Certain Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) Portable Storage Devices, Including USB Flash Drives and Components Thereof (337-TA-788).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Trek 2000 International Ltd., Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., and S-Com System (S) Pte. Ltd. (collectively, “Trek”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation and sale of certain universal serial bus (“USB”) portable storage devices that infringe one or more U.S. Patents.  See our June 17, 2011 and July 15, 2011 posts for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants In Part Motion To Compel In Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices (337-TA-804)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
12
On March 9, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 15 granting in part Complainants’ motion to compel discovery responses from Respondents Fuzhou F&V Photographic Equipment Co., Ltd. (“F&V”) and Shantou Nanguang Photographic Equipment Co., Ltd. (“Nanguang”) in Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-804).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed on behalf of Litepanels, Ltd. of the United Kingdom and Litepanels, Inc. of Van Nuys, California (collectively “LP”) alleging violation of Section 337 through sale of certain LED photographic lighting devices and components thereof that allegedly infringe several U.S. patents.  See our August 8, 2011 post for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Integrated Circuits (337-TA-822)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
16
Further to our January 9, 2012 post, on March 13, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 10:  Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions(Inv. No. 337-TA-822).

In the Order, ALJ Essex set the procedural schedule for the investigation and included provisions for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions.  ALJ Essex further indicated that the evidentiary hearing will commence on September 24, 2012.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motion For Summary Determination Of No Invalidity In Certain Protective Cases (337-TA-780)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
20
On March 15, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 29 in Certain Protective Cases and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-780) granting Complainant Otter Products, LLC’s (“Otter”) motion for summary determination on Respondent Griffin Technology, Inc’s (“Griffin”) affirmative defense of invalidity with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,933,122 (“the ‘122 patent”).

By way of background, Otter filed its complaint in this investigation on May 25, 2011 alleging that Griffin (among others) unlawfully imported, sold for importation, and sold after importation certain protective cases and components thereof that infringe the ‘122 patent.  The Commission instituted this investigation on June 24, 2011.  See our June 27, 2011 post for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Target Date In Certain Video Displays (337-TA-828)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
30
Further to our February 22, 2012 post, on March 27, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 4:  Setting Target Date in Certain Video Displays and Products Using and Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-828).

In the Order, ALJ Essex set June 21, 2013 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).  Therefore, any final initial determination is due no later than February 21, 2013.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Rules On Motion To Quash Subpoena In Certain Devices For Improving Uniformity Used In A Backlight Module (337-TA-805)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
06
On March 26, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 13 in Certain Devices For Improving Uniformity Used In A Backlight Module And Components Thereof And Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-805).  In the Order, ALJ Essex granted-in-part and denied-in-part Samsung Electronics America’s (“SEA”) motion to quash or limit Complainants Industrial Technology Research Institute’s and ITRI International’s (collectively “ITRI”) subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad testificandum directed to SEA, a third party to the investigation.

According to the Order, ITRI’s document subpoena requested the production of “documents related to the design of Samsung-branded LCD products, as well as legal documents submitted in prior U.S. International Trade Commission Investigations to which SEA was not a party.”  ITRI’s deposition subpoena sought the production of witnesses having knowledge of the aforementioned topics.  In support of its motion, SEA argued that ITRI improperly seeks documents that are not in SEA’s possession, custody, or control, but that are in the sole possession, custody, or control of SEA’s South Korean parent company, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung Korea”).  Further, SEA argued that it cannot provide witnesses who are knowledgeable about the discovery sought in ITRI’s subpoena duces tecum.      
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motion For Leave To Withdraw As Counsel In Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices (337-TA-804)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
18
On April 11, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 20 in Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-804).  In the Order, ALJ Essex granted a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel filed by the law firm of Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP (collectively, “Tannenbaum”).  Tannenbaum had represented Respondents Shantou Nanguang Photographic Equipment Co. Ltd. (“Shantou”) and Fuzhou F&V Photographic Co. Ltd. (“F&V”).

