ALJ Luckern

ALJ Luckern Denies Summary Determination Motions In Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems (337-TA-670)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
19
On November 17, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public versions of Order No. 24, Order No. 25, and Order No. 26 (all orders dated November 4, 2009) denying various summary determination motions filed by Respondents CompX International, Inc. and Waterloo Furniture Corporation Ltd. d/b/a CompX Waterloo (collectively, “CompX”) in Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-670).

Regarding Order No. 24, ALJ Luckern denied CompX’s summary determination motion of invalidity due to anticipation and/or obviousness.  In the Order, ALJ Luckern determined that issues of claim construction and whether the asserted claims contain means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 have yet to be resolved.  ALJ Luckern further determined that “the parties’ experts disagree as to the appropriate construction of at least some of these claim terms.”  Additionally, ALJ Luckern noted that he was “not prepared, at the present time, to decide the construction of any means-plus-function limitations.”  Accordingly, ALJ Luckern denied CompX’s motion for summary determination of invalidity due to anticipation and/or obviousness.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Grants Motion For Summary Determination On Economic Prong Of The Domestic Industry Requirement In Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems (337-TA-670)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
19
On November 17, 2009 Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the heavily redacted public version of Order No. 27 (dated November 4, 2009) granting Complainant Humanscale Corporation’s (“Humanscale”) motion for summary determination on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement in Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-670).

According to the Order, Humanscale filed its summary determination motion on October 2, 2009.  Respondents CompX International, Inc. and Waterloo Furniture Corporation Ltd. d/b/a CompX Waterloo (collectively, “CompX”) filed an opposition to the motion on October 14, 2009.  While the Commission Investigative Staff (the “Staff”) also filed an opposition to the motion on October 14, 2009, Staff argued that it would not oppose a motion by Humanscale for leave to supplement its motion with a “brief declaration by a competent witness setting forth what portion of its total investment in ‘keyboard support systems’ is attributable to those products Humanscale asserts are covered by the [asserted patent].”  On October 20, 2009, Humanscale filed a motion for leave to file a reply memorandum in further support of its motion “in order to provide additional facts requested by the [Staff]…”  ALJ Luckern granted Humanscale’s motion for leave on October 21, 2009 and ordered the Staff and CompX to respond to Humanscale’s reply no later than October 26, 2009.

Share

Read More

Update Regarding Certain Dual Access Locks (337-TA-689)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
30
Further to our October 19 and November 16 posts, on November 25, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 4 in Certain Dual Access Locks and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-689).

In the Order, ALJ Luckern sets the procedural schedule for this investigation.  ALJ Luckern scheduled the evidentiary hearing in this matter to begin on May 24, 2010.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Grants Motion To Terminate The Investigation In Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips (337-TA-674)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
04
On December 1, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 29 (dated November 13, 2009) in Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips, Laser Diode Chips and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-674).  In the Order, ALJ Luckern granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Gertrude Neumark Rothschild and Respondent Dalian Lumei Optoelectronics Corporation (“Dalian Lumei”) based on a settlement agreement between the parties.

According to the Order, the Commission Investigative Staff filed a response supporting termination of Dalian Lumei from the investigation based on the settlement agreement, and also termination of the investigation in its entirety.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Sets Target Date And Procedural Schedule For Enforcement Proceeding In Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices (337-TA-631)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
30
Further to our December 15 and 16 posts, on December 29, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 27 in Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-631).

According to the Order, ALJ Luckern set November 18, 2010 as the target date (which is 11 months after institution of the formal enforcement proceeding).  ALJ Luckern further indicated that any enforcement initial determination on violation should be filed no later than July 19, 2010.  In addition, in connection with the procedural schedule, ALJ Luckern noted that the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on April 7, 2010.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Sets Target Date In Certain DC-DC Controllers (337-TA-698)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
27
Further to our December 30, 2009 and December 31, 2009 posts, on January 26, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 3 in Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-698).

According to the Order, ALJ Luckern set April 5, 2011 as the target date (which is 15 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Luckern further indicated that any initial determination should be filed no later than December 6, 2010.  In addition, ALJ Luckern noted that the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on July 29, 2010.  Lastly, ALJ Luckern also requested in the Order that the parties submit proposed procedural schedules no later than January 29, 2010.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Amended Ground Rules Related to Settlement In Certain DC-DC Controllers (337-TA-698)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
27
On January 26, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued a NoticeTo The Parties in Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-698) attaching a new set of amended ground rules.  In the Order, ALJ Luckern stated that all amendments relate to ground rule 15 concerning settlement.

