ALJ Rogers

ALJ Rogers issues initial determination in certain silicon microphones 337-TA-629

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
19
On February 10, 2009, Administrative Law Judge Roger K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of his January 12, 2009 Initial Determination in the matter of Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-629).  Please note that Oblon Spivak represents respondent MEMS Technology Berhad (“MemsTech”) in this matter. 

In the ID, ALJ Rogers determined that MemsTech violated section 337 based on the importation, sale for importation, and sale after importation of certain silicon microphone packages by literal infringement of certain claims of Complainant Knowles Electronics, LLC’s (“Knowles”) U.S. Patent Nos. 6,781,231 and 7,242,089.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers denies joint motions to terminate based on settlement agreements in certain base stations and wireless microphones 337-TA-653

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
19
On February 18, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued an order in the matter of Certain Base Stations and Wireless Microphones (Inv. No. 337-TA-653) denying the joint motions of complainant L-3 Communications Mobile-Vision, Inc. and respondents KCi Communications, Inc., Digital Ally, Inc., and Trinus Systems, Inc. to terminate the investigation as to those respondents based on settlement agreements with the complainant. 

The parties sought to withhold the terms of their settlement agreements from the other respondents in the investigation by not submitting the settlement agreements with their joint motions to terminate – they instead sent the settlement agreements directly to ALJ Rogers under separate cover.  ALJ Rogers held that this violated the clear mandate of Commission Rule 210.21(b)(1), which requires that “a motion for termination by settlement shall contain copies of the licensing or other settlement agreement.”  He denied the motions to terminate without prejudice.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers denies saxon’s motion to amend its complaint in certain electronic devices 337-TA-667

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
19
On February 18, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued an order denying complainant Saxon Innovations, LLC’s  (“Saxon’s”) motion to amend its complaint to add Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLP (collectively “Samsung”) as respondents in the matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-667).

Saxon has been litigating a separate patent infringement suit against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas since October 2007, and the parties have been in settlement negotiations since December 2007.  In its motion to amend its complaint in the ITC, Saxon claimed that several months prior to filing the complaint, it notified Samsung of its intent to include Samsung as a respondent.  Saxon stated that it agreed to refrain from adding Samsung as a respondent as long as the parties continued working towards a settlement in the district court case.  However, since Samsung had allegedly expressed concern regarding any delay in commencing the investigation, Saxon now needed to add Samsung as a respondent.

Share

Read More

Update Regarding Certain Non-Shellfish Derived Glucosamine (337-TA-668)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
17
As indicated in our March 3 post, on February 26, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission voted to institute an investigation of certain non-shellfish derived glucosamine and products containing same.  Certain Non-Shellfish Derived Glucosamine and Products Containing Same (337-TA-668).

On March 11, ALJ Rogers issued Order No. 4 setting the procedural schedule for the investigation. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Grants-In-Part A Non-Party Motion To Quash Subpoena In Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits (337-TA-665)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
24
On March 18, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 10 in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (337-TA-665).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted-in-part and denied-in-part non-party Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing Inc.’s (“Chartered USA”) motion to quash and/or limit a subpoena served by complainant Qimonda.

ALJ Rogers determined that Qimonda’s definition of “Accused Products” “fails to meet the standard required by Commission Rule 210.32(a)(2), because it fails to describe with any precision the ‘Accused Products’ that are the subject of the documents sought in the subpoena.”  Rather than using “generic semiconductor chip terms,” ALJ Rogers suggested that Qimonda define the accused products “by listing specific structural features, circuit designs, and/or fabrication processes found in the accused products that are already defined in the complaint and that Qimonda believes are relevant to the case at hand.”  ALJ Rogers further determined that the subpoena as written subjected non-party Chartered USA to an undue burden since it would not lead to the production of relevant evidence.  Thus, ALJ Rogers quashed a number of document requests, deposition topics, and inspection requests because of Qimonda’s overly broad definition of “Accused Products.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Grants-In-Part And Denies-In-Part Qimonda’s Motion to Compel In Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits (337-TA-665)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
24
On March 20, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of his March 12, 2009 Order No. 12 in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (337-TA-665).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted-in-part and denied-in-part complainant Qimonda AG’s motion to compel respondent LSI Corporation to (1) identify information regarding its 100 best-selling products and (2) produce “critical processing and technical documents.”

