ALJ Luckern

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
28
On April 26, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 11 (dated April 19, 2010):  Setting Procedural Schedule for Markman Hearing in Certain Mobile Telephones And Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-703).

The Order addressed a motion filed on April 12, 2010, by Respondents Apple Inc., Research In Motion, Ltd., and Research In Motion Corp. (collectively, “Respondents”) requesting a Markman hearing “based on the filing, under Commission rule 210.18, of simultaneous motions for summary determination on proposed claim constructions.”  Respondents’ motions were filed pursuant to Order No. 5, which determined that any request for a Markman hearing be made by motion.  See our April 5, 2010 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Public Version Of Remand Determination In Certain R-134a Coolant (337-TA-623)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
10
Further to our April 6, 2009 post, on May 3, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of the Remand Determination (“RD”) (dated April 1, 2009) in Certain R-134a Coolant (Otherwise Known as 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane) (Inv. No. 337-TA-623).  Prior to the issuance of the public version of the RD, the Commission determined to review the RD in its entirety on June 1, 2009.  See our June 3, 2009 post for more details.  Subsequently on September 21, 2009, the Commission issued the public version of its opinion reversing the RD’s finding that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,559,276 (the ‘276 patent) is not obvious.  See our September 23, 2009 post for further details.

By way of background, this investigation was instituted in December 2007 based on a complaint filed by INEOS Fluor Holdings Ltd., INEOS Fluor Ltd. and INEOS Fluor Americas LLC (“INEOS”).  INEOS’ complaint alleged violations of Section 337 by Respondents Sinochem Modern Environmental Protection Chemicals (Xi’an) Co. Ltd., Sinochem Ningbo Ltd., Sinochem Environmental Protection Chemicals (Taicang) Co., Ltd., and Sinochem (U.S.A.) Inc. (collectively, “Sinochem”) in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain R-134a coolant (otherwise known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluorothane) by reason of infringement of certain patents, including the ‘276 patent.  On December 1, 2008, ALJ Luckern issued a final initial and determination (“ID”) finding a violation of Section 337.  On January 30, 2009, the Commission issued a notice determining to review-in-part the ID finding a violation of Section 337 and remanding a portion of the investigation “for a remand determination addressing issues related to anticipation and obviousness [of claim 1 of the ‘276 patent] with respect to certain references” identified by the Commission.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Sets Target Date In Certain Electronic Devices With Multi-Touch Enabled Touchpads And Touchscreens (337-TA-714)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
24
Further to our April 26, 2010 post, on May 21, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 3: Setting Target Date and Requiring Proposed Procedural Schedule(s) in Certain Electronic Devices with Multi-touch Enabled Touchpads and Touchscreens (Inv. No. 337-TA-714).

According to the Order, ALJ Luckern set August 29, 2011 as the target date (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Luckern further indicated that any final initial determination on violation should be filed no later than April 29, 2011.  In addition, ALJ Luckern noted that the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on February 17, 2011, and will be conducted in the U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Orders Markman Hearing In Certain Electronic Devices With Multi-Touch Enabled Touchpads And Touchscreens (337-TA-714)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
03
On June 1, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 5 in Certain Electronic Devices With Multi-Touch Enabled Touchpads and Touchscreens (Inv. No. 337-TA-714).  In the Order, ALJ Luckern ordered that a Markman hearing take place and that the parties submit proposed procedural schedules by June 4, 2010.

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Elan Microelectronics Corporation (“Elan”) and the Respondent is Apple Inc. (“Apple”).  The investigation was instituted on April 26, 2010 based on Elan’s complaint of March 29, 2010.  See our April 26 post for more details.  On May 27, 2010, the parties made written submissions and a preliminary conference was held concerning whether or not ALJ Luckern should conduct a Markman hearing in the investigation.

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
16
On June 14, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 19 (dated April 22, 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 amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add allegations of infringement of claims 8-11 of U.S. Patent No. 7,315,190 (the ‘190 patent).

Richtek filed its motion on April 13, 2010, and according to the Order, argued that good cause existed to amend the complaint and notice of investigation because Richtek recently confirmed through documents produced during discovery that uPI's 6/xx family of products infringe dependent claims 8-11 of the ‘190 patent and that Respondents will not be prejudiced by the addition of such claims.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Initial Determination on Claim Construction In Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras (337-TA-703)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
23
On June 22, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued a Notice regarding the Markman hearing Initial Determination (ID) in Certain Mobile Telephones And Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-703).