According to the Order, on March 12, 2012, Tannenbaum filed its motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for Shantou and F&V.  In the motion, Tannenbaum argued that, despite repeated requests, Shantou and F&V had failed to pay any of Tannenbaum’s bills.  According to Tannenbaum, it had made repeated efforts to resolve the matter with Shantou and F&V directly and with its Chinese counsel DeHeng, but had been unsuccessful.  Tannenbaum further argued that F&V and Shantou had not cooperated in discovery despite Tannenbaum’s efforts and that any discovery received from them had been untimely and incomplete.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Video Displays (337-TA-828)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
25
Further to our February 22, 2012 and March 30, 2012 posts, on April 20, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 5 in Certain Video Displays and Products Using and Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-828).

In the Order, ALJ Essex set the procedural schedule for the investigation.  ALJ Essex determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on October 22, 2012; any final initial determination is due no later than February 21, 2013; and June 21, 2013 is the target date for completing the investigation (which is approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Denies Cross Motions For Summary Determination Regarding Infringement In Certain Protective Cases (337-TA-780)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
26
On April 6, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 31 in Certain Protective Cases and Components Thereof  (Inv. No. 337-TA-780) denying Complainant Otter Products, LLC’s (“Otter”) motion for summary determination of infringement and denying Respondent Griffin Technology, Inc’s (“Griffin”) cross motion for summary determination of noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,933,122 (the ‘122 patent).

By way of background, Otter filed its complaint in this investigation on May 25, 2011 alleging that Griffin (among others) unlawfully imported, sold for importation, and sold after importation certain protective cases and components thereof that infringe the ‘122 patent.  The Commission instituted this investigation on June 24, 2011.  See our June 27, 2011 post for more details.  ALJ Essex granted Otter’s motion for summary determination of no invalidity with respect to the ‘122 patent on March 12, 2012.  See our March 20, 2012 post for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Denies Summary Determination Motion Of Invalidity Based On Indefiniteness In Certain Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) Portable Storage Devices (337-TA-788)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
30
On April 20, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 18 denying Respondents Kingston Technology Company, Inc. and Imation Corp.’s (collectively, “Respondents”) motion for summary determination of invalidity of claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 7,039,759 (the ‘759 patent) based on indefiniteness in Certain Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) Portable Storage Devices, Including USB Flash Drives and Components Thereof (337-TA-788).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Trek 2000 International Ltd., Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., and S-Com System (S) Pte. Ltd. (collectively, “Trek”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation and sale of certain universal serial bus (“USB”) portable storage devices that infringe one or more U.S. Patents.  See our June 17, 2011 and July 15, 2011 posts for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To IronKey In Certain Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) Portable Storage Devices, Including USB Flash Drives (337-TA-788)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
10
On May 8, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 21 in Certain Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) Portable Storage Devices, Including USB Flash Drives and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-788).

In the Order, ALJ Essex granted a motion filed by Complainants Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Trek 2000 International Ltd., and S-Com (S) Pte. Ltd. (collectively, “Trek”) to terminate the investigation in part and withdraw their allegations in their complaint of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,880,054, 7,039,759, and D463,426 by accused products of Respondent IronKey, Inc. (“IronKey”).  In support of the motion, Trek argued, among other things, that this motion reduced the number of issues to be decided and, further, the motion was filed in advance of the evidentiary hearing.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) filed a response in support of Trek’s motion to terminate.  
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Inventec In Certain Handheld Electronic Computing Devices (337-TA-769)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
16
On May 11, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 40 in Certain Handheld Electronic Computing Devices, Related Software, And Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-769).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex granted a motion filed by Complainant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) to terminate the investigation based on Microsoft’s withdrawal of allegations in its amended complaint against Inventec Corporation (“Inventec”).  More specifically, Microsoft argued that in light of its settlement with Respondents Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnobile.com, Microsoft’s claims against Inventec are moot.  The Commission Investigative Staff filed a response in support of Microsoft's motion.  Accordingly, ALJ Essex granted Microsoft’s motion.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Barnes & Noble In Certain Handheld Electronic Computing Devices (337-TA-769)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
16
On May 11, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 41 in Certain Handheld Electronic Computing Devices, Related Software, And Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-769).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) and Respondents Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnobile.com (collectively, “B&N”) to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Essex granted the motion filed by Microsoft and B&N.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets 17-Month Target Date In Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices (337-TA-836)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
24
Further to our April 9, 2012 post, on May 21, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 5 in Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-836).

