How to Search
ALJ Essex

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
22
Further to our April 30, 2012 and June 11, 2012 posts, on June 19, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 17 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 the procedural schedule for the investigation and included provisions for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions as well as a Markman hearing on August 9, 2012.  ALJ Essex further determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on January 7, 2013; any final initial determination is due no later than May 2, 2013; and September 3, 2013 is the target date for completing the investigation (which is approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To LG Corporation In Certain Devices For Improving Uniformity Used In A Backlight Module (337-TA-805)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
26
On June 22, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 18 in Certain Devices For Improving Uniformity Used In A Backlight Module and Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-805).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex granted a motion filed by Complainants Industrial Technology Research Institute and ITRI International (collectively, “ITRI”) to terminate the investigation based on ITRI’s withdrawal of allegations in its amended complaint as to LG Corporation.  The Commission Investigative Staff filed a response in support of ITRI’s motion.  Accordingly, ALJ Essex granted ITRI’s motion.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain Protective Cases (337-TA-780)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
03
On June 29, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination on Violation (“ID”) in Certain Protective Cases and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-780).

By way of background, the Complainant in this matter is Otter Products, LLC (“Otter”).  The following Respondents have defaulted in the investigation:  Anbess Electronics Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Evotech Industry Co., Ltd., Hoffco Brands, Inc. d/b/a Celltronix, Hong Kong HJJ Co., Ltd., Sinatech Industrial Co., Ltd., Suntel Global Investment Ltd., Trait Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Papaya Holdings Ltd., Quanyun Electronics Co., Ltd., Topter Technology Co., Ltd., Cellet Products, TheCaseSpace, MegaWatts, Hypercel Corporation d/b/a Naztech Technologies, Shenzhen Star & Way Trade Co., Ltd., SmileCase, TheCaseInpoint.com, and National Cellular (collectively, the “Defaulting Respondents”).  Griffin Technology, Inc. (“Griffin”) is another Respondent.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Target Date In Certain CMOS Image Sensors (337-TA-846)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
12
Further to our June 5, 2012 post, on July 9, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 2 in Certain CMOS Image Sensors and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-846).

In the Order, ALJ Essex set October 7, 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 June 7, 2013. 
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination Finding Violation of Section 337 In Certain Protective Cases (337-TA-780)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
18
On July 10, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) finding a violation of Section 337 in Certain Protective Cases and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-780). 

By way of background, Otter Products, LLC (“Otter”) filed its complaint in this investigation on May 25, 2011 alleging that Griffin Technology, Inc. (“Griffin”) and numerous other parties (collectively “Defaulting Respondents”) unlawfully imported, sold for importation, and sold after importation certain protective cases and components thereof for cellular phones, mobile music players, and tablet computers that infringe various patents.  The Commission instituted this investigation on June 24, 2011.  See our June 27, 2011 post for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain CMOS Image Sensors (337-TA-846)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
25
Further to our June 5, 2012 and July 12, 2012 posts, on July 17, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 6 setting a procedural schedule in Certain CMOS Image Sensors and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-846).

In the Order, ALJ Essex determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on February 11, 2013.  The Initial Determination is due on June 7, 2013 and the target date for completing the investigation is October 7, 2013 (approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).
Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
25
On July 10, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 29 in Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-804).

In the Order, ALJ Essex granted a joint motion filed by Complainants Litepanels, Inc. and Litepanels, Ltd. and Respondents Fuzhou F&V Photographic Equipment Co., Ltd. (“F&V”) and Shantou Nanguang Photographic Equipment Co., Ltd. (“Nanguang”) to terminate the investigation based on entry of a consent order stipulation, finding that the consent order stipulation complies with Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3), and that there is no evidence of record that terminating the investigation as to F&V and Nanguang would be contrary to the public interest.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Denies Motions For Summary Determination In Certain Devices For Improving Uniformity Used In A Backlight Module (337-TA-805)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
01
On July 19, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 20 in Certain Devices for Improving Uniformity Used in a Backlight Module and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-805).

