How to Search
ALJ Rogers

ALJ Rogers Issues Public Version Of Order Denying Motion To Compel In Certain Silicon Microphones (337-TA-695)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
30
On June 24, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 18 (dated May 10, 2010) in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-695).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Respondent Analog Devices, Inc.’s (“Analog”) motion to compel Complainant Knowles Electronics LLC (“Knowles”) to produce documents and things.

According to the Order, Analog sought an order compelling Knowles to produce documents and things related to the following categories: “(1) the SOIC8 and DIP packages that Dr. Loeppert developed prior to 2003 that Analog claims are prior art to the asserted patents; (2) Knowles’ interactions with the Institute of Microelectronics (‘IME’); and (3) Mr. Minervini’s and Dr. Loeppert’s participation in the prosecution of the asserted patents.”  Analog argued that Knowles had refused to produce the information based on Knowles’s belief that the information is not relevant to the investigation.

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Target Date In Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges With Printheads (337-TA-723)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
30
Further to our June 22, 2010 post, on June 28, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 4:  Setting Target Date in Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges With Printheads and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-723).

According to the Order, ALJ Rogers set October 24, 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 on June 24, 2011.

Read More

ALJ Rogers Rules On Motion To Strike In Certain MEMS Devices (337-TA-700)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
30
On June 29, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 7 in Certain MEMS Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-700).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted-in-part and denied-in-part Complainant Analog Devices, Inc.’s (“Analog”) motion to strike the rebuttal expert reports of Respondents Knowles Electronics LLC and Mouser Electronics, Inc.’s (collectively, “Respondents”) experts, Drs. Wallace and Vander Veen, and the “errata” to Dr. Wallace’s initial expert report.

According to the Order, Analog argued that Respondents’ rebuttal expert reports were improper because those reports were directed exclusively to the issue of commercial success in connection with Respondents’ invalidity arguments.  Analog took the position that since Analog’s initial expert reports dealt only with infringement and domestic industry, it was improper for Respondents’ experts to address an invalidity issue in their rebuttal expert reports.  According to Analog, Respondents should have addressed all invalidity issues -- including secondary considerations of nonobviousness -- in their initial expert reports.  In support of its argument, Analog pointed to deposition testimony by Dr. Wallace where Dr. Wallace stated that he had started his commercial success analysis prior to the initial expert report deadline, but that he could not finish in time.

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion For Summary Determination In Certain Printing And Imaging Devices (337-TA-690)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
01
On June 24, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 23 (dated April 16, 2010) in Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-690) denying Respondents Oki Data Corporation and Oki Data Americas, Inc.’s (collectively “Oki Data”) motion for summary determination of non-infringement as to certain accused products.

In support of its motion, Oki Data asserted that Complainants Ricoh Company, Ltd., Ricoh Americas Corporation, and Ricoh Electronics, Inc. (collectively, “Ricoh”) identified over 90 accused Oki Data products in response to an interrogatory, many of which were not addressed by Ricoh’s experts on infringement via report or deposition.  Oki Data thus sought summary determination of non-infringement regarding the accused products not addressed by Ricoh’s experts, or alternatively an order precluding Ricoh’s experts from testifying at the evidentiary hearing about such products.  In opposition, Ricoh asserted that Oki Data mischaracterized the facts and sought summary determination regarding non-accused products.  Ricoh stated that the complete list of accused products is found in the parties’ Joint Statement of Contested Issues, and argued that product numbers are largely irrelevant to this investigation because Oki Data frequently changes model names and numbers without altering functionality.  According to Ricoh, the remedy it requests was tied to the functionality that infringed the asserted patents, not necessarily to specific model numbers.  The Commission Investigative Staff supported the motion in part, arguing that Ricoh’s experts should be precluded from testifying at trial regarding any accused products not previously addressed in their reports or depositions, but pointing out that Ricoh may be able to demonstrate infringement without resorting to expert testimony.

