How to Search
ALJ Pender

ALJ Pender Issues Claim Construction Order In Certain Light-Emitting Diodes (337-TA-785)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
20
On April 16, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 26 in Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-785).  In the Order, ALJ Pender construed various claim terms in the asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 7,078,732 (the ‘732 patent), 6,812,500 (the ‘500 patent), 7,126,162 (the ‘162 patent), 7,629,621 (the ‘621 patent), 6,459,130 (the ‘130 patent), 6,927,469 (the ‘469 patent), 7,199,454 (the ‘454 patent), and 7,427,806 (the ‘806 patent).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is OSRAM GmbH (“OSRAM”) and the Respondents are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung LED Co., Ltd., and Samsung LED America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”), and LG Electronics, Inc., LG Innotek Co., Ltd., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Innotek U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “LG”).  The Commission Investigative Staff is not a party.  See our July 7, 2011 post for more details on this investigation.  A Markman hearing was held on January 4-5, 2012.

Read More

ALJ Pender Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Wireless Communication Devices And Systems (337-TA-775)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
27

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Sanctions Order Against Apple In Certain Wireless Communication Devices (337-TA-745)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
27
On April 24, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 34 assessing sanctions against Respondent Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) in Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers, and Components Thereof(337-TA-745).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“MMI”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Apple in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless communications devices, portable music and data processing devices, computers, and components thereof that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,272,333, 6,246,862, 6,246,697, 5,359,317, 5,636,223, and 7,751,826.  See our October 8, 2010 post for more details.

Read More

ALJ Pender Denies Motion To Compel In Certain Computing Devices With Associated Instruction Sets And Software (337-TA-812)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
01
On April 27, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 6 in Certain Computing Devices With Associated Instruction Sets And Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-812).

In the Order, ALJ Pender denied a motion filed by Complainants VIA Technologies, Inc., IP-First, LLC, and Centaur Technology, Inc. (collectively, “Complainants”) to compel Respondent Apple Inc. to produce and identify relevant JPEG compression and decompression software source code responsive to Complainants’ discovery requests. 

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Initial Determination In Certain Wireless Communication Devices (337-TA-745)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
01
On April 24, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers, and Components Thereof (337-TA-745).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Motorola Mobility, Inc. alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondent Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless communications devices, portable music and data processing devices, computers, and components thereof that infringe certain U.S. Patents.  See our October 8, 2010 post for more details.

Read More

ALJ Pender Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Its Entirety In Certain Automotive GPS Navigation Systems (337-TA-814)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
08
On May 8, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 9 in Certain Automotive GPS Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-814).

In the Order, ALJ Pender granted a motion filed by Complainant Beacon Navigation GmbH (“Beacon”) to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on its withdrawal of the complaint and amended complaint against all respondents.  According to the Order, the Commission Investigative Staff filed a response in support of the motion to terminate.  However, certain Respondents, including Suzuki, Mercedes-Benz, Ford, Chrysler, Nissan, Honda, General Motors, Mazda, Jaguar, Toyota, Volvo, Hyundai, Kia and BMW filed a response indicating that they did not oppose the motion to terminate, but requested that it not be granted until these respondents investigate whether Beacon violated Rule 210.21(a)(9)(iii) (relating generally to the termination of investigations) and/or Rule 210.4(c) (relating generally to written submissions, representations and sanctions).  The Order further indicated that Respondents Audi and Volkswagen filed a response indicating that they did not oppose Beacon’s motion to terminate.

Read More

ALJ Pender Rules On Motion To Recover Costs And Motion For Show Cause Order In Certain Automotive GPS Navigation Systems (337-TA-814)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
10
On May 8, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 8 in Certain Automotive GPS Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-814).

In the Order, ALJ Pender denied Respondents Mazda, Hyundai, and Kia’s motion to recover costs for a cancelled deposition, denied Respondents’ motion requesting that the ALJ issue a show cause order directed to Complainant Beacon Navigation GmbH (“Beacon”), and granted an unopposed motion to withdrawal.

Read More

ALJ Pender Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps (337-TA-830)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
22
Further to our February 23, 2012 and April 16, 2012 posts, on May 14, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 5 in Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-830).

In the Order, ALJ Pender set the procedural schedule for the investigation and included provisions for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions.  ALJ Pender further indicated that the evidentiary hearing will commence on October 26, 2012, any final initial determination will issue no later than February 27, 2013, and the target date for completion of the investigation is June 27, 2013 (which is approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Remand Determination Finding No Violation Of Section 337 By Apple Or Research In Motion In Certain Mobile Telephones And Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras (337-TA-703)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
23
On May 21, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination on Remand (the “Remand ID”) in Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-703).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Eastman Kodak Company and the Respondents are Research in Motion, Ltd. and Research in Motion Corp. (collectively, “RIM”) and Apple Inc. (“Apple”).  On January 24, 2011, former Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued an initial determination (“ID”) finding that there was no violation of Section 337.  See our March 18, 2011 post for more details.  On June 30, 2011, the Commission issued a notice determining to affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand-in-part the findings in the ID.  See our July 6, 2011 and August 8, 2011 posts for more details. 

