ALJ Gildea

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
06
On December 1, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 57 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 Respondents Nintendo Co., Ltd and Nintendo of America (collectively, “Nintendo”) to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Gildea granted the joint motion filed by Ogma and Nintendo.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion for a Patent Prosecution Bar in Certain Equipment for Communications Networks (337-TA-778)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
13
On December 9, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 14 denying Respondents’ motion to amend the Protective Order by adding a prosecution bar 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).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is MOSAID Technologies Inc. and the Respondents are Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Consumer Products LLC, Cisco Systems International B.V., and Scientific Atlanta LLC.  See our May 20, 2011 post for more details about the complaint in this matter.

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
15
On December 14, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 60 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 motion filed by Respondent Jakks Pacific, Inc. (“Jakks”) to terminate the investigation based on a consent order stipulation. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Various Pre-Trial Motions In Certain Set-Top Boxes (337-TA-761)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
20
On December 15, 2011, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public versions of Order Nos. 35-39 (all dated November 29, 2011) in Certain Set-Top Boxes, and Hardware and Software Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-761).

According to Order No. 35, Complainant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) sought to preclude Respondent TiVo Inc. (“TiVo”) from offering testimony or documents at the evidentiary hearing from its expert/fact witness Peter Hallenbeck regarding a product called SuperGuide, arguing that TiVo never served an expert report describing his opinions that TiVo intends to proffer, and that TiVo never indicated that the SuperGuide product was relevant to the asserted patents.  TiVo responded that it had in fact provided Microsoft with adequate notice of the substance of Mr. Hallenbeck’s testimony, and that he would only testify as a fact witness to discuss his personal knowledge of the development of electronic program guides.  The Commission Investigate Staff (“OUII”) agreed with Microsoft that Mr. Hallenbeck should be precluded from offering expert opinions, but agreed with TiVo that he should be allowed to provide non-expert testimony regarding the SuperGuide product.  ALJ Gildea denied the motion, finding that TiVo’s listing of Mr. Hallenbeck as a “Former SuperGuide employee” on its witness list, and listing the SuperGuide product in its Notice of Prior Art and Mr. Hallenbeck as a “Person with Knowledge” regarding that product constituted adequate notice to Microsoft.  The ALJ also noted that TiVo was bound by its representations that it would not elicit expert testimony from Mr. Hallenbeck at the evidentiary hearing.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Orders Public Interest Hearing Regarding Settlements In Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory And NAND Flash Memory Devices (337-TA-803)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
22
On December 19, 2011, ALJ Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 8 (dated October 18, 2011) in Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-803).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea set a hearing on November 15, 2011 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. to address the effects on the public interest of Complainants’ October 14, 2011 motion to terminate two Respondents, Pentech Co., Ltd. and Pantech Wireless, Inc. from the investigation on the basis of settlement.

By way of background, this investigation is based on a July 12, 2011 complaint filed on behalf of Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC, Invention Investment Fund I, L.P., Invention Investment Fund II, LLC, Intellectual Ventures I LLC, and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, against several manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of DRAM and NAND Flash memory devices by Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc. and Elpida Memory, Inc. and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc., for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,654,932; 5,963,481; 5,982,696; 5,500,819; and 5,687,132.  See our July 13, 2011 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Electronic Devices With Graphics Data Processing Systems (337-TA-813)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
05
Further to our November 9, 2011 and November 21, 2011 posts, on January 3, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 4 in Certain Electronic Devices With Graphics Data Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-813).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea set the procedural schedule for the investigation and provided for the early exchange of claim terms for construction.  ALJ Gildea also determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on November 28, 2012, any final initial determination will issue no later than February 20, 2013, and the target date for completion of the investigation is June 20, 2013.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets 20-Month Target Date In Certain Blu-Ray Disc Players (337-TA-824)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
24
Further to our January 12, 2012 post, on January 19, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 2 in Certain Blu-Ray Disc Players, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-824).

According to the Order, ALJ Gildea set August 23, 2013 as the target date (which is approximately 20 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Gildea further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on April 23, 2013.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Semiconductor Chips With DRAM Circuitry (337-TA-819)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
03
Further to our December 16, 2011 post, on February 1, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 4 in Certain Semiconductor Chips with DRAM Circuitry, and Modules and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-819).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea set the procedural schedule for the investigation and provided for the early exchange of claim terms for construction.  ALJ Gildea also determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on December 10, 2012, any final initial determination will issue no later than March 26, 2013, and the target date for completion of the investigation is July 26, 2013 (which is 19 months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Initial Determination In Certain Reduced Ignition Proclivity Cigarette Paper Wrappers (337-TA-756)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
03
On February 1, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued a notice regarding the Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) in Certain Reduced Ignition Proclivity Cigarette Paper Wrappers and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-756).

