ALJ Pender

ALJ Pender Sets Target Date And Procedural Schedule In Certain Electronic Devices Having Placeshifting Or Display Replication Functionality (337-TA-878)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
14
Further to our April 15, 2013 post, on May 9, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 3 setting a target date and procedural schedule in Certain Electronic Devices Having Placeshifting or Display Replication Functionality and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-878).

According to the Order, ALJ Pender set August 18, 2014 as the target date for completion of the investigation (which is approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Pender further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on April 17, 2014 and that the evidentiary hearing will commence on December 16, 2013.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Sets Target Date For Enforcement and Modification Proceedings In Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps (337-TA-830)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
29
Further to our April 11, 2013 post, on May 21, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 3 in Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products (Inv. No. 337-TA-830).

According to the Order, ALJ Pender set the target date for completion of this enforcement/modification proceeding as February 26, 2014.  ALJ Pender also determined that any enforcement initial determination would be due by November 26, 2013.  In addition, ALJ Pender ordered the parties to file a joint proposed procedural schedule on or before May 31, 2013.  Lastly, ALJ Pender noted in the Order that he anticipates the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on August 26, 2013.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Denies Motion Seeking To Preclude Evidence In Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones And Tablet Computers (337-TA-847)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
07
On May 29, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 18 (dated May 28, 2013) in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-847).

According to the Order, Respondents HTC America, Inc. and HTC Corporation (collectively, “HTC”) filed a motion to preclude Complainants Nokia Corporation; Nokia, Inc.; and Intellisync Corporation (collectively, “Nokia”) from relying on certain evidence related to its domestic industry contentions.  HTC alleged the following:  (1) Nokia should be precluded from relying on any evidence produced after the Ground Rule 7.3 deadline; (2) Nokia improperly amended its domestic industry contentions in violation of Ground Rule 7.3 and 7.6 and, therefore, should be precluded from relying on evidence based on the amended contentions; (3) Nokia improperly amended Dr. Prowse’s expert report and, therefore, should be precluded from relying on data added to the report; (4) Nokia should be precluded from relying on unreliable and inappropriate data produced in Dr. Prowse’s expert report; (5) Nokia should be precluded from relying on unreliable “source documents” used to provide financial data for the domestic industry contentions; and (6) Nokia should be precluded from using alleged investments in four products that were not released until after the Nokia’s complaint was filed.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Terminates Investigation As To Belkin In Certain Electronic Devices Having Placeshifting Or Display Replication Functionality (337-TA-878)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
07
On June 5, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 4 in Certain Electronic Devices Having Placeshifting or Display Replication Functionality and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-878).

According to the Order, Complainant Sling Media, Inc. (“Sling Media”) and Respondent Belkin International,Inc. (“Belkin”) filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement between Sling Media and Belkin.  ALJ Pender granted the motion, agreeing that the terms of the settlement have no negative effect on the public health and welfare or competitive conditions in the U.S.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Denies Motion To Quash In Certain Cases For Portable Electronic Devices (337-TA-861/867)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
08
On June 28, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 12 in Certain Cases for Portable Electronic Devices(Inv. No. 337-TA-861/867).  In the Order, ALJ Pender denied Respondent Fellowes, Inc.’s (“Fellowes”) motion to quash Complainant Speculative Product Design, LLC’s (“Speck”) subpoenas to certain non-parties.