Read More

ALJ Pender Sets Target Date In Certain Food Waste Disposers (337-TA-838)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
29
Further to our April 18, 2012 post, on May 24, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 3 in Certain Food Waste Disposers and Components and Packaging Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-838).

According to the Order, ALJ Pender set August 20, 2013 as the target date (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 19, 2013.

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond in Certain Wireless Communication Devices (337-TA-745)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
30
On May 21, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of the Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“RD”) (dated May 9, 2012) in Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers, and Components Thereof (337-TA-745).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“Motorola”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondent Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless communications devices, portable music and data processing devices, computers, and components thereof that infringe certain U.S. Patents.  See our October 8, 2010 post for more details.  On April 24, 2012, ALJ Pender issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) which found that a violation of Section 337 has occurred in this investigation by Apple by reason of infringement of certain valid claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,246,697 (the ‘697 patent).  See our May 1, 2012 post for more details on the ID.  

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination Finding A Violation Of Section 337 In Certain Wireless Communication Devices (337-TA-745)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
31
On May 16, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated April 24, 2012) in Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-745).  Due to the size of the ID, we have split the file into part 1 and part 2. 

By way of background, the investigation is based on an October 2, 2010 complaint filed by Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“Motorola”), alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondent Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless communication devices, portable music and data processing devices, computers, and components thereof that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,636,223 (the ‘223 patent), 6,246,697 (the ‘697 patent), 6,246,862 (the ‘862 patent), 6,272,333 (the ‘333 patent), 5,359,317 (the ‘317 patent), and 7,751,826 (the ‘826 patent).  See our October 8, 2010 post for more details.  Following the institution of this proceeding, Motorola moved to terminate the investigation with respect to the ‘317 and ‘826 patents.

Read More

ALJ Pender Rules On Discovery Motions In Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices (337-TA-796)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
31
On May 23, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public versions of Order No. 12 (dated February 6, 2012), Order No. 14 (dated February 14, 2012), Order No. 15 (dated February 17, 2012), Order No. 18 (dated May 9, 2012), and Order No. 19 (dated May 11, 2012) in Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-796).  In Order No. 12, ALJ Pender denied Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”), and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC’s (“STA”) (collectively, “Samsung”) motion to compel Complainant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) to produce certain key witnesses for depositions in January 2012.  In Order No. 14, ALJ Pender granted Apple’s request that Samsung be compelled to identify each of its mobile phones, tablet computers, media players, and any other products responsive to Apple’s Interrogatory No. 1 and to supplement its responses to Apple’s other interrogatories and document requests.  In Order No. 15, ALJ Pender ruled on a number of other requests that Apple had made in an omnibus motion to compel.  In Order No. 18, ALJ Pender denied Samsung’s motion for leave to file an amended notice of prior art and granted-in-part Apple’s motion to strike portions of Samsung’s expert reports.  In Order No. 19, ALJ Pender denied Apple’s motion for spoliation sanctions against Samsung.

According to Order No. 12, Samsung asserted that despite its noticing the depositions of Messrs. Jonathan Ive and Christopher Stringer in September 2011, Apple withheld their available deposition dates until January 2012 and would not offer them for deposition until February 2012.  Samsung contended that January depositions for Mr. Ive and Mr. Stringer were necessary to afford Samsung sufficient opportunity to pursue follow-up discovery and prepare contentions and expert reports.  Apple opposed Samsung’s motion, arguing that Mr. Ive is Apple’s senior vice president of Industrial Design and one of its most senior executives and that Mr. Stringer is a senior director of Industrial Design, and that Apple had made efforts to make Mr. Ive and Mr. Stringer available as early as their busy schedules permitted.  After considering the arguments, ALJ Pender determined to deny Samsung’s motion.  The ALJ noted that while Mr. Ive and Mr. Stringer had not provided a specific explanation as to why they were not available to sit for depositions in January 2012, Samsung’s delay in seeking relief until January 18, 2012 left insufficient time for Apple to respond to the motion or for the ALJ to grant the relief sought.  Accordingly, ALJ Pender denied the motion but noted that he expects Apple to provide prompt responses to any follow-up discovery after the February depositions.