Amended ground rule 15 provides that “[t]he parties are urged to explore reasonable possibilities for settlement of all or any of the contested issues that could be the basis for a motion to terminate under Commission rule 210.21.”  Accordingly, he ordered that:

  • The parties must schedule three settlement conferences, in person, in the presence of a person who can authorize settlement.  Further, ALJ Luckern noted that he may order the parties to appear at the ITC for settlement discussions, for example, after the pre-hearing statements are filed and before the hearing commences.  In addition, he may require the private parties to submit settlement proposals and an agenda before the settlement discussions.

  • The parties may have to participate in the Mediation Program initiated by the Commission in November, 2008.  ALJ Luckern noted that “[i]f the Supervisory Attorney for Docket Services determines that the private parties should participate in the Mediation Program, the parties must attend any conference arranged by the mediator and comply with requests from the mediator,” such as briefing.  After a mediator is selected, the parties must comply with any request from the mediator.  Further, if the parties participate in mediation, the parties may move to waive participation in the three settlement conference noted above.  If mediation fails, however, the ALJ may order that the settlement conferences are rescheduled.


ALJ Luckern referred the parties to the Users’ Manual for the Commission Pilot Mediation Program available on the ITC website.  As described therein, mediation is confidential; no direct costs are charged to the parties, and; the substance of the mediation proceeding are not communicated to the ALJ, the ITC Staff, the Office of General Counsel, or the Commissioners. Notably, as also noted in the Users’ Manual, the ITC Staff is not to conduct, participate in, or have knowledge of the mediation proceedings, but may (consistent with current practice) review any settlement agreement that arises out of a successful mediation in order to make a recommendation to the ALJ as to whether the agreement is in the public interest.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Initial Determination Finding Violation Of Section 337 In Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems (337-TA-670)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
24
On February 23, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-670).

The Complainant in this investigation is Humanscale Corporation and the Respondents are CompX International, Inc. and Waterloo Furniture Corporation Ltd. d/b/a CompX Waterloo.  According to the notice, ALJ Luckern held that a violation of Section 337 has occurred in connection with the importation into the U.S., sale for importation, and sale within the U.S. after importation of certain adjustable keyboard support systems and components thereof by reason of infringement of at least one claim of U.S. Patent No. 5,292,097 (the ‘097 patent).  ALJ Luckern also determined that at least one claim of the ‘097 patent is not invalid, and that a domestic industry exists with respect to the ‘097 patent.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Public Version of Initial Determination In Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems (337-TA-670)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
15
Further to our February 24, 2010 post, on March 8, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of the Final Initial and Recommended Determinations (“ID”) (dated February 23, 2010) in Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-670).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Humanscale Corporation and the Respondents are CompX International, Inc. and Waterloo Furniture Corporation Ltd. d/b/a CompX Waterloo.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Sets Target Date In Certain Mobile Telephones And Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras (337-TA-703)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
23
Further to our February 18, 2010 post, on March 19, 2010, ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 4 setting a 15 month target date and requiring proposed procedural schedule(s) in Certain Mobile Telephones And Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-703).

According to the Order, the prehearing conference and evidentiary hearing will commence on September 1, 2010, and any final initial determination should be filed no later than January 24, 2011.  The parties are required to submit a proposed procedural schedule(s) by March 24, 2010.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Grants Motion For Summary Determination Of Non-Infringement In Certain Dual Access Locks (337-TA-689)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
30
On March 23, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 6 (dated March 18, 2010) in Certain Dual Access Locks and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-689), granting Respondents motion for summary determination of non-infringement and terminating the investigation.

By way of background, Complainants Safe Skies, LLC and David Tropp (collectively, “Safe Skies”) alleged violations of Section 337 against several respondents regarding certain dual access locks, which allegedly infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,021,537 (the ‘537 patent) and 7,036,728 (the ‘728 patent).  See our September 17, 2009 and October 19, 2009 posts for more details.  According to the Order, on February 23, 2010, the Respondents filed a motion for summary determination of non-infringement of all asserted claims of the ‘537 and ‘728 patents.  On February 24, 2010, the Commission Investigative Staff filed a motion for summary determination that the accused products do not infringe the asserted claims of the ‘537 and ‘728 patents.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Sets Procedural Schedule And Makes Comments Regarding Markman Hearing In Certain Mobile Telephones And Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras (337-TA-703)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
05
On March 31, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 5, setting the procedural schedule in Certain Mobile Telephones And Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-703).

