ALJ Orders

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion For Summary Determination Of Invalidity In Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers (337-TA-686)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
19
On November 17, 2009 ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 13: Denying Respondent Sidergas SpA’s (“Sidergas”) Motion for Summary Determination of Invalidity of Claims 3, 4, 6, 12, & 13 of U.S. Patent No. 6,708,864 (the ‘864 patent) in Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (Inv. No. 337-TA-686).

According to the Order, Sidergas filed its summary determination motion on October 27, 2009.  Further, Complainants Lincoln Electric Company and Lincoln Global, Inc. (collectively “Lincoln”) as well as the Commission Investigative Staff filed responses on November 6, 2009 opposing the motion.  In addition, Respondents Atlantic China Welding Consumables, Inc., ESAB AB, Hyundai Welding Co., Ltd., and Kiswel Ltd. filed a joint response on November 6, 2009 in support of Sidergas’ motion.

Share

Read More

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

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion For Summary Determination Of Invalidity In Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers (337-TA-686)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
19
On November 18, 2009 ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 14 denying respondent Sidergas SpA’s (“Sidergas”) motion for summary determination of invalidity of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,260,781 (the ‘781 patent) in Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (Inv. No. 337-TA-686).

According to the Order, Sidergas filed its summary determination motion on October 27, 2009.  Complainants Lincoln Electric Company and Lincoln Global, Inc. (collectively “Lincoln”) and the Commission Investigative Staff filed responses on November 6, 2009 opposing the motion.  In addition, respondents Atlantic China Welding Consumables, Inc., ESAB AB, Hyundai Welding Co., Ltd., and Kiswel Ltd. filed a joint response on November 6, 2009 in support of Sidergas’ motion.  On November 12, 2009, Sidergas filed a motion for leave to file a reply in support of its motion, which was denied.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Sets Remand Procedural Schedule In Certain Connecting Devices (337-TA-587)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
20
On November 18, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 17: Procedural Schedule 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 in this matter.

According to the Order, a one-day evidentiary hearing in this remand proceeding will take place on April 21, 2010.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles (337-TA-688)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
23
On November 20, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 4: Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-688).

In the Order, ALJ Essex set the procedural schedule for the investigation.  ALJ Essex scheduled the evidentiary hearing in this matter to begin on April 19, 2010.

Share

Read More

Update Regarding Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies (337-TA-691)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
24
Further to our October 23 and October 26 posts, on November 23, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 4: Setting Target Date and Date for Submission of Proposed Procedural Schedules in Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-691).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex set February 28, 2011 as the target date (which is approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Essex further indicated that any final initial determination on violation should be filed no later than October 29, 2010.  In addition, ALJ Essex noted that the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on July 16, 2010.

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
27
Further to our October 30 post, on November 20, 2009, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of the Supplemental Initial Determination (“Supplemental ID”) in connection with remand proceedings 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. (collectively “Carsem”).  On November 9, 2005, ALJ Bullock issued a Remand Initial Determination, finding that (1) there was a violation of Section 337 in connection with U.S. Patent No. 6,433,277 (the ‘277 patent); and (2) no violation of Section 337 had occurred in connection with U.S. Patent No. 6,630,728 (the ‘728 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 6,455,356 (the ‘356 patent).  In particular, ALJ Bullock found that certain of Carsem’s accused products infringe valid claims 2, 3, 21 and 22 of the ‘277 patent.

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 Gildea Grants Motion To Terminate The Investigation In Certain Collaborative System Products (337-TA-682)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
04
On December 2, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 7 in Certain Collaborative System Products and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-682).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted Complainant eInstruction Corporation’s (“eInstruction”) motion seeking termination of the investigation in its entirety by reason of a settlement agreement with Respondent Qomo HiteVision, LLC.

According to the Order, eInstruction stated in its motion that there were no other agreements between the parties concerning the subject matter of this investigation.  Additionally, the Commission Investigative Staff (the “Staff”) filed a response supporting the motion and indicating that it complies with the Commission requirements for termination.  The Staff further noted in its response to the motion that termination of this investigation would not have any adverse impact on the public interest.

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 Charneski Issues Public Version of Initial Determination Finding Violation of Section 337 in Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels (337-TA-655)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
04
Further to our October 19 post, on November 20, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated October 16, 2009) in Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Certain Processes For Manufacturing Or Relating To Same And Certain Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-655).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Amsted Industries Inc. (“Amsted”).  The Respondents are Tianrui Group Co. Ltd, Tianrui Group Foundry Co. Ltd, Standard Car Truck Company, Inc., and Barber Tianrui Railway Supply (collectively, “Tianrui”).  On October 16, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued the ID in this investigation finding that a violation of Section 337 “ha[d] occurred in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain cast steel railway wheels or products containing the same by reason of trade secret misappropriation.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies (337-TA-691)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
09
On December 8, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 5: Setting Procedural Schedules in Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-691).

