How to Search
ALJ Orders

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Recommended Determination On Remedy And Bonding In Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines (337-TA-641)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
22
On October 21, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version (dated August 21, 2009) of the Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding (“RD”) in Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-641).  In the RD, ALJ Charneski recommended (1) that a limited exclusion order issue; (2) a cease and desist order not issue as to any respondent; and (3) if the Commission issues an exclusion order, the Presidential review period bond should be set at 100% of the entered value of any covered product.

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is General Electric Co. (“GE”) and the Respondents are Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (“MHI”), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc. (“MHIA”), and Mitsubishi Power System, Inc. (“MPSA”) (collectively, “Mitsubishi”).  On August 7, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued the initial determination in this investigation, finding that a violation of Section 337 had occurred in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain variable speed wind turbines and components thereof.  See our August 10 and October 8 posts for more details about the current status of this investigation.

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants In Part Motion For Summary Determination Of Importation In Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits (337-TA-666)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
22
On October 21, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 31 (dated September 24, 2009) 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 for summary determination that the activities of Respondent ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (“ASUSTeK”) satisfy the importation requirement of Section 337 and constitute one or more “territorial acts” proscribed under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

In the motion, O2 Micro alleged that ASUSTeK sells its accused products for importation into the United States, imports its accused products into the United States, and sells its accused products within the United States after importation.  Further, O2 Micro contended that the latter two activities, i.e., importing accused products into and selling accused products in the United States, are “predicate elements of infringement” under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version of Initial Determination In Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines (337-TA-641)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
29
Further to our August 10 post, on October 21, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated August 7, 2009) in Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-641).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is General Electric Co. (“GE”) and the Respondents are Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (“MHI”), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc. (“MHIA”), and Mitsubishi Power System, Inc. (“MPSA”) (collectively, “Mitsubishi”).  On August 7, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued the ID in this investigation finding that a violation of Section 337 had occurred in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain variable speed wind turbines and components thereof.  According to the ID, ALJ Charneski held that Mitsubishi’s turbines infringe claim 121 of the asserted ‘039 patent, and claim 15 of the asserted ‘985 patent.  Additionally, while ALJ Charneski determined that Mitsubishi’s turbines infringe claims 5, 7, and 8 of the asserted ‘221 patent, he also determined that GE did not practice any claim of the asserted ‘221 patent, and therefore did not satisfy the domestic industry (technical prong) requirement for the ‘221 patent.

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Target Date In Certain Printing And Imaging Devices (337-TA-690)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
30
Further to our October 21 post, on October 29, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 4: Setting Target Date in Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-690).

According to the Order, the Initial Determination will be due on September 27, 2010, and the target date for completion of this investigation is January 25, 2011 (which is 15 months after institution of the investigation).

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Supplemental Initial Determination In Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-501)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
30
On October 30, 2009, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice regarding the Supplemental Initial Determination (“Supplemental ID”) in Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-501).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Amkor Technology, Inc. and the  Respondents are Carsem (M) Sdn Bhd, Carsem Semiconductor Sdn Bhd, and Carsem, Inc.

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Automotive Multimedia Display And Navigation Systems (337-TA-657)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
04
On October 27, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated September 22, 2009) in Certain Automotive Multimedia Display and Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-657).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Honeywell International, Inc. (“Honeywell”).  The original Respondents were Alpine Electronics, Inc.; Alpine Electronics of America, Inc.; Denso Corporation; Denso International America, Inc.; Pioneer Corp.; Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc.; Kenwood Corp.; and Kenwood USA Corp.  However, all of the Respondents other than Pioneer Corp. and Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. (collectively, “Pioneer”) were terminated from the investigation before the issuance of the ID as a result of settlement agreements with Honeywell.

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Video Displays (337-TA-687)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
05
On November 3, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 6: Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-687).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea noted that he “set the deadlines for construction of claim terms relatively early in the Investigation…[so as] to avoid a shifting sands approach to claim construction.”

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Target Date In Certain Ceramic Capacitors (337-TA-692)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
06
Further to our October 29 and October 30 posts, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 1: Protective Order; and Order No. 2: Notice of Ground Rules and Setting Target Date and Date for Submission of Proposed Procedural Schedule in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-692).

In Order No. 2, ALJ Gildea set March 4, 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 to be issued in the investigation no later than November 4, 2010.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Amended Procedural Schedule In Certain Flash Memory Chips (337-TA-664)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
09
On November 5, 2009, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 18: Setting the Amended Procedural Schedule in Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-664).

