How to Search
ALJ Orders

ALJ Essex Grants Motion To Terminate The Investigation As To SmartOne In Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies (337-TA-691)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
18
On May 14, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 14 in Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-691).

In the Order, ALJ Essex granted a motion filed by Complainant Hewlett-Packard Company to terminate the investigation as to Respondent SmartOne Services LLC d/b/a InkForSale.net on the basis of a settlement agreement between the parties.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets The Procedural Schedule In Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (337-TA-707)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
21
On May 20, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 8:  Setting The Procedural Schedule in Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors and Products Containing Same, Including Memory Modules (Inv. No. 337-TA-707).

In the Order, ALJ Essex set the procedural schedule for the investigation, including a December 14, 2010 start date for the evidentiary hearing.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes (337-TA-712)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
24
On May 21, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 5:  Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-712).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea set the procedural schedule for the investigation and included provisions for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Public Version of Initial Determination In Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits (337-TA-666)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
24
Further to our April 22, 2010 post, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of the Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) in Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-666).

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are O2 Micro International Ltd. and O2 Micro Inc. (collectively, “O2 Micro”).  The Respondents are Monolithic Power Systems Inc. (“MPS”), ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International America (“collectively, “ASUS”), and Microsemi Corporation (“Microsemi”) (collectively, the “Respondents”).
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 Rogers Sets Target Date In Certain Digital Imaging Devices And Related Software (337-TA-717)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
24
Further to our May 14, 2010 post, on May 21, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 4: Setting Target Date in Certain Digital Imaging Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-717).

According to the Order, ALJ Rogers set September 19, 2011, as the target date (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Rogers further indicated that any final initial determination on violation shall be due May 18, 2011.
Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Complainant’s Motion to Compel In Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-695)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
25
On May 21, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 19 in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing the Same (337-TA-695).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Complainant Knowles Electronics LLC’s (“Knowles”) motion to compel the production of two categories of documents against Respondent Analog Devices, Inc. (“Analog”).

According to the Order, Knowles requested Analog to produce unredacted versions of notebook pages from an Analog employee, where the notebook had been redacted due to relevance.  Knowles also requested “leave to file a motion for adverse inferences as necessary based on the redacted information in the notebooks.”  Analog reportedly admitted redacting the notebook pages for relevance, arguing that its employee worked on packaging of MEMS products beyond just the accused MEMS microphones, and that such additional products are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Analog additionally asserted that Knowles did not follow ALJ Rogers’ Ground Rules by “never engag[ing] in intensive good faith efforts to resolve the present dispute at least two business days prior to filing its motion,” and never raising the redacted notebook issue at a Discovery Committee meeting.  ALJ Rogers denied Knowles’ motion to compel the unredacted notebook pages due to Knowles’ failure to follow Ground Rule 4.1.1, which states: “[n]o motion to compel discovery may be filed unless the subject matter of the motion has first been brought to the Discovery Committee and the Committee has reached an impasse in resolving the matter.”  Although he did not reach the substance of this issue, ALJ Rogers stated in a footnote that “redacting documents based on relevance is improper,” citing Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits & Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-665, Order No. 41 (May 12, 2009).
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Sets Target Date In Certain Large Scale Integrated Circuit Semiconductor Chips (337-TA-716)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
25
Further to our April 30, 2010 post, on May 20, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 4: Setting Target Date in Certain Large Scale Integrated Circuit Semiconductor Ships and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-716).

According to the Order, ALJ Charneski set August 5, 2011, as the target date (which is 15 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Charneski further indicated that the Initial Determination on violation shall be due April 5, 2011.
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Grants Motion to Terminate Investigation As To Subtechnique, Inc. In Certain Machine Vision Software (337-TA-680)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
25
On May 24, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 65 in Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-680).

In the Order, ALJ Charneski granted a joint motion filed by Complainants Cognex Corporation and Cognex Technology & Investment Corporation and Respondent Subtechnique, Inc. to terminate the investigation as to Subtechnique, Inc. based on a consent order.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Sets Target Date In Certain Electronic Paper Towel Dispensing Devices (337-TA-718)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
26
On May 24, 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 Electronic Paper Towel Dispensing Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-718).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea set September 21, 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 no later than May 20, 2011.
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Denies Motion To Preclude Expert Testimony In Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-617)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
27
On May 24, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 21 (dated January 21, 2010) in connection with the enforcement proceeding in Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-617).  The Order denied Complainants Funai Electric Co., Ltd. and Funai Corporation, Inc.’s (collectively, “Funai”) motion to preclude Respondents Suzhou Raken Technology Ltd. (“Raken”) and Top Victory Investments, Ltd. (“TVI”) from offering expert testimony regarding the validity of the patent-in-suit.

