ALJ Gildea

ALJ Gildea Sets Markman Procedure And Orders Technology Stipulation In Certain Electronic Devices (337-TA-701)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
17
ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 14 and Order No. 15 in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, And Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-701).  In Order No. 14, ALJ Gildea ordered that the private parties meet and confer and, after consultation with the Commission Investigative Staff, submit a joint stipulation regarding the technology at issue in the investigation.  Order No. 15 set out the rules governing the Markman hearing that is currently scheduled for August 11, 2010.

By way of background, Complainants Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. asserted over fifty claims of seven patents against Respondent Apple Inc. in this Investigation.  ALJ Gildea decided that an early Markman hearing would assist in streamlining the issues for the evidentiary hearing and final initial determination in this Investigation.  See our April 27, 2010 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion To Quash Subpoena In Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes (337-TA-712)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
17
On June 15, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 7 (dated June 2, 2010) in Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-712).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Non-party ActiveVideo Networks, Inc.’s (“Nonparty”) motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum served by Complainants Verizon Communications Inc. and Verizon Services Corp. (collectively, “Verizon”).

In its motion, Nonparty asserted that the subpoena “(i) fails to provide Nonparty with advance notice; (ii) fails to provide Nonparty with sufficient time to comply; (iii) is ‘overly broad and unduly burdensome’ and seeks documents of little or no relevance; (iv) exceeds the scope of permissible discovery because it requests information and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or the joint defense common interest ‘privilege’; and (v) seeks documents and information that contain confidential business information or that contain the confidential material of other persons or entities.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules on Motions in Limine In Certain Video Displays (337-TA-687)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
22
On June 21, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public versions of Order Nos. 25 and 26 (dated June 8, 2010) in Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-687) denying motions in limine filed by Complainant LG Electronics, Inc. (“LG”) and Respondents Vizio, Inc. (“Vizio”) and AmTran Technology Co., Ltd. and AmTran Logistics, Inc. (“AmTran”) (collectively, “Respondents”).

According to Order No. 25, LG moved on May 19, 2010, to preclude Respondents from offering evidence relating to an RCA Set Top Box Model DTC-100 (the “DTC-100”) on the grounds that the DTC-100 was not prior art to asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,154,564.  LG also moved to preclude Respondents from comparing LG’s infringement contentions regarding asserted U.S. Patent No. 5,790,096 to the Video Electronics Standards Association (“VESA”) “TV Panels Standard” on the grounds that Respondents “failed to adduce sufficient evidence and expert analysis to support a defense of breach of contractual duty of good faith in connection with LG’s membership in VESA.”  Respondents and the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) opposed LG’s motion on May 27, 2010, noting that the issues raised by LG were in dispute and concerned the weight, rather than admissibility of the evidence, and that Dr. Min had extensively opined on the VESA standard and its relation to LG’s infringement contentions.  ALJ Gildea agreed with Respondents, and determined that the “issue of whether the DTC-100 is prior art to the ‘564 patent is not as clear cut as LG argues, and thus all parties should have an opportunity to present evidence on this issue at the hearing.”  ALJ Gildea further determined that LG had not demonstrated that Dr. Min failed to discuss the VESA defense, and for the above reasons denied LG’s in limine motion in full.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion For Order To Show Cause In Certain Electronic Devices (337-TA-701)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
23
On June 21, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 13 (dated June 10, 2010) in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, and Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-701).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Complainants Nokia Corp. and Nokia, Inc.’s (collectively “Nokia”) motion seeking an order requiring Respondent Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) to show cause why it should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with certain orders requiring Apple to produce responsive documents.

In its motion, Nokia asserted that Apple failed to produce plainly relevant documents from one of its engineers by the deadline imposed by Order Nos. 4 and 6.  In particular, Nokia asserted that the unproduced documents related to whether Apple’s speaker box assembly infringes the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit.  In support of its motion, Nokia alleged that it had been unduly prejudiced by Apple’s failure to timely produce the emails of one of its engineers.  Nokia also argued that Apple should therefore be precluded from arguing that its speaker box did not meet certain limitations of the asserted claims and that Apple should be ordered to pay Nokia’s attorney’s fees and expenses in connection with its attempts to obtain the discovery in question, including any subsequent depositions that may be necessary.

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
25
On June 24, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 7 in Certain Electronic Paper Towel Dispensing Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-718).

