ALJ Gildea

ALJ Gildea Terminates Investigation As To Panasonic In Certain Consumer Electronics With Display And Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
11
On February 10, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 50 in Certain Consumer Electronics With Display And Processing Capabilities (Inv. No. 337-TA-884).

According to the Order, ALJ Gildea granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. and Respondents Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America (collectively, "Panasonic") to terminate the investigation as to Panasonic based on a settlement agreement.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motions In Limine In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
11
On February 11, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public versions of Order No. 62 and No. 63 in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).

According to Order No. 62, Complainant STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“STM”) filed a motion in limine seeking an order striking what it alleged were new invalidity arguments inappropriately set forth in Respondents’ rebuttal expert report.  Specifically, STM argued that Respondents carried the burden of proof on invalidity and did not challenge the validity of claim 11 of the asserted ‘954 patent in their initial interrogatory responses, instead alleging it for the first time in their domestic industry rebuttal report.  Additionally, STM argued that Respondents changed the allegedly invalidating prior art reference in their pre-hearing brief.  Respondents opposed the motion, contending that they properly responded to STM’s expert report regarding domestic industry, that they timely disclosed the prior art at issue in their Notice of Prior Art, and that STM was able to adequately depose their expert with respect to his invalidity theories, resulting in no prejudice.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Claim Construction Order In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
24
On February 5, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 53 (dated January 29, 2014) in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).  Due to its large electronic size, we have split Order No. 53 into part 1, part 2, and part 3

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“STM”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain microelectromechanical systems (“MEMS devices”) and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,450,332 (the ‘332 patent); 7,409,291 (the ‘291 patent); 6,928,872 (the ‘872 patent); 6,370,954 (the ‘954 patent); and 6,034,419 (the ‘419 patent).  The Respondents are InvenSense, Inc.; Roku, Inc.; and Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc.  See our March 12, 2013 and April 10, 2013 posts for more details on STM’s complaint and the Notice of Investigation for this matter, respectively. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Respondents’ Motion to Strike Untimely Infringement Contentions In Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-888)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
28
On February 20, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 24 denying respondents’ motion to strike untimely infringement contentions in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-888). 

According to the Order, respondents GoerTek, Inc. and GoerTek Electronics, Inc. (collectively, “GoerTek”) filed a motion to strike allegedly untimely infringement contentions served by Complainant Knowles Electronics, LLC (“Knowles”).  GoerTek stated that Knowles served two supplements to its contention interrogatory responses after the deadline for initial contention interrogatory responses and that the first supplement was served only nine days before the close of fact discovery and contained substantial new arguments based on discovery previously available to Knowles. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Complainant’s Motion for Summary Determination in Certain Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-873)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
05
On February 25, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 58 denying Complainant’s motion for summary determination that the asserted claim terms are valid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶¶ 1 and 2 in Certain Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-873).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Complainant Tela Innovations, Inc. (“Tela”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain integrated circuit devices and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,264,049; 8,264,044; 8,258,550; 8,258,547; 8,217,428; 8,258,552; and/or 8,030,689.  See our February 11, 2013 and March 14, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and the Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Permits Trial Testimony By Way Of Videoconference In Certain Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-873)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
06
On February 25, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 57 in Certain Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-873).

According to the Order, Non-party Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Inc. (“Verizon”) filed a motion to present the testimony of its witness, Anthony Dennis, by videoconference at the evidentiary hearing.  Verizon argued that Mr. Dennis’s schedule would make it very difficult for him to testify in person.  Verizon asserted that it was willing to test the videoconferencing equipment in advance of Mr. Dennis’s testimony to ensure that it was functioning properly.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Summary Determination Of Indefiniteness In Certain Consumer Electronics With Display And Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
10
On February 27, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 53 in Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities (Inv. No. 337-TA-884).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted the Respondents’ motion for summary determination that the sole claim of Complainant Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc.’s (“GPH”) U.S. Patent No. 5,717,881 (the ‘881 patent) is indefinite and therefore invalid as a matter of law.

According to the Order, Respondents argued that the claim terms “instruction decode means” and “instruction issue means” in the sole claim of the ‘881 patent are means-plus-function terms that lack sufficient corresponding structure in the ‘881 specification.  In particular, Respondents argued that the only structure disclosed in the ‘881 specification consisted of empty boxes in one figure in the specification, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art could only guess at what further structure could correspond to the claimed decode and issue functions.  Respondents also represented that the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) supported a finding that the claim at issue is invalid as indefinite based on, inter alia, OUII”s prior Markman briefing.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion To Strike Portions Of Expert Report In Certain Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-873)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
12
On March 10, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 43 (dated February 10, 2014) in Certain Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-873).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Complainant Tela Innovations, Inc.’s (“Tela”) motion to strike and preclude reliance on portions of Dr. Tsu-Jae King Liu’s expert report on invalidity that were allegedly outside the scope of Respondents’ invalidity contentions.