In its motion, Qimonda asked ALJ Rogers to compel LSI to produce a complete list of its 100 best-selling semiconductor integrated circuits, a complete list of all downstream products containing any of these 100 integrated circuits, a complete list of all foundries producing any of these integrated circuits or downstream products, and an identification of which foundries produced which circuits and/or downstream products.

Share

Read More

Update Regarding Certain Electronic Devices Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (337-TA-673)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
02
As indicated in our March 27 post, on March 25, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission voted to institute an investigation of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (337-TA-673).

Since our March 27 post, Chief ALJ Luckern issued a notice indicating that ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. will handle this investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Precludes Complainant From Offering Constructions For Certain Claim Terms In Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits (337-TA-665)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
09
On April 8, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 19 in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (337-TA-665).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted-in-part respondents LSI Corporation, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Memory Products (US) Corporation, Seagate Technologies International (Singapore), and Seagate (US) LLC’s (collectively “Respondents”) motion to preclude complainant Qimonda AG (“Qimonda”) from offering claim constructions for any claim term for which Qimonda’s proposed construction was “plain and ordinary meaning” or “plain meaning.”

In the Order, ALJ Rogers noted that his procedural schedule required the parties to (i) exchange lists of claim construction terms, and (ii) submit a joint list showing each party’s proposed claim constructions.  ALJ Rogers further noted that “Qimonda’s proposed constructions for many of the disputed claim terms is stated as ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ or ‘plain meaning.’”  Respondents objected to this approach and argued that Qimonda’s constructions were “nothing more than a strategic placeholder” and that Qimonda “was required to offer an actual definition, and not simply state that the term should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Procedural Schedule and Target Date In Certain Electronic Devices Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (337-TA-673)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
13
On April 8, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order Nos. 4 and 5 in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (337-TA-673).

Order No. 4 sets the procedural schedule for this investigation and includes a provision 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 October 26, 2009.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Samsung’s Motion to Amend the Notice of Investigation in Certain Electronic Devices Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (337-TA-673)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
20
On April 16, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 7 denying a motion filed by respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLP (“Samsung”) to amend the Notice of Investigation (“Notice”) and limit the scope of the investigation to Certain Camcorders and Wireless Telephones with Keypads.  Complainant Saxon Innovations, LLC and the Commission Investigative Staff opposed the motion.

According to the order, Samsung argued that the current Notice makes broad infringement claims against an unidentified range of Samsung’s “electronic devices” but that Saxon’s complaint only provided specific infringement allegations for two Samsung products -- a wireless telephone with a keypad and a camcorder.  Samsung argued that Saxon’s complaint only alleged a nexus between the asserted patents and two categories of Samsung products, and thus the scope of the investigation should be limited to those products.  Samsung argued that Saxon’s complaint failed to comply with Commission Rule 210.12.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Consolidates Investigation Nos. 337-TA-667 And 337-TA-673

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
29
On April 23, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 8 in Certain Electronic Devices Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (337-TA-673).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted the Commission Investigative Staff’s (the “Staff”) motion to consolidate investigation No. 337-TA-673 with investigation No. 337-TA-667.

Respondents Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of America, and Panasonic Consumer Electronics Company (collectively “Panasonic”) and Palm, Inc. (“Palm”) from investigation No. 337-TA-667 opposed the motion.  Complainant Saxon Innovations, LLC (“Saxon”) (the complainant in both investigations) as well as respondents Nokia Corporation, Nokia Inc. (collectively “Nokia”), Research In Motion Ltd. and Research In Motion Corp. (collectively “RIM”) from investigation No. 337-TA-667 and respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) from investigation No. 337-TA-673 did not oppose the motion. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion To Strike Based On Failure to Meet And Confer In Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits (337-TA-665)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
04
On May 1, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 29 in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (337-TA-665).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied respondents LSI Corporation, Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Memory Products (US) Corporation, Seagate Technologies International (Singapore), and Seagate (US) LLC’s (collectively “Respondents”) motion to strike complainant Qimonda AG’s (“Qimonda”) eight motions to compel. 