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.  ALJ Gildea also scheduled a Markman hearing for September 21, 2010.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Wireless Communications System Server Software, Wireless Handheld Devices And Battery Packs (337-TA-706)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
02
ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 13 in Certain Wireless Communications System Server Software, Wireless Handheld Devices and Battery Packs (Inv. No. 337-TA-706).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Motorola, Inc. and Respondents Research in Motion Limited and Research in Motion Corporation to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Target Date In Certain Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems (337-TA-724)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
08
Further to our June 28, 2010 post, on July 6, 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 Devices With Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-724).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea set November 1, 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 July 1, 2011.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion To Compel Production of Privileged Documents In Certain Ceramic Capacitors (337-TA-692)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
09
On July 6, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 33 (dated June 11, 2010) in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing the 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 produce documents.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motion for Summary Determination in Certain Ceramic Capacitors (337-TA-692)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
09
On July 6, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 37 (dated June 24, 2010) in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same (Inv. 337-TA-692) denying Respondents Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc. (collectively “Samsung”) motion for summary determination of non-infringement of U.S. Patents 6,014,309 (the ‘309 patent) and 6,377,439 (the ‘439 patent).

In support of the motion, Samsung argued that any Samsung multilayer ceramic capacitors (“MLCC”) that were not designated by Complainants Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. (collectively “Murata”) as infringing claim 3 of  the ‘309 patent or claims 1-3 and 5 of the ‘439 patent should be considered non-infringing.  In opposition, Murata argued that Samsung was seeking an unauthorized advisory opinion since the motion presumed that simply because a particular Samsung MLCC is not alleged to be infringing, it consequently does not infringe.  Murata further argued that Samsung did not satisfy the burden of proof required by a party seeking summary determination on the issue of non-infringement.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motion To Compel In Certain Electronic Devices (337-TA-701)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
10
On July 6, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 17 (dated June 17, 2010) in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, and Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-701).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted Respondent Apple, Inc.’s (“Apple”) motion to compel production of a corporate designee with knowledge relating to Complainants Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc.’s (collectively “Nokia”) alleged domestic industry practicing asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,714,091 (the ‘091 patent).

In support of the motion, Apple argued that Nokia did not produce a corporate representative able to provide meaningful testimony regarding Nokia’s alleged practice of the ‘091 patent.  Specifically, Apple argued that Nokia’s designated witness, Jesse Khatam, was not knowledgeable about the factual bases for Nokia’s domestic industry assertions in its Complaint for the ‘091 patent and that Nokia had a duty to prepare its corporate designee so that he may give knowledgeable and binding answers.  Nokia opposed Apple’s motion arguing that (i) Apple sought to compel testimony regarding facts outside of Nokia’s knowledge since details about the phone model it alleged practiced the ‘091 patent was in the possession of an outside vendor or third party manufacturer, and (ii) Apple sought sales-related testimony from the wrong witness.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion for Summary Determination of Invalidity in Certain Ceramic Capacitors (337-TA-692)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
28
On July 20, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 30 (dated June 9, 2010) in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same (Inv. 337-TA-692) denying Respondents Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc.'s (collectively, “Samsung”) motion for summary determination of invalidity.

On March 22, 2010, Samsung moved for summary determination arguing that several claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,243,254 (the ‘254 patent) were invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, citing three prior art references.  In addition, Samsung asserted that a number of those claims were also invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as not enabled and lacking written description.  On April 8, 2010 Complainants Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. (collectively, “Murata”) filed an opposition to Samsung’s motion.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) also filed an opposition to Samsung’s motion on April 8, 2010.

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
28
On July 22, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 38 (dated June 29, 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”) second motion (see our June 3, 2010 post for information about Samsung’s first 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/or obvious based on certain prior art.

According to Samsung, the asserted claims of the ‘229 patent are directed to a well-known multilayer capacitor design that includes an allegedly novel lead structure featuring a length to width ratio (“L/W ratio”) of about 3 or less, about 0.4 to 3.0, or about 0.4 to 1.3.  Samsung argued that the claimed L/W ratio is not novel because capacitors sold by AVX Corp. (“AVX”) that included lead structures having the claimed L/W ratio were sold in the U.S. approximately 10 years before the filing date of the ‘229 patent application.  Samsung further argued that U.S. Patent No. 4,831,494 (“the Arnold patent”) “teaches every limitation of the asserted claims of the ‘229 patent, except, potentially, the specifically claimed L/W ratio of the electrode tabs,” and that “[i]t would have been obvious to combine Arnold and the [AVX] products, both of which were developed by IBM to provide effective decoupling capacitors that minimize inductance, particularly self-inductance.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules on Motion to Compel In Certain Electronic Devices (337-TA-701)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
29
On July 22, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order 19 (dated June 28, 2010) in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, and Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-701).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted-in-part Respondent Apple, Inc.’s (“Apple”) motion to compel interrogatory responses, further production of documents, additional 30(b)(6) testimony, and identification of corporate designees of Complainants Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc. (collectively “Nokia”) on certain deposition topics.