For background on the procedural history leading to the Markman hearing in this investigation, please see our April 28, 2010 post.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Sets Procedural Schedule For Investigation And For Markman Proceeding In Certain Electronic Devices With Multi-Touch Enabled Touchpads And Touchscreens (337-TA-714)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
24
On June 22, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Orders No. 8 and 9 in Certain Electronic Devices With Multi-Touch Enabled Touchpads and Touchscreens (Inv. No. 337-TA-714).  In the Orders, ALJ Luckern set the procedural schedule for the investigation and Markman proceeding.

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Elan Microelectronics Corporation and the Respondent is Apple Inc.  The investigation was instituted on April 26, 2010 based on Elan’s complaint of March 29, 2010.  See our April 26, 2010 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Sets Target Date In Certain Biometric Scanning Devices (337-TA-720)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
08
Further to our June 14, 2010 post, on July 1, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 3: Setting Target Date and Requiring Proposed Procedural Schedule(s) in Certain Biometric Scanning Devices, Components Thereof, Associated Software, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-720).

According to the Order, ALJ Luckern set October 17, 2011 as the target date (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Luckern further indicated that any final initial determination on violation should be filed no later than June 17, 2011.  In addition, ALJ Luckern noted that the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on March 7, 2011.

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
10
On July 6, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 22 (dated May 12, 2010) in Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-698).

In the Order, ALJ Luckern granted Complainants Richtek Technology Corp. and Richtek USA, Inc.’s (“Richtek”) motion to compel.  In its motion, Richtek sought an order compelling Respondent uPI Semiconductor Corporation (“uPI”) to (i) provide responses to Richtek’s financial interrogatories, (ii) identify by production number the specific reference documents providing the financial support necessary to answer Richtek’s financial questions, (iii) supplement the report of its expert concerning uPI’s DC/DC controller business, and (iv) schedule the continued deposition of uPI’s CFO and corporate representative regarding uPI’s DC/DC controller business.  In support of the motion, Richtek argued that for more than two months uPI failed to provide meaningful responses to Richtek’s interrogatories requesting fundamental financial information about uPI’s DC-DC controller business, including information regarding the accused products’ price, volume, revenue, cost and profit.  Richtek further argued that uPI dismissed the interrogatories with blanket citations to Commission Rule 210.29(c) as its response without identifying appropriately responsive documentation by production number.  In opposition, uPI argued that (i) Richtek already had the subject uPI financial information (ii) Richtek used the requested information both in depositions and in an expert report, (iii) Richtek had manufactured a discovery dispute where none existed, and (iv) Richtek’s motion sought an impermissible second bite at certain depositions.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Denies Motions To Compel In Certain DC-DC Controllers (337-TA-698)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
10
On July 8, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 26 (dated June 7, 2010) in Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-698) denying (1) Respondent uPI Semiconductor Corporation’s (“uPI”) motion to compel further testimony of Complainants Richtek Technology Corp. and Richtek USA, Inc.’s (“Richtek”) employee James Liu regarding his conversations with one of Richtek’s anticipated testifying experts, and (2) Richtek’s motion to compel uPI to respond to a certain interrogatory by identifying the start and completion dates for each stage of the product design and development process for each of uPI’s Power Management IC Products.  The Commission Investigative Staff opposed both motions.

Regarding uPI’s motion, ALJ Luckern determined that uPI had the opportunity to depose Liu on his knowledge of Richtek’s trade secrets and measures to protect Richtek’s trade secrets during the four days he testified in April 2010.  ALJ Luckern further determined that uPI was scheduled to depose Richtek’s expert and to the extent that uPI sought testimony regarding any information communicated from Liu to the expert, such expert could be questioned about it at the upcoming deposition.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Orders Settlement Conference Take Place In Certain DC-DC Controllers (337-TA-698)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
10
On July 6, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the heavily redacted public version of Order No. 36 (dated July 2, 2010) in Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-698).

In the Order, ALJ Luckern ordered (1) the investigation be put immediately into the ITC Mediation program, and (2) the parties to participate in a settlement conference to take place at the ITC on July 19 and 20, with ALJ Luckern overseeing the conference.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Public Version of Initial Determination on Claim Construction In Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras (337-TA-703)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
21
On July 15, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) construing terms of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,292,218 (the ‘218 patent) in Certain Mobile Telephones And Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-703).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”) and Respondents are Research In Motion, Ltd. and Research In Motion Corporation (collectively, “RIM”) and Apple Inc. (“Apple”).

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Sets Procedural Schedule And Provides Comments On Markman Hearings In Certain Biometric Scanning Devices (337-TA-720)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
23
On July 19, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 7 in Certain Biometric Scanning Devices, Components Thereof, Associated Software, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-720).