According to the Order, Respondents argued that Qimonda did not satisfy the meet and confer requirements of Ground Rule 3.2, including the provision requiring that the moving party attempt to contact and resolve the disputed matter with the other parties at least two business days prior to filing the motion.  According to Respondents, Qimonda sent an email at 10:19 p.m. on the night of April 21, 2009 stating that it intended to file motions to compel on various topics.  Qimonda subsequently filed the subject motions to compel on April 23.  Thus, Respondents argued Qimonda (1) failed to provide Respondents with the two day notice required by Ground Rule 3.2; (2) unreasonably delayed bringing the motions to compel since the issues that form the bases for the motions were disputed for weeks; and (3) sought to impede Respondents’ trial preparation.  In response, Qimonda argued that it satisfied Ground Rule 3.2 for each of the eight motions to compel and  Respondents violated Ground Rule 3.2 in filing the instant motion to strike by failing to notify Qimonda of Respondents’ intent to file such motion. The Commission Investigative Staff filed a response in support of Respondents’ motion to strike.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Unopposed Motion For A Recommendation To U.S. District Court To Issue A Letter Rogatory In Certain Electronic Devices (337-TA-667)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
05
On April 23, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 27 in Certain Electronic Devices Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices (337-TA-667) denying Complainant Saxon Innovations, LLC’s (“Saxon”) unopposed motion to seek a recommendation to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to issue a letter rogatory to allow Saxon to obtain deposition testimony in Japan.

Saxon sought to depose corporate representatives of Respondents Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, and Panasonic Consumer Electronics (collectively “Panasonic”) in Japan on or about May 7, 8, and 11, 2009.  Panasonic’s representative volunteered to sit for the depositions.  Under Japanese law and practice and the mutually agreed interpretation of the U.S. – Japan Bilateral Consular Convention concerning the obtaining of evidence in Japan, a deposition of a willing witness may be taken in Japan: (1) if the deposition is presided over by a U.S. consular official; (2) is conducted on U.S. consular premises; (3) is taken pursuant to an American court order or commission; and (4) if any non-Japanese participant travelling to Japan applies for and obtains a Japanese Special Deposition visa.  The U.S. State Department recommends that one must apply for a Special Deposition visa at least two weeks prior to departure for Japan.  A copy of the court order or commission must accompany the application for the Special Deposition visa.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Grants-In-Part Motion To Strike Expert Report and Preclude Testimony In Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits (337-TA-665)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
07
On April 28 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 24 in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (337-TA-665).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted-in-part Complainant Qimonda AG’s (“Qimonda”) motion to strike the expert report and preclude testimony of respondents LSI Corporation, Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Memory Products (US) Corporation, Seagate Technologies International (Singapore), and Seagate (US) LLC’s (collectively “Respondents”) legal expert John F. Witherspoon, Esq.

According to the Order, Qimonda asserted that Respondents’ violated Ground Rule section 9.2, which provides that “[l]egal experts may only testify to procedures of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.”  Specifically, Qimonda alleged that Mr. Witherspoon improperly opines in his expert report “on case law, legal standards, and ultimate factual issues related to Respondents’ defense of inequitable conduct.”  In response, Respondents argued that Mr. Witherspoon’s report complies with Ground Rule 9.2 as it describes various aspects of PTO procedure, including PTO Rule 56 and its significance in patent prosecution and sets forth his opinions based on his review of the prosecution histories of the asserted patents.  The Commission Investigative Staff supported Qimonda’s motion arguing that Mr. Witherspoon’s expert report is directed to Respondents’ various legal defenses rather than towards PTO procedures.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion For Summary Determination Regarding Invalidity In Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits (337-TA-665)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
07
On April 28 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 25 in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (337-TA-665).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Respondent LSI Corporation’s (“LSI”) motion for summary determination that claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,714,055 (the “‘055 patent”) are invalid.

In its motion, LSI argued that U.S. Patent No. 4,779,013 to Tanaka (“Tanaka”) anticipates claims 1-3 and 7-9 of the ‘055 patent and that claim 5 of the ‘055 patent is obvious in light of the combination of U.S. Patent No. 5,854,560 to Chow (“Chow”) and a 1997 journal article entitled “A Low Power-Noise Output Driver with an Adaptive Characteristic Applicable to a Wide Range of Loading Conditions” (“Choy Article”), or the combination of U.S. Patent No. 6,066,958 to Taniguchi (“Taniguchi”) and the Choy Article.

Share

Read More

ITC Institutes Investigation (337-TA-676) Regarding Certain Lighting Control Devices Including Dimmer Switches And Parts Thereof

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
08
On May 6, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission instituted an investigation of Certain Lighting Control Devices Including Dimmer Switches and Parts Thereof (337-TA-676). 

