How to Search
ALJ Gildea

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion For Leave To Supplement Notice Of Prior Art In Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Controls Technology (337-TA-747)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
05
On May 2, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 15 in Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and Parental Controls Technology (Inv. No. 337-TA-747).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Respondents Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America, Inc., Toshiba America Consumer Products, L.L.C., and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.’s (collectively, “Toshiba”) motion for leave to supplement their notice of prior art in order to add U.S. Patent No. 6,100,916 (the ‘916 patent), which Toshiba alleged is prior art to one of the patents-in-suit.

In support of their motion, Toshiba argued that its counsel “monitors U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (‘PTO’) activity for any filings related to the asserted patents…[and] learned on April 17, 2011 of a request by a third party for re-examination…[that] cited the ‘916 patent as teaching what the patentee contended was missing from the prior art during the original prosecution of [one of the patents-in-suit].”  Complainants Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc., United Video Properties, Inc., and Index Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Rovi”) filed a notice indicating that they did not oppose Toshiba’s motion for leave.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motion To Compel In Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Controls Technology (337-TA-747)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
09
On May 3, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 13 (dated April 26, 2011) in Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and Parental Controls Technology (Inv. No. 337-TA-747).

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc., United Video Properties, Inc., and Index Systems, Inc.’s (collectively, “Rovi”) and the Respondents are Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America, Inc., Toshiba America Consumer Products, L.L.C., and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.’s (collectively, “Toshiba”).
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motions To Strike Expert Reports In Certain Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems (337-TA-724)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
09
On May 5, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 25 (dated March 4, 2011) in Certain Electronic Devices with Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-724).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea (1) granted Complainants S3 Graphics Co., Ltd. and S3 Graphics, Inc.’s (collectively, “S3G”) motion to strike the expert report of Respondent Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) expert Dr. Jerry A. Hausman regarding licensing and patent exhaustion and (2) granted-in-part S3G’s motion to strike Dr. Hausman’s expert report regarding remedy.

According to the Order, on February 7, 2011, S3G filed dual motions to strike two expert reports of Dr. Hausman.  S3G stated that Dr. Hausman had submitted three expert reports in the investigation:  one concerning the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, one concerning licensing and patent exhaustion (the “Licensing Report”), and one concerning remedy (the “Remedy Report”).  S3G asserted that while it had no objection to Dr. Hausman testifying as an economic expert on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, it did take issue with the other two expert reports.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motion For Summary Determination In Certain Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems (337-TA-724)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
09
On May 3, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 18 (dated February 11, 2011) in Certain Electronic Devices with Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-724).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Respondent Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) motion seeking summary determination that Complainants S3 Graphics Co., Ltd. and S3 Graphics, Inc. (collectively, “S3G”) failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.

In support of its motion, Apple relied on the deposition of Melody Chao who was S3G’s designated corporate witness.  S3G and the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) opposed the motion.  Specifically, S3G argued that (i) Apple misrepresented the facts relating to economic domestic industry, and (ii) Ms. Chao is an accountant who authenticated numerous financial documents detailing S3G’s domestic expenditures and that it was not her role to answer detailed descriptions of the technical work performed by S3G’s employees.  OUII argued that genuine issues of material fact exist that precluded a finding of summary determination.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Public Version of Initial Determination In Certain Electronic Devices (337-TA-701)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
11
Further to our March 28, 2011 post, on April 27, 2011, ALJ Gildea issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, and Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-701).

According to the ID, ALJ Gildea determined that no violation of Section 337 had occurred by Apple in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic devices, including mobile phones, portable music players, or computers by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,518,957 (the ‘957 patent), 6,714,091 (the ‘091 patent), 6,834,181 (the ‘181 patent), 6,895,256 (the ‘256 patent), or 6,924,789 (the ‘789 patent).  ALJ Gildea also determined that a domestic industry exists that practices the ‘789 patent, but not the ‘091 patent, the ‘181 patent, and the ‘256 patent.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Nonparties’ Motions To Quash Subpoenas In Certain Reduced Ignition Proclivity Cigarette Paper Wrappers (337-TA-756)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
13
On May 12, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 6 (dated March 22, 2011) denying nonparty motions to quash subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum in Certain Reduced Ignition Proclivity Cigarette Paper Wrappers and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-756).