According to the Order, a Markman hearing will take place on November 10; the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on May 3, 2010; the Initial Determination is due on September 18, 2010; and the target date for completion of this investigation is January 18, 2011.

Read More

ALJ Charneski Determines To Reopen Record In Certain Connecting Devices (337-TA-587)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
09
On November 5, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 16 in Certain Connecting Devices (“Quick Clamps”) For Use With Modular Compressed Air Conditioning Units, Including Filters, Regulators, and Lubricators (“FRL’s”) That Are Part Of Larger Pneumatic Systems and the FRL Units They Connect (Inv. No. 337-TA-587).  Please note that Oblon Spivak represents Respondents SMC Corporation and SMC Corporation of America (“SMC”) in this matter.

In the Order, ALJ Charneski provides that the “parties are directed to confer with the goal of achieving a joint proposal for the dates of expert reports, rebuttal expert reports, expert depositions, and a hearing.  A joint report that details the result of the parties’ conference shall be filed by November 16, 2009.”

Read More

ALJ Gildea Modifies Target Date In Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits (337-TA-666)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
10
On November 6, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 42: Initial Determination Modifying Target Date Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.51(a) in Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-666).

According to the Order, “[g]iven the breadth of the hearing record and the complexity of the issues raised by the parties therein, the Administrative Law Judge has determined that there is good cause to extend the target date in order to provide time for meaningful consideration of the parties’ positions.”  Accordingly, ALJ Gildea extended the target date to June 21, 2010, with the final initial determination due on February 19, 2010.

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
10
Further to our October 15 post, on November 4, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of the October 13, 2009 Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-650).

The Complainant in this investigation was John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC, Inc. (“PPC”).  PPC alleged that Fu Ching Technical Industry Co. Ltd. and Gem Electronics, Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”) were engaged in the manufacture and sale for importation, and the importation and sale after importation of coaxial cable connectors that infringed claims of United States Patent No. 5,470,257 (the ‘257 patent).  Four other 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”), were previously found to be in default and were alleged to be in violation of Section 337 for reasons of infringement of the ‘257 patent, as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 6,558,194 (the ‘194 patent); D440,539 (the ‘539 patent); and D519,076 (the ‘076 patent).

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Target Date In Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles (337-TA-688)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
11
Further to our October 6 and October 7 posts, on November 9, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 3: Setting Target Date and Date for Submission of Proposed Procedural Schedules in Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-688).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex set November 9, 2010 as the target date (which is 13 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Essex further indicated that any final initial determination on violation should be filed no later than July 9, 2010.  In addition, ALJ Essex noted that the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on April 19, 2010.

Read More

Update Regarding Certain Printing And Imaging Devices (337-TA-690)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
11
Further to our October 21 and October 30 posts, on November 9, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 6: Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-690).

In the Order, ALJ Rogers sets the procedural schedule for the investigation and includes provisions for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions.  The procedural schedule also indicates that the evidentiary hearing in this investigation will commence on May 17, 2010.

Read More

ALJ Luckern Sets Target Date In Certain Dual Access Locks (337-TA-689)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
16
Further to our October 16 and October 19 posts, on November 12, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued Order No. 3: Setting Target Date in Certain Dual Access Locks and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-689).

According to the Order, ALJ Luckern set December 21, 2010 as the target date (which is 14 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Luckern further indicated that any final initial determination on violation should be filed no later than August 23, 2010.  In addition, ALJ Luckern noted that the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on May 24, 2010.

Read More

ALJ Luckern Requests Written Submissions From Parties In Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips (337-TA-674)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
17
On November 16, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 23 (dated October 27, 2009) in Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips, Laser Diode Chips and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-674).  In the order, ALJ Luckern requested that the parties file written submissions answering various questions relating to claim construction, infringement, validity, and enforceability of the patents asserted in the investigation.  In total, ALJ Luckern posed 23 questions to Complainant Gertrude Neumark Rothschild (“Rothschild”) and 14 questions to Respondents Toshiba Corp. and Pansonic Corp. (collectively, “Respondents”).

The order required that Rothschild and Respondents file their answers to ALJ Luckern’s questions by noon on November 3, 2009.  Responses to the opposing party’s answers were required by the close of business on November 6, 2009.  The Commission Investigative Staff’s (“Staff”) responses to the private parties’ answers and responses were due by noon on November 9, 2009.  Finally, the private parties were required to file reply submissions, along with statements indicating by exhibit number which exhibits supported their initial answers to the ALJ’s questions, by noon on November 12, 2009.