The investigation is based on the April 7, 2009 complaint filed by Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. of Coopersburg, Pennsylvania.  As we explained in our April 9 post, the complaint alleges that Universal Smart Electric Corp. (“USE”) of Irvine, California unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain lighting control devices, including dimmer switches and/or switches and parts thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,637,930 and 5,248,919, in addition to U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3,061,804.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion to Compel In Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits (337-TA-665)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
11
On May 6, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 33 in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (337-TA-665).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Complainant Qimonda AG’s (“Qimonda”) motion to compel respondents LSI Corporation, Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Memory Products (US) Corporation, and Seagate (US) LLC’s (collectively “Respondents”) to produce documents relating to importation.

In the Order, ALJ Rogers determined that Qimonda violated Ground Rules 3.2 and 3.5 (requiring parties to make good-faith efforts to resolve discovery disputes without ALJ intervention and to meet and confer to resolve discovery disputes at least two business days prior to filing a motion), as well as Ground Rule 4.1.1 (providing that no motion to compel discovery may be filed unless the subject matter has first been raised to the Discovery Committee and such Committee has reached an impasse) in connection with its motion.  By way of background, according to Ground Rule 4.1.1, the Discovery Committee consists of lead counsel for the private parties and the Commission Investigative Staff Attorney.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Rules On Parties’ Requests For Receipt Of Evidence Without A Sponsoring Witness In Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits (337-TA-665)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
15
On May 14, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 43 in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (337-TA-665).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers ruled on requests filed by complainant Qimonda AG (“Qimonda”) and respondents LSI Corporation, Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Memory Products (US) Corporation, and Seagate (US) LLC’s (collectively “Respondents”) for the receipt into evidence of certain proposed exhibits without a sponsoring witness.

ALJ Rogers first noted that the ITC’s rules provide that “[r]elevant, material, and reliable evidence shall be admitted.”  ALJ Rogers also noted that his Ground Rules provide that each exhibit that is offered into evidence must have a sponsoring witness and the only exception to this general rule is where the party wishing to have evidence admitted without a sponsoring witness shows good cause for admitting such evidence.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motions to Compel In Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits (337-TA-665)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
02
On May 29, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued public versions of Order No. 35, Order No. 36, Order No. 39, and Order No. 40 in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (337-TA-665).  In the Orders, ALJ Rogers denied Complainant Qimonda AG’s (“Qimonda”) motions to compel respondent LSI Corporation to produce certain documents.

In each order, ALJ Rogers determined that Qimonda violated his ground rules, including Ground Rules 3.2 and 3.5 (requiring parties to make good-faith efforts to resolve discovery disputes without ALJ intervention and to meet and confer to resolve discovery disputes at least two business days prior to filing a motion) in connection with its motions.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Issues Orders Relating To Licenses In Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits (337-TA-665)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
02
On May 28, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public versions of Order No. 20 (dated April 13, 2009) and Order No. 31 (dated May 4, 2009) in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-665).  In Order No. 20, ALJ Rogers granted-in-part and denied-in-part respondents LSI Corp., Seagate Technology (US) Holdings Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Memory Products (US) Corp., Seagate Technologies International (Singapore), and Seagate (US) LLC’s (collectively “Respondents”) motion to preclude complainant Qimonda AG (“Qimonda”) from relying on licensees or licenses to establish standing or meet the domestic industry requirement.  Subsequently, in Order No. 31, ALJ Rogers granted-in-part and denied-in-part Qimonda’s motion to amend its complaint.

As to Order No. 20, Respondents argued that Qimonda had failed to comply with Commission Rules 210.12(a)(9)(iii)-(iv) and thus should be precluded from relying on any licensees or license agreements to show standing or meet the domestic industry requirement.  Rule 210.12(a)(9)(iii) requires that a 337 complaint include “[t]he identification of each licensee under each involved U.S. patent.”  Rule 210.12(a)(9)(iv) requires that the complaint include “[a] copy of each license agreement (if any) for each involved U.S. patent that complainant relies upon to establish its standing or to support its contention that a domestic industry…exists…”  Respondents argued that (1) Qimonda merely provided a list of companies that “may” be parties to licensing agreements that cover the asserted patents, and (2) Qimonda had not attached a single license agreement to its complaint.

Share

Read More

www.xxx-clips-online.com