ALJ Gildea

ALJ Gildea Grants Motion To Strike Second Notice Of Prior Art In Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music And Data Processing Devices, And Tablet Computers (337-TA-794)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
30
On April 16, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 56 granting Complainants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC’s (collectively, “Samsung”) motion to strike Respondent Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) notice of prior art in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music And Data Processing Devices, And Tablet Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-794).

By way of background, on March 12, 2012, ALJ Gildea issued Order No. 40 granting-in-part Samsung’s motion to strike Apple’s notice of prior art as failing to (i) comply with Ground Rule 4, and (ii) provide Samsung and the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) notice as to the prior art on which Apple intended to rely in the investigation.  ALJ Gildea ultimately permitted  Apple to re-file its notice subject to the following:  (1) only references that appeared in the original prior art notice may be included; (2) only references that were specifically disclosed in Apple’s discovery responses and its response to the complaint may be included; (3) only references or witness names that Apple intends to rely on at the hearing may be included; and (4) all entries must conform to Ground Rule 4.  See March 21, 2012 post for more details. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Mobile Electronic Devices Incorporating Haptics (337-TA-834)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
08
On May 7, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 4 in Certain Mobile Electronic Devices Incorporating Haptics (Inv. No. 337-TA-834).

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 March 28, 2013, any final initial determination will issue no later than June 28, 2013, and the target date for completion of the investigation is October 28, 2013 (which is approximately 18 months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Motions To Terminate Investigation In Certain Blu-Ray Disc Players (337-TA-824)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
11
On May 10, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order Nos. 15 and 16 in Certain Blu-Ray Disc Players, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-824).

In Order No. 15, ALJ Gildea granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Walker Digital, LLC (“Walker Digital”) and Respondent Philips Electronics North America Corp. (“Philips”) 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 Walker Digital and Philips.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motions To Amend Expert Report And Strike In Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music And Data Processing Devices, And Tablet Computers (337-TA-794)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
14
On May 10, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 64 denying Complainants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC’s (collectively, “Samsung”) motion to amend its expert report and Respondent Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) motion to strike the same in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music And Data Processing Devices, And Tablet Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-794).

According to the Order, on April 17, 2012, Samsung filed a motion for leave to serve a second supplemental expert report regarding infringement and domestic industry relating to U.S. Patent No. 7,486,644.  The next day, Apple filed a motion to strike the report in its entirety.  Both Samsung and Apple opposed the respective motions.

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
18
On May 14, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 42 and Order No. 44 in Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-803).  In Order No. 42, ALJ Gildea granted Respondents Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc. and SK Hynix Inc. f/k/a Hynix Semiconductor Inc.’s (collectively, “Hynix”) motion to compel Complainants to search for and produce relevant discovery from the custodial file of Joseph Chernesky, Complainants’ employee.  In Order No. 44, ALJ Gildea denied without prejudice Respondents Hynix, Acer Inc., Acer America Corp., ADATA Technology Co., Ltd., ADATA Technology (U.S.A.) Co., Ltd., ASUSTek Computer Inc., Asus Computer International, Inc., Best Buy Co., Inc., Dell, Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, Kingston Technology Co., Inc., Logitech International S.A., and Logitech, Inc.’s (collectively, “Respondents”) motion to compel non-party Enhanced Memory Systems (“Nonparty”) to re-produce a document that Nonparty had produced but later clawed back as privileged.

According to Order No. 42, Hynix argued that Mr. Chernesky, Complainants’ Vice President of Global Licensing Sales, was someone with relevant and responsive information in the investigation.  Accordingly, Hynix argued that is was improper for Complainants to refuse to search for and produce relevant discovery from Mr. Chernesky’s custodial file.  Hynix explained that it had not learned that Complainants had never searched for Mr. Chernesky’s documents until his deposition was being scheduled.  Hynix further explained that it was Complainants’ position that, pursuant to a private stipulation, Complainants did not need to produce Mr. Chernesky’s documents.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion For Summary Determination In Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music And Data Processing Devices, And Tablet Computers (337-TA-794)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
21
On May 11, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 47 (dated March 30, 2012) in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-794).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Respondent Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) motion for summary determination against Complainants Samsung Electronics Co. Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”), requesting termination of the investigation as to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,486,644 (the ‘644 patent) and 7,706,348 (the ‘348 patent).

According to the Order, Apple argued that Samsung’s rights in the ‘644 and ‘348 patents had been exhausted by virtue of Samsung’s licensing agreements with third parties that supplied components to Apple, and further that Samsung had granted to Apple a constructive license to practice these patents through Samsung’s dealings with the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI”).  In particular, Apple argued that Samsung had made commitments to the members of the ETSI, including Apple, that Samsung would license the ‘644 and ‘348 patents on “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory” (“FRAND”) terms.  Further, Apple argued that under governing French law, Samsung had given Apple a constructive license to the ‘644 and ‘348 patents based on its commitment to license the patents on FRAND terms, even without an actual agreement on specific royalty terms.  According to Apple, at a minimum, Samsung had either contractually agreed to forego, or else waived, any right to seek an exclusionary remedy of the type available pursuant to Section 337.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants-In-Part Apple’s Motion To Amend Notice Of Prior Art In Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music And Data Processing Devices, And Tablet Computers (337-TA-794)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
22
On May 15, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 68 granting-in-part Respondent Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) motion to amend its Notice of Prior Art and ordering Apple to revise its Rule 7.1 claim chart in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music And Data Processing Devices, And Tablet Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-794).

