ALJ Essex

ALJ Essex Grants Google’s Motion To Intervene In Certain Portable Electronic Communications Devices, Including Mobile Phones (337-TA-885)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
19
On July 16, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 5 in Certain Portable Electronic Communications Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-885).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a May 23, 2013 complaint filed by Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain portable electronic communications devices, including mobile phones and components thereof that infringe one more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,035,189 (the ‘189 patent); 6,373,345; 6,711,211 (the ‘211 patent); 7,187,945; 8,140,650 (the ‘650 patent); and 8,363,824.  According to the Notice of Investigation, the Commission has identified HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) as the respondents.  See our June 24, 2013 post for more details on the Notice of Investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain Computers and Computer Peripheral Devices (337-TA-841)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
08
On August 2, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding (“ID”) in Certain Computers and Computer Peripheral Devices and Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-841). 

By way of background, this investigation is based on a March 27, 2012 complaint filed by Technology Properties Limited LLC alleging violation of Section 337 by a number of Respondents in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain computers and computer peripheral devices, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,976,623 (the ‘623 patent), 7,162,549 (the ‘549 patent), 7,295,443 (the ‘443 patent), 7,522,424 (the ‘424 patent), 6,438,638 (the ‘638 patent), and 7,719,847 (the ‘847 patent).  See our March 29, 2012 and April 30, 2012 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Portable Electronic Communications Devices, Including Mobile Phones (337-TA-885)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
27
On August 27, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 9 in Certain Portable Electronic Communications Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-885).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a May 23, 2013 complaint filed by Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain portable electronic communications devices, including mobile phones and components thereof that infringe one more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,035,189; 6,373,345; 6,711,211; 7,187,945; 8,140,650; and 8,363,824.  The Respondents in this investigation are HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc. and Google, Inc.  See our June 24, 2013 and July 19, 2013 posts for more details on this investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets 15-Month Target Date In Certain Wireless Devices, Including Mobile Phones And Tablets (337-TA-889)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
12
Further to our July 31, 2013 post, on September 12, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 3 in Certain Wireless Devices, Including Mobile Phones And Tablets (Inv. No. 337-TA-889).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex set November 5, 2014 as the target date for completion of the investigation (which is approximately 15 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Essex further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on July 5, 2014 and that the evidentiary hearing will commence on March 10, 2014.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Wireless Devices, Including Mobile Phones And Tablets (337-TA-889)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
26
Further to our July 31, 2013 and September 12, 2013 posts, on September 23, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 4 in Certain Wireless Devices, Including Mobile Phones And Tablets (Inv. No. 337-TA-889).

In the Order, ALJ Essex set the procedural schedule for the investigation.  The ALJ determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on March 10, 2014, any final initial determination will issue no later than July 5, 2014, and the target date for completion of the investigation is November 5, 2014 (which is approximately 15 months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Denies-In-Part Motion To Compel In Certain Wireless Communications Base Stations (337-TA-871)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
03
On September 30, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 13 (dated September 4, 2013) denying-in-part Respondents Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson Inc.’s (collectively, “Ericsson”) motion to compel Complainant Adaptix, Inc. (“Adaptix”) to provide discovery from its parent company, Acacia Research Corporation (“Acacia”) in Certain Wireless Communications Base Stations and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-871).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a January 24, 2013 complaint filed by Adaptix alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless communications base stations and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,870,808.  See our January 25, 2013 and February 26, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Denies Motion To Terminate Investigation For Lack Of Standing In Certain Wireless Communications Base Stations (337-TA-871)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
09
On September 30, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 14 (dated September 4, 2013) denying Respondents Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson Inc.’s (collectively, “Ericsson”) motion to terminate the investigation for lack of standing in Certain Wireless Communications Base Stations and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-871).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a January 24, 2013 complaint filed by Adaptix, Inc. (“Adaptix”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless communications base stations and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,870,808.  See our January 25, 2013 and February 26, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (337-TA-850)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
18
On September 30, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-850).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a May 23, 2012 complaint filed by FlashPoint Technology, Inc. of Peterborough, New Hampshire alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain electronic imaging devices that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,400,471 (the ‘471 patent), 6,222,538 (the ‘538 patent), 6,504,575, and 6,223,190 (the ‘190 patent).  See our June 27, 2012 postfor more details on this investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Denies Motion To Compel In Certain Omega-3 Extracts From Marine Or Aquatic Biomass (337-TA-877)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
21
On November 15, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 33 in Certain Omega-3 Extracts from Marine or Aquatic Biomass and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-877).