In the Order, ALJ Luckern set the procedural schedule for the investigation, including a September 1, 2010 start date for the evidentiary hearing.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Denies Motion To Permit Expert To Receive Confidential Business Information In Certain DC-DC Controllers (337-TA-698)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
06
On April 1, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 11 in Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-698).  In the Order, ALJ Luckern denied Complainants Richtek Technology Corp. and Richtek USA, Inc.’s (collectively, “Richtek”) motion to permit Richtek’s expert, Dr. Chen-huei Wu, to receive confidential business information (“CBI”) under the Protective Order (“PO”).

In its motion, Richtek argued that Dr. Wu is presumptively entitled to receive CBI under the PO, that foreign experts may appropriately subscribe to the PO, and that Dr. Wu does not consult for and is not employed by a party.  Richtek further argued that Respondents uPI Semiconductor Corp. and Sapphire Technology Ltd. (collectively, the “uPI Respondents”) have failed to explain why they believe that Dr. Wu is “less trustworthy, or more likely to violate the terms of the Protective Order, than American experts.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Grants Complainants’ Motion to Compel In Certain DC-DC Controllers (337-TA-698)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
06
On April 2, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 7 (dated March 12, 2010) in Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-698), granting Complainants Richtek Technology Corp. and Richtek USA, Inc.'s (collectively, “Richtek”) motion to compel Respondent uPI Semiconductor Corporation (uPI) to produce documents and information related to uPI's 63xx and 77xx families of products.

Respondents uPI and Sapphire Technology Ltd. (“Sapphire”) filed a joint opposition to Richtek's motion to compel, and the remaining respondents Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Best Data Products, Inc. d/b/a Diamond Multimedia, and Eastcom, Inc. d/b/a XFX Technology USA filed their own separate joint opposition to Richtek's motion to compel.  The Commission Investigative Staff supported the motion to compel.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Grants Motion To Terminate The Enforcement Proceeding In Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices (337-TA-631)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
13
On April 12, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 29 (dated March 5, 2010) in Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-631).

In the Order, ALJ Luckern granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (“Samsung”) and Respondents Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc. (collectively, “Sharp”) to terminate the enforcement proceeding “based upon settlement and licensing agreements that was alleged to resolve all outstanding patent disputes and related actions between the parties.”  The Order further indicates that Samsung and Sharp “have negotiated two agreements that resolve the dispute between the private parties in this investigation, in other investigations (e.g., 337-TA-699 and 337-TA-702), and in certain litigation in other jurisdictions including various foreign forums in Japan, Korea, Germany, and the Netherlands.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Rules On Motion To Compel In Certain DC-DC Controllers (337-TA-698)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
14
On April 13, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 8 (dated March 26, 2010) in Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-698), denying Complainants Richtek Technology Corp. and Richtek USA, Inc.’s (collectively, “Richtek”) motions to compel Respondents Advanced Microdevices Corp. (“AMD”) and uPI Semiconductor Corporation (“uPI”) to provide the “specificity” under Commission rule 210.13(b) in support of their affirmative defenses regarding invalidity and to supplement their responses to certain interrogatories relating to invalidity.

According to the Order, AMD, uPI, and the Commission Investigative Staff opposed Richtek's motions.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination Finding Violation of Section 337 In Certain Energy Drink Products (337-TA-678)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
16
On April 12, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of his Initial Determination (dated March 30, 2010) (“ID”) in Certain Energy Drink Products (Inv. No. 337-TA-678).  In the ID, ALJ Luckern found a violation of Section 337.

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are Red Bull GmbH and Red Bull North America, Inc. (collectively, “Red Bull”). The Respondents are Avalon International General Trading, LLC (“Avalon”); Posh Nosh Imports (USA), Inc. (“Posh Nosh”); Greenwich, Inc. (“Greenwich”); Advantage Food Distributers (“Advantage Food”); Central Supply, Inc. (“Central Supply”), Chicago Import Inc. (“Chicago Import”), and Lamont Dist., Inc. (“Lamont”) (collectively, “Defaulting Respondents”).  On December 2, 2009, Red Bull moved for summary determination on the issues of domestic industry, importation and violation of Section 337.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Rules On Motion To Compel In Certain DC-DC Controllers (337-TA-698)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
22
On April 19, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 16 (dated April 5, 2010) in Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-698), denying Complainants Richtek Technology Corp. and Richtek USA, Inc.’s (collectively, “Richtek”) motion to compel Respondent uPI Semiconductor Corporation (“uPI”) to search and produce the personal home computer and/or electronic storage devices of certain uPI employees (former Richtek employees) alleged to have misappropriated Richtek trade secret computer files for uPI.

The Commission Investigative Staff and uPI opposed Richtek’s motion.

Share

Read More

www.xxx-clips-online.com