In the Order, ALJ Luckern set the procedural schedule for the investigation and included provisions for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions.  ALJ Luckern did not include a separate Markman hearing in the procedural schedule but indicated that he remains open to considering motions for such a hearing.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Rules On Motions For Interlocutory Review And Stay In Certain Integrated Circuits (Inv. No. 337-TA-709)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
10
On July 29, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 12 and Order No. 13 in Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions, Media Players, and Cameras (Inv. No. 337-TA-709).  Both orders addressed motions filed by Respondents Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Panasonic Semiconductor Discrete Devices Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Panasonic”), Funai Electric Co., Ltd., Funai Corporation, Inc., JVC Kenwoor Holdings, Inc., Victor Company of Japan Limited, JVC Americans Corp., Best Buy Co., Inc., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp., Huppin’s Hi-Fi Photo & Video, Inc., Buy.com Inc., Liberty Media Corporation, QVC, Inc., Crutchfield Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Computer Nerds International, Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”).  In Order No. 12, ALJ Luckern denied Respondents’ motion for interlocutory review of Order No. 11.  In Order No. 13, ALJ Luckern also denied Respondents’ motion for a stay of the investigation pending the ITC’s review of Order No. 10.

By way of background, on July 8, 2010, ALJ Luckern issued both Order No. 10 and Order No. 11.  In Order No. 10, the ALJ granted Complainant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.’s (Freescale) motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to correct typographical errors and add a dependent claim.  Order No. 11 denied Respondents’ motion to amend or clarify the notice of investigation by Respondents.  Following the issuance of Orders No. 10 and 11, Respondents filed Motion No. 709-21, requesting an interlocutory review of Order No. 11 and Motion No. 709-22 requesting a stay of the investigation pending ITC review of Order No. 10.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Denies Motions for Summary Determination in Certain DC-DC Controllers (337-TA-698)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
17
On August 4, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 34 (dated June 23, 2010) in Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-698).

In the Order, ALJ Luckern denied Respondents uPI Semiconductor Corp. and Sapphire Technology Ltd.’s summary determination motions of non-infringement and with respect to allegations of trade secret misappropriation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Rules On Motions For Summary Determination In Certain DC-DC Controllers (337-TA-698)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
09
On August 25, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public versions of Order No. 38 (dated July 2, 2010) and Order No. 39 (dated July 13, 2010) in Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-698).

In Order No. 38, ALJ Luckern granted Complainants Richtek Technology Corp. and Richtek USA, Inc.’s (collectively “Richtek”) motion for summary determination that Richtek satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement of 19 U.S.C. §1337(a)(3).  In granting the motion, ALJ Luckern found that (i) “Richtek has invested in two physical facilities in the United States, in which a number of United States-based employees spend time developing, designing, testing, and supporting Richtek’s products,” (ii) invested in personnel costs and compensation for employees in the United States, “who are associated with activities relating to products allegedly practicing one or more of the three patents-at-issue,” and (iii) “Richtek USA’s full-time employees have devoted a significant amount of time to engineering, research and development related to [Richtek’s] DC-DC controllers.”  Accordingly, ALJ Luckern found that Richtek demonstrated that it satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.

Share

Read More

Corporate Counsel Magazine Includes ALJ Luckern On Its List Of The 25 Most Influential People In IP

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
17
On September 9, 2010, Corporate Counsel Magazine published a list of the 25 most influential people in the intellectual property practice area.  Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern was listed along with other judges including , U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Judges Michel and Rader, and Judge T. John Ward of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

According to the article:
The International Trade Commission has enjoyed soaring popularity of late.  Indeed, the ITC is on pace this year to see its docket of so-called 337 patent investigations nearly double from where it stood in 2006.  That was the year the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision that limited the ability of federal district court judges to grant injunctive relief in patent infringement cases.  That decision immediately raised the ITC's profile, thanks to the agency's ability to issue exclusion orders that bar infringing products from entering the United States.  "Ever since the Supreme Court restricted injunctive relief, plaintiffs have been rushing toward us.  That's all we do here," says Luckern, who oversees judges, assigns cases, sets deadlines for when investigations must be completed, and hears claims himself, including separate recent disputes involving Nokia Corporation, Apple Inc., and Panasonic Corporation.  Luckern has also traveled throughout Asia, educating foreign lawyers about the intricacies of ITC patent disputes.  No wonder foreign-based companies are increasingly taking their patent wars to the commission.


Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Devices Having Elastomeric Gel (337-TA-732)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
22
Further to our August 2, 2010 post, on September 20, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 7 in Certain Devices Having Elastomeric Gel and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-732).

In the Order, ALJ Luckern modified his ground rules to address certain issues regarding the service of documents that were raised by the parties during the August 26, 2010 preliminary conference.  In addition, ALJ Luckern 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