ALJ Gildea

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motion To Compel In Certain Ceramic Capacitors (337-TA-692)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
03
On April 30, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 16 (dated April 19, 2010) in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-692) granting in part Respondents motion to compel Complainants to respond to interrogatory nos. 5 and 54 and request for production nos. 1, 13, 27, 53, 79, 105, 132-157 and 159-161.

According to the Order, Respondents Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) asserted that the requested discovery relates to the testing of its products by Complainants Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. (collectively, “Murata”) before the institution of this investigation.  Samsung argued that the information is discoverable, despite Murata’s claim that it is protected work product, because Murata waived its privilege by relying on the information in its expert’s declaration to support its Complaint.  Samsung further argued that the waiver extends to all other pre-suit testing, results and analysis of the Samsung capacitor products completed by Murata or its expert.  Murata argued that evidence submitted to the ITC before the institution of an investigation is treated differently than evidence that a complainant will rely on to prove a violation of Section 337, and that it does not intend to rely on or otherwise support its case with its expert’s pre-Complaint analysis, which Murata “merely pointed to . . . to identify products accused of infringement and the basis therefore in the Complaint.”  The Commission Investigative Staff supported Samsung’s motion to the extent it sought discovery limited to the expert declaration, but noted that Samsung’s motion sought discovery regarding aspects of Murata’s pre-filing investigation that were unrelated to the declaration.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion To Compel Deposition In Certain Ceramic Capacitors (337-TA-692)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
04
On April 30, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 18 (dated April 20, 2010) in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-692).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Respondents Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Samsung”) motion to compel Complainants Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. (collectively, “Murata”) to provide Takashi Hiramatsu, an inventor of U.S. Patent No. 6,243,254 (the ‘254 patent), for additional deposition testimony.

In support of the motion, Samsung argued that although Mr. Hiramatsu was previously deposed in Japan, Samsung could not complete the deposition because of Mr. Hiramatsu’s alleged evasiveness and lack of preparedness to testify regarding his invention.  Specifically, Samsung argued that Mr. Hiramatsu did not review any documents in preparation for the deposition and used his lack of familiarity with the documents related to the ‘254 patent as an excuse to introduce delay and avoid providing substantive testimony.  Consequently, Samsung asked that Mr. Hiramatsu be produced for additional questioning.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motion To Strike Expert Testimony In Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits (337-TA-666)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
04
On April 30, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 48 (dated April 19, 2010) in Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-666).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted-in-part Respondents Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., ASUSTeK Computer Inc., and ASUS Computer International’s (collectively, “Respondents”) motion to strike certain hearing testimony of Complainants O2 Micro International Ltd. and O2 Micro Inc.’s (collectively, “O2 Micro”) experts, Richard A. Flasck and Dr. Melvin Ray Mercer.

According to the Order, Respondents argued that the testimony at issue should be stricken because it was outside the scope of Mr. Flasck’s and Dr. Mercer’s respective expert reports and deposition testimony.  In particular, Respondents were seeking to have stricken Mr. Flasck’s testimony that Respondents’ accused products infringe O2 Micro’s U.S. Patent No. 7,417,382 (the ‘382 patent) even though “squegging” causes the output signal from the capacitor divider of those products to periodically fall below the alleged “threshold.”  Also, Respondents were seeking to have stricken Mr. Flasck’s opinions regarding the operation of their MP1015 and MP1009 products, claim construction, and “classic timers” in connection with the accused products.  With regard to Dr. Mercer, Respondents were seeking to have stricken the expert’s opinions concerning the conception and reduction to practice of the invention of the ‘382 patent, the simulation of the “Kawabata circuit,” and a waveform diagram he drew during his deposition.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motion To Strike Portions Of Hearing Testimony In Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp ("CCFL") Inverter Circuits (337-TA-666)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
12
On May 7, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 49 (dated April 19, 2010) in Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-666).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted-in-part Complainants O2 Micro International Ltd. and O2 Micro Inc.’s (collectively, “O2 Micro”) motion to strike certain hearing testimony of the following witnesses of Respondent Microsemi Corporation (“Microsemi”) as outside the scope of expert reports and depositions and/or outside the scope of contentions raised in Microsemi’s pre-hearing brief: Dr. Patrick Chapman, Mr. Kevin Choi, Mr. George Henry, Dr. Xiaoping Jin, and Mr. Roger Holliday.