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
17
On November 16, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 25) (dated October 29, 2009) in Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips, Laser Diode Chips and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-674).  In the ID, ALJ Luckern granted the October 28, 2009 motion of Complainant Gertrude Neumark Rothschild (“Rothschild”), seeking termination of the investigation with respect to Toshiba Corporation (“Toshiba”).

According to the ID, Toshiba did not oppose Rothschild’s motion and the Commission Investigative Staff supported the motion.  Further, in support of the motion, Rothschild argued that “in its recently-filed pre-hearing statement, Toshiba has represented that it has ceased (or intends to cease) importation into the United States of the accused product and accordingly, termination of Toshiba from the investigation is appropriate; and that pursuant to Commission rule 210.21(a)(1), [Rothschild] affirms that there exists no agreements, written or oral, express or implied between [Rothschild] and Toshiba that concern the subject matter of this investigation.”

Read More

ALJ Luckern Denies Motion Requesting Mandatory Settlement Conference In Certain Energy Drink Products (337-TA-678)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
17
On November 16, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 9 (dated August 7, 2009) in Certain Energy Drink Products (Inv. No. 337-TA-678).  In the Order, ALJ Luckern denied a motion filed by Respondents India Imports, Inc., d/b/a/ International Wholesales Club and Washington Food and Supply of D.C., Inc., d/b/a Washington Cash & Carry (collectively, “Respondents”) to order Complainants Red Bull GmbH and Red Bull North America, Inc. (collectively, “Red Bull”) to attend a mandatory settlement conference presided over by the Administrative Law Judge.

In support of their motion, Respondents argued that Red Bull had refused to respond to concrete offers for settlement proffered by Respondents, including specific monetary offers of settlement and that in the meantime, Respondents “continue to incur litigation costs imposed by a large, well-funded adversary with little apparent motivation to settle this matter.”  In opposition, Red Bull asserted that Respondents had not provided enough information for Red Bull to give adequate consideration of Respondents’ settlement offers.  The Commission Investigative Staff opposed Respondents’ motion.

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Summary Determination Motions Regarding Invalidity and Inequitable Conduct in Certain Electronic Devices (337-TA-673/667)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
18
On November 17, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 47C (dated October 14, 2009).  The order denied summary determination motions filed by Complainant Saxon Innovations, LLC (“Saxon”) and Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLP (collectively, “Samsung”) in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-667/673).

Both parties filed motions for summary determination on August 25, 2009.  Saxon’s motion sought a determination that U.S. Patent No. 5,608,873 (the ‘873 patent) was not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and was not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.  Samsung filed a motion seeking summary determination that the ‘873 patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

Read More

ALJ Rogers Releases Public Version of Initial Determination Granting Saxon’s Summary Determination Motion Regarding The Economic Prong Of The Domestic Industry Requirement In Certain Electronic Devices (337-TA-667/673)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
19
Further to our November 17 post, where we reported that the International Trade Commission issued a notice determining not to review ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr.’s October 15, 2009 Initial Determination (“ID”) granting Complainant Saxon Innovations, LLC’s (“Saxon”) motion for summary determination that it has met the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-667/673), the public version of the October 15 ID was released on November 18.

According to the ID, Saxon filed a motion for summary determination that it has met the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement based on the activities of its licensee, Motorola, Inc., pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(C).  Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLP (collectively, “Samsung”), Research In Motion, Ltd. and Research In Motion Corp. (collectively, “RIM”, no longer a party to the investigation based on a settlement agreement), and Palm, Inc. (“Palm”) filed a joint response opposing the motion.  In addition, Samsung and RIM filed a joint motion for summary determination of no violation based upon Saxon’s failure to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.  The Commission Investigative Staff filed a combined response to the parties’ motions and supported Saxon’s position that it satisfied the economic prong as a matter of law due to substantial investments in relevant technology made by Saxon’s licensee, Motorola.

Read More

Copyright © Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. | Disclaimer
The opinions, commentary and characterizations provided to this online forum by the authors and moderators are provided for encouraging discussion, thought and debate on important ITC issues. These postings are in no way representative of the opinions of the Oblon firm, or its clients, but rather the personal views of the individual authors.