According to the Order, complainants Neptune Technologies & Bioressources Inc. and Ascati Pharma Inc. (collectively “Neptune”) filed a motion to compel respondents Enzymotec Ltd. and Enzymotec USA, Inc. (collectively, “Enzymotec”) to produce emails in response to Neptune’s email requests.  Neptune argued that Enzymotec conducted its email search using extremely narrow search parameters.  Neptune asserted that their proposed search terms are needed to produce information relevant to “indirect infringement, secondary considerations of non-obviousness, and the public interest.”  Neptune further argued that “consistency” required granting Neptune’s motion because the ALJ granted Enzymotec’s motion to compel.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants-In-Part Motion To Compel In Certain Omega-3 Extracts From Marine Or Aquatic Biomass (337-TA-877)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
26
On November 22, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 32 (dated November 13, 2013) in Certain Omega-3 Extracts from Marine or Aquatic Biomass and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-877).

According to the Order, Respondents Enzymotec Ltd.; Enzymotec USA; Olympic Seafood AS; Olympic Biotec Ltd.; Avoca, Inc.; Rimfrost USA, LLC; Bioriginal Food & Science Corp.; Aker BioMarine AS; Aker BioMarine Antarctic AS; and Aker BioMarine Antarctic USA, Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”) filed a motion to compel Complainants Neptune Technologies & Bioressources Inc. and Ascati Pharma Inc. (collectively “Neptune”) to produce certain documents and persons for depositions.  Specifically, Respondents sought depositions of Mr. St-Jean and Mr. Tremblay.  Followings the 16-day government shutdown, the parties provided the ALJ with a status update that withdrew Respondents request to compel the production of documents. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motion To Compel In Certain Omega-3 Extracts From Marine Or Aquatic Biomass (338-TA-877)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
12
On December 9, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 35 (dated November 18, 2013) in Certain Omega-3 Extracts from Marine or Aquatic Biomass and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-877).

According to the Order, Respondents Enzymotec Ltd.; Enzymotec USA; Olympic Seafood AS; Olympic Biotec Ltd.; Avoca, Inc.; Rimfrost USA, LLC; Bioriginal Food & Science Corp.; Aker BioMarine AS; Aker BioMarine Antarctic AS; and Aker BioMarine Antarctic USA, Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”) filed a motion to compel Complainants Neptune Technologies & Bioressources Inc. and Ascati Pharma Inc. (collectively “Neptune”) to produce Neptune’s CEO for deposition.  Respondents argued that Neptune’s CEO has unique personal knowledge of many topics important to the investigation, such as (1) the conception, reduction to practice, and development of the alleged inventions of the patents-in-suit; (2) Neptune’s manufacturing process; (3) alleged inequitable conduct during the prosecution of the patents-in-suit; (4) Neptune’s alleged domestic industry; and (5) Neptune’s assertions that an exclusion order against Respondents would be consistent with the public interest, including the reconstruction effort at Neptune’s Sherbrooke plant.  In opposition, Neptune maintained that their CEO is an “apex” employee and that Respondents have failed to demonstrate that he has unique knowledge warranting the burden of having him deposed.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Denies Motion To Compel In Certain Omega-3 Extracts From Marine Or Aquatic Biomass (337-TA-877)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
13
On December 9, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 34 (dated November 15, 2013) in Certain Omega-3 Extracts from Marine or Aquatic Biomass and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-877).

According to the Order, Complainants Neptune Technologies & Bioressources Inc. and Ascati Pharma Inc. (collectively, “Neptune”) filed a motion to compel Respondents Aker BioMarine AS, Aker BioMarine Antarctic AS, and Aker BioMarine Antarctic USA, Inc. (collectively, “Aker”) to produce documents and two witnesses for deposition regarding reexamination testing.  In a status update filed following the 16-day government shutdown, the parties noted that Neptune no longer sought to compel documents or one of the two witnesses; however, Neptune still sought to compel the deposition of J. Mitchell Jones.  According to Neptune, Mr. Jones improperly refused to respond to Neptune’s subpoena on the grounds that he “has no non-privileged information that is responsive or relevant.”  Neptune argued that they are entitled to probe his knowledge and privilege claims in a deposition, just as Aker did with Neptune’s reexamination counsel.  Neptune also asserted that Mr. Jones did not move to quash or sought to narrow the scope of the subpoena, and that any objections he may have had are therefore waived.  In opposition, Aker asserted that Neptune failed to meet and confer regarding the deposition of Mr. Jones, and that Neptune failed to demonstrate that any discovery from his deposition would be relevant to the investigation because Mr. Jones was only reexamination counsel for a patent related to the asserted patents (unlike reexamination counsel for Neptune who prosecuted the asserted patents and were deposed).