According to the Order, Tantus Tobacco LLC (“Tantus”), S&M Brands, Inc., Dosal Tobacco Corp., Farmer’s Tobacco Company, and Xcaliber International Ltd., LLC (collectively, “Nonparties”) moved to quash subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum served by Complainant Schweitzer-Mauduit International, Inc. (“Schweitzer”), arguing that the subpoenas (1) seek information that could be more readily obtained from the parties to the investigation, (2) are duplicative of discovery requests on parties, (3) are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, (4) are overly broad and unduly burdensome, and (5) have been imposed to harass Nonparties into purchasing Schweitzer products.  Tantus sought to quash the subpoena it received in its entirety, whereas the other movants sought to limit Schweitzer’s subpoenas to public interest statements that some of the companies made concerning the possible effects of an exclusion order on the low ignition propensity (“LIP”) cigarette paper market in the U.S.  Schweitzer opposed the motion on the grounds that (1) Nonparties have evidence relevant to the investigation, including evidence on infringement, sales, sales after importation, inventory, and manufacturing of downstream products; (2) the information sought is not duplicative of evidence in the parties’ possession; (3) Nonparties’ arguments regarding undue burden lack specificity and should not be credited; and (4) the fact that most of the Nonparties concede that they possess some relevant information demonstrates that the subpoenas were not improper.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Initial Determination In Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes (337-TA-712)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
23
On May 20, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) in Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-712).

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are Verizon Communications Inc. and Verizon Services Corp.  The Respondent is Cablevision Systems Corp. (“Cablevision”).
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Target Date In Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices And Image Display Devices (337-TA-773)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
24
Further to our May 17, 2011 post, on May 23, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 2:  Notice of Ground Rules and Setting Target Date and Date for Submission of Proposed Procedural Schedule in Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices And Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-773).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea set September 19, 2012 as the target date for completion of the investigation (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  Also, any final initial determination is due no later than May 18, 2012.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motions In Certain Wind And Solar-Powered Light Posts And Street Lamps (337-TA-736)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
26
On May 25, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public versions of Order No. 13 and Order No. 14 (both dated May 11, 2011) in Certain Wind and Solar-Powered Light Posts and Street Lamps (Inv. No. 337-TA-736).  Order No. 13 denied Respondents Gus Power Incorporated (“Gus Power”), Efston Science, Inc., The StressCrete Group (“StressCrete”), and King Luminaire, Inc.’s (collectively, “Respondents”) motions for summary determination of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. D610,732S (“the ‘732 patent”) and for sanctions against Complainants Duggal Dimensions LLC, Duggal Energy Solutions, LLC, and Duggal Visual Solutions, Inc. (collectively, “Duggal”).  Order No. 14 granted in part Respondents’ motion to compel Duggal to provide complete answers to interrogatories and produce documents identified on its privilege log.

Order No. 13
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Glassware (337-TA-767)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
16
On June 14, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 8 in Certain Glassware (Inv. No. 337-TA-767).

By way of background, this Investigation was based on a February 18, 2011 complaint filed by Boston Beer Corporation of Boston, Massachusetts (“Boston Beer”) alleging violation of Section 337 by 1 Source Signature Glassware, Inc., di Sciacca Co., and San Tan Brewing Co., all of Chandler, Arizona (collectively “Respondents”) through their infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. D582,213 and D569,189.  See our March 21, 2011 postfor more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Target Date In Certain Equipment for Communications Networks (337-TA-778)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
28
Further to our June 17, 2011 post, on June 27, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 2:  Notice of Ground Rules and Setting Target Date and Date for Submission of Proposed Procedural Schedule in Certain Equipment for Communications Networks, Including Switches, Routers, Gateways, Bridges, Wireless Access Points, Cable Modems, IP Phones, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-778).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea set October 22, 2012 as the target date for completion of the investigation (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  Also, any final initial determination is due no later than June 22, 2012.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Initial Determination In Certain Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems (337-TA-724)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
06
On July 1, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued a notice regarding the Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) in Certain Electronic Devices with Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software(Inv. No. 337-TA-724). 

