ALJ Luckern

ALJ Luckern Grants Motion For Summary Determination On Domestic Industry Issues In Certain Handbags And Luggage (337-TA-754)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
27
On July 18, 2011 Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 7 (dated June 7, 2011) in Certain Handbags, Luggage, Accessories, and Packaging Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-754).  In the Order, ALJ Luckern determined that Complainants Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. and Louis Vuitton U.S. Manufacturing, Inc. (“LV Mfg”) (collectively, “Louis Vuitton”) satisfied the domestic industry requirement.

According to the Order, Louis Vuitton relied on the operations of LV Mfg – which is responsible for a manufacturing facility in San Dimas, California where merchandise (e.g., handbags, luggage and accessories) featuring the trademarks at issue in the investigation are produced – to establish domestic industry.  The products manufactured at San Dimas featuring the subject trademarks are sold or offered for sale in the U.S.  Thus, ALJ Luckern determined that Louis Vuitton satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.  As to the economic prong, the ALJ likewise found that the record showed that Louis Vuitton’s operations in the U.S. constitute a significant investment in plant and equipment, and a significant employment of labor and capital, primarily in connection with the San Dimas facility.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Public Versions of Orders Denying Motions for Summary Determination In Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (337-TA-726)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
28
On July 18, 2011, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public versions of Order No. 25 (dated March 2, 2011), Order No. 27 (dated March 10, 2011), and Order No. 28 (dated March 10, 2011) in Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-726).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Flashpoint Technology, Inc. (“Flashpoint”) and Respondents are Nokia Corp. and Nokia Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”); Research in Motion Limited and Research in Motion Corporation (collectively, “RIM”); HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”); and LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “LG”).  In its May 13, 2010 complaint and June 16, 2010 amended complaint, Flashpoint alleges a violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain electronic imaging devices that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,134,606 (“the ‘606 patent), 6,163,816 (“the ‘816 patent), and 6,262,769 (“the ‘769 patent).  See our July 9, 2010 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Denies Motion to Disqualify In Certain Flip-Top Vials (337-TA-779)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
29
On July 25, 2011, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 3 (dated July 14, 2011) denying Respondents Süd-Chemie AG, Süd-Chemie, Inc., and Airsec S.A.S.’s (collectively, “Süd-Chemie”) motion to disqualify a law firm as counsel for Complainant CSP Technologies, Inc. (“CSP”) in Certain Flip-Top Vials and Products Using Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-779).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a May 17, 2011 complaint filed by CSP alleging a violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain flip-top vials and products using the same that infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,537,137.  See our May 18, 2011 and June 20, 2011 posts for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Denies Respondents’ Motions For Summary Determination In Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (337-TA-726)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
29
On July 25, 2011, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public versions of Order No. 31 (dated March 25, 2011) and Order No. 32 (dated March 29, 2011) in Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-726).  In the Orders, ALJ Luckern denied Respondents Research In Motion, Ltd., Research In Motion Corporation, Nokia Corp., Nokia Inc., HTC America, Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.’s (collectively, “Respondents”) motion for summary determination that (1) the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,134,606 and 6,163,816 are invalid due to the on-sale bar, and (2) Respondents’ accused camera phones do not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,262,769 (“the ‘769 patent”).

According to Order 31, Respondents argued that Apple’s offers to license Complainant FlashPoint Technology, Inc.’s (“FlashPoint”) software to Kodak in January 1996 and Minolta in March 1996 were commercial offers to sell that constitute an on-sale bar under § 102(b).  Specifically, Respondents asserted that Apple made a commercial offer to license FlashPoint v. 1.0 source code to Kodak by sending a letter on January 11, 1996 that contained all of the terms necessary for Kodak to create a binding contract through simple acceptance, although the offer included a conditional delivery date instead of a firm delivery date.  FlashPoint countered that the January 11, 1996 letter did not include a delivery date, which “was the material term necessary for Apple to have entered into any alternative business relationship with Kodak,” that “from Apple’s perspective the most important term of any new arrangement with Kodak was a date certain for delivery,” and that based on prior communications between Apple and Kodak, Kodak knew or should have known that Apple did not intend to be bound by the January 11, 1996 letter because it did not include a delivery date, and that the letter was merely an invitation to restart negotiations that had previously come to a halt.  Examining the record in the light most favorable to FlashPoint, ALJ Luckern found a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the January 11, 1996 letter included all of the terms necessary to constitute a commercial offer for sale of the FlashPoint software.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Initial Determination In Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (337-TA-726)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
01
On July 27, 2011, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued a notice regarding the Final Initial and Recommended Determination (ID) in Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-726).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is FlashPoint Technology, Inc. (“Flashpoint”) and the remaining Respondents are HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”).  The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,262,769 (the ‘769 patent) and 6,163,816 (the ‘816 patent).

