ALJ Rogers

ALJ Rogers Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Digital Photo Frames And Image Display Devices (337-TA-807)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
06
On January 4, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order 18 in Certain Digital Photo Frames And Image Display Devices and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-807).

In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Technology Properties Limited LLC (“TPL”) and Respondent Curtis International, Ltd. ("Curtis") to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Rogers granted the joint motion filed by TPL and Curtis.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Target Date In Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Devices (337-TA-821)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
09
Further to our December 21, 2011 post, on January 4, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 3 in Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Devices, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-821).

According to the Order, ALJ Rogers set May 20, 2013 as the target date (which is 16.5 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Rogers further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on January 18, 2013.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices (337-TA-741/749)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
17
On January 12, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination on Violation (“ID”) in Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, and Modules, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-741/749).

By way of background, the Complainants in this matter are Thomson Licensing SAS and Thomson Licensing LLC and the Respondents are Chimei Innolux Corp., Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., Innolux Corp. (collectively, “CMI”); Qisda Corp., Qisda America Corp., Qisda (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Qisda”); BenQ Corp., BenQ America Corp., BenQ Latin America (collectively, “BenQ”); AU Optronics Corp., AU Optronics Corp. America; Realtek Semiconductor Corp.; and MStar Semiconductor, Inc.  

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Devices (337-TA-821)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
18
Further to our December 21, 2011 and January 9, 2012 posts, on January 17, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 6 in Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Devices, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-821).

In the Order, ALJ Rogers set the procedural schedule for the investigation and included provisions for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions.  The procedural schedule also provides that the evidentiary hearing in this investigation will commence on November 26, 2012; the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on January 18, 2013; and the target date for completion of the investigation is May 20, 2013.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion For Summary Determination Of Invalidity In Certain Polyimide Films (337-TA-772)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
27
On January 26, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 24 denying Respondents SKC, Inc. and SKC Kolon PI, Inc.’s (collectively, “SKC”) motion for summary determination that claims 1, 2, 6-10 and 12-14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,691,961 (“the ‘961 patent”) are invalid as anticipated in Certain Polyimide Films, Products Containing Same, and Related Methods(Inv. No. 337-TA-772).

According to the Order, SKC argued that the asserted claims of the ‘961 patent were invalid in light of prior art polyimide films manufactured and sold by E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) more than a year before the earliest priority date asserted by Complainant Kaneka Corporation (“Kaneka”).  SKC pointed to Kaneka’s interrogatory responses indicating that the inventors of the ‘961 patent conceived of the inventions therein “in early 2003” and reduced the inventions to practice “in or about the Summer of 2003,” and contended that the undisputed facts show that some of DuPont’s Kapton® film products manufactured prior to September 2001 meet each limitation set forth in the asserted claims as construed by Kaneka.  SKC relied on samples of Kapton® 200HN and Kapton® 200FPC that were tested using a protocol developed by SKC based on the ‘961 patent, and a report submitted by its expert witness.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Grants Joint Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Starter Motors and Alternators (337-TA-755)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
27
On January 20 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 52 in Certain Starter Motors and Alternators(Inv. No. 337-TA-755). 

In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted a joint motion filed by Complainants Remy International, Inc. and Remy Technologies LLC and Respondent Electric Motor Service, Inc. to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) initially opposed the motion because the parties did not file a public version of the settlement agreement; however, after the parties filed a supplement to their motion that included a public version of the agreement, the OUII supported the motion.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Rogers granted the motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Digital Photo Frames and Image Display Devices (337-TA-807)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
30
On January 25, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 19 (dated January 25, 2012) in Certain Digital Photo Frames And Image Display Devices and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-807).

In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Technology Properties Limited LLC (“TPL”) and Respondent Royal Consumer Information Products, Inc. (“Royal”) to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Rogers granted the joint motion filed by TPL and Royal.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets 18-Month Target Date In Certain Portable Communication Devices (337-TA-827)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
30
Further to our January 17, 2012 post, on January 24, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 3 in Certain Portable Communication Devices(Inv. No. 337-TA-827).

According to the Order, ALJ Rogers set July 18, 2013 as the target date (which is 18 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Rogers further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on March 18, 2013.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion To Quash Subpoena In Certain Devices For Mobile Data Communication (337-TA-809)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
01
On January 30, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 14 denying non-party AT&T Mobility LLC’s (“AT&T”) motion to quash and/or limit a subpoena duces tecum issued at the request of Complainant Openwave Systems, Inc. in Certain Devices for Mobile Data Communication (Inv. No. 337-TA-809).

In the Order, ALJ Rogers noted that AT&T’s motion included neither a copy of the subpoena nor AT&T’s response to it in contravention of Ground Rule 3.5(b) requiring any discovery-related motion to “have appended to it the pertinent parts of the discovery request and all objections and answers thereto.”  The ALJ stated that AT&T’s violation of Ground Rule 3.5(b) “renders it impossible to determine the reasonableness of the document requests or the burden presented by the document requests.”