According to the Order, Tela argued that Dr. Liu’s report included obviousness theories that had not been properly set forth in Respondents’ invalidity contentions.  In particular, Tela argued that Respondents had continued to use an improper “mix-and-match” approach to present obviousness arguments, in violation of a previous order.  Additionally, Tela argued that Dr. Liu’s report included obviousness combinations that had not even been disclosed by the mix-and-match approach in Respondents’ invalidity contentions.  Tela further argued that Dr. Liu’s report improperly relied on new documents that were absent from Respondents’ invalidity contentions.  Moreover, Tela argued that Dr. Liu had contended that certain layouts of Intel products were prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b) despite the fact that Respondents had previously represented that the Intel products would only be asserted as prior art under § 102(g).  In addition, Tela argued that Dr. Liu had presented discussions of motivations to combine specific references, which Tela argued had not been discussed in Respondents’ invalidity contentions.  Lastly, Tela requested that Respondents be precluded from relying on a specific obviousness combination because that combination had not been presented in Dr. Liu’s report.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants-In-Part Complainant’s Motion To Compel In Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-888)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
12
On March 6, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 26 (dated February 4, 2013) 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 designate individuals for corporate depositions on GoerTek’s document retention, document preservation, document destruction, and document collection practices.  Additionally, Knowles’ motion requested an order compelling GoerTek to supplement its response to Knowles’ Interrogatory No. 47 by identifying individuals knowledgeable about GoerTek’s document retention and destruction policies and practices.  Knowles argued that GoerTek’s corporate designee was not prepared to testify on these topics.  Furthermore, Knowles asserted that the information on document retention and destruction policies and practices is important based on deposition testimony allegedly showing that GoerTek destroyed certain documents.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Summary Determination Of Non-Infringement In Certain Consumer Electronics With Display And Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
13
On March 11, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 54 (dated March 4, 2014) in Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities (Inv. No. 337-TA-884).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Respondents Toshiba Corp., Toshiba America, Inc., and Toshiba Information Systems, Inc.’s (collectively, “Toshiba”) motion seeking a summary determination that Complainant Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. (“GPH”) cannot meet its burden to show that the accused Toshiba “TV Products” and “Tablet Products” infringe the asserted patents.

According to the Order, Toshiba argued that GPH lacks certain evidence relating to the underlying graphics processor units (GPUs) and computer processing units (CPUs) used in Toshiba’s accused products.  The exact nature of Toshiba’s arguments is not clear from the redacted public version of the Order.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Claim Construction Order In Certain Consumer Electronics With Display and Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
13
On March 6, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 52 in Certain Consumer Electronics With Display and Processing Capabilities (Inv. No. 337-TA-884). 

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Graphics Properties Holding Inc. (“GPH”) alleging a violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S., sale of importation into the U.S., or sale after importation into the U.S. of certain consumer electronics with display and processing capabilities that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,650,327 (the ‘327 patent), 8,144,158 (the ‘158 patent), and 5,717,881 (the ‘881 patent) by numerous Respondents.  See our May 21, 2013 and June 24, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motion To Compel Deposition In Advisory Opinion Proceeding In Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems (337-TA-879)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
13
On March 10, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 17 (dated February 27, 2014) in Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-879).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted-in-part Complainants ResMed Inc., ResMed Ltd., and ResMed Corp.’s (collectively, “ResMed”) motion to compel Respondents Apex Medical Corp. and Apex Medical USA Corp. (collectively, “Apex”) to present Mr. P. J. Hsueh for completion of his deposition and for Apex to pay the costs and fees associated with the completion of the deposition and the filing of the instant motion.

