How to Search
ALJ Orders

ALJ Rogers Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain MEMS Devices (337-TA-700)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
26
On January 25, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 5: Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain MEMS Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-700).

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 August 16, 2010.

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.

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Samsung Request To Depose Murata Employees In Japan In Certain Ceramic Capacitors (337-TA-692)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
27
On January 21, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 6: Granting Application for Recommendation to the U.S. District Court Requiring Depositions of Complainant Employees in Japan in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-692).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted an application filed by Respondents Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”).  Samsung’s application sought a recommendation to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to order depositions of five employees of Complainant Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. to proceed at the U.S. Consulate in Osaka, Japan.

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.

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Remand Determination In Certain Semiconductor Integration Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization (337-TA-648)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
29
On January 29, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Remand Determination (dated January 14, 2010) in Certain Semiconductor Integration Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-648).

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are LSI Corporation and Agere Systems Inc. and the Respondents are Tower Semiconductor, Ltd., Jazz Semiconductor, Qimonda AG, Powerchip Semiconductor Corporation, Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation, Integrated Device Technology, Inc., Spansion, Inc., and Nanya Technology Corporation (collectively, “Respondents”).  On September 21, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued an initial determination (“ID”) finding no violation of Section 337.  In this respect, ALJ Charneski determined that “it was established by clear and convincing evidence that claims 1, 3, and 4 of [U.S. Patent No. 5,227,335 (the ‘335 patent)] are invalid due to anticipation in view of IBM Process A.”  On November 23, 2009, the Commission issued a notice determining to review-in-part the ID finding no violation of Section 337 and determining to remand a portion of the investigation related to obviousness back to ALJ Charneski.  See our November 30, 2009 post for more details.

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion To Compel In Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers (337-TA-686)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
01
On January 28, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 35 in Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (Inv. No. 337-TA-686).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Complainants The Lincoln Electric Company and Lincoln Global, Inc.’s (collectively, “Lincoln”) motion to compel Respondent Sidergas SpA (“Sidergas”) to respond to Lincoln’s Interrogatory Nos. 33-36.

In its motion, Lincoln stated that Sidergas had taken the position that it was not obligated to respond to Lincoln’s Interrogatory Nos. 33-36 because Lincoln had already exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories allowed under the Ground Rules to the investigation.  Lincoln argued that Sidergas’s position was unreasonable because Sidergas was attempting to count every interrogatory subpart as a separate interrogatory.

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Motion For Leave To File A Second Amended Complaint And Amend Notice Of Investigation In Certain Video Displays (337-TA-687)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
01
On January 28, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 12 (dated January 8, 2010) in Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-687) granting Complainant LG Electronics, Inc.’s (“LGE”) motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and amend the Notice of Investigation.  Through its motion, LGE sought to add two additional respondents to the Investigation, AmTran Technology Co. Ltd. and AmTran Logistics, Inc. (collectively “AmTran”).

In support of its motion, LGE asserted that good cause existed to grant its motion because “through discovery conducted in this Investigation [LGE] has gained new knowledge and confirmed information about AmTran’s involvement with the importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of products accused in this Investigation.”  Additionally, LGE asserted that adding AmTran as respondents “would reduce the need to conduct third-party discovery, aid in developing a more complete record, and afford it effective relief.”  The Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”) filed a response in support of LGE’s motion citing the same reasons as LGE, including the assertion that AmTran “appears to have the most detailed technical understanding of the Vizio accused products.”

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Target Date In Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, And Computers (337-TA-701)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
01
On February 1, 2010, 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 Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, And Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-701).

In Order No. 2, ALJ Gildea set May 31, 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 January 31, 2011.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Rules On Motion To Compel In Certain Flash Memory Chips (337-TA-664)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
01
On January 28, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 29 (dated January 14, 2010) in Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-664).

According to the Order, Complainants Spansion, Inc. and Spansion LLC (collectively, “Spansion”) moved to compel Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung International, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) to produce certain documents, witnesses, information, and samples relating to the manufacture and programming of Samsung’s accused flash memory chips.

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Semiconductor Integration Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization (337-TA-648)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
02
On January 29, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Initial Determination (dated September 21, 2009) in Certain Semiconductor Integration Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-648).

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are LSI Corporation and Agere Systems Inc. (collectively, “Complainants”) and the Respondents are Tower Semiconductor, Ltd. (“Tower”), Jazz Semiconductor (“Jazz”), Qimonda AG, Powerchip Semiconductor Corporation (“Powerchip”), Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (“Grace”), Integrated Device Technology, Inc. (“IDT”), Spansion, Inc. (“Spansion”), and Nanya Technology Corporation (“Nanya”) (collectively, “Respondents”).

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Motion For Leave To File Supplemental Submission Regarding Claim Construction In Certain Flash Memory Chips (337-TA-664)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
02
On January 29, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 28 (dated January 8, 2010) in Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-664).

According to the Order, Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung International, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) moved for leave to file a supplemental submission in support of their claim constructions regarding one of the patents-in-suit, the ‘877 patent.  Complainants Spansion, Inc. and Spansion LLC (collectively, “Spansion”) opposed the motion.  No response was received from the Commission Investigative Staff.