Although portions of the Order were heavily redacted, O2 Micro argued that Dr. Chapman’s testimony with regard to the accused LX 1691 products, including an allegedly new non-infringement contention, was outside the scope of his expert reports and deposition testimony.  O2 Micro also sought to strike similar testimony from a fact witness, Mr. Kevin Choi, regarding the overvoltage protection in the accused LX 1691 products, as outside the scope of Microsemi’s pre-hearing brief.  O2 Micro additionally sought to strike Dr. Chapman’s testimony regarding a family of 2240 devices, tests O2 Micro performed on accused products, allegedly new non-infringement theories based on the AC overvoltage signal of the accused LX 1692 products and the overvoltage protection circuitry of the LX 1693 products.  O2 Micro further sought to strike the testimony from George Henry, the named inventor of a prior art ‘129 Henry patent, on the grounds that none of Microsemi’s expert witnesses offered any invalidity opinion based on the Henry patent.  Finally, O2 Micro argued that the testimony of Dr. Jin and Mr. Holliday regarding the "Jin balancer" should be stricken because it was raised in Microsemi's pre-hearing briefs solely with respect to products no longer accused in this Investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes (337-TA-712)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
24
On May 21, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 5:  Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-712).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea set the procedural schedule for the investigation and included provisions for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Public Version of Initial Determination In Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits (337-TA-666)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
24
Further to our April 22, 2010 post, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of the Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) in Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-666).

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are O2 Micro International Ltd. and O2 Micro Inc. (collectively, “O2 Micro”).  The Respondents are Monolithic Power Systems Inc. (“MPS”), ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International America (“collectively, “ASUS”), and Microsemi Corporation (“Microsemi”) (collectively, the “Respondents”).

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Target Date In Certain Electronic Paper Towel Dispensing Devices (337-TA-718)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
26
On May 24, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 2: Notice of Ground Rules and Setting Target Date and Date for Submission of Proposed Procedural Schedule in Certain Electronic Paper Towel Dispensing Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-718).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea set September 21, 2011 as the target date for completion of the investigation (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  Also, any final initial determination is due no later than May 20, 2011.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Remand Initial Determination In Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors (337-TA-650)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
28
On May 27, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued a noticeregarding a Remand Initial Determination (“RID”) in Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-650).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC, Inc. (“PPC”) and the Respondents are Fu Ching Technical Industry Co. Ltd., Gem Electronics, Inc. (collectively, the “Active Respondents”), Hanjiang Fei Yu Electronics Equipment Factory, Zhongguang Electronics, Yangzhou Zhongguang Electronics Co., Ltd., and Yangzhou Zhongguang Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. (collectively, the “Defaulting Respondents”).  The investigation was instituted on May 30, 2008.  On October 13, 2009, ALJ Gildea issued his Initial Determination (“ID”) finding, inter alia, that the Defaulting Respondents were in violation of Section 337 by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,470,257, 6,558,194, D519,076, and D440,539 (the ‘539 patent).  See our November 10, 2009 postfor more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Joint Motion To Amend Protective Order In Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes (337-TA-712)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
02
On June 2, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 6 in Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-712).

According to the Order, ALJ Gildea denied a joint motion filed by Complainants Verizon Communications Inc. and Verizon Services Corp and Respondent Cablevision Systems Corp. which sought to amend the Protective Order in order to add enhanced confidentiality provisions to protect the parties’ source code.  Specifically, ALJ Gildea determined that the parties failed to explain why the existing Protective Order “is in some way inadequate for their needs.”  ALJ Gildea also declined to “rubber stamp” the parties’ joint motion in light of “similar protections [that] have been offered in other investigations.”  In this regard, ALJ Gildea determined that the “parties have not demonstrated that an amendment to the Protective Order to protect confidential source code is necessary in this Investigation.” (Emphasis in original).

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules on Motion For Summary Determination of Invalidity In Certain Ceramic Capacitors (337-TA-692)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
03
On June 2, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 25 (dated May 13, 2010) in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-692).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Respondents Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Samsung”) motion for summary determination that claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,266,229 (the ‘229 patent) asserted by Complainants Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. (collectively, "Murata") are invalid as anticipated and obvious.