In support of its motion, Funai argued that Raken and TVI should be precluded under the law of the case doctrine and the doctrine of claim preclusion from offering expert testimony.  In that regard, Funai asserted that the issue of validity of the patent-in-suit “was already definitively litigated in the original investigation and the Commission confirmed the validity of the [patent-in-suit].”  In opposition to the motion, Raken asserted that it was not a party to the underlying infringement proceeding and thus, had a right to challenge the validity of the patent-in-suit.  The Commission Investigative Staff filed an opposition to the motion.  TVI did not file a response.
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Rasco GmbH In Certain Machine Vision Software (337-TA-680)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
27
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To ViewSonic Corporation In Certain Display Devices (337-TA-713)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
27
Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
28
On May 27, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued a noticeregarding a Remand Initial Determination (“RID”) in Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-650).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC, Inc. (“PPC”) and the Respondents are Fu Ching Technical Industry Co. Ltd., Gem Electronics, Inc. (collectively, the “Active 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”).  The investigation was instituted on May 30, 2008.  On October 13, 2009, ALJ Gildea issued his Initial Determination (“ID”) finding, inter alia, that the Defaulting Respondents were in violation of Section 337 by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,470,257, 6,558,194, D519,076, and D440,539 (the ‘539 patent).  See our November 10, 2009 postfor more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Research in Motion In Certain Authentication Systems (337-TA-697)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
01
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Digital Televisions (337-TA-617)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
01
On May 28, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 33 in Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-617).

In the Order, ALJ Charneski granted a joint motion filed by Complainants Funai Electric Co., Ltd. and Funai Corporation, Inc. and Respondents Vizio, Inc., AmTran Technology Co., Ltd., and Suzhou Raken Technology, Ltd. (the “Vizio Respondents”) to terminate the enforcement proceeding as to the Vizio Respondents based on settlement and licensing agreements.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Game Controllers (337-TA-715)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
02
Further to our April 30 and May 10 posts, on May 28, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 3 in Certain Game Controllers (Inv. No. 337-TA-715).

In the Order, ALJ Bullock set the procedural schedule for the investigation, including a November 15, 2010 start date for the evidentiary hearing and a March 5, 2011 deadline for issuing the Initial Determination.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Joint Motion To Amend Protective Order In Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes (337-TA-712)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
02
On June 2, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 6 in Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-712).

According to the Order, ALJ Gildea denied a joint motion filed by Complainants Verizon Communications Inc. and Verizon Services Corp and Respondent Cablevision Systems Corp. which sought to amend the Protective Order in order to add enhanced confidentiality provisions to protect the parties’ source code.  Specifically, ALJ Gildea determined that the parties failed to explain why the existing Protective Order “is in some way inadequate for their needs.”  ALJ Gildea also declined to “rubber stamp” the parties’ joint motion in light of “similar protections [that] have been offered in other investigations.”  In this regard, ALJ Gildea determined that the “parties have not demonstrated that an amendment to the Protective Order to protect confidential source code is necessary in this Investigation.” (Emphasis in original).
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 Gildea Rules on Motion For Summary Determination of Invalidity In Certain Ceramic Capacitors (337-TA-692)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
03
On June 2, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 25 (dated May 13, 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 for summary determination that claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,266,229 (the ‘229 patent) asserted by Complainants Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. (collectively, "Murata") are invalid as anticipated and obvious.

In their motion, filed on March 19, Samsung argued that the asserted claims of the ‘229 patent are directed to a multilayer capacitor design, which includes an allegedly novel lead structure featuring a length to width ratio ("L/W ratio") of about 3 or less.  Relying upon representations of the prior art within the ‘229 patent, as well as in other references, including U.S. Patent No. 5,880,925 (the “DuPre patent”), Samsung alleged that figures within the ‘229 patent and other references depicted a lead structure with an L/W ratio less than 3.  Samsung also relied upon a pending reexamination of the ‘229 patent, wherein the USPTO recently issued an Office Action rejecting all asserted claims as invalid over the prior art.
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.