According to the Order, ALJ Pender found that Fellowes’s motion failed to comply with the ALJ’s Ground Rules for the investigation.  In particular, the motion violated Ground Rule 5.1.1 (requiring a separate memorandum and appendix for motions longer than 5 pages), Ground Rule 5.1.2 (requiring a certification that the moving party informed the other parties of its intent to file the motion and made good faith efforts to contact the other parties and resolve the matter at least 2 business days prior to filing the motion), Ground Rule 5.4.1 (requiring an intensive good faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute without intervention by the ALJ), and Ground Rule 5.4.2 (requiring that the moving party contact the ALJ’s attorney-advisor to schedule a teleconference with the ALJ in an attempt to resolve the discovery dispute).  Accordingly, ALJ Pender found that “[a]s a party to this Investigation, there is no excuse for Fellows’ failure to comply with my Ground Rules,” and denied Fellowes’s motion on that basis.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Claim Construction Order In Certain Cases For Portable Electronic Devices (337-TA-861/867)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
09
On July 8, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 13 in Certain Cases for Portable Electronic Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-861/867).  In the Order, ALJ Pender construed various claim terms in the asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,204,561 (the ‘561 patent).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Speculative Product Design, LLC (“Speck”) and the Respondents are Anbess Electronics Co. Ltd., BodyGlove International, LLC (“BodyGlove”), Fellowes, Inc. (“Fellowes”), ROCON Digital Technology Corp., SW-Box.com, Trait Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Hongkong Wexun Ltd., En Jinn Industrial Co. Ltd., Shengda Huanqiu Shijie, Global Digital Star Industry, Ltd., JWIN Electronics Corp. d/b/a iLuv, Project Horizon, Inc. d/b/a InMotion Entertainment, Superior Communications, Inc. d/b/a PureGear (“Superior”), and Jie Sheng Technology.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) is also a party to the investigation.  A Markman hearing was held on May 13, 2013.  The Order states that Speck, Fellowes, BodyGlove, Superior, and OUII participated in the hearing and submitted briefing on the disputed claim terms.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Grants Motions For Default Judgment And To Stay Procedural Schedule And Denies Motion To Terminate In Certain Electronic Devices Having Placeshifting Or Display Replication Functionality (337-TA-878)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
16
On July 8, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 7 in Certain Electronic Devices Having Placeshifting or Display Replication Functionality and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-878).  In the Order, ALJ Pender entered an Initial Determination (“ID”) granting Complainant Sling Media, Inc.’s (“Sling Media”) motion for default judgment against Respondent Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. (“Monsoon”).  ALJ Pender also denied a motion by Monsoon to terminate the investigation as to Monsoon based on entry of a consent order.  Separately, on July 10, 2013, ALJ Pender issued Order No. 8.  In that Order, ALJ Pender granted Sling Media’s motion to stay the procedural schedule until such time that any Respondent affirmatively and/or actively participates in the investigation.

According to Order No. 7, on May 24, 2013, Sling Media moved for an order directing Monsoon to show cause why it should not be found in default for failing to respond to the complaint and notice of investigation or otherwise participate in the investigation.  Sling Media also requested that upon failure to show cause, the ALJ should issue an ID finding Monsoon in default.  On June 11, 2013, ALJ Pender ordered that, no later than June 26, 2013, Monsoon must show cause why it should not be held in default.  On June 26, 2013, Monsoon filed a motion to terminate the investigation as to Monsoon based on entry of a consent order, but did not show cause why it should not be held in default.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Opaque Polymers (337-TA-883)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
14
Further to our June 20, 2013 post, on August 13, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 5 in Certain Opaque Polymers (Inv. No. 337-TA-883).

In the Order, ALJ Pender set the procedural schedule for the investigation and included provisions for the early exchange of proposed claim terms and constructions.  The ALJ determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on February 18, 2014, any final initial determination will issue no later than June 20, 2014, and the target date for completion of the investigation is October 21, 2014 (which is approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Denies Motion to Disqualify Expert In Certain Opaque Polymers (337-TA-883)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
20
On September 19, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of Order No. 6 (dated August 29, 2013) denying Complainants’ motion to disqualify Respondents’ proposed expert witness, while simultaneously granting Complainants’ motion to supplement its motion and respond to Respondents’ opposition on this issue in Certain Opaque Polymers (Inv. No. 337-TA-883).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Rohm and Haas Company, Rohm and Haas Chemicals, and The Dow Chemical Company (collectively, “Dow”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain opaque polymers that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,020,435; 6,252,004; 7,435,783; and 7,803,878.  See our May 22, 2013 and June 20, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Notice Of Initial Determination Finding HTC Violated Section 337 In Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones And Tablet Computers (337-TA-847)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
23
On September 23, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-847).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Nokia Corp.; Nokia, Inc.; and Intellisync Corporation (collectively, “Nokia”) alleging violation of Section 337 by HTC Corp.; HTC America, Inc.; and Exedea, Inc. in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain electronic devices that infringe one or more claims of certain patents.  See our May 3, 2012 and June 7, 2012 posts for more details on Nokia’s complaint and the notice of investigation, respectively.  On August 7, 2012, Google, Inc. was granted status as an Intervenor, but denied status as a respondent.  See our August 10, 2012 post for more details. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Sets Target Date And Procedural Schedule In Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems (337-TA-890)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
26
Further to our August 20, 2013 post, on September 13, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 3 in Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-890).