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Grants Joint Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Digital Photo Frames and Image Display Devices (337-TA-807)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
03
On February 3, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 20(dated February 3, 2012) in Certain Digital Photo Frames And Image Display Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-807).

In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Technology Properties Limited LLC (“TPL”) and Respondent ViewSonic Corporation (“ViewSonic”) to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Rogers granted the joint motion filed by TPL and ViewSonic.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Issues Initial Determination Granting Google’s Motion To Intervene And Order Denying Motion to Disqualify Counsel in Certain Portable Communication Devices (337-TA-827)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
15
On February 13, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers Jr. issued Order No. 7 granting Google Inc.’s (“Google”) motion to intervene, but denying a motion to disqualify the law firm of Pepper Hamilton LLC (“Pepper Hamilton”) in Certain Portable Communication Devices (337-TA-827).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Digitude Innovations LLC (“Digitude”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain portable communication devices that infringe several U.S. patents.  See our December 8, 2011 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Portable Communication Devices (337-TA-827)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
20
Further to our January 17 and January 30, 2012 posts, on February 13, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 8 in Certain Portable Communication Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-827).

In the Order, ALJ Rogers set the procedural schedule for the investigation and included provisions for the early exchange of claim construction terms and proposed constructions.  The procedural schedule also provides that the evidentiary hearing in this investigation will commence on January 22, 2013; the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on March 18, 2013; and the target date for completion of the investigation is July 18, 2013.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Digital Photo Frames And Image Display Devices (337-TA-807)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
29
On February 29, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 23 in Certain Digital Photo Frames And Image Display Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-807).

In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted a motion filed by Complainant Technology Properties Limited LLC (“TPL”) to terminate the investigation as to Respondent CEIVA Logic, Inc. based on a settlement agreement.  After reviewing the confidential and non-confidential versions of the agreement, ALJ Rogers granted the motion filed by TPL.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Grants Motion to Quash Subpoenas in Certain Light-Emitting Diodes (337-TA-798)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
08
On March 1, 2012 ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 20 in Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-798).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted nonparty Nichai America Corporation’s (“NAC”) motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum issued by respondents Osram AG, Osram Opto Semiconductor GmbH, Osram opto Semiconductors Inc., and Osram Sylvania Inc. (collectively, “Osram”). 

According to the Order, NAC is the US sales subsidiary of Nichia Corporation (“NCJ”), located in Japan.  The subpoenas sought documents from NAC and its parent NCJ relating to over 90 categories and also sought sample LEDs.  Osram sought the information because it believed NAC’s products were prior art to six of the patents at issue in the investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion For Sanctions In Certain Polyimide Films (337-TA-772)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
08
On March 2, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 36 denying Respondents SKC, Inc. and SKC Kolon PI, Inc.’s (collectively, “SKC”) motion for sanctions against Complainant Kaneka Corporation (“Kaneka”) in Certain Polyimide Films, Products Containing Same, and Related Methods(Inv. No. 337-TA-772).

According to the Order, SKC requested sanctions based on Kaneka’s failure to produce documents on or before February 8, 2012 that SKC sought in order to prove a prior use invalidity defense as required by Order No. 29.  Kaneka produced over 60,000 pages of documents on February 13, 2012, and according to SKC, Kaneka failed to produce technical standards or operating procedures from its U.S. subsidiary’s manufacturing processes before the critical date for U.S. Patent No. 6,264,866 (the ‘866 patent).  SKC sought an order prohibiting Kaneka from opposing SKC’s invalidity defense against at least the ‘866 patent, or alternatively, the imposition of adverse inferences that the subsidiary’s manufacturing processes employed more than one year before the priority date of the asserted patents (1) included at least two temperature increases in the belt dryer, and (2) included adjusting the imidation ratio, organic solvent and/or volatile constituent during the production of an adhesive polyimide film.  Kaneka countered that the deadline to comply with Order No. 29 was February 9 and that it received a two-day extension of time from SKC, meaning that the February 13 document production was timely.  Further, Kaneka asserted that its subsidiary conducted a diligent search and found no earlier documents pre-dating the filing of the ‘866 patent (and offered a signed declaration to that effect), and that SKC did not demonstrate how it is prejudiced by Kaneka’s alleged violation in any event.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Mustek Systems In Certain Digital Photo Frames And Image Display Devices (337-TA-807)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
14
On March 13, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 24 in Certain Digital Photo Frames And Image Display Devices and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-807).

In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted a motion filed by Respondent Mustek Systems, Inc. (“Mustek”) to terminate the investigation based on entry of a consent order.  Complainant Technology Properties Limited LLC did not file a response.  After reviewing the motion, ALJ Rogers granted the motion filed by Mustek.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Non-Party’s Motion To Quash In Certain Polyimide Films (337-TA-772)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
20
On March 12, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 38 in Certain Polyimide Films, Products Containing Same, and Related Methods(Inv. No. 337-TA-772).