By way of background, the Complaint in this investigation is Schweitzer-Mauduit International Inc.  The Respondents are Julius Glatz GmbH, LIPtec GmbH, and KneX Worldwide LLC (collectively, the “Respondents”). 

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Motion To Quash Subpoena In Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory and NAND Flash Memory Devices (337-TA-803)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
20
On February 13, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 23 in Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-803).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted-in-part nonparty Round Rock Research, LLC’s (“RRR”) motion to quash or limit a subpoena served on it by Respondents Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc., Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Elpida Memory, Inc., and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”). 

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Blu-Ray Disc Players (337-TA-824)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
21
Further to our January 12 and January 24, 2012 posts, on February 17, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 6 in Certain Blu-Ray Disc Players, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-824).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea set the procedural schedule for the investigation and provided for the early exchange of claim terms for construction.  ALJ Gildea also determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on January 14, 2013, any final initial determination will issue no later than April 23, 2013, and the target date for completion of the investigation is August 23, 2013 (which is approximately 20 months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337 In Certain Reduced Ignition Proclivity Cigarette Wrappers (337-TA-756)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
29
On February 17, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated February 1, 2012) in Certain Reduced Ignition Proclivity Cigarette Paper Wrappers and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-756).  Due to the size of the ID, we have split the file into part 1 and part 2.   

By way of background, the investigation is based on a December 17, 2010 complaint and supplemental filings by Schweitzer-Mauduit International, Inc. (“Schweitzer”) alleging violation of Section 337 after importation of certain reduced ignition proclivity cigarette paper wrappers and products containing same by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,725,867 (the ‘867 patent) and 5,878,753 (the ‘753 patent).  See our December 20, 2010 post for more details.  The respondents remaining in this investigation are Julius Glatz GmbH, LIPtec GmbH, and KneX Worldwide LLC (collectively, “Glatz”).

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Joint Motion To Terminate Investigation In Its Entirety In Certain GPS Navigation Products (337-TA-783)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
29
On February 28, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 14 in Certain GPS Navigation Products, Components Thereof, and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-783).

In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Honeywell International Inc. (“Honeywell”) and Respondents Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. and Furuno U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “Furuno”) to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Rogers granted the motion filed by Honeywell and Furuno.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Claim Construction Order In Certain Equipment For Communications Networks (337-TA-778)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
01
On February 23, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 21 (dated February 14, 2012) construing the claim terms of the patents at issue 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).

By way of background, this investigation was instituted by the Commission on June 16, 2011 after MOSAID Technologies Inc. (“MOSAID”) filed a complaint naming as respondents Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Consumer Products LLC, Cisco Systems International B.V., and Scientific Atlanta LLC (collectively, “Cisco”).  See our May 20, 2011 post for details about the complaint.  The patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,841,360 (“the ‘360 patent”), 6,842,459 (“the ‘459 patent”), 7,633,966 (“the ‘966 patent”), 7,035,280 (“the ‘280 patent”), 7,292,600 (“the ‘600 patent”) and 7,830,858 (“the ‘858 patent”).  A Markman hearing was held on September 25 and 26, 2011 regarding the interpretation of the claim terms discussed below.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motions In Certain Equipment For Communications Networks (337-TA-778)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
06
On February 27, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public versions of Order Nos. 22 and 23 denying-in-part Respondents’ motion to preclude Complainant from presenting certain evidence in the Investigation, denying Respondents’ motion to compel Complainant to produce all communications with Complainant’s nonparty licensees, and denying Complainant’s cross-motions for sanctions and to enforce a claw-back agreement 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).