According to the Order, ALJ Pender set the target date for completion of this investigation as December 23, 2014 (which is approximately sixteen months after institution of the investigation).  In addition, ALJ Pender set the procedural schedule for the investigation and provided for the early exchange of claim terms and proposed constructions.  ALJ Pender also determined that a Markman hearing will commence on December 10, 2013; the evidentiary hearing will commence on April 21, 2014; and any final initial determination will issue no later than August 22, 2014.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Denies HTC Motion To Stay In Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones And Tablet Computers (337-TA-847)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
27
On September 20, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 36 in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-847).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Nokia Corp.; Nokia, Inc.; and Intellisync Corporation (collectively, “Nokia”) alleging violation of Section 337 by HTC Corp.; HTC America, Inc.; and Exedea, Inc. in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain electronic devices that infringe one or more claims of certain patents.  See our May 3, 2012 and June 7, 2012 posts for more details on Nokia’s complaint and the notice of investigation, respectively.  On August 7, 2012, Google, Inc. was granted status as an Intervenor, but denied status as a respondent.  See our August 10, 2012 post for more details.  On September 23, 2013, ALJ Pender issued a notice of the Initial Determination finding, among other things, that a violation of Section 337 has occurred by Respondents.  See our September 23, 2013 post for more details. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Order Regarding Respondent’s Jurisdiction Argument In Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps (337-TA-830)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
01
On September 23, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 6 regarding Respondent MaxLite, Inc.’s (“MaxLite”) jurisdiction argument in Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-830).

By way of background, the Commission instituted this investigation on February 22, 2012 based on a complaint filed by Neptun Light, Inc. and Andrzej Bobel (collectively, “Neptun”) alleging violation of Section 337 by reason of infringement of various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,434,480 and 8,035,318 by several respondents, including MaxLite.  See our February 23, 2012 post for more details.  On July 25, 2012, the Commission terminated the investigation as to MaxLite and entered a consent order preventing MaxLite from importing dimmable compact fluorescent lamps (“CFLs”) that infringed claim 9 of the ‘480 patent.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Sets 16-Month Target Date In Certain Thermal Support Devices For Infants (337-TA-896)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
28
Further to our October 21, 2013 post, on October 23, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 3 in Certain Thermal Support Devices For Infants, Infant Incubators, Infant Warmers, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-896).

According to the Order, ALJ Pender set the target date for completion of this investigation as February 3, 2015 (which is approximately sixteen months after institution of the investigation).  In addition, ALJ Pender set the procedural schedule for the investigation and provided for the early exchange of claim terms and proposed constructions.  ALJ Pender also determined that a Markman hearing will commence on January 22, 2014; the evidentiary hearing will commence on June 9, 2014; and any final initial determination will issue no later than October 3, 2014.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Rules On Motions For Summary Determination In Certain Cases For Portable Electronic Devices (337-TA-861/867)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
30
On October 17, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of Order Nos. 15 and 16 (dated September 10, 2013 and September 17, 2013, respectively) granting-in-part Complainant Speculative Product Design, LLC’s (“Speck”) motion for partial summary determination regarding domestic industry and granting Respondent Body Glove International, LLC’s (“Body Glove”) motion for summary determination that it has not violated Section 337 in Certain Cases For Portable Electronic Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-861/867).