In their motion, filed on March 19, Samsung argued that the asserted claims of the ‘229 patent are directed to a multilayer capacitor design, which includes an allegedly novel lead structure featuring a length to width ratio ("L/W ratio") of about 3 or less.  Relying upon representations of the prior art within the ‘229 patent, as well as in other references, including U.S. Patent No. 5,880,925 (the “DuPre patent”), Samsung alleged that figures within the ‘229 patent and other references depicted a lead structure with an L/W ratio less than 3.  Samsung also relied upon a pending reexamination of the ‘229 patent, wherein the USPTO recently issued an Office Action rejecting all asserted claims as invalid over the prior art.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motion To Compel In Certain Ceramic Capacitors (337-TA-692)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
08
On June 7, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 27 (dated May 20, 2010) in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-692).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Respondents Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Samsung”) motion to compel Complainants Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. (collectively, "Murata") to provide substantive responses to Samsung’s Interrogatory No. 120.

In its motion, Samsung asserted that Murata refused to provide information regarding its prior art products that would allegedly invalidate claim 3 of the patent-in-suit.  In particular, Samsung sought the “identity of capacitors designed and manufactured by Murata prior to 1998 that have 150 or more electrodes.”  Samsung asserted that such information was relevant to the issues of obviousness and inequitable conduct.  In support of its motion, Samsung argued that not only had Murata mass produced such products but that two Murata products, identified by Samsung as having certain characteristic claimed in claim 3 of the patent-in-suit, demonstrated that “the increase to 200 or more electrodes was an obvious extension of the technology.”  Samsung also argued that providing such information was not overly broad or unduly burdensome in view of its other interrogatories.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants LG Motion For Summary Determination That It Satisfied The Economic Prong Of The Domestic Industry Requirement In Certain Video Displays (337-TA-687)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
09
On June 7, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 20 (dated May 20, 2010) in Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-687) granting a motion for summary determination filed by Complainant LG Electronics, Inc. (“LG”).

In support of its motion that it satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, LG argued that it made significant investments in post-sale service and engineering for certain LG LCD and plasma televisions covered by the four patents-in-suit.  Respondents Vizio, Inc., AmTran Technology Co., Ltd., and AmTran Logistics, Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”) opposed the motion arguing that LG’s activities supporting its economic domestic industry argument were not substantial and that genuine issues of material fact prevented a grant of summary determination on this issue.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) filed a response in support of LG’s motion arguing that “there is no genuine issue of material fact that LGE through certain expenditures of its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary LG Electronics, Inc. Alabama (‘LGE-AL’), has demonstrated that it has made a substantial investment in the exploitation of the four patents in suit, thus satisfying the requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(C).”

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motion For Summary Determination Of Invalidity In Certain Ceramic Capacitors (337-TA-692)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
09
On June 7, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 28 (dated May 21, 2010) in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-692).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Respondents Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Samsung”) motion for summary determination that all of the asserted claims of Complainants Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Murata Electronics North America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Murata”) U.S. Patent No. 6,377,439 (the ‘439 patent) are invalid as anticipated and obvious over the prior art.

According to the Order, Samsung argued that all of the asserted claims of the ‘439 patent are invalid as anticipated by an article by KEMET Electronics Corp. (the “KEMET reference”).  Samsung further argued that certain asserted claims are anticipated by Japanese Patent App. No. H9-129493 to Masuda (the “Masuda application”), and that an additional asserted claim is invalid as obvious over the Masuda application in view of admitted prior art therein.  Finally, Samsung argued that all of the asserted claims are invalid as obvious over Japanese Patent App. Pub. No. H10-22161 to Noji (the “Noji application”) in view of Japanese Unexamined Patent App. Pub. No. S61-183913 to Kukutsu (the “Kukutsu application”).

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion For Summary Determination Of Invalidity In Certain Ceramic Capacitors (337-TA-692)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
10
On June 7, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 26 (dated May 14, 2010) in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-692).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Respondents Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Samsung”) motion for summary determination that claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,014,309 (the ‘309 patent) is invalid as anticipated and obvious over the prior art.

According to the Order, Samsung argued that claim 3 of the ‘309 patent is anticipated by a Japanese patent application (the “Nakano reference”).  Samsung further argued that claim 3 is rendered obvious in view of Nakano, U.S. Patent No. 6,160,472 (the “Arashi reference”), and a paper published in Europe in 1996.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) supported Samsung’s motion, and submitted a response further asserting that claim 3 is also anticipated by the Arashi reference.  Complainants Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Murata Electronics North America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Murata”) filed a motion requesting leave to respond to this new argument raised in OUII’s response to Samsung’s motion, which the ALJ granted in the Order.  Samsung opposed Murata’s motion for leave on the grounds that Murata failed to comply with Ground Rule 2.2.  OUII did not respond to Murata’s motion for leave.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Markman Procedure And Orders Technology Stipulation In Certain Wireless Communications System Server Software, Wireless Handheld Devices And Battery Packs (337-TA-706)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
10
On June 9, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 8 and Order No. 9 in Certain Wireless Communications System Server Software, Wireless Handheld Devices and Battery Packs (Inv. No. 337-TA-706).  In Order No. 8, ALJ Gildea set out the rules governing the Markman hearing that is currently scheduled for June 24, 2010.  In Order No. 9, ALJ Gildea ordered that the private parties meet and confer and, after consultation with the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”), submit a joint stipulation regarding the technology at issue in the investigation.