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are S3 Graphics Co., Ltd. and S3 Graphics, Inc. (collectively, “S3G”).  The Respondent is Apple Inc. (“Apple”). 
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Vivitek In Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices And Image Display Devices (337-TA-773)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
07
On July 6, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 11 (dated July 6, 2011) in Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices And Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-773).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Ogma, LLC (“Ogma”) and Respondent Vivitek Corporation (“Vivitek”) to terminate the investigation based on indirect license agreements with nonparty RPX Corporation.

After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreements, ALJ Gildea granted the joint motion filed by Ogma and Vivitek.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Public Version of Initial Determination In Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes (337-TA-712)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
08
Further to our May 23, 2011 post, on June 24, 2011, ALJ Gildea issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated May 20, 2011) in Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-712).  Due to the size of the ID, please see part 1 here and part 2 here.

By way of background, the Commission instituted this investigation on April 15, 2010.  The Complainants are Verizon Communications Inc. and Verizon Services Corp. (collectively, “Verizon”) and the Respondent is Cablevision Systems Corp. (“Cablevision”).
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Target Date In Certain GPS Navigation Products (337-TA-783)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
08
Further to our July 1, 2011 post, on July 8, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 2:  Notice of Ground Rules and Setting Target Date and Date for Submission of Proposed Procedural Schedule in Certain GPS Navigation Products, Components Thereof, and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-783).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea set November 7, 2012 as the target date for completion of the investigation (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  Also, any final initial determination is due no later than July 6, 2012.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Controls Technology (337-TA-747)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
12
On July 11, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 18 (dated July 11, 2011) in Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and Parental Controls Technology (Inv. No. 337-TA-747). 

In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted a joint motion filed by Complainants Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc., United Video Properties, Inc., and Index Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Rovi”) and Respondents Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America, Inc., Toshiba America Consumer Products, L.L.C., and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Toshiba”) to terminate the investigation based on an Interactive Program Guide License Agreement.
Share

Read More

Update Regarding Certain Electric Fireplaces (337-TA-791)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
18
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Consolidates Investigation Nos. 337-TA-773 And 337-TA-787

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
21
On July 19, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued a consolidation order styled Order No. 15 in Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices and Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-773) and Order No. 1 in Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices and Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing Same II(Inv. No. 337-TA-787).

By way of background, Ogma, LLC (“Ogma”) is the Complainant in both investigations.  The ITC instituted the 773 investigation on May 13, 2011 based on Ogma’s complaint of April 1, 2011 and subsequent filings.  See our May 17, 2011 post for more details.  The ITC instituted the 787 investigation on July 13, 2011 based on Ogma’s complaint of June 13, 2011 and subsequent filings.  Seeour July 14, 2011 post for more details.  According to the consolidation order, Ogma has asserted patent claims in the 787 investigation that overlap those asserted in the 773 investigation, and as a result, the Commission has provided authorization for the consolidation of the two investigations.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Target Date In Certain Electric Fireplaces (337-TA-791)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
22
Further to our July 15 and 18, 2011 posts, on July 21, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 2:  Notice of Ground Rules and Setting Target Date and Date for Submission of Proposed Procedural Schedule in Certain Electric Fireplaces, Components Thereof, Manuals for Same, Certain Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-791).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea set November 20, 2012 as the target date for completion of the investigation (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  Also, any final initial determination is due no later than July 20, 2012.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Motions To Terminate Investigation As To Certain Respondents In Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices And Image Display Devices (337-TA-773)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
26
On July 18, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public versions of Order No. 13 (dated July 18, 2011) and Order No. 14 (dated July 18, 2011) in Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices And Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-773). 

In Order No. 13, ALJ Gildea granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Ogma, LLC (“Ogma”) and Respondents VTech Holdings, Ltd. and Vtech Electronics North America, LLC (collectively “VTech”) to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement between the parties. After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Gildea granted the joint motion filed by Ogma and VTech.
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.