ALJ Gildea

ALJ Gildea Grants-In-Part Nonparty Motion To Limit Subpoena In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
14
On September 30, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 30 (dated September 19, 2013) granting-in-part nonparty Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc.’s (“Hillcrest”) motion to quash or limit the subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum served on it by Complainant STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“STM”) in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).

According to the Order, Hillcrest questioned in its motion the relevance of the discovery requested by the subpoena, arguing that the subpoena was not narrowly tailored, was burdensome, was duplicative of discovery in the possession of Respondents InvenSense, Inc. (“Invensense”) and Roku, Inc. (“Roku”), and that information sought was otherwise publicly available.  Hillcrest added that the subpoena also sought discovery that should not be provided to certain of STM’s experts.  In opposition, STM argued that it had already narrowed the subpoena scope in discussions with Hillcrest and that Hillcrest is the “critical link” between InvenSense and Roku, possessing discovery related to infringement.  STM also stated that it had attempted to get the necessary discovery from Roku and Invensense, but both Respondents directed STM to Hillcrest.  Accordingly, STM argued that its need outweighed the burden imposed on Hillcrest to obtain the discovery.  With regard to the motion to quash, STM argued that quashing the subpoena would be improper, that protections were available under the Protective Order, and offered that it would limit its two experts’ access to certain of Hillcrest’s confidential business information.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Motion to Enforce Order In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
15
On September 30, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 28 (dated September 18, 2013) in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted Complainant STMicroelectronics, Inc.’s (“STM”) motion to enforce Order No. 7 against Respondent InvenSense, Inc. (“InvenSense”).

By way of background, in Order No. 7, InvenSense was ordered to produce documents responsive to numerous document requests by no later than July 1, 2013.  See our July 3, 2013 post for further details.  In its motion to enforce, STM argued that InvenSense had not complied with Order No. 7 because the deposition of InvenSense’s corporate witness demonstrated that it had been withholding nonparty material responsive to STM’s discovery requests. STM’s motion also requested sanctions if InvenSense should further fail to produce the requested discovery. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Nonparty Hillcrest’s Motion for Reconsideration in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
28
On October 23, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 39 in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).

According to the Order, on September 27, 2013 Nonparty Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc. (“Hillcrest”) filed a motion seeking reconsideration of Order No. 30 regarding Hillcrest’s motion to quash or limit the subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum served on it by Complainant STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“Complainant”). 

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants-In-Part Motion To Compel In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
04
On October 28, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 32 (dated September 20, 2013) granting-in-part Respondents’ motion to compel in Certain Microeletrcomechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).

According to the Order, Respondents sought to compel Complainant STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“STM”) to produce its U.S. tax returns and certain documents relating to foreign investments on the grounds that the requested discovery will allow Respondents to see how STM characterizes its employee activities, and allow Respondents to engage in a “contextual domestic industry analysis.”  STM countered that there is no precedent to support a contextual domestic industry analysis when domestic industry is asserted pursuant to Section 337(a)(3)(C), and that the request for tax returns is cumulative of other discovery already provided.  STM also argued that IRS regulations require certain characterizations for tax reporting purposes that may differ significantly from what the Commission is concerned with for domestic industry expenditures, and that the request will therefore generate confusion.  STM further pointed out that Respondents waited two months after STM’s provided its discovery responses to bring their motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices (337-TA-853)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
05
On October 24, 2013, ALJ James E. Gildea issued the public versions (dated September 6, 2013) of his Initial Determination (“ID”) and Recommended Determination (“RD”) on remedy and bond in Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-853).  Due to its large size, we have separated the ID into part 1, part 2, and part 3.

By way of background, this investigation is based on a July 24, 2012 complaint filed by Technology Properties Limited LLC and Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC, both of Cupertino, California, and Patriot Scientific Corporation of Carlsbad, California (collectively, “Complainants”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless consumer electronics devices and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 (the ‘336 patent).  See our July 26, 2012 and August 24, 2012 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Flash Memory Chips (337-TA-893)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
06
Further to our September 9, 2013 and September 11, 2013 posts, on November 5, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 5 in Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-893).

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 May 27, 2014, any final initial determination will issue no later than September 12, 2014, and the target date for completion of the investigation is January 12, 2015 (which is approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Order To Show Cause In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
11
On November 8, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 44 requiring that Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (“Finnegan”), counsel for nonparty Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc. (“Hillcrest”), show cause why they should not be sanctioned in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).