Read More

ALJ Pender Sanctions OSRAM In Certain Light-Emitting Diodes (337-TA-785)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
12
On May 31, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of Order No. 31 (dated May 16, 2012) in Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-785).  At issue in the Order was the propriety of complainant OSRAM AG’s (“OSRAM”) contention interrogatory responses served after February 24, 2012.

On March 8, 2012, OSRAM served supplemental responses to certain contention interrogatories (including infringement contentions and domestic industry contentions) on respondents LG Electronics, Inc., LG Innotek Co., Ltd., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Innotek U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “LG”) and respondents Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung LED Co., Ltd., and Samsung LED America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”).  According to the Order, these supplemental responses violated a February 24, 2012 deadline, previously agreed upon by the parties.  On March 20, ALJ Pender ordered OSRAM to show cause as to why it should not be sanctioned.  On March 26, 2012, OSRAM responded to the order by filing its showing of cause as to why it should not be bound by its earlier-served contentions and served additional supplemental responses to contention interrogatories related to priority.  On April 2, 2012, LG and Samsung filed a submission stating that OSRAM should be bound by its earlier-served contentions.

Read More

ALJ Pender Denies Motion To Supplement Expert Reports In Certain Light-Emitting Diodes (337-TA-785)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
20
On June 14, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of Order No. 33 (dated June 4, 2012) denying Complainant’s motion to supplement its expert reports in Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-785).  

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is OSRAM GmbH (“OSRAM”) and the Respondents are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung LED Co., Ltd., and Samsung LED America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”), and LG Electronics, Inc., LG Innotek Co., Ltd., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Innotek U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “LG”).  See our July 7, 2011 post for more details on this investigation. 

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Claim Construction Order In Certain Electronic Devices With Communication Capabilities (337-TA-808)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
20
On June 18, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 16 construing terms of the asserted patent claims in Certain Electronic Devices With Communication Capabilities, Components Thereof, and Related Software(Inv. No. 337-TA-808).

By way of background, this investigation was instituted by the Commission on September 27, 2011 after HTC Corp. (“HTC”) filed a complaint naming Apple Inc. (“Apple”) as Respondent.  See our August 17, 2011 post for more details about the complaint.  The patents that remain at issue in this investigation are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,417,944 (the ‘944 patent), 7,672,219 (the ‘219 patent), and 7,765,414 (the ‘414 patent).  A Markman hearing was held on April 26-27, 2012 regarding the interpretation of the claim terms discussed below.

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Public Version Of Remand Determination In Certain Mobile Telephones And Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras (337-TA-703)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
02
On June 27, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of the Initial Determination on Remand (the “Remand ID”) (dated May 21, 2012) in Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-703).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”) and the Respondents are Research in Motion, Ltd. and Research in Motion Corp. (collectively, “RIM”) and Apple Inc. (“Apple”).  On January 24, 2011, former Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued an initial determination (“ID”) finding that there was no violation of Section 337.  See our March 18, 2011 post for more details.  On June 30, 2011, the Commission issued a notice determining to affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand-in-part the findings in the ID.  See our July 6, 2011 and August 8, 2011 posts for more details.  In the notice, the Commission determined to modify the ALJ’s claim constructions and remand questions regarding infringement and validity in view of the modified constructions. 

Read More

ALJ Pender Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Food Waste Disposers (337-TA-838)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
03
Further to our April 18, 2012 and May 29, 2012 posts, on June 28, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 4 in Certain Food Waste Disposers and Components and Packaging Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-838).

In the Order, ALJ Pender set the procedural schedule for the investigation and included provisions for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions.  ALJ Pender further indicated that the evidentiary hearing will commence on December 7, 2012, any final initial determination will issue no later than April 19, 2013, and the target date for completion of the investigation is August 20, 2013 (which is approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).

Read More

ALJ Pender Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Electronic Devices Having A Retractable USB Connector (337-TA-843)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
05
On June 26, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 5 in Certain Electronic Devices Having A Retractable USB Connector (Inv. No. 337-TA-843).

In the Order, ALJ Pender granted a joint motion filed by Respondents RITEK Corporation and Advanced Media, Inc. dba RITEK U.S.A. to terminate the investigation based on a consent order stipulation and proposed consent order.

Read More

ALJ Pender Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps (337-TA-830)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
05
On June 26, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 7 in Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-830).

In the Order, ALJ Pender granted a joint motion filed by Andrzej Bobel and Neptun Light, Inc. (collectively, “Neptun”) and Respondents General Electric Company and Xiamen Topstar Lighting Co., Ltd. (collectively, the “GE Respondents”) to terminate the investigation based on a Settlement Agreement.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Bullock granted the motion filed by Neptun and the GE Respondents.

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.