Read More

ALJ Charneski Permits Filing Of Supplemental Expert Report In Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-617)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
02
On February 1, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 23 in Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-617) granting Complainants Funai Electric Co., Ltd. and Funai Corporation, Inc.’s (collectively, “Funai”) motion to file a supplemental expert report of V. Michael Bove, Jr.  The Order simultaneously denied a motion by Respondents Vizio, Inc., AmTran Technology Co., Ltd., Suzhou Raken Technology, Ltd., TPV Technology, Ltd., TPV International (USA), Inc., Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co., Ltd., Envision Peripherals, Inc., and Top Victory Investments, Ltd. (collectively, “Respondents”) to strike the supplemental expert report of V. Michael Bove.

Funai argued that its motion to supplement was necessitated by new arguments raised within Respondents’ expert report, which “to Dr. Bove’s surprise,” opined that VCTs that fit into single packets are “hypothetical” or a “remote” likelihood, and that VCTs are not routinely placed at the start of packets.

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion For Leave To Supplement Notice Of Prior Art In Certain Printing And Imaging Devices (337-TA-690)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
12
On February 5, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 11 in Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Component Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-690) denying Respondents Oki Data Corporation and Oki Data Americas, Inc.’s (collectively “Oki Data”) motion for leave to supplement their notice of prior art.

In the motion, Oki Data sought to add ten additional prior art references and asserted that good cause existed for allowing the supplemental prior art notice.  Specifically, Oki Data argued that “all but one of the prior art references was unknown to Oki Data at the time its original prior art notice was filed” and that Oki Data “learned of these references in conjunction with its experts’ preparation of their reports.”  Complainants Ricoh Company, Ltd., Ricoh Americas Corporation, and Ricoh Electronics, Inc., as well as the Commission Investigative Staff opposed Oki Data’s motion for leave.

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Target Date In Certain Authentication Systems (337-TA-697)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
16
Further to our December 30, 2009 and December 31, 2009 posts, on February 12, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 3: Setting Target Date and Date for Submission of Proposed Procedural Schedules in Certain Authentication Systems, Including Software and Handheld Electronic Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-697).

According to the Order, ALJ Essex set April 5, 2011 as the target date (which is 15 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Essex further indicated that any final initial determination on violation should be filed no later than December 3, 2010.  In addition, ALJ Essex noted that the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on August 30, 2010.

Read More

ALJ Rogers Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Electronic Devices (337-TA-667/673)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
17
On February 12, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 55C in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-667/673).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted a joint motion filed on January 29, 2010, by Complainant Saxon Innovations, LLC’s (“Saxon”), and Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLP (collectively, “Samsung”), and Palm, Inc. (“Palm”) to terminate the investigation on the basis of a settlement agreement.

According to the Order, the joint motion to terminate stated that portions of certain confidential agreements had been withheld from Samsung and Palm, and all parties to the joint motion argued that “requiring the disclosure of the full, unredacted agreements to all respondents would be contrary to public policy in favor of settlements.”  ALJ Rogers noted the general rule that both confidential and public versions of settlements are filed and served, and protective orders usually adequately safeguard confidential information.  Nonetheless, in granting the motion, ALJ Rogers acknowledged that “confidentiality is a primary inducement to parties to settle cases,” the parties’ request was unopposed, there are no non-settling respondents remaining after the termination of Samsung and Palm, and therefore, “strong public policy in favor of settlement supports the request to withhold the terms from Samsung and Palm.”

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Claim Construction Order in Certain Flash Memory Chips (337-TA-664)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
19
On February 12, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 34, construing terms of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit in Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-664).

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are:  Spansion, Inc. and Spansion LLC (collectively, “Spansion”).  The Respondents in this investigation are:  Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung International, Inc.; Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC; Apple Inc.; AsusTek Computer, Inc.; Asus Computer International, Inc.; Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd.; Kingston Technology Co., Inc.; Kingston Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.; Kingston Technology Far East Co.; Kingston Technology Far East (Malaysia) Sdn. Bdh.; Lenovo Group Ltd.; Lenovo (US), Inc.; Lenovo (Beijing) Ltd.; International Information Products (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.; Lenovo Information Products (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.; Lenovo (Huiyang) Electronic Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Lenovo Electronic Co., Ltd.; PNY Technologies, Inc.; Research in Motion, Ltd.; Research in Motion Corporation; Sony Corporation; Sony Corporation of America; Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB; Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc.; Beijing SE Putian Mobile Communications Co., Ltd.; Transcend Information, Inc.; Transcend Information, Inc. (USA); Transcend Information Inc. (Shanghai Factory); Verbatim Americas LLC; and Verbatim Corporation (collectively, “Respondents”).

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Funai In Certain Video Displays (337-TA-687)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
19

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.

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Liquid Crystal Display Modules (337-TA-702)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
01

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Target Date In Certain Wireless Communication System Server Software, Wireless Handheld Devices And Battery Packs (337-TA-706)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
02
On March 1, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 2:  Notice of Ground Rules and Setting Target Date and Date for Submission of Proposed Procedural Schedule in Certain Wireless Communication System Server Software, Wireless Handheld Devices And Battery Packs (Inv. No. 337-TA-706).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea set June 24, 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 February 24, 2011.

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.