By way of background, Speck is the Complainant in this investigation and the Respondents are Body Glove, Anbess Electronics Co. Ltd., Fellowes, Inc. (“Fellowes”), ROCON Digital Technology Corp., SW-Box.com, Trait Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Hongkong Wexun Ltd., En Jinn Industrial Co. Ltd., Shengda Huanqiu Shijie, Global Digital Star Industry, Ltd., JWIN Electronics Corp. d/b/a iLuv, Project Horizon, Inc. d/b/a InMotion Entertainment, Superior Communications, Inc. d/b/a PureGear (“Superior”), and Jie Sheng Technology.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) is also a party to the investigation.  Speck has asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,204,561 (the ‘561 patent) against Respondents.  Speck alleges that its CandyShell line of phone cases, sold in the U.S., practices one or more claims of the ‘561 patent.  See our November 16, 2012, January 29, 2013, and July 9, 2013 posts for more background on this investigation. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Terminates Investigation As To Superior Communications In Certain Cases For Portable Electronic Devices (337-TA-861/867)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
01
On October 29, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 19 in Certain Cases For Portable Electronic Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-861/867).

By way of background, Speculative Product Design, LLC (“Speck”) is the Complainant in this investigation and the Respondents are Body Glove, Anbess Electronics Co. Ltd., Fellowes, Inc. (“Fellowes”), ROCON Digital Technology Corp., SW-Box.com, Trait Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Hongkong Wexun Ltd., En Jinn Industrial Co. Ltd., Shengda Huanqiu Shijie, Global Digital Star Industry, Ltd., JWIN Electronics Corp. d/b/a iLuv, Project Horizon, Inc. d/b/a InMotion Entertainment, Superior Communications, Inc. d/b/a PureGear (“Superior”), and Jie Sheng Technology.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) is also a party to the investigation.  Speck has asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,204,561 (the ‘561 patent) against Respondents.  Speck alleges that its CandyShell line of phone cases, sold in the U.S., practices one or more claims of the ‘561 patent.  See our November 16, 2012, January 29, 2013, and July 9, 2013 posts for more background on this investigation.  

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones And Tablet Computers (337-TA-847)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
04
Further to our September 23, 2013 post, on October 24, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of his Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) (dated September 23, 2013) in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-847).  Due to the large size of the ID, we have split the document into part 1 and part 2.  

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Nokia Corp.; Nokia, Inc.; and Intellisync Corporation (collectively, “Nokia”) alleging violation of Section 337 by HTC Corp.; HTC America, Inc.; and Exedea, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”)  in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain electronic devices that infringe one or more claims of certain patents.  See our May 3, 2012 and June 7, 2012 posts for more details on Nokia’s complaint and the notice of investigation, respectively.  On August 7, 2012, ALJ Pender granted Google, Inc. status as an Intervenor, but denied status as a respondent.  See our August 10, 2012 post for more details. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Sets 16-Month Target Date In Certain Handheld Magnifiers (337-TA-901)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
21
Further to our November 12, 2013 and November 14, 2013 posts, on November 20, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 3 in Certain Handheld Magnifiers and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-901).

According to the Order, ALJ Pender set the target date for completion of this investigation as March 13, 2015 (which is approximately sixteen months after institution of the investigation).  In addition, ALJ Pender set the procedural schedule for the investigation and provided for the early exchange of claim terms and proposed constructions.  ALJ Pender also determined that a Markman hearing will commence on March 10, 2014; the evidentiary hearing will commence on July 8, 2014; and any final initial determination will issue no later than November 13, 2014.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems (337-TA-890)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
04
Further to our August 20, 2013 and September 26, 2013 posts, on December 2, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 5 in Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-890).

According to the Order, ALJ Pender set the procedural schedule for this investigation.  Specifically, ALJ Pender determined that a Markman hearing will commence on December 10, 2013; the evidentiary hearing will commence on April 10, 2014; and any final initial determination will issue no later than August 22, 2014.

Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Claim Construction Order In Certain Opaque Polymers (337-TA-883)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
09
On January 2, 2014, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of Order No. 13 construing the disputed claim terms from the asserted patents in Certain Opaque Polymers (Inv. No. 337-TA-883).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Rohm and Haas Company, Rohm and Haas Chemicals, and The Dow Chemical Company (collectively, “Dow”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain opaque polymers that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,020,435 (the ‘435 patent); 6,252,004 (the ‘004 patent); 7,435,783; and 7,803,878.  See our May 22, 2013 and June 20, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

www.xxx-clips-online.com