ALJ Gildea

ALJ Essex Grants Joint Motions To Terminate Investigation In Certain Consumer Electronics, Including Mobile Phones And Tablets (337-TA-839)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
30
On January 29, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public versions of Order No. 32, Order No. 33 and Order No. 34 in Certain Consumer Electronics, Including Mobile Phones and Tablets(Inv. No. 337-TA-839).

In the Orders, ALJ Gildea granted joint motions filed by Complainant Pragmatus AV, LLC ("Pragmatus") and Respondents Pantech Co., Ltd. and Pantech Wireless, Inc. (collectively, "Pantech"), ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. and ASUS Computer International, Inc. (collectively, "ASUS"), and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications  America, LLC (collectively, "Samsung"), respectively, to terminate the investigation on the basis of settlement/license agreements.  ALJ Gildea agreed with the Commission Investigative Staff that the agreements appear to resolve the respective disputes between Pragmatus and Pantech, ASUS and Samsung, and that there was no indication that termination of any of these Respondents would have an adverse impact on the public interest, in accordance with Commission Rule 210.50(b)(2).

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Nonparty Microsoft's Motion To Limit Subpoenas In Certain Devices With Secure Communication Capabilities (337-TA-858)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
01
On January 31, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 8 (dated January 10, 2013) granting nonparty Microsoft Corporation's ("Microsoft") motion to limit the subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum served by Complainant VirnetX, Inc. ("VirnetX") in Certain Devices with Secure Communication Capabilities, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-858).

According to the Order, Microsoft argued that:  (1) it already provided extensive, costly discovery to VirnetX in Inv. No. 337-TA-818 concerning the same patent and Respondent (dismissed for lack of standing in the expert report phase); (2) VirnetX limited the scope of its discovery to certain products, and agreed that its discovery from Microsoft was complete; (3) it should not have to expend additional time and money providing VirnetX with additional discovery as to previously unasserted (in the 818 Investigation) domestic industry products, particularly since the ALJ barred new contentions; (4) VirnetX's new discovery requests are duplicative and unnecessary in light of its domestic industry allegations and the discovery already provided by Microsoft; and (5) VirnetX's new discovery requests are overly broad and would require production of irrelevant material.  Microsoft also pointed out that it provided updated financial data to VirnetX with respect to the pertinent domestic industry products asserted in the 818 Investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Joint Motion To Terminate HTC Respondents In Certain Consumer Electronics (337-TA-839)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
06
On February 4, 2013, ALJ James E. Gildea issued Order No. 35 granting a joint motion to terminate Respondents HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) from the investigation in Certain Consumer Electronics, Including Mobile Phones and Tablets (Inv. No. 337-TA-839).

According to the Order, ALJ Gildea granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Pragmatus AV, LLC (“Pragmatus”) and HTC to terminate the investigation as to HTC based on a patent license agreement.  As required by Commission Rule 210.50(b)(2), ALJ Gildea determined that the agreement between Pragmatus and HTC did not impose any undue burdens on the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers.  Accordingly, ALJ Gildea granted the joint motion and terminated the investigation in its entirety.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets 15.5-Month Target Date In Certain Wireless Communications Equipment (337-TA-866)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
08
Further to our January 29, 2013 post, on February 6, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 2 in Certain Wireless Communications Equipment and Articles Therein (Inv. No. 337-TA-866).

According to the Order, ALJ Gildea set May 16, 2014 as the target date (which is approximately 15.5 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Gildea further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on January 16, 2014.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Electronic Devices for Capturing and Transmitting Images (337-TA-831)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
13
On February 12, 2013, ALJ James E. Gildea issued Order No. 47 in Certain Electronic Devices for Capturing and Transmitting Images and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-831).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain electronic devices for capturing and transmitting images and components thereof that infringe various patents.  See our February 23, 2012 post for more details on this investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Wireless Communications Equipment (337-TA-866)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
27
Further to our January 29, 2013 and February 8, 2013 posts, on February 25, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 5 in Certain Wireless Communications Equipment and Articles Therein (Inv. No. 337-TA-866).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea set the procedural schedule for the investigation and provided for the early exchange of claim terms and proposed constructions.  ALJ Gildea also determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on September 30, 2013, any final initial determination will issue no later than January 16, 2014, and the target date for completion of the investigation is May 16, 2014 (which is approximately 15.5 months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets 16-Month Target Date In Certain Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-873)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
25
Further to our March 14, 2013 post, on March 25, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 2 in Certain Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-873).