According to the Order, complainants Industrial Technology Research Institute and ITRI International (collectively, “ITRI”) moved for summary determination that the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement was satisfied.  Respondents LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc. (collectively, “LG”) and the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) opposed the motion.  ALJ Essex found that issues of law and material fact exist that prevent a finding of summary determination in lieu of a hearing on the merits and denied the motion.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motions To Terminate Investigation in Certain Communications Equipment (337-TA-817)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
02
On August 1, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order Nos. 23-24 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).

In Order No. 23, ALJ Essex granted a joint motion filed by Complainant ChriMar Systems, Inc. (“ChriMar”) and Respondent Avaya, Inc. (“Avaya”) to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Gildea granted the motion filed by ChriMar and Avaya.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Stays Investigation In Certain Integrated Circuits (337-TA-822)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
08
On August 6, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 17 in Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions(Inv. No. 337-TA-822).  In the Order, ALJ Essex determined to stay the investigation pending the Commission’s Final Determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-786.

According to the Order, Respondents Zoran Corporation (“Zoran”), MediaTek, Inc. (“MediaTek”), VIZIO, Inc., Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Sanyo North America Corp., Sanyo Manufacturing Corp., TPV Technology Ltd., TPV International (USA) Inc., Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co., Ltd., Top Victory Electronics (Fujian) Co., Ltd., Envision Peripherals, Inc., AmTran Technology Co., Ltd., and AmTran Logistics, Inc. (collectively, the “Respondents”) filed a motion to stay the procedural schedule in the 822 investigation until the Commission issues its Final Determination in the 786 investigation.  Complainant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (“Freescale”) opposed the motion.  The Commission Investigative Staff did not take a position on the motion.
Share

Read More

Update Regarding Certain Radio Frequency Integrated Circuits (337-TA-848)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
09
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Target Date In Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (337-TA-850)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
13
Further to our June 27, 2012, on August 9, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 5 in Certain Electronic Imaging Devices(Inv. No. 337-TA-850).

In the Order, ALJ Essex set October 29, 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 July 1, 2013.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants-In-Part Motion To Compel In Certain Computers and Computer Peripheral Devices (337-TA-841)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
15
On August 14, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 20 granting-in-part Respondents Brother Industries, Ltd., Canon, Inc., Dell, Inc., Fujitsu Limited, Hewlett-Packard Company, HiTi Digital, Inc., Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Micron Technology, Inc., Lexar Media, Inc., Newegg Inc., Rosewill, Inc., Shuttle Inc., Seiko Epson Corporation, and Systemax Inc.’s (collectively, “Respondents”) motion to compel Complainant Technology Properties Limited, LLC (“TPL”) to produce certain information from a prior investigation in Certain Computers and Computer Peripheral Devices and Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-841).

According to the Order, Respondents sought an order that TPL produce the following information from Investigation No. 337-TA-807:  (1) discovery responses from any party; (2) expert reports and expert witness deposition transcripts; (3) infringement and invalidity contentions; and (4) any other requested documents that TPL withheld solely on the basis of third-party confidentiality.  Respondents argued that the requested information is relevant because TPL is a party to the current investigation as well as the previous investigation, both of which include the same asserted patents.  TPL opposed the motion in part, refusing to produce categories (1) and (2) only because they are subject to a protective order in the prior investigation, and objecting to categories (3) and (4) only to the extent they are unclear.  In particular, TPL noted that the only infringement and invalidity contentions it is aware of are included in category (1), and argued that category (4) is overly broad.  Transcend Information, Inc., a party to the prior investigation (but not the current investigation), submitted a letter to the ALJ opposing the motion.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (337-TA-850)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
20
Further to our June 27, 2012 and August 13, 2012 posts, on August 16, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 7 setting a procedural schedule in Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-850).

In the Order, ALJ Essex determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on March 4, 2013.  The Initial Determination is due on July 1, 2013 and the target date for completing the investigation is October 29, 2013 (approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants In Part Motion For Summary Determination In Certain Video Displays (337-TA-828)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
10
On August 27, 2012, ALJ Theodor R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 9 (dated August 1, 2012) granting Respondents’ Chimei Innolux Corporation and Innolux Corporation (collectively, “CMI”) motion for summary determination of no violation of Section 337 in Certain Video Displays and Products Using and Containing Same(337-TA-828).  As the motion for summary determination was granted, ALJ Essex denied CMI’s alternative motion to stay the investigation as moot.