According to the Order, ResMed asserted that Apex had unilaterally ended the deposition of Mr. Hsueh before it had been completed, leaving ResMed with an unfinished deposition of a crucial witness.  ResMed stated that Mr. Hsueh had provided a declaration included with Apex’s request for an advisory opinion that indicated that Mr. Hsueh was familiar with the facts related to the redesign of Apex’s products.  See our December 16, 2013 post for more details on this advisory opinion proceeding.  Accordingly, ResMed argued that it was improper for Apex to unilaterally terminate the deposition.  ResMed further argued that it was entitled to its costs and fees associated with preparing the instant motion and pursuing a second deposition of Mr. Hsueh.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motion To Preclude Testimony And Strike Portions Of Expert Report In Certain Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-873)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
14
On March 10, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 44 (dated February 10, 2014) in Certain Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-873).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Respondents’ request to strike portions of an expert report of a Dr. Kruglick, which had been served on behalf of Complainant Tela Innovations, Inc. (“Tela”).  However, the ALJ granted-in-part Respondents’ request to preclude Tela from eliciting and relying on certain testimony from Dr. Kruglick.

According to the Order, Respondents asserted that Tela had served an initial expert report from Dr. Kruglick that repeatedly promoted constructions for certain claim terms which had been the subject of Order No. 14 in the investigation.  See our July 9, 2013 post for more details on Order No. 14.  Respondents argued that Dr. Kruglick’s report constituted extrinsic evidence of claim construction that was precluded by Order No. 14.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motion For Clarification And/Or Reconsideration In Certain Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-873)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
17
On March 10, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 56 (dated February 21, 2014) in Certain Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-873).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted-in-part Complainant Tela Innovations, Inc.’s (“Tela”) motion for clarification of Order Nos. 14, 44, and 46 and/or reconsideration of Order No. 14.  See our July 9, 2013 post for more details on Order No. 14 and our March 14, 2014 post for more details on Order No. 44.

According to Order No. 56, Tela argued that Order Nos. 44 and 46 should be clarified because they appeared to modify the scope of Order No. 14.  In particular, Tela argued that Order Nos. 44 and 46 appeared to impose additional evidentiary sanctions related to certain claim terms that had not been originally contemplated in Order No. 14.  Tela further requested that Order Nos. 44 and 46 be reconsidered to the extent that they are deemed to be consistent with Order No. 14.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) (337-TA-876)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
19
On February 28, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 65 in Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-876).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“STM”) alleging violation of Section 337 by certain Respondents, including Black & Decker (U.S.), in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain microelectromechanical systems (“MEMS devices”) and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,450,332; 7,409,291; 6,928,872; 6,370,954; and 6,034,419.  See our March 12, 2013 and April 10, 2013 posts for more details on STM’s complaint and the Notice of Investigation for this matter, respectively. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets 15-Month Target Date In Certain Lithium Silicate Materials (337-TA-911)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
28
On March 27, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 2 in Certain Lithium Silicate Materials and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-911).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a February 19, 2014 complaint filed by Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc., and Ivoclar Vivadent Manufacturing Inc. alleging violation of Section 337 by Dentsply International Inc., Dentsply Prosthetics U.S. LLC, and DeguDent GmbH in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain lithium silicate materials and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,047,021 and 8,444,756.  See our February 20, 2014 and March 24, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and the Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion To Present Closing Arguments In Certain Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-873)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
11
On April 3, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 62 in Certain Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-873). 

In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Complainant Tela Innovations, Inc.’s (“Tela”) motion requesting that the ALJ hear closing arguments in this Investigation.  According to the Order, the Commission Investigative Staff did not oppose Tela’s motion, but the Respondents did oppose noting that Tela failed to identify a sufficient justification for presenting closing arguments. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Motion To Compel In Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems (337-TA-879)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
14
On April 10, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 18 (dated March 6, 2014) granting Complainants’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-879).

By way of background, this advisory opinion proceeding was initiated by Respondents Apex Medical Corp. and Apex Medical USA Corp. (collectively, “Apex”).  Apex sought an advisory opinion in order to confirm that their redesigned sleep-disordered breathing treatment systems are not covered by the consent order which they previously entered into.  See our December 16, 2013 post for more details on the ITC’s decision to institute this advisory opinion proceeding.    

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motion to Compel And/Or Strike In Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-888)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
16
On April 10, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 29 (dated March 20, 2014) granting in part Complainant’s motion to compel and/or strike 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 Electronics, LLC (“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 Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Lithium Silicate Materials (337-TA-911)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
17
On April 15, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 4 in Certain Lithium Silicate Materials and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-911).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a February 19, 2014 complaint filed by Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc., and Ivoclar Vivadent Manufacturing Inc. alleging violation of Section 337 by Dentsply International Inc., Dentsply Prosthetics U.S. LLC, and DeguDent GmbH in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain lithium silicate materials and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,047,021 and 8,444,756.  See our February 20, 2014 and March 24, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and the Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More