According to the Order, ALJ Gildea set July 15, 2014 as the target date (which is approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Gildea further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on March 14, 2014.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Electronic Bark Control Collars (337-TA-870)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
25
On March 25, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 3 in Certain Electronic Bark Control Collars (Inv. No. 337-TA-870).

According to the Order, ALJ Gildea granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Radio Systems Corporation and Respondent Sunbeam Products, Inc. d/b/a Jarden Consumer Solutions to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on a settlement agreement between the parties.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Complainant’s Motion To Terminate Investigation Based On Withdrawal Of Complaint In Certain Mobile Electronic Devices Incorporating Haptics (337-TA-834)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
29
On March 27, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 35 in Certain Mobile Electronic Devices Incorporating Haptics (Inv. No. 337-TA-834).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted a motion filed by Complainant Immersion Corporation to terminate this investigation on the basis of its withdrawal of the complaint.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Notice Of Initial Determination Finding Violation Of Section 337 By Nanya Technology In Certain Semiconductor Chips With DRAM Circuitry (337-TA-819)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
03
On March 26, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued a notice regarding the Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) in Certain Semiconductor Chips with DRAM Circuitry, and Modules and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-819).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Elpida Memory, Inc and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondents Nanya Technology Corporation and Nanya Technology Corporation U.S.A. (collectively, “Nanya”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain semiconductor chips with DRAM circuitry, and modules and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,150,689 (the ‘689 patent), 6,635,918 (the ‘918 patent), 6,555,861, 7,659,571 (the ‘571 patent), 7,713,828 (the ‘828 patent), 7,495,453 (the ‘453 patent), and 7,906,809 (the ‘809 patent).  See our December 16, 2011 post for more details on the ITC’s notice of investigation for this matter. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-873)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
23
Further to our March 14, 2013 and March 25, 2013 posts, on April 19, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 4 in Certain Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-873).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea set the procedural schedule for the investigation and provided for the early exchange of claim terms and proposed constructions.  ALJ Gildea also determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on December 2, 2013, any final initial determination will issue no later than March 14, 2014, and the target date for completion of the investigation is July 15, 2014 (which is approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets 16-Month Target Date In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
03
Further to our April 10, 2013 post, on April 17, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 2 in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-876).

According to the Order, ALJ Gildea set August 15, 2014 as the target date (which is approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Gildea further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on April 15, 2014.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion To Strike Inequitable Conduct Defense In Certain Wireless Communications Equipment (337-TA-866)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
08
On May 7, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 20 (dated April 29, 2013) denying Complainants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC's (collectively, "Samsung") motion to strike Respondents Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson's (collectively, "Ericsson") inequitable conduct defense in Certain Wireless Communications Equipment and Articles Therein (Inv. No. 337-TA-866).

According to the Order, Samsung argued that Ericsson should be required to use a heightened pleading standard in raising an inequitable conduct defense (relying on district court rules, the Federal Circuit's discussion of those rules, and the opinions of other ALJs), and that Ericsson's inequitable conduct defense as pled is inadequate and should be stricken.  Ericsson countered that (1) the Commission does not require a heightened pleading standard for inequitable conduct, and neither do many ALJs; (2) it pled inequitable conduct based on the information it then had available, and that Samsung has withheld relevant discovery that would allow Ericsson to develop its contentions in more detail; (3) even if held to a heightened pleading standard, its response contains 20 pages of details that satisfy the standard; and (4) it should have the opportunity to supplement its defense after obtaining the discovery requested from Samsung.  The Commission Investigative Staff opposed the motion, maintaining that a heightened pleading standard is appropriate, that Ericsson's inequitable conduct defense is insufficient under that standard, and that Ericsson should be required to supplement its response with additional factual support.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Respondents’ Motion For Summary Determination In Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices (337-TA-853)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
10
On May 7, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 29 (dated April 17, 2013) denying Respondents LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics USA, Inc.’s (collectively, “LG”) motion for summary determination of noninfringement in Certain Wireless Consumer Electronic Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-853).