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain Optoelectronic Devices For Fiber Optic Communications (337-TA-860)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
17
On December 13, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a notice regarding his Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Optoelectronic Devices for Fiber Optic Communications, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-860).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a complaint and letters supplementing the complaint filed by Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation and sale of certain optoelectronic devices for fiber optic communications, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,947,456 (“the ‘456 patent”) and 5,596,595 (“the ‘595 patent”).  See our September 26, 2012 post for more details about the complaint.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Aker Respondents In Certain Omega-3 Extracts From Marine Or Aquatic Biomass (337-TA-877)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
18
On December 17, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 40 in Certain Omega-3 Extracts from Marine or Aquatic Biomass and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-877).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex granted Complainants Neptune Technologies & Bioressources Inc. and Ascati Pharma Inc. and Respondents Aker BioMarine AS, Aker BioMarine Antarctic AS, and Aker BioMarine Antarctic USA, Inc.’s (collectively, the “Aker Respondents”) joint motion to terminate the investigation as to the Aker Respondents on the basis of a settlement agreement reached between the parties.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets 15-Month Target Date In Certain Windshield Wipers (337-TA-902)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
26
Further to our November 25, 2013 post, on December 23, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 4 in Certain Windshield Wipers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-902).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex set February 26, 2015 as the target date for completion of the investigation (which is approximately 15 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Essex further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on October 26, 2014 and that the evidentiary hearing will commence on June 23, 2014.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Three Discovery-Related Orders in Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof (337-TA-868)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
02
On December 27, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public versions of Order Nos. 82-84  in Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-868). 

According to Order No. 82(dated December 16, 2013), Respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”) filed a motion to modify the order of issues presented at the hearing such that testimony relating to U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151 (the ‘151 patent) would be offered first.  The ‘151 patent is the only patent asserted against Nokia.  Complainants InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “InterDigital”) opposed Nokia’s motion 

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Windshield Wipers (337-TA-902)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
10
Further to our November 25, 2013 and December 26, 2013 posts, on January 8, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 5 in Certain Windshield Wipers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-902).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex set the procedural schedule for the investigation.  The ALJ determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on June 23, 2014, any final initial determination will issue no later than October 26, 2014, and the target date for completion of the investigation is February 26, 2015 (which is approximately 15 months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Terminates Investigation As To Huawei In Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof (337-TA-868)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
17
On January 16, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 90 in Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-868).  Due to its large electronic size, we have split the order into part 1, part 2, and part 3.   

According to the Order, Complainants InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “InterDigital”) and Respondents Huawei Technologies, Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., and Future Wei Technologies, Inc. (collectively, “Huawei”) filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation with respect to Huawei on the basis of a settlement and arbitration agreement reached between InterDigital and Huawei. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Optoelectronic Devices For Fiber Optic Communications (337-TA-860)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
22
Further to our December 17, 2013 post, on January 9, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of his Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination of Remedy and Bond (“ID”) (dated December 13, 2013) in Certain Optoelectronic Devices for Fiber Optic Communications, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-860).  Due to the large size of the ID, we have split the document into part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4.

By way of background, this investigation is based on a complaint filed by Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. (collectively, “Avago”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation and sale of certain optoelectronic devices for fiber optic communications, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,947,456 (the ‘456 patent) and 5,596,595 (the ‘595 patent).  See our September 26, 2012 and October 30, 2012 posts for more details about the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Rules On Motions In Certain Wireless Devices With 3G And/Or 4G Capabilities (337-TA-868)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
30
On January 22, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public versions of Order Nos. 88 and 89 (dated January 10, 2014 and January 15, 2014, respectively) in Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-868).

According to Order No. 88, Respondents Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) filed a motion to strike various portions of Complainants InterDigital Communications, Inc.; InterDigital Technology Corporation; IPR Licensing, Inc.; and InterDigital Holdings, Inc.’s (collectively, “InterDigital”) expert reports and preclude testimony on the stricken portions.  Specifically at issue were portions of four reports: (1) the Jackson Report, (2) the Haas rebuttal Report, (3) the Brogioli Supplemental Report, and (4) the Prucnal Supplemental Report.  Regarding the Jackson Report, ALJ Essex held that InterDigital adequately disclosed its infringement theory under Samsung’s construction of the phrase “[re]-synchronize[d/ing] to the the/a pilot signal.”  However, ALJ Essex determined that InterDigital’s production of certain documents was untimely and, therefore, granted Samsung’s Motion to Strike the portions of the Jackson Report that relied on those documents.  As to the Haas Rebuttal Report, ALJ Essex granted Samsung’s Motion to Strike only those portions that discussed the “Quick reference” because InterDigital never conducted an element-by-element analysis of the Quick reference.  ALJ Essex granted Samsung’s Motion to Strike the requested portions of the Brogioli Supplemental Report, finding unpersuasive InterDigital’s arguments as to why Dr. Brogioli failed to include the disputed opinions and arguments in his initial expert report.  Lastly, ALJ Essex granted Samsung’s Motion to Strike the requested portions of the Prucnal Supplemental Report because the information cited in the supplemental report was not included in Dr. Prucnal’s initial expert report.  Accordingly, ALJ Essex granted-in-part and denied-in-part Samsung’s Motion to Strike.

Share

Read More