Interrogatories

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
30
On July 22, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 40 (dated July 2, 2010) in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-692).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted-in-part 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 produce individual and corporate witnesses for deposition.

In its motion, Samsung sought to compel Murata to make five individuals available for depositions on the grounds that “they allegedly possess information relevant to a claim or defense in the Investigation.”  ALJ Gildea denied four of Samsung’s requests because either Samsung failed to show that any of the witnesses possessed relevant information on certain issues or Samsung’s rationale for certain depositions was unpersuasive.  As for the one individual witness deposition granted, ALJ Gildea found that it was appropriate because the witness had submitted a declaration in support of Murata’s opposition to one of Samsung’s summary determinations and it would be unfair to “shield that witness from further discovery that may be unfavorable to [Samsung].”

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motion for Summary Determination of Non-Infringement in Certain Ceramic Capacitors (337-TA-692)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
03
On July 29, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 45 (dated July 19, 2010) in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same (Inv. 337-TA-692), denying Respondents Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd.’s and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc.’s (collectively “Samsung”) motion for summary determination of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,266,229 (the ‘229 patent).

Although portions of the order were heavily redacted, it appears Samsung argued that any Samsung multilayer ceramic capacitors (“MLCCs”) not designated in the Complaint or expert report of Complainants Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. (collectively “Murata”) as infringing the ‘229 patent should be considered non-infringing.  In the alternative, Samsung argued that its MLCCs not specifically accused of infringement should not be subject to an exclusion order.  In opposition, Murata argued that Samsung was seeking an unauthorized advisory opinion since the motion presumed that simply because a particular Samsung MLCC is not alleged to be infringing, it consequently does not infringe.  Murata further argued that in light of Samsung’s alleged failure to provide samples and complete discovery, it was possible that some non-accused capacitors actually do infringe the ‘229 patent.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Target Date In Certain Toner Cartridges (337-TA-731)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
04
Further to our July 28, 2010 post, on August 2, 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 Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-731).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea set November 30, 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 July 29, 2011.

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motions In Limine In Certain Ceramic Capacitors (337-TA-692)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
09
On July 29, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public versions of Order No. 46 (dated July 19, 2010), Order No. 47 (dated July 19, 2010), Order No. 48 (dated July 19, 2010) and Order No. 52 (dated July 20, 2010) in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-692).

In Order No. 46, ALJ Gildea denied Respondents Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Samsung”) motion in limine to strike or otherwise preclude Complainants Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Murata Electronics North America, Inc.’s (collectively, "Murata") use of test data, results, and reports provided by third-party testing laboratories and relied upon by Murata’s experts.  In its motion, Samsung asserted “that there is a lack of foundation needed to demonstrate that the samples that were used by the testing laboratories . . . are authentic, because it cannot be sufficiently demonstrated that there was an adequate chain of custody disclosing that the tested items are what they purport to be.”  In its opposition, Murata asserted that Samsung “failed to present any evidence indicating that the sampled items are not genuine or that they were compromised during testing.”  Further, Murata argued “that a defect in the chain of custody generally goes to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility and that proof of non-tampering is not needed.”  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) filed an opposition to the motion.  In denying the motion, ALJ Gildea determined that Samsung did not “set forth facts sufficient to demonstrate that the integrity of the testing procedures or the handling of the tested samples was indisputably flawed or unreliable.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems (337-TA-724)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
13
On August 9, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 3 in Certain Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-724).

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 Rules On Motion To Compel In Certain Electronic Devices (337-TA-701)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
24
On August 16, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 30 (dated August 4, 2010) in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, and Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-701).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted-in-part Complainants Nokia Corp. and Nokia, Inc.’s (collectively “Nokia”) motion to compel Respondent Apple, Inc. to produce information “related to enlarging or magnifying characters or symbols” in response to Nokia’s interrogatory nos. 28, 46, and 49 and to provide a corporate witness to testify regarding the information produced.

In support of its motion, Nokia asserted that Apple (i) provided a list of documents that were non-responsive to Interrogatories 28 and 46; (ii) “failed to provide or identify any documents relating to the hardware aspects of enlarging character or symbols” in response to Interrogatory 49, and (iii) failed to produce all relevant source code.  In opposition, Apple asserted, inter alia, that it had already “produced the information sought . . . , given Nokia and its expert ‘complete’ access to the relevant source code, and provided witnesses who provided lengthy and detailed testimony regarding the [source code at issue].”  Further, Apple asserted that “Nokia’s motion is a demand to ‘provide its responses again in a different format.’”

Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Toner Cartridges (337-TA-731)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
14
On September 7, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 5: Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-731).

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

www.xxx-clips-online.com