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Motorola, Inc. (“Motorola”) and the Respondents are Research in Motion, Ltd. and Research in Motion Corp.  The investigation was instituted on February 19, 2010 based on Motorola’s complaint of January 22, 2010.  See our February 22, 2010 post for more details.  ALJ Gildea’s procedural schedule calls for a Markman hearing on June 24, 2010 and gives August 6, 2010 as the estimated date for a Markman ruling.  See our April 7, 2010 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants-In-Part Respondents’ Motion For Leave to File Amended Answers And Grants Motion To Compel In Certain Video Displays (337-TA-687)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
16
On June 15, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 24 (dated May 28, 2010) in Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-687) granting-in-part a motion to amend the Answers to the Second Amended Complaint and Notice of Investigation, and granting a motion to compel the production of a witness to testify filed by Respondents Vizio, Inc. (“Vizio”) and AmTran Technology Co., Ltd. and AmTran Logistics, Inc. (“AmTran”) (collectively, “Respondents”).

According to the Order, both Respondents moved to amend their Answers to assert the defense of express or implied license relating to a late-produced license agreement between Complainant LG Electronics, Inc. (“LG”) and Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. (the “Gemstar Agreement”).  Vizio also moved to amend its Answer to assert a breach of the contractual duty of good faith defense because it was not aware of the standard that forms the basis for this defense until it was asserted by AmTran.  LG responded that the new affirmative defenses are specious, that it would be prejudiced by their addition, that their addition would delay and complicate the hearing, and that the Gemstar Agreement was publicly known and that Vizio had knowledge of it based on its own license negotiations with Gemstar.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) supported the motion with respect to Respondents’ proposed license defense, but opposed the motion as it relates to Vizio’s proposed breach of contractual duty of good faith defense.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Public Version Of Remand Initial Determination In Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors (337-TA-650)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
16
Further to our May 28 post, on June 15, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of the Remand Initial Determination (“RID”) (dated May 27, 2010) in Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-650).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC, Inc. (“PPC”) and the Respondents are Fu Ching Technical Industry Co. Ltd., Gem Electronics, Inc. (collectively, the “Active Respondents”), Hanjiang Fei Yu Electronics Equipment Factory, Zhongguang Electronics, Yangzhou Zhongguang Electronics Co., Ltd., and Yangzhou Zhongguang Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. (collectively, the “Defaulting Respondents”).  The investigation was instituted on May 30, 2008.  On October 13, 2009, ALJ Gildea issued his Initial Determination (“ID”) finding, inter alia, that the Defaulting Respondents were in violation of Section 337 by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,470,257, 6,558,194, D519,076, and D440,539 (the ‘539 patent).  See our November 10, 2009 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Renewed Motion to Amend Protective Order In Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes (337-TA-712)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
16
On June 15, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 9 granting a renewed joint motion to amend the Protective Order in Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-712).

By way of background, on March 25, 2010, Complainants Verizon Communications Inc. and Verizon Services Corp. and Respondent Cablevision Systems Corp. jointly submitted a motion to amend the Protective Order in order to add enhanced confidentiality provisions to protect the parties’ source code.  ALJ Gildea denied that motion without prejudice, determining that the parties had failed to explain why the existing Protective Order was inadequate.  See our June 2, 2010 post for more details.  Following the denial, on June 11, 2010, the parties, joined by the Commission Investigative Staff, renewed their joint motion to amend the Protective Order.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Markman And Technology Tutorials In Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes (337-TA-712)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
17
On June 16, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 10:  Setting Markman and Technology Tutorials in Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-712).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea determined that “[t]here will be no Markman hearing in this Investigation in advance of the main hearing.”  ALJ Gildea further determined, however, that “technology tutorials will be useful in setting the stage for the hearing.”  ALJ Gildea permitted the private parties 30 minutes per side and indicated that “[l]egal argument during said presentations will not be permitted.”

Share

Read More

www.xxx-clips-online.com