By way of background, on October 14, 2011, Complainants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) filed a motion to strike Apple’s 380-page Notice of Prior Art “on the basis that it failed to comply with Ground Rule 4 and failed to provide Complainants and the Commission Investigative Staff [‘OUII’] with effective notice as to the prior art upon which Respondent intends to rely in this investigation.”  Samsung’s motion was granted and Apple filed an amended Notice of Prior Art on March 19, 2012 (“Amended Notice”).  However, because Apple’s Amended Notice did not meet the requirements set forth by the ALJ in Order No. 40, it was similarly struck from the record.  See our April 30, 2012 post for more details.  On April 18, 2012, Apple sought leave to file a corrected Notice of Prior Art (“Corrected Notice”), arguing that the Corrected Notice complies with the requirements of Order No. 40 and that Apple’s due process rights would be violated if the ALJ were to bar Apple from presenting its invalidity defenses.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Apple’s Motion To Re-Take Depositions In Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music And Data Processing Devices, And Tablet Computers (337-TA-794)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
23
On May 15, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 52 (dated April 12, 2012) in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music And Data Processing Devices, And Tablet Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-794).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Respondent Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) motion seeking permission to re-take the depositions of five witnesses of Complainants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”).

In support of its motion, Apple argued that it was unable to conduct meaningful depositions of these witnesses due to Samsung’s improper deposition conduct.  Specifically, Apple alleged that during the subject depositions the witnesses conferred with counsel during breaks, changed their testimony, and provided pre-arranged responses based on cues from counsel.  Apple further alleged that counsel for Samsung wasted deposition time with numerous objections that had to be translated.  According to the Order, Samsung filed an opposition to Apple’s motion denying the above allegations. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Joint Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Harman International Industries In Certain Blu-Ray Disc Players (337-TA-824)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
25
On May 23, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 18 in Certain Blu-Ray Disc Players, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-824).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Walker Digital, LLC (“Walker Digital”) and Respondent Harman International Industries, Inc. (“Harman”) 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 Walker Digital and Harman.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Claim Construction Order In Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music And Data Processing Devices, And Tablet Computers (337-TA-794)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
30
On May 16, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 63 (dated May 10, 2012) construing disputed terms of the asserted patent claims at issue in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-794).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondent Apple Inc. (“Apple”) in the importation and sale of certain electronic devices, including wireless communication devices, portable music and data processing devices, and tablet computers that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,706,348 (“the ‘348 patent”), 7,486,644 (“the ‘644 patent”), 6,771,980 (“the ‘980 patent”), 6,879,843 (“the ‘843 patent”) and 7,450,114 (“the ‘114 patent”).  See our August 1, 2011 post for more details on this investigation.  A Markman hearing was held on January 10 and 11, 2012.

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
08
On June 5, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 40 (dated April 18, 2012) denying Respondents’ motion to disqualify a law firm as counsel for Complainants in Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-803).

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 (collectively, “IV”), against several manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of DRAM and NAND Flash memory devices 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 Issues Orders Denying Motion to Amend and Granting In Part Motions to Compel In Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory And NAND Flash Memory Devices (337-TA-803)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
18
On June 5, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public versions of Order No. 36 (dated April 11, 2012), Order No. 45 (dated May 17, 2012), and Order No. 46 (dated May 21, 2012) in Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-803). 

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 (collectively, “IV”), against several manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of DRAM and NAND Flash memory devices 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 Target Date In Certain Radio Frequency Integrated Circuits (337-TA-848)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
18
Further to our June 7, 2012 post, on June 14, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 2 in Certain Radio Frequency Integrated Circuits and Devices Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-848).

According to the Order, ALJ Gildea set December 16, 2013 as the target date (which is approximately 18 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Gildea further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on August 16, 2013.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Strikes Portions Of Expert Report In Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music And Data Processing Devices, And Tablet Computers (337-TA-794)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
19
On June 4, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 65 (dated May 11, 2012) granting in part Complainant’s motion to strike various paragraphs from Respondent’s rebuttal expert report in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-794).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondent Apple Inc. (“Apple”) in the importation and sale of certain electronic devices, including wireless communication devices, portable music and data processing devices, and tablet computers that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,706,348 (“the ‘348 patent”); 7,486,644; 6,771,980; 6,879,843; and 7,450,114.  See our August 1, 2011 post for more details on this investigation. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion To Amend Notice Of Prior Art In Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory And NAND Flash Memory Devices (337-TA-803)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
22
On June 20, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 51 in Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-803). 