According to the Order, LG filed a motion for summary determination that its products containing certain hardware and/or software are licensed to the asserted patent through a 2004 agreement with Complainant Technology Properties Limited LLC (“TPL”) and a 2005 agreement with Complainant Patriot Scientific Corporation (“Patriot”).  As a result of these agreements, LG argues that all of its mobile phones containing this hardware and/or software are noninfringing.  The details of the specific hardware and software were redacted from the public version of the Order.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies As Moot Respondents’ Motion To Compel In Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices (337-TA-853)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
14
On May 9, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 38 (dated May 1, 2013) in Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-853).

By way of background, on April 23, 2013, ALJ Gildea had issued Order No. 27 which granted-in-part Respondents Garmin Ltd., Garmin International, Inc., Garmin U.S.A., Inc., ZTE Corporation, and ZTE (USA) Inc.’s (collectively, “Respondents”) motion to compel discovery.  Before ruling on Respondents’ request for unredacted attorney invoices, ALJ Gildea requested further briefing on the issue of whether Complainants Technology Properties Limited LLC, Phoenix Digital Solutions, LLC (“PDS”), and Patriot Scientific Corporation (collectively, “Complainants”) had waived the right to rely on legal fees and/or litigation expenses to prove domestic industry.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants-In-Part Respondents’ Motion To Strike In Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices (337-TA-853)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
14
On May 9, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 35 (dated April 30, 2013) in Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-853).

According to the Order, Respondents ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. (collectively, “ZTE”) moved to strike several of Complainants Technology Properties Limited, LLC, Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC, and Patriot Scientific Corporation’s (collectively, “Complainants”) discovery responses and related expert reports.  Specifically, ZTE argued that Complainants submitted untimely supplemental infringement contention responses which included previously unasserted infringement allegations and new accused products.  In opposition, Complainants maintained that they properly sought to provide representative charts of accused products and to supplement those charts when required.  Further, Complainants asserted that they were not required to disclose every detail of an expert’s analysis in advance.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motions To Strike Testimony In Certain Semiconductor Chips With DRAM Circuitry (337-TA-819)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
20
On April 23, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 18 and Order No. 19 (both dated March 26, 2013) regarding motions to strike certain portions of expert testimony in Certain Semiconductor Chips with DRAM Circuitry, and Modules and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-819).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a complaint filed by Elpida Memory, Inc and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. (collectively, “Elpida”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondents Nanya Technology Corporation and Nanya Technology Corporation U.S.A. (collectively, “Nanya”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain semiconductor chips with DRAM circuitry, and modules and products containing the same.  See our December 16, 2011 post for more details.  On March 26, 2013 ALJ Gildea issued a notice of Initial Determination that a violation of Section 337 had occurred.  See our April 3, 2013 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
29
Further to our April 10, 2013 and May 3, 2013 posts, on May 17, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 4 in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea set the procedural schedule for the investigation and provided for the early exchange of claim terms and proposed constructions.  ALJ Gildea also determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on January 21, 2014, any final initial determination will issue no later than April 15, 2014, and the target date for completion of the investigation is August 15, 2014 (which is approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion To Stay In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
05
On May 31, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 6 (dated May 21, 2013) in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Respondent InvenSense, Inc.’s (“InvenSense”) motion to stay the investigation pending reexamination of three of the five asserted patents and inter partes review (IPR) of the remaining two asserted patents.

According to the Order, requests for ex parte reexamination of three asserted patents were granted on November 5, 2012, November 9, 2012, and March 29, 2013, respectively.  After these requests were granted, InvenSense filed IPR petitions for the remaining two asserted patents on April 8, 2013, and April 24, 2013, respectively.  The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) has not yet reached a decision on the IPR petitions.

Share

Read More