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motions For Summary Determination and For Reconsideration In Certain Printing And Imaging Devices (337-TA-690)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
01
On June 24, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public versions of Order No. 22 (dated April 12, 2010), Order No. 26 (dated April 22, 2010); Order No. 27 (dated April 22, 2010) and Order No. 28 (dated April 28, 2010) in Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-690).

In Order No. 22, ALJ Rogers denied Respondents Oki Data Corporation and Oki Data Americas, Inc.’s (collectively “Oki Data”) motion for summary determination of non-infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,863,690.  In its motion Oki Data asserted that its accused products did not meet “the thermofusible toner has softening point of less than [a]bout 80ºC” limitation, under any proposed construction, because the thermofusible toner of its accused products has a softening point that exceeds about 80ºC.  In its opposition, Respondents Ricoh Company, Ltd., Ricoh Americas Corporation, and Ricoh Electronics, Inc. (collectively “Ricoh”) asserted that Oki Data’s testing of its toner was flawed and when properly measured “the softening point of the accused toner [meets the limitation].”  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) supported the motion asserting that “Ricoh’s construction of the term ‘softening point’ . . . should be rejected because it would result in a lack of utility.”  In denying the motion, ALJ Rogers found that disagreement existed between the parties on the proper method for determining the softening point of the accused toners and therefore summary determination was inappropriate.

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges With Printheads (337-TA-723)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
20
On July 19, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 6 in Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges With Printheads and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-723).

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 indicates that the evidentiary hearing in this investigation will commence on March 14, 2011.

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Target Date In Certain Semiconductor Products (337-TA-729)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
02
Further to our July 26, 2010 post, on July 29, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 4:  Setting Target Date in Certain Semiconductor Products Made By Advanced Lithography Techniques And Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-728).

According to the Order, ALJ Rogers set November 28, 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 on July 26, 2011.

Read More

ALJ Rogers Issues Initial Determination In Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers (337-TA-686)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
02
On July 29, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) in Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (Inv. No. 337-TA-686).

The Complainants in this investigation are The Lincoln Electric Company and Lincoln Global, Inc.  The Respondents are The ESAB Group, Inc. and Sidergas SpA.

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Semiconductor Products (337-TA-729)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
16
On August 16, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 5 in Certain Semiconductor Products Made By Advanced Lithography Techniques And Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-728).

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 indicates that the evidentiary hearing in this investigation will commence on May 9, 2011.

Read More

ALJ Rogers Issues Public Version of Initial Determination In Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers (337-TA-686)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
20
Further to our August 2, 2010 post, on August 31, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of the Initial Determination on Violation and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) (dated July 29, 2010) in Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (Inv. No. 337-TA-686).

The Complainants in this investigation are The Lincoln Electric Company and Lincoln Global, Inc. (collectively, “Lincoln”).  The Respondents are The ESAB Group, Inc. (“ESAB”) and Sidergas SpA (“Sidergas”) (collectively “Respondents”).

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Target Date In Certain Flash Memory Chips (337-TA-735)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
20
Further to our September 13, 2010 post, on September 16, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 4:  Setting Target Date in Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing The Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-735).

According to the Order, ALJ Rogers set January 12, 2012 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 on September 12, 2011.

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motions For Reconsideration In Certain Notebook Computer Products (337-TA-705)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
21
On September 16, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 18 in Certain Notebook Computer Products and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-705).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied motions filed by Respondents Wistron Corporation, Wistron InfoComm (Texas) Corporation, and Wistron InfoComm Technology (America) Corporation (collectively, “Wistron”) for reconsideration of Order No. 12, which denied Wistron’s motion for leave to amend its response to add an inequitable conduct defense, and Order No. 13, which denied Wistron’s motion to compel.