In the Order, ALJ Essex set September 10, 2013 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is approximately 17 months after institution of the investigation).  Therefore, any final initial determination is due no later than May 10, 2013.  ALJ Essex determined that there is good cause for setting a 17-month target date in this investigation in light of the private parties request for such target date, the number of respondents and the varied nature of the accused products.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Denies Motion To Strike Non-Party Google Inc.’s Public Interest Submission In Certain Communication Equipment (337-TA-817)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
01
On May 29, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 12 denying Complainant ChriMar Systems, Inc. d/b/a CMS Technologies’ (“ChriMar”) motion to strike non-party Google Inc.’s (“Google”) public interest submission and to preclude Google from participating further in the investigation or, in the alternative, to certify to the commission a request for judicial enforcement of a subpoena to Google in Certain Communication Equipment, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Including Power Over Ethernet Telephones, Switches, Wireless Access Points, Routers and Other Devices Used in LANs, and Cameras (Inv. No. 337-TA-817).

By way of background, the Commission instituted this investigation on December 7, 2011 based on ChriMar’s complaint of November 1, 2011.  See our December 10, 2011 post for more details.  On November 7, 2011, the Commission published a notice in the Federal Register seeking comments from the public regarding this investigation and the “public interest factors” outlined in Section 337.  On November 15, 2011, Google filed a five-page response to the request which, according to the Order, stated that “the Commission should seriously consider not issuing an exclusion order in this investigation because it did not appear that ChriMar or its licensees could meet the demand for the products at issue in the investigation,” and that the Commission should not allow ChriMar to obtain an exclusion order when they otherwise would not be able to obtain an injunction in district court under eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006).  In response, ChriMar served a subpoena on Google seeking documents and deposition testimony related to Google’s public interest statement.  On March 8, 2012, ChriMar filed the instant motion.  Respondents, Google, and the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) all opposed ChriMar’s motion.  Non-party NVIDIA Corporation also filed a notice joining Google’s opposition.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants-in-Part and Denies-in-Part Non-Party Broadcom’s Motion to Quash Subpoena in Certain Communications Equipment (337-TA-817)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
05
On May 29, 2012, ALJ Essex issued Order No. 13, granting-in-part and denying-in-part non-party Broadcom Corporation’s motion to quash or limit a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum in Certain Communication Equipment, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Including Power Over Ethernet Telephones, Switches, Wireless Access Points, Routers and Other Devices Used in LANs, and Cameras (Inv. No. 337-TA-817).  The subpoena was issued by Complainant ChriMar Systems, Inc. d/b/a CMS Technologies.  Broadcom sought to quash or limit the subpoena and to shift costs of compliance to ChriMar.  Non-party NVIDIA filed a notice of joinder with the motion.

The subpoena arises, in part, from a recent change in Commission rules.  After ChriMar filed its Complaint, the Commission, in accordance with the new rules, published a solicitation for comments regarding whether a cease and desist order or exclusion order would negatively effect the public health or welfare or competitive conditions in the United States.  Broadcom and NVIDIA, who both supply chips to the respondents, jointly submitted a statement arguing that the public interest disfavors investigations requested by licensing driven entities that implicated standard-compliant products.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Target Date In Certain Computers and Computer Peripheral Devices (337-TA-841)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
11
Further to our April 30, 2012 post, on June 7, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 13 in Certain Computers and Computer Peripheral Devices and Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-841).

In the Order, ALJ Essex set September 3, 2013 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).  Therefore, any final initial determination is due no later than May 2, 2013. 
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motions To Terminate Investigation In Certain Computers and Computer Peripheral Devices (337-TA-841)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
12
On June 8, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order Nos. 14 and 15 in Certain Computers and Computer Peripheral Devices and Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-841).

In Order No. 14, ALJ Essex granted a motion filed by Complainant Technology Properties Limited LLC (“TPL”) to terminate the investigation as to Respondent Jasco Products Company, LLC on the basis of a settlement agreement.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Essex granted TPL’s motion.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices (337-TA-836)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
12
On June 12, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 6 in Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-836).

In the Order, ALJ Essex set the procedural schedule for the investigation and included provisions for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions.  ALJ Essex determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on January 18, 2013; any final initial determination is due no later than May 10, 2013; and September 10, 2013 is the target date for completing the investigation (which is approximately 17 months after institution of the investigation).
Share

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.