According to Order No. 22, Respondents Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Consumer Products LLC, Scientific-Atlanta LLC, and Cisco Systems International B.V. (collectively, “Cisco”) sought an order precluding Complainant MOSAID Technologies Inc. (“MOSAID”) from producing certain evidence in the Investigation based on allegations of spoliation of evidence and improper inducement of nonparties.  MOSAID opposed the motion and the ALJ determined that oral argument was appropriate, which was held on February 15, 2012.  Regarding the issue of spoliation, Cisco argued that documents held by a third party in Israel were not available to it because, once Cisco had identified a need for the documents, it would have been too time consuming to obtain them.  Despite this difficulty, ALJ Gildea determined that Cisco had not been prejudiced or placed in an unfair position by MOSAID’s alleged failure to procure the documents because Cisco did not attempt to obtain the documents through the discovery procedures of the Hague Convention.  The ALJ noted that Cisco’s reliance on Order No. 65 in Inv. No. 337-TA-383, finding that the Hague Convention procedures to compel discovery would not be effective on the facts of that case, was misplaced because that determination did not establish a “blanket rule” that the Hague Convention procedures are too lengthy and ineffective as a matter of course.  Cisco’s allegations of improper inducement remain pending in the investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Motion To Compel Deposition In Certain Equipment for Communications Networks (337-TA-778)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
06
On February 23, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 15 (dated December 21, 2011) 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 granted-in-part Respondents Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Consumer Products LLC, Cisco Systems International B.V., and Scientific Atlanta LLC’s (collectively, “Cisco”) motion to preclude Complainant MOSAID Technologies Inc. (“MOSAID”) from relying on documents or testimony provided by MOSAID’s Vice President, Phil Shaer, or in the alternative compel his deposition.  In support of its motion, Cisco argued that Mr. Shaer was the author of correspondence relied on by MOSAID to support its domestic industry allegations and was identified by MOSAID as a knowledgeable witness, but has refused to appear for deposition.  In opposition, MOSAID argued that Mr. Shaer did not have unique first-hand knowledge about any activities that had not already been discovered through interrogatories and depositions of other MOSAID employees.  MOSAID asserted that Mr. Shaer was an “apex witness” and that Cisco had opportunities to pursue discovery through other “less intrusive means.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules on Motion To Compel Discovery In Certain Equipment for Communications Networks (337-TA-778)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
06
On February 23, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 17 (dated January 9, 2012) 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 granted-in-part Complainant MOSAID Technologies Inc.’s (“MOSAID”) motion to compel Respondents Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Consumer Products LLC, Cisco Systems International B.V., and Scientific Atlanta LLC’s (collectively, “Cisco”) to produce documents related to prior litigations involving Cisco and to produce agreements between Cisco and third parties.  Specifically, MOSAID sought to compel (1) prior litigation documents from ChriMar Systems, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 01-cv-71113-AC (D. Mich.) and Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., et al., 6:08-cv-00030-LED (E.D. Tex.) and (2) certain agreements between MOSAID and their manufacturing, distribution and supply partners, including certain third-parties identified in Cisco’s Response to MOSAID’s Complaint.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets 19-Month Target Date In Certain Electronic Devices (337-TA-831)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
07
Further to our February 23, 2012 post, on March 2, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 2 in Certain Electronic Devices For Capturing and Transmitting Images, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-831).

According to the Order, ALJ Gildea set September 30, 2013 as the target date (which is approximately 19 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Gildea further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on May 30, 2013.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Motion to Quash Subpoena in Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software (337-TA-797)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
08
On February 29, 2012 ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 37 in Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-797).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted nonparty Nissha Printing Co. Ltd.’s (“Nissha Japan”) motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum served by Complainant Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) on Nissha USA Inc. (“Nissha USA”).  Nissha Japan sought to quash the subpoenas to the extent they purported to be served on Nissha Japan “c/o Nissha USA Inc.”

Nissha Japan argued that this type of service is impermissible because Apple cannot serve Nissha Japan under the Commission’s rules.  Nissha Japan also argued that its documents are not in the possession, custody or control of Nissha USA.  The Commission Investigative Staff supported the motion. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion To Compel In Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory And NAND Flash Memory Devices (337-TA-803)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
13
On February 27, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 24 (dated February 14, 2012) denying Respondents Elpida Memory, Inc. and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc’s (collectively, “Elpida”) motion to compel production of documents in Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-803).

According to the Order, Elpida argued that Complainants produced only scant documents relating to domestic industry or from custodians identified in interrogatory responses, and no documents relating to the acquisition of the asserted patents, analyses of patent scope and validity, or communication with third parties relating to the investigation or the asserted patents.  Complainants countered that Elpida’s motion is moot because they responded to Elpida that they would produce responsive documents and have in fact produced responsive documents.  Granted leave to file a reply, Elpida asserted that a review of the documents being produced by Complainants reveals that they do not include the requested discovery.

Share

Read More