By way of background, ALJ Gildea had previously issued Order No. 30 granting-in-part Hillcrest’s motion to quash a subpoena served by Complainant STMicroelectronics, Inc., and ordering Hillcrest to produce documents and one or more knowledgeable witnesses for deposition in connection with discovery related to infringement.  See our October 14, 2013 post for more details.  However, instead of complying with Order No. 30, Hillcrest filed a motion for reconsideration which the ALJ denied in Order No. 39.  In doing so, ALJ Gildea made specific findings that the motion appeared to be “frivolous and calculated to create delay,” including putting Hillcrest on notice that the ALJ would consider whether “it would be productive to issue an order to show cause why [Finnegan] should not be sanctioned pursuant to Commission Rule 210.4(c) and (d)(1)(ii).”  ALJ Gildea added that he “has issued warnings, but never issued sanctions pursuant to this rule; yet if there was ever an example of a motion that appeared to warrant a show cause order, it is this motion for reconsideration.”  See our October 28, 2013 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion To Preclude In Certain Wireless Communications Equipment (337-TA-866)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
22
On November 19, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 58 (dated October 22, 2013) in Certain Wireless Communications Equipment and Articles Therein (Inv. No. 337-TA-866).

According to the Order, Complainants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) filed a motion to preclude Respondents Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively, “Ericsson”) from offering certain prior art testimony.  Specifically, Samsung argued that Ericsson failed to timely disclose its intent to offer an Intel witness and, therefore, should be precluded from offering any Intel witness testimony at the evidentiary hearing.  In opposition, Ericsson asserted that they properly disclosed the Intel witness in their Pre-Hearing Statement.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Discovery Motions In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
22
On November 21, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public versions of Order Nos. 43 and 45 (dated November 7, 2013 and November 8, 2013, respectively) in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876)

According to Order No. 43, nonparty GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. Inc. (“Nonparty”) filed a motion to limit and quash the subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum served on it by Complainant STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“Complainant”).  Nonparty argued that most of the discovery sought by Complainant is in the possession of GLOBALFOUNDARIES Singapore (“GFS”), a related entity, and Nonparty lacked the ability to obtain the requested discovery.  Furthermore, Nonparty asserted that it should not have to produce documents that are duplicative of those produced by Respondent InvenSense, Inc. (“InvenSense”).  In opposition, Complainant argued that Nonparty is intimately involved in the dealings between GFS and InvenSense.  Additionally, Complainant asserted that Nonparty has a greater level of control over GFS materials than Nonparty claims.  Specifically, Complainant noted that Nonparty maintains a portal with access to GFS and can obtain data or documents on demand.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motions To Compel In Certain Consumer Electronics With Display And Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
02
On November 25, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public versions of Order Nos. 37 and 38 (both dated November 14, 2013) in Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities (Inv. No. 337-TA-884).

According to Order No. 37, Complainant Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. (“GPH”) filed a motion to compel Respondents Panasonic Corp. and Panasonic Corp. of America (collectively, “Panasonic”) to produce a witness knowledgeable about certain Panasonic source code.  GPH further requested that the deposition occur in the United States.  GPH argued that Panasonic’s deposition witness was unprepared to discuss the pertinent source code.  In opposition, Panasonic asserted that the deposition topic did not require any knowledge of the source code as long as the witness could discuss the “structure, function, operation, and implementation of” the application processor.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) agreed with Panasonic’s argument.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Summary Determination Regarding Unclean Hands And Standing In Certain Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-873)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
09
On December 3, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 34 (dated November 14, 2013) in Certain Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-873).

According to the Order, Respondents LG Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.; LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A. Inc.; HTC Corporation; HTC America, Inc.; Motorola Mobility LLC; Nokia Corporation; Nokia, Inc.; Pantech Co., Ltd.; and Pantech Wireless, Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”) filed a motion for summary determination to terminate the investigation on the grounds that Complainant, Tela Innovations, Inc. (“Tela”), is guilty of unclean hands and lacked standing with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,264,044 and 8,264,049 (collectively, “patents-at-issue”).  Respondents argued that ALJ Gildea should apply the doctrine of unclean hands and terminate the investigation because Tela filed its Complaint knowing that inventorship for the patents-at-issue was incorrect.  Additionally, Respondents asserted that the doctrine of unclean hands should apply because Tela knowingly hid the erroneous inventorship until after it corrected the inventorship issue on the eve of discovery closure.  Regarding standing, Respondents argued that the investigation must be terminated because Tela did not have standing to assert the patents-at-issue when it filed its complaint, and that Tela’s later-acquired patent assignment does not correct Tela’s lack of standing.  The Commission Investigative Staff agreed with Respondents’ argument that the investigation should be terminated with respect to the patents-at-issue because Tela lacked standing when it filed its complaint.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Terminates Investigation In Certain Wireless Communications Base Stations (337-TA-871)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
16
On December 13, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 35 granting Complainant Adaptix, Inc.'s (“Adaptix”) motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on withdrawal of the complaint in Certain Wireless Communications Base Stations and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-871).

According to the Order, while no party objected to the withdrawal of the complaint and termination of the investigation, Respondents Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson Inc. (collectively, “Ericsson”) alleged that Adaptix engaged in sanctionable conduct, that their service of a proposed sanctions motion caused Adaptix to reconsider pursuing its complaint, and that Ericsson has not paid any consideration for Adaptix's withdrawal of the complaint.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Procedural Schedule For Advisory Opinion Proceeding In Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems (337-TA-879)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
03
Further to our December 16, 2013 and December 23, 2013 posts, on December 20, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 13 in Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-879). 