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Denies Motion For Summary Determination In Certain Components For Installation Of Marine Autopilots With GPS Or IMU (337-TA-738)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
01
On July 25, 2011, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 17 (dated May 4, 2011) in Certain Components For Installation Of Marine Autopilots With GPS Or IMU (Inv. No. 337-TA-738).

In the Order, ALJ Luckern denied Respondents Navico Holding AS, Navico UK, Ltd., and Navico, Inc.’s (“Navico”) motion for summary determination that certain claims of asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,596,976 (the ‘976 patent) are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).  In support of the motion, Navico asserted that Complainant American GNC Corp.’s (“AGNC”) claims of infringement against Navico’s “marine autopilot systems [ ] are the same as, or insubstantially different from, systems sold by Navico and its relevant predecessors prior to the alleged invention of the ‘976 patent.”  In opposition, AGNC argued that since the filing of Navico’s motion, AGNC further supplemented its infringement contentions.  AGNC also noted that the deposition testimony cited in Navico’s motion was neither testimony from AGNC’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness nor based on Navico’s confidential business information subsequently produced in the investigation.  The Commission Investigative Staff joined AGNC in opposing the motion. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Denies Motion In Limine In Certain Integrated Circuits (337-TA-709)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
02
On July 28, 2011, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 27 (dated November 23, 2010) in Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions, Media Players, and Cameras (Inv. No. 337-TA-709).

In the Order, certain Respondents moved in limine to preclude Complainant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (“Freescale”) from presenting any evidence regarding Freescale’s use of “institutional knowledge” in designing or manufacturing any product Freescale planned to rely upon to satisfy its domestic industry requirement for U.S. Patent No. 7,199,306.  More particularly, Respondents argued that (1) Freescale only introduced information regarding the use of this alleged “institutional knowledge” after the close of fact discovery, and (2) Respondents were prejudiced since they were unable to adequately defend against these new positions that were raised in Freescale’s expert reports.  In response, Freescale argued that the motion should be denied because Respondents knew about this information during discovery and excluding such evidence would severely prejudice Freescale.  The Commission Investigative Staff argued, inter alia, that the Respondents did not establish that Freescale withheld any information during discovery and thus the motion should be denied.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Grants Motion To Compel In Certain Handbags And Luggage (337-TA-754)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
03
On July 26, 2011, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 5 (dated March 30, 2011) in Certain Handbags, Luggage, Accessories, and Packaging Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-754).  In the Order, ALJ Luckern granted Complainants Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. and Louis Vuitton U.S. Manufacturing, Inc.’s (collectively, “Louis Vuitton”) motion to compel Meada Corporation d/b/a/ Diophy International (“Meada”), Pacpro, Inc. (“Papcro”), and Alice Wang (collectively, “Respondents”) to produce documents and provide information. 

Specifically, Louis Vuitton sought to compel the production of documentation and information relating to Respondents’ dissolved businesses Diophy Int’l Trading USA, Inc. (“Diophy”) and T&T Handbag Co. (“T&T”); the manufacturing and importation of the accused products; the corporate organization of Pacpro, Meada, T&T, and Diophy; marketing of the accused products; sales records and customer information relating to the accused products; and financial information, such as annual reports, required financial filings, tax returns, and W-2 forms.  Louis Vuitton asserted that Respondents had only produced 140 pages of documents and suggested in deposition that they had done little to gather information and produce documents. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Rules On Motion To Strike In Certain Integrated Circuits (337-TA-709)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
03
On July 28, 2011, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 32 (dated December 9, 2010) in Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions, Media Players, and Cameras (Inv. No. 337-TA-709).

In the Order, ALJ Luckern ruled on a motion filed by Complainant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (“Freescale”) to strike certain affirmative defenses raised by Respondents Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Funai Corporation, Inc., Funai Electric Co., Ltd., Victor Company of Japan, Limited, JVC Americas Corp., Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp., Huppin’s Hi-Fi Photo & Video, Inc., Buy.com Inc., QVC, Inc., Crutchfield Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Computer Nerds International, Inc. (collectively, the “Respondents”).  These affirmative defenses related to Respondents’ allegations of (i) inequitable conduct relating to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,467,455 (the ‘455 patent) and 7,199,306 (the ‘306 patent), (ii) unclean hands, and (iii) patent misuse.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Flip-Top Vials (337-TA-779)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
04
On August 2, 2011, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 6:  Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Flip-Top Vials and Products Using Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-779).