By way of background, the investigation is based on a January 13, 2012 complaint filed by Mondis Technology, Ltd. (“Mondis”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain video displays and products containing and same such as computer monitors and televisions that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,247,090 and 7,089,342.  See our February 22, 2012 post for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices (337-TA-804)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
13
On September 7, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination on Violation (“ID”) in Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-804).

By way of background, the Complainants in this matter are Litepanels, Inc. and Litepanels, Ltd. and the remaining Respondents are FloLight, LLC, Prompter People, Inc., IKAN Corporation, Advanced Business Computer Services, LLC, Fotodiox Inc., Yuyao Lishuai Photo-Facility Co., Ltd., Yuyao Fotodiox Photo Equipment Co., Ltd., Yuyao Lily Collection Co., Ltd., and Stellar Lighting Systems (collectively, the “Respondents”).
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Integrated Circuits (337-TA-822)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
01
On September 28, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 18 in Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions(Inv. No. 337-TA-822). 

In the Order, ALJ Essex granted a motion filed by Respondents Zoran Corporation, MediaTek, Inc., VIZIO, Inc., Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Sanyo North America Corp., Sanyo Manufacturing Corp., TPV Technology Ltd., TPV International (USA) Inc., Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co., Ltd., Top Victory Electronics (Fujian) Co., Ltd., Envision Peripherals, Inc., AmTran Technology Co., Ltd., and AmTran Logistics, Inc. (collectively, the “Respondents”) to terminate the investigation pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.21(a).  The Commission Investigative Staff and Complainant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (“Freescale”) filed responses indicating that they did not oppose the motion. 
Share

Read More

Update Regarding Certain Wireless Communication Devices (337-TA-856)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
02
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Denies Motion To Take Third Party Discovery In Certain Consumer Electronics And Display Devices (337-TA-836)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
03
On September 26, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 17 denying Complainant Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc.’s (“GPH”) motion to take certain discovery from third party Qualcomm, Inc. (“Qualcomm”) after the close of fact discovery and to seek permission to supplement its initial expert report to incorporate discovery provided by Qualcomm upon completion of Qualcomm depositions in Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-836).

According to the Order, GPH sought discovery from Qualcomm relating to infringement because Qualcomm is the supplier of the microprocessor chipsets that are incorporated into the accused products.  GPH argued for an extension of fact discovery on the grounds that despite good faith efforts by Qualcomm and continued negotiations between GPH and Qualcomm, GPH was unable to complete review of the source code produced by Qualcomm and has yet to schedule the depositions of designated Qualcomm employees.  GPH further asserted that it was not to blame for the fact that Qualcomm did not timely produce discovery or that Qualcomm cannot fully comply with the June 2012 subpoena in time for GPH to make use of the discovery in its initial expert report (which GPH sought permission to supplement within ten days of completing the deposition of Qualcomm witnesses).  Respondents countered that GPH did not demonstrate good cause to justify the extension or supplementation of its expert report because GPH failed to act diligently in obtaining discovery from Qualcomm, and because the delay was the result of GPH’s own litigation strategy.  Respondents also argued that they would be prejudiced by the relief sought by GPH since it would effectively permit GPH to continue to withhold its infringement contentions and modify its expert reports after seeing Respondents’ own expert reports, and because it would leave Respondents with less time to prepare their own rebuttal reports.  Respondents also noted that GPH had already received almost 29,000 pages of Qualcomm documents.  The Commission Investigative Staff did not oppose the motion.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motorola Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Wireless Communication Devices (337-TA-856)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
04
On October 2, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 5 in Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers, and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-856).

By way of background, the investigation is based on an August 17, 2012 complaint and a September 6, 2012 letter supplementing the complaint filed by Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility Ireland, and Motorola Mobility International Limited (collectively, “Motorola”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondent Apple, Inc. in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless communication devices, portable music and data processing devices, computers, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,883,580, 5,922,047, 6,425,002, 6,493,673, 6,983,370, 7,007,064, and 7,383,983.  See our August 21, 2012 and September 20, 2012 posts for more details.
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.