According to the Order, non-party E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) filed a motion to quash a subpoena ad testificandum issued on an application from Respondents SKC, Inc. and SKC Kolon PI, Inc. (collectively, “SKC”).  In support of its motion, DuPont noted that the subpoena sought the testimony of DuPont employee Bruce Goodwin at the evidentiary hearing scheduled for March 2012 and Mr. Goodwin is scheduled to be in Asia at that time.  DuPont argued that it would be unduly burdensome to force Mr. Goodwin to have to return from Asia to provide testimony that is only expected to last for fifteen minutes.  DuPont also argued that it was unnecessary for Mr. Goodwin to authenticate documents and product samples produced by DuPont during discovery since the documents are deemed authentic under ALJ Rogers’ ground rules. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Digital Photo Frames And Image Display Devices (337-TA-807)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
22
On March 14, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 25 in Certain Digital Photo Frames And Image Display Devices and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-807).

In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied an unnopposed motion filed by Respondent Eastman Kodak Company (“Eastman”) which sought termination of the investigation based on the entry of a consent order.  Specifically, ALJ Rogers determined that Kodak’s consent order stipulation failed to comply with the requirements established by Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3). 

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Grants-In-Part Motion To Compel In Certain Coenzyme Q10 Products (337-TA-790)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
22
On March 21, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 17 granting-in-part Respondents Zhejiang Medicine Co., Ltd. and ZMC-USA LLC’s (collectively, “Respondents”) motion to compel in Certain Coenzyme Q10 Products and Methods of Making Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-790).

According to the Order, Respondents moved to compel Complainant Kaneka Corporation (“Kaneka”) to produce (1) all documents identified on Kaneka’s privilege log not authored by or sent to an attorney; (2) a list of the positions and entities with which the individuals in the remaining documents on its privilege logs are affiliated; (3) all withheld privileged documents not yet logged; (4) all communications between Kaneka employees and non-attorney members of the intellectual property department; and (5) all documents relating to certain testing.  Respondents asserted that Kaneka’s privilege logs are insufficient to support a claim of privilege for a significant number of documents listed therein.  Kaneka countered that it provided a “full supplemental privilege log” on March 2, 2012 in compliance with Ground Rule 4.10.1 and a separate index of individuals’ names appearing therein, rendering moot a substantial portion of Respondents’ motion.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) supported the motion in part, agreeing with Respondents that Kaneka’s privilege logs are incomplete but disagreeing with the scope of the documents Respondents sought to have produced since privilege and work product protection are not limited to communications to or from attorneys.  OUII argued instead that Kaneka should be ordered to produce complete and detailed privilege logs and that Respondents be permitted to re-file the motion if necessary after reviewing the new logs.

Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Grants Motion To Compel in Certain Video Game Systems and Controllers (337-TA-743)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
30
On March 21, 2012, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 16 (dated May 26, 2011) in Certain Video Game Systems and Controllers(Inv. No. 337-TA-743) granting-in-part Respondents Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc.’s (collectively “Nintendo”) motion to compel the production of documents that Complainant Motiva, LLC (“Motiva”) was allegedly improperly withholding as privileged.

The Order addressed several sets of potentially privileged information.  According to the Order, the first was a freedom to operate opinion (“Standley Opinion”) prepared for the principals of Motiva - Kevin Ferguson and Donald Gronachan, by the Standley Law Group.  Motiva alleged that the Standley Opinion was privileged, even though the principals of Motiva shared the opinion with an alleged third party, Mr. Smith, who Motiva asserted was an early investor in Motiva.  It further argued that because (i) Mr. Smith paid for the Standley Opinion, (ii) he and the other principals were “business partners,” and (iii) he and the other principals agreed to keep the opinion confidential, all three individuals therefore had a common legal interest in Motiva.  Nintendo and the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) argued that Motiva waived the privilege regarding the Standley Opinion by providing it to Mr. Smith.  They alleged that nothing indicated that Mr. Smith ever spoke with or sought legal advice from the Standley Law Group, and that he was only a prospective business partner who split the legal cost of the opinion with the two principals of Motiva.  OUII argued that the common interest privilege extended only to those who share common legal interests, rather than solely business or commercial interests, and that Mr. Smith’s sole role was “a provider of financial support,” which is not within the scope of the attorney-client privilege.  ALJ Rogers determined that even if Motiva could substantiate its assertions that Mr. Smith was a business partner and paid for the opinion, Motiva still failed to provide evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Smith had an identical legal, as opposed to business interest.  ALJ Rogers therefore determined that Motiva’s disclosure of the opinion to Mr. Smith waived attorney-client privilege, and Motiva should therefore produce the opinion and all other communications relating to the opinion.

Share

Read More