In the Order, ALJ Essex set the procedural schedule for the investigation, including a July 16, 2010 start date for the evidentiary hearing.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Grants Motion To Compel In Certain Digital Televisions Enforcement Proceeding (337-TA-617)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
09
On December 8, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 16 (dated November 19, 2009) granting in part a motion to compel filed by Respondents Vizio, Inc. and AmTran Technology (collectively, “Respondents”) in Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-617).

In support of their motion to compel, Respondents argued that Complainants Funai Electric Co. and Funai Corporation, Inc. (collectively, “Funai”) failed to provide substantive responses to certain interrogatories propounded by Respondents in the instant enforcement proceeding.  According to the Order, the subject interrogatories fell into four categories, and Funai provided insufficient responses relating to two of these categories: (i) interrogatories seeking the basis for Funai’s allegations made in its enforcement complaint that Respondents knowingly submitted false and incomplete information to persuade U.S. Customs to rule that the redesigned products, which are the subject of the enforcement proceeding, are outside the scope of the exclusion order issued by the ITC in the underlying investigation; and (ii) interrogatories seeking the basis for Funai’s allegations in its enforcement complaint that U.S. Customs ignored Commission findings and disregarded the record in making its ruling with respect to the redesigned products.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Grants Motion to Strike Inequitable Conduct Defense In Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers (337-TA-686)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
10
On December 7, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 21 in Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (Inv. No. 337-TA-686).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted-in-part and denied-in-part a motion filed by Complainants The Lincoln Electric Company and Lincoln Global, Inc. (collectively, “Lincoln”) to strike the Seventh Affirmative Defense of Respondent Sidergas SpA (“Sidergas”).

In support of its motion, Lincoln argued that the inequitable conduct defense set forth in Sidergas’ response to Lincoln’s complaint was inadequate under the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009), because Sidergas “fail[ed] to include sufficient detail to meet the heightened pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).”  In opposition, Sidergas argued that its inequitable conduct pleading satisfied the standard in Exergen and that Lincoln’s motion should be denied because it sought to strike other claims that were raised simultaneously with Sidergas’ inequitable conduct claim, including patent misuse, fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and infectious unenforceability.  Alternatively, Sidergas argued that if its pleading was deficient it should be afforded the opportunity to add sufficient detail.  The Commission Investigative Staff opposed Lincoln’s motion stating that Lincoln failed to demonstrate that Sidergas’ inequitable conduct defense did not comply with Commission Rule 210.13(b), and that Sidergas should be given the opportunity to amend its pleading to satisfy any alleged deficiencies.

Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Target Date In Certain Foldable Stools (337-TA-693)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
11
Further to our December 4 and December 7 posts, on December 9, 2009, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 2 in Certain Foldable Stools (Inv. No. 337-TA-693).

According to the Order, ALJ Bullock set April 9, 2011 as the target date (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  In addition, the Order directs the parties to submit a discovery statement on or before January 11, 2010.  The Order also contains ALJ Bullock’s ground rules for the investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Initial Determination In Certain Mobile Telephones (337-TA-663)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
21
On December 17, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communications Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-663).

According to the notice, ALJ Charneski held that there was a violation of Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,493,335 (the ‘335 patent) and 6,292,218 (the ‘218 patent).  Specifically, ALJ Charneski determined that “Samsung’s accused products” literally infringe certain claims of the ‘335 and ‘218 patents.  ALJ Charneski also determined that certain claims of the ‘335 and ‘218 patents are not invalid due to anticipation, obviousness, obviousness-type double patenting, or failure to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.  ALJ Charneski further determined that it “has not been shown that the ‘218 patent is unenforceable.”  Lastly, ALJ Charneski determined that the “domestic industry requirement is satisfied with respect to the ‘335 patent and the ‘218 patent.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Designates Investigation More Complicated And Sets Hearing Date On Motion For Temporary Relief In Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-695)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
23
On December 18, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 4: Designating Investigation “More Complicated” in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-695).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Knowles Electronics LLC (“Knowles”) and the Respondent is Analog Devices Inc.  The investigation is based on a November 12, 2009 complaint and motion for temporary relief as well as a December 1, 2009 letter supplementing the complaint filed by Knowles.  Knowles’ complaint and motion for temporary relief allege violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain silicon microphone packages and products containing the same which allegedly infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,781,231 and 7,242,089.  See our November 13, 17, and December 18 and 21 posts for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motion To Terminate The Investigation In Certain Course Management System Software Products (337-TA-677)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
29
On December 28, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 6 in Certain Course Management System Software Products (Inv. No. 337-TA-677).

In the Order, ALJ Essex granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Blackboard Inc. and Respondent Desire2Learn Incorporated to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement between the parties.

Share

Read More

www.xxx-clips-online.com