In the Order, ALJ Luckern set the procedural schedule for the investigation.  According to the Order, the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on February 13, 2012, the Initial Determination is due no later than May 24, 2012, and the target date for completion of this investigation is September 24, 2012.

Share

Read More

ITC Announces Retirement Of Chief ALJ Luckern

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
04
On August 3, 2011, the ITC issued a press release announcing the retirement of Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern. 

Below is an excerpt from the ITC’s press release: 
Paul J. Luckern, Chief Administrative Law Judge at the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), is retiring from government service today, August 3, 2011.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Public Versions of Orders in Certain Integrated Circuits (337-TA-709)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
05
On July 27, 2011 ALJ Luckern issued public versions of three orders denying motions for summary determination in Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions, Media Players, and Cameras (Inv. No. 337-TA-709). 

Order No. 21 (dated October 13, 2010) denied Respondents’ Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Victor Company of Japan Limited, JVC Americas Corp., Best Buy.com, LLC, Best Buy Purchasing, LLC, Best Buy Stores, L.P., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp., Buy.com Inc., Liberty Media Corporation, QVC, Crutchfield Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Computer Nerds International (collectively, the “Respondents’) motion for summary determination that Complainant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (“Freescale”) had failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,199,306.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) opposed the motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Grants Motions To Terminate Investigation As To Various Respondents In Certain Handbags And Luggage (337-TA-754)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
22
On August 18, 2011, former Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 12 (dated August 3, 2011) in Certain Handbags, Luggage, Accessories and Packaging Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-754).  In the Order, ALJ Luckern granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. (“Vuitton”) and several respondents to terminate the investigation based on two settlement agreements and consent order stipulations between Vuitton and each of the settling respondents. 

According to the Order, the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) represented that one settlement agreement relates to domestic respondents Meada Corporation; Pacpro, Inc.; Jiu Gao Zheng, a/k/a Victor Zheng and a/k/a Peter Zheng; Alice Bei Wang; Trendy Creations, Inc.; and Monhill, Inc., while the other settlement agreement is between Vuitton and each of the Chinese entities and/or individuals who reside in China, namely: Zhixian Lu; Jiu An Zheng; Guangzhou Rimen Leather Goods Company Limited a/k/a Rimen Leather Co., Ltd. and a/k/a Guangzhou Rui Ma Leatherware Co., Ltd.; Jian Yong Zheng, a/k/a Jianyong Zheng; Jiuyou Zheng; Jianbin Zheng; Shengfeng Lin; Wenzhou DIOPHY Trading Company Limited; and Wenzhou BOLIHAO Leather Goods Company Limited. OUII further represented that other respondents elected to default and therefore only certain nonparticipating respondents remain in this investigation.

Share

Read More

ITC Issues Public Version of ALJ Luckern Final Initial and Recommended Determinations in Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (337-TA-726)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
30
On September 16, 2011, the International Trade Commission issued the public version of former chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern’s Final Initial and Recommended Determinations ("ID") (dated July 27, 2011) in Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-726). 

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is FlashPoint Technology, Inc. (“Flashpoint”) and the remaining Respondents are HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”).  The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,262,769 (the ‘769 patent) and 6,163,816 (the ‘816 patent).  According to the ID, ALJ Luckern determined that no violation of Section 337 occurred by HTC.  Specifically, ALJ Luckern determined, inter alia, that (i) Flashpoint failed to show that the asserted claims of the ‘796 and ‘816 patents are infringed, (ii) it has been established that the asserted claims of the ‘816 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (on sale bar), (iii) it was not established that the asserted claims of the ‘769 and ‘816 patents are invalid in view of prior art, (iv) Flashpoint’s rights under the ‘816 and ‘769 patents were not exhausted with respect to HTC’s accused Windows Phone 7 products, and (v) Flashpoint did not establish a domestic industry with respect to either of the ‘769 or ‘816 patents.    

Share

Read More

ITC Issues Statement On Former Chief ALJ Luckern

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
20
On January 19, 2012, the ITC issued the following statement regarding the passing of former Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern: 
The Commissioners and staff of the U.S. International Trade Commission are very deeply saddened by the news of Judge Paul J. Luckern's death.

We consider it an honor and privilege to have worked with Judge Luckern, who was one of the nation's preeminent intellectual property jurists and the USITC’s longest-serving Administrative Law Judge.  He presided over more than 150 Section 337 investigations during the 27 years he worked here.

Share

Read More

www.xxx-clips-online.com