According to the Order, Wistron argued that because of the heightened pleading standard for inequitable conduct defenses it needed to depose all individuals involved in the alleged inequitable conduct before asserting the defense, and that Complainant Toshiba Corporation (“Toshiba”) delayed depositions of its employee and U.S. patent counsel, without which Wistron could not have offered a complete inequitable conduct pleading.  Wistron also pointed to a late-produced email from Toshiba that Wistron claimed established the inequitable conduct.  Wistron further argued that Commission Rule 210.14(b)(2) merely requires a showing that the “disposition of the issues in an investigation on the merits will be facilitated” (rather than a showing of good cause) before an amendment to the response will be allowed, and that its proposed inequitable conduct defense will facilitate that disposition – namely resolution of the improperly procured patent-in-suit.  Finally, Wistron argued that because the reasoning in Order No. 13 was based on Order No. 12, it should be reconsidered along with Order No. 12.

Read More

ALJ Rogers Issues Initial Determination In Certain Printing And Imaging Devices (337-TA-690)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
27
On September 23, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-690).

The Complainants in this investigation are Ricoh Company, Ltd., Ricoh Americas Corporation, and Ricoh Electronics, Inc.  The Respondents are Oki Data Corporation and Oki Data Americas, Inc. (collectively the “Respondents”).

Read More

ALJ Rogers Rules On Motions For Summary Determination Of Invalidity In Certain Notebook Computer Products (337-TA-705)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
30
On September 28, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 23 and Order No. 24 in Certain Notebook Computer Products and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-705).  In Order No. 23, ALJ Rogers denied Respondents Wistron Corporation, Wistron InfoComm (Texas) Corporation, and Wistron InfoComm Technology (America) Corporation’s (collectively, “Wistron”) motion for summary determination of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,156,693 (the ‘693 patent).  In Order No. 24, ALJ Rogers denied Wistron’s motion for summary determination of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,430,867 (the ‘867 patent).

According to Order No. 23, Wistron argued in its motion that the Cirque Hidden Touch Surface/Advanced Glidepoint Technology (the “Cirque HTS technology”) anticipates the asserted claims of the ‘693 patent.  Wistron also argued that the asserted claims of the ‘693 patent would have been obvious in view of the Cirque HTS technology.

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Flash Memory Chips (337-TA-735)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
11
On October 7, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 9:  Setting Procedural Schedule in Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing The Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-735).

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 June 20, 2011.

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion To Amend Protective Order In Certain Flash Memory Chips (337-TA-735)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
15
On October 13, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 10 denying Complainant Spansion LLC’s (“Spansion”) motion to amend the protective order in Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing The Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-735).

According to the Order, Spansion sought to amend the protective order to give one designated in-house counsel from each party who is not involved in competitive decision making access to confidential business information, relying on the Federal Circuit’s recent ruling in In re Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 605 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010).  Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung International, Inc, Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Apple, Inc., Nokia Corp., Nokia Inc., PNY Technologies, Inc., Research In Motion Ltd., Research in Motion Corporation, Transcend Information Inc., Transcend Information Inc. (US), and Transcend Information Inc. (Shanghai Factory) (collectively “Respondents”) and the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) opposed the motion, arguing that Deutsche Bank does not control and that the Commission’s traditional three-part balancing test for determining treatment of confidential business information articulated in Akzo N.V. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 808 F.2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1986) weighs in favor of the Commission’s longstanding practice of preventing in-house counsel from viewing confidential business information.

Read More

ALJ Rogers Sets Target Date In Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices (337-TA-741)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
21
Further to our October 13, 2010 post, on October 20, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 4: Setting Target Date in Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, And Modules, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-741).

According to the Order, ALJ Rogers set February 17, 2012 as the target date (which is 16 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Rogers further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on October 17, 2011.

Read More

ALJ Rogers Rules On Motions For Summary Determination of Non-Infringement In Certain Notebook Computer Products (337-TA-705)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
01
On October 27, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public versions of Order No. 19 (dated September 16, 2010) and Order No. 21 (dated September 24, 2010) in Certain Notebook Computer Products and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-705).

In Order No. 19, ALJ Rogers denied Respondents Wistron Corporation, Wistron InfoComm (Texas) Corporation, and Wistron InfoComm Technology (America) Corporation’s (collectