How to Search
ALJ Orders

ALJ Gildea Denies Nonparties’ Motion For Leave To Participate In Remand In Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors (337-TA-650)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
28
On April 26, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 33 denying a motion brought by nonparties Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Hewlett-Packard Company, and Transcend Information, Inc. (collectively, the “Nonparties”) requesting permission to participate as amicus curiae in the remanded portion of the investigation in Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-650).

By way of background, the ITC issued a notice on December 14, 2009 determining to review a portion of ALJ Gildea’s October 13, 2009 final initial determination (“ID”) finding that no violation of Section 337 had occurred in connection with the non-defaulting respondents’ importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, or the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain coaxial cable connectors by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,470,257, and asking the parties and members of the public to comment on “the interpretation of section 337(a)(3) as it pertains to licensing.”  See our December 16, 2009 post for more details.  On April 14, the Commission issued the public version of its opinion vacating the ID insofar as ALJ Gildea found that a domestic industry exists under section 337(a)(3)(C), and affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding on a number of other issues included in the ID.  See our April 16, 2010 post for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Target Date In Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (337-TA-707)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
29
Further to our March 23, 2010 post, on April 28, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 5:  Setting Target Date and Date for Submission of Proposed Procedural Schedules in Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors and Products Containing Same, Including Memory Modules (Inv. No. 337-TA-707).  Please note that Oblon Spivak represents Respondents Buffalo, Inc. and Buffalo Technology (USA), Inc. in this matter.

According to the Order, ALJ Essex set July 25, 2011 as the target date (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Essex further indicated that any final initial determination on violation should be filed no later than March 25, 2011.  In addition, ALJ Essex noted that the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on December 14, 2010.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Motion To Amend Notice Of Prior Art In Certain Flash Memory Chips (337-TA-664)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
29
On April 27, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 59:  Denying Respondents’ Motion to Amend Notice of Prior Art in Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-664).

According to the Order, on April 2, 2010, Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung International, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Shanghai Lenovo Electronic Co., Ltd., Apple Inc., AsusTek Computer, Inc., Asus Computer International, Inc., Transcend Information, Inc., Transcend Information, Inc. (USA), Transcend Information Inc. (Shanghai Factory), Kingston Technology Co., Inc., Kingston Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Kingston Technology Far East Co., Kingston Technology Far East (Malaysia) Sdn. Bdh., PNY Technologies, Inc., Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB, Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., Beijing SE Putian Mobile Communications Co., Ltd., Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd., Verbatim Americas LLC, and Verbatim Corporation (collectively, the “K&E Respondents”) filed a motion seeking leave to amend their notice of prior art, by adding U.S. Patent Nos. 6,682,978 (the ‘978 patent) and 6,576,949 (the ‘949 patent) as prior art to asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,376,877.  Complainants Spansion, Inc. and Spansion LLC (collectively, “Spansion”) opposed the motion.
Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion To Compel And Amends Procedural Schedule In Certain Notebook Computer Products (337-TA-705)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
30
On April 28, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 7 in Certain Notebook Computer Products and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-705).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Complainant Toshiba Corporation’s (“Toshiba”) motion to compel Respondents Wistron Corporation, Wistron InfoComm (Texas) Corporation, and Wistron InfoComm Technology (America) Corporation (collectively, “Wistron”) to respond to Toshiba’s Interrogatory Nos. 47 and 48.  ALJ Rogers also amended the procedural schedule in the investigation.

Interrogatory Nos. 47 and 48 are both directed to Wistron’s invalidity contentions in the investigation.  Specifically, Interrogatory No. 47 seeks Wistron’s contentions regarding invalidity of the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and Interrogatory No. 48 seeks Wistron’s contentions regarding invalidity of the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  According to Toshiba, Wistron responded to the interrogatories by objecting to them as premature, and stating that it will supplement its responses at a later time.  In its motion, Toshiba argued that that the interrogatories are not premature, and that Wistron should be compelled to answer the interrogatories immediately.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motion To Compel In Certain Ceramic Capacitors (337-TA-692)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
03
On April 30, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 16 (dated April 19, 2010) in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-692) granting in part Respondents motion to compel Complainants to respond to interrogatory nos. 5 and 54 and request for production nos. 1, 13, 27, 53, 79, 105, 132-157 and 159-161.

According to the Order, Respondents Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) asserted that the requested discovery relates to the testing of its products by Complainants Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. (collectively, “Murata”) before the institution of this investigation.  Samsung argued that the information is discoverable, despite Murata’s claim that it is protected work product, because Murata waived its privilege by relying on the information in its expert’s declaration to support its Complaint.  Samsung further argued that the waiver extends to all other pre-suit testing, results and analysis of the Samsung capacitor products completed by Murata or its expert.  Murata argued that evidence submitted to the ITC before the institution of an investigation is treated differently than evidence that a complainant will rely on to prove a violation of Section 337, and that it does not intend to rely on or otherwise support its case with its expert’s pre-Complaint analysis, which Murata “merely pointed to . . . to identify products accused of infringement and the basis therefore in the Complaint.”  The Commission Investigative Staff supported Samsung’s motion to the extent it sought discovery limited to the expert declaration, but noted that Samsung’s motion sought discovery regarding aspects of Murata’s pre-filing investigation that were unrelated to the declaration.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Motion To Compel Deposition In Certain Ceramic Capacitors (337-TA-692)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
04
On April 30, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 18 (dated April 20, 2010) in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-692).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Respondents Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Samsung”) motion to compel Complainants Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. (collectively, “Murata”) to provide Takashi Hiramatsu, an inventor of U.S. Patent No. 6,243,254 (the ‘254 patent), for additional deposition testimony.

In support of the motion, Samsung argued that although Mr. Hiramatsu was previously deposed in Japan, Samsung could not complete the deposition because of Mr. Hiramatsu’s alleged evasiveness and lack of preparedness to testify regarding his invention.  Specifically, Samsung argued that Mr. Hiramatsu did not review any documents in preparation for the deposition and used his lack of familiarity with the documents related to the ‘254 patent as an excuse to introduce delay and avoid providing substantive testimony.  Consequently, Samsung asked that Mr. Hiramatsu be produced for additional questioning.
Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
04
On April 30, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 39 (dated March 1, 2010) in Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (Inv. No. 337-TA-686), denying Respondent The ESAB Group, Inc.’s (“ESAB”) motion for summary determination that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,708,864 (the ‘864 patent) were invalid under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) due to a prior public use or sale.   Respondent Sidergas SpA joined ESAB’s motion, while Complainants The Lincoln Electric Company and Lincoln Global, Inc. (collectively, “Lincoln”) and the Commission Investigative Staff opposed.

ALJ Rogers found genuine issues of material fact regarding two factual assertions underlying ESAB’s motion: namely, (1) that a particular wire currently manufactured by Lincoln meets all asserted claims of the ‘864 patent, and (2) that the wire sold by Lincoln prior to the critical date is the same product as the particular wire currently manufactured by Lincoln.
Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion for Summary Determination Regarding Economic Prong of The Domestic Industry Requirement In Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers (337-TA-686)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
04
On April 30, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 41 (dated March 3, 2010) in Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (Inv. No. 337-TA-686), denying Complainants The Lincoln Electric Company and Lincoln Global, Inc.’s (collectively, “Lincoln”) motion for summary determination that they satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.  Respondents The ESAB Group, Inc. and Sidergas SpA, as well as the Commission Investigative Staff opposed Lincoln’s motion.

Lincoln relied primarily on a declaration by its president to support its motion, but ALJ Rogers determined that “the statements in the declaration describe investments and expenditures related to Lincoln’s bulk welding wire and bulk welding wire containers in general, but do not address investments and expenditures related to any specific products that are asserted to practice the patents.”
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motion To Strike Expert Testimony In Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits (337-TA-666)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
04
On April 30, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 48 (dated April 19, 2010) 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 Respondents Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., ASUSTeK Computer Inc., and ASUS Computer International’s (collectively, “Respondents”) motion to strike certain hearing testimony of Complainants O2 Micro International Ltd. and O2 Micro Inc.’s (collectively, “O2 Micro”) experts, Richard A. Flasck and Dr. Melvin Ray Mercer.

According to the Order, Respondents argued that the testimony at issue should be stricken because it was outside the scope of Mr. Flasck’s and Dr. Mercer’s respective expert reports and deposition testimony.  In particular, Respondents were seeking to have stricken Mr. Flasck’s testimony that Respondents’ accused products infringe O2 Micro’s U.S. Patent No. 7,417,382 (the ‘382 patent) even though “squegging” causes the output signal from the capacitor divider of those products to periodically fall below the alleged “threshold.”  Also, Respondents were seeking to have stricken Mr. Flasck’s opinions regarding the operation of their MP1015 and MP1009 products, claim construction, and “classic timers” in connection with the accused products.  With regard to Dr. Mercer, Respondents were seeking to have stricken the expert’s opinions concerning the conception and reduction to practice of the invention of the ‘382 patent, the simulation of the “Kawabata circuit,” and a waveform diagram he drew during his deposition.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination in Certain Semiconductor Chips (337-TA-661)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
04
On April 26, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of his 132 page Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated January 22, 2010) in Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-661).

Complainant Rambus, Inc. (“Rambus”) accused Respondents NVIDIA Corporation, Asustek Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer International, Inc., BFG Technologies, Inc., Biostar Microtech (USA) Corp., Biostar Microtech International Corp., Diablotek Inc., EVGA Corp., G.B.T. Inc., Giga-byte Technology Co., Ltd., Hewlett-Packard Co., MSI Computer Corp., Micro-star International Co., Ltd., Palit Multimedia Inc., Palit Microsystems Ltd., Pine Technology Holdings, Ltd., and Sparkle Computer Co. (collectively, “Respondents”) of infringing five patents directed towards memory devices and associated memory controllers used, for example, in personal computers, game systems and mobile phones.
Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
05
On April 30, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 40 (dated March 2, 2010) in Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (Inv. No. 337-TA-686), granting in part Respondent Sidergas SpA’s (“Sidergas”) motion to compel Complainants The Lincoln Electric Company and Lincoln Global, Inc. (collectively, “Lincoln”) to respond to Sidergas’ Interrogatories Nos. 23-33, Requests for Production of Documents and Things Nos. 123-124 and 126-213, and Requests for Admission Nos. 323-359.

According to the Order, Sidergas contended that its discovery was relevant to its affirmative defenses alleging patent misuse and lack of domestic industry.  Lincoln and the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) opposed the motion, asserting that Sidergas’ previously served interrogatories 1-22, when considering subparts, exceeded that 175 interrogatory limit outlined in Ground Rule 4.5.  Lincoln and OUII also argued that Sidergas had not properly pled patent misuse, and “that no portion of any patent misuse defense could have survived Order Nos. 21, 34, and 36 in this Investigation, which struck Sidergas' inequitable conduct defense, denied Sidergas' motion to amend its answer regarding inequitable conduct and patent misuse defenses, and denied Sidergas' motion for summary determination of non-infringement, respectively.”
Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Rules On Motion For Summary Determination of Invalidity In Certain Printing And Imaging Devices (337-TA-690)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
07
On May 4, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 29 in Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Component Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-690) granting-in-part Respondents Oki Data Corporation and Oki Data Americas, Inc.’s (collectively “Oki Data”) motion for summary determination of invalidity of certain means-plus-function or step-plus-function claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,388,771 (the ‘771 patent), 6,209,048 (the ‘048 patent) and 5,764,866 (the ‘866 patent) asserted by Complainants Ricoh Company, Ltd., Ricoh Americas Corporation, and Ricoh Electronics, Inc. (collectively “Ricoh”).

The motion focused on various limitations of the asserted claims, each of which Oki Data argued should be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.  Oki Data argued that each of the limitations implements a computer-based function, thus requiring the specifications to disclose a computer or processor containing a specific algorithm for performing the claimed function, which Oki Data asserted the specifications failed to disclose in violation of § 112, ¶ 2.  For the reasons explained below, ALJ Rogers granted the motion in part, finding claim 3 of the ‘771 patent invalid for indefiniteness, but otherwise denied the motion.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motion to Terminate Investigation With Respect To Buffalo In Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (337-TA-707)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
07
On May 6, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 6: Initial Determination Granting Unilateral Motion to Terminate Investigation as to Respondents Buffalo, Inc. and Buffalo Technology (USA) Inc. (collectively “Buffalo”) Based on Consent Order in Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors and Products Containing Same, Including Memory Modules (Inv. No. 337-TA-707).  Please note that Oblon Spivak represents Buffalo in this matter.

According to the Order, Complainants Infineon Technologies AG and Infineon Technologies North America Corp. did not oppose the motion.  The Commission Investigative Staff filed a response on May 5, 2010, supporting Buffalo’s motion.
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Rules On Motion For Summary Determination Of Invalidity In Certain Machine Vision Software (337-TA-680)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
07
On May 3, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 63 in Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-680).  In the Order, ALJ Charneski denied Respondent MVTec Software GmbH’s (“MVTec”) motion for summary determination that all of the asserted claims of Complainants Cognex Corporation and Cognex Technology & Investment Corporation’s (collectively, “Cognex”) U.S. Patent No. 7,016,539 (the ‘539 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 7,065,262 (the ‘262 patent) are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter.

According to the Order, MVTec argued that all of the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in view of the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), where the court held that the test for whether subject matter is patentable under § 101 is the “machine-or-transformation” test, namely:  “A claimed process is surely patent eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.”  Id. at 954.  According to MVTec, the asserted claims of the ‘539 and ‘262 patents satisfy neither of the Bilski prongs and are therefore invalid.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Target Date In Certain Game Controllers (337-TA-715)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
10
Further to our April 30, 2010 post, on May 6, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 2 in Certain Game Controllers (Inv. No. 337-TA-715).

According to the Order, ALJ Bullock set July 5, 2011 as the target date (which is 14 months after institution of the investigation).  In addition, the Order directs the parties to submit a discovery statement on or before May 21, 2010.  The Order also contains ALJ Bullock’s ground rules for the investigation.
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 Charneski Rules On Motion for Summary Determination Of Non-Infringement In Certain Machine Vision Software (337-TA-680)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
11
On May 10, 2010 ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 51 (dated April 13, 2010), in Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-680).  In the Order, ALJ Charneski denied a motion filed by Respondent MVTec Software GmbH (“MVTec”) for summary determination of non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,016,539 (the ‘539 patent) and 7,065,262 (the ‘262 patent).

MVTec argued that its Halcon software does not infringe the ‘262 patent because “there is no dispute that the accused product, the ‘shape-based matching’ portion of MVTec’s Halcon software, does not use a model with any of a field dipole list, a field, and a set of operating parameters,” and because the Halcon software “uses the exact opposite of the claimed ‘pose,’ mapping from the model to the image, instead of from the image to the model.”  MVTec argued that its software does not infringe the ‘539 patent because “Halcon stops evaluating the model points at a given pose when it becomes clear that the pose will not yield a match,” and because Halcon “computes partial match scores for poses that may yield a match, ranks the scores, and then returns a predetermined number of the highest scores, not all scores that exceed a threshold.”
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Rules On Motion for Summary Determination Regarding Importation In Certain Machine Vision Software (337-TA-680)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
11
On May 10, 2010 ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 60 (dated April 28, 2010), in Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-680).  In the Order, ALJ Charneski granted-in-part Complainants Cognex Corporation and Cognex Technology & Investment Corporation’s (“Cognex”) motion for summary determination that Respondents MVTec Software GmbH, MVTec LLC, Omron Corporation, Resolution Technology, Inc., Subtechnique, Inc., Visics Corporation, Daiichi Jitsugyo Viswill Co., Ltd. and Daiichi Jitsugyo (America) have imported into the U.S., sold for importation into the U.S., and/or sold within the U.S. after importation certain machine vision software, machine vision systems, and products containing same that are the subject of this investigation.

According to the Order, Respondents MVTec Software GmbH, MVTec LLC, Omron Corporation, Daiichi Jitsugyo Viswill Co., Ltd. and Daiichi Jitsugyo (America) submitted no opposition and thus Cognex’s motion was granted as to these named respondents.  Respondents Resolution Technology, Inc., Subtechnique, Inc., and Visics Corporation (the “RSV Respondents”) opposed Cognex’s motion arguing that “they engage in exclusively domestic activities with exclusively domestic entities.”  ALJ Charneski denied Cognex’s motion as to the RSV Respondents determining that general issues of material fact exist and “the record will be greatly enhanced by the development of these facts at the hearing.”
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motion To Strike Portions Of Hearing Testimony In Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp ("CCFL") Inverter Circuits (337-TA-666)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
12
On May 7, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 49 (dated April 19, 2010) 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 to strike certain hearing testimony of the following witnesses of Respondent Microsemi Corporation (“Microsemi”) as outside the scope of expert reports and depositions and/or outside the scope of contentions raised in Microsemi’s pre-hearing brief: Dr. Patrick Chapman, Mr. Kevin Choi, Mr. George Henry, Dr. Xiaoping Jin, and Mr. Roger Holliday.

Although portions of the Order were heavily redacted, O2 Micro argued that Dr. Chapman’s testimony with regard to the accused LX 1691 products, including an allegedly new non-infringement contention, was outside the scope of his expert reports and deposition testimony.  O2 Micro also sought to strike similar testimony from a fact witness, Mr. Kevin Choi, regarding the overvoltage protection in the accused LX 1691 products, as outside the scope of Microsemi’s pre-hearing brief.  O2 Micro additionally sought to strike Dr. Chapman’s testimony regarding a family of 2240 devices, tests O2 Micro performed on accused products, allegedly new non-infringement theories based on the AC overvoltage signal of the accused LX 1692 products and the overvoltage protection circuitry of the LX 1693 products.  O2 Micro further sought to strike the testimony from George Henry, the named inventor of a prior art ‘129 Henry patent, on the grounds that none of Microsemi’s expert witnesses offered any invalidity opinion based on the Henry patent.  Finally, O2 Micro argued that the testimony of Dr. Jin and Mr. Holliday regarding the "Jin balancer" should be stricken because it was raised in Microsemi's pre-hearing briefs solely with respect to products no longer accused in this Investigation.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Stringed Musical Instruments (337-TA-708)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
12
Further to our April 28, 2010 post, on May 11, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 5 in Certain Stringed Musical Instruments and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-708).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set the procedural schedule for the investigation, including a January 5, 2011 start date for the evidentiary hearing and an April 1, 2011 deadline for issuing the Initial Determination.
Share

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.