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 (collectively, “IV”), against several manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of DRAM and NAND Flash memory devices 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 Denies Request For Telephonic Settlement Conference In Certain Consumer Electronics (337-TA-839)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
22
On June 20, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 7 in Certain Consumer Electronics, Including Mobile Phones and Tablets (Inv. No. 337-TA-839).

According to the Order, ALJ Gildea denied a joint, unopposed motion filed by Complainant Pragmatus AV, LLC (“Pragmatus”) and Respondents HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) to hold their first settlement conference by video or teleconferencing.  In support of the motion, HTC argued that the travel burden and expense to HTC’s employees in order for them to travel to Washington, D.C. for this settlement conference was “significant.”  ALJ Gildea determined that “being located in different parts of the United States or different countries is not enough to meet the requisite good cause because this is the situation in most, if not all, investigations.”  ALJ Gildea further noted that he understands that “this imposes an expense on all the parties, but the potential cost savings of an early settlement justifies it.”  Lastly, ALJ Gildea provided the following suggestion to the private parties:
The Administrative Law Judge expects that both Complainant and HTC will use their best efforts to determine a reasonable time, date, and location for their first settlement conference.  This will mean compromise on the part of both sides, as it is not reasonable for the parties to propose only one location closest to them.  For example, one possible solution would be for the parties to meet at a location convenient to HTC (Bellevue) for one conference, convenient to Complainant (DC) for another, and meet halfway for the third.  Another possible solution would be to meet halfway each time.   


Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion To Strike Markman Testimony Of Expert In Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory And NAND Flash Memory Devices (337-TA-803)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
26
On June 22, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 53 in Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-803). 

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 (collectively, “IV”), against several manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of DRAM and NAND Flash memory devices 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 Rules On Motion To Strike Notice Of Prior Art And Motion For Leave To File Amended Notice Of Prior Art In Certain Electronic Devices With Graphics Data Processing Systems (337-TA-813)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
29
On June 27, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 18 (dated May 23, 2012) in Certain Electronic Devices with Graphics Data Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-813).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted Complainants S3 Graphics Co., Ltd. and S3 Graphics, Inc.’s (collectively, “S3G”) motion to strike Respondent Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) Notice of Prior Art and granted-in-part Apple’s motion for leave to file an Amended Notice of Prior Art.

According to the Order, S3G stated that on February 13, 2012, Apple filed a Notice of Prior Art that contained a list of over 1,800 references.  After S3G objected to this Notice, Apple served a First Amended Notice of Prior Art that still listed over 1,000 references.  S3G argued that these Notices did not perform the function of notifying S3G or the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) of Apple’s prior art invalidity positions because they hid the relevant references that Apple reasonably believed it would raise at the evidentiary hearing.  S3G therefore requested that ALJ Gildea strike Apple’s Notice of Prior Art and compel Apple to file an amended notice identifying, for each asserted patent, no more than 30 patents, publications, or products that Apple reasonably intended to rely upon at the evidentiary hearing.  S3G also requested that Apple’s amended notice not identify any references or individuals that had not been listed in Apple’s First Amended Notice of Prior Art.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion to Preclude In Certain Devices for Mobile Data Communication (337-TA-809)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
03
On June 27, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 27 (dated May 16, 2012) denying Respondents’ motion to preclude Complainant Openwave Systems, Inc. (“Openwave”) from changing its position on the dates of conception and reduction to practice for the asserted patents in Certain Devices for Mobile Data Communication (Inv. No. 337-TA-809).

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by Openwave alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain allegedly infringing devices for mobile data communication.  See our September 1, 2011 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion To Strike Infringement Contentions In Certain Devices For Mobile Data Communication (337-TA-809)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
05
On June 27, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 28 (dated May 21, 2012) in Certain Devices for Mobile Data Communication(Inv. No. 337-TA-809).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Respondent Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) motion to strike Complainant Openwave Systems Inc.’s (“Openwave”) second supplemental infringement contentions.

According to the Order, Apple sought to preclude Openwave from asserting that the Apple iTunes Store and App Store for iOS infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,233,608 (the ‘608 patent) and  6,625,447 (the ‘447 patent).  According to Apple, Openwave had not accused the iTunes Store or App Store of infringing those two patents until after Apple had served its invalidity and non-infringement contentions and its list of claim terms for construction.  Apple argued that Openwave had no excuse for its delay in accusing the iTunes Store and App Store of infringing the ‘608 and ‘448 patents.  In support, Apple asserted that Openwave had identified the iTunes Store and App Store as accused products in the Complaint with respect to other asserted patents, that the ‘447 patent shares a common specification with those other patents, and that the ‘608 patent shares a common inventor with the other patents and has claim limitations similar to one of the other patents.  Further, Apple argued that Openwave could not point to any later-acquired information pursuant to Commission Rule 210.27(c) that would justify late supplementation.  Lastly, Apple argued that Openwave’s late supplementation was prejudicial.

Share

Read More