In the Order, ALJ Gildea set the procedural schedule for the advisory opinion proceeding which includes an exchange of disputed claim constructions and expert discovery.  ALJ Gildea also determined that an evidentiary hearing shall be held on March 10-12, 2014.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Discovery-Related Motions In Certain Consumer Electronics With Display And Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
07
On December 20, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public versions of Order Nos. 43 (dated December 4, 2013), 44 (dated December 5, 2013), 45 (dated December 5, 2013) and 46 (dated December 6, 2013) in Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities (Inv. No. 337-TA-884).

According to Order No. 43, Respondent Vizio, Inc. (“Vizio”) moved to compel Complainant Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. (“GPH”) to respond to Interrogatory No. 52 regarding the identification of non-infringing alternatives which Vizio alleged is relevant to its non-infringement defense and to one of the Commission’s public interest factors.  Vizio also argued that GPH waived privilege by asserting that products with “advanced ARM cores” infringe the asserted patents.  In opposition, GPH asserted that it does not have the requested information, and that Vizio’s waiver arguments are “incomprehensible.”  ALJ Gildea denied the motion, finding that (1) Vizio’s interrogatory is not limited to GPH’s contentions with respect to whether non-infringing alternatives exists that can supply demand in the U.S. market, but instead is designed to elicit GPH’s legal contentions as to what products do not infringe the asserted patents; and (2) Vizio failed to articulate that GPH has waived any privilege, and appears to have misunderstood the standards involved.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion for Protective Order In Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-888)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
08
On December 19, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 14 (dated December 5, 2013) denying Complainant Knowles Electronics, LLC’s (“Knowles”) motion for the entry of a protective order in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-888).

By way of background, the Commission instituted this investigation on July 23, 2013 based on a complaint filed by Knowles alleging a violation of Section 337 by Respondents GoerTek, Inc. and GoerTek Electronics, Inc. (collectively, “GoerTek”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain silicon microphone packages and products containing the same that infringe, or that are made by a process that infringes, one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,439,616, 8,018,049, and 8,121,331.  See our June 25, 2013 and July 24, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Motion to Strike New Claim Construction Argument In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
09
On December 20, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 50 (dated December 16, 2013) in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).  The order addressed a motion filed by Complainant STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“STM”) to strike what it alleged was a new claim construction set forth by the Respondents in the investigation with regard to the language “region doped with a dopant” which appears in multiple claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,034,419, one of the patents at issue in the investigation.

Specifically, STM argued that, in violation of the Ground Rules, Respondents first sought to define this language in their rebuttal Markman brief and expert report.  Respondents opposed stating that their expert was merely responding to Complainant’s construction thus they did not propose a new definition of the term.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion To Compel In Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-888)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
31
On January 24, 2014, ALJ E James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 19 (dated January 15, 2014) in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-888).

According to the Order, Complainant Knowles Electronics, LLC (“Knowles”) filed a motion to compel Respondents GoerTek Inc. and GoerTek Electronics, Inc. (collectively, “GoerTek”) to produce electronically stored information (“ESI”) in the custody of GoerTek employee Tony Wang.  Knowles argued that GoerTek failed to identify Mr. Wang as an employee likely to have responsive ESI despite Mr. Wang being “one of two or three individuals with knowledge of the manufacturing process for MEMS microphones at GoerTek.” In opposition, GoerTek asserted that Knowles should have identified Mr. Wang as a document custodian earlier in discovery because GoerTek produced documents identifying him as a person with knowledge.  Furthermore, GoerTek argued that their production has already produced a number of emails and attachments from/to Mr. Wang and, therefore, the burden of producing the remaining responsive material outweighs the benefit to Knowles. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Declines To Issue Sanctions And Denies Cross-Motion To Enforce Subpoena In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
10
On February 6, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 58 and 64 in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).

According to Order No. 58, nonparty Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc. (“Hillcrest”) filed a motion on August 20, 2013 seeking to quash or limit the subpoena duces tecum and ad testifcandum served on it by Complainant STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“STM”).  Although that motion was granted-in-part in Order No. 30, ALJ Gildea found that at least one of Hillcrest’s claims was misleading, that Hillcrest “ha[d] not produced so much as a single document in good faith,” “that only a portion of [Hillcrest’s] arguments have merit, and that even in that instance [Hillcrest] certainly had counsel sophisticated enough to negotiate a reasonable solution without the Administrative Law Judge’s assistance had it chosen to do so.”  Hillcrest was ordered to promptly produce responsive non-privileged documents and material and to produce one or more knowledgeable witnesses.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Terminates Investigation In Certain Wireless Communications Equipment (337-TA-866)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
11
On February 10, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 62 in Certain Wireless Communications Equipment and Articles Therein (Inv. No. 337-TA-866).

According to the Order, ALJ Gildea granted a joint motion filed by Complainants Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC and Respondents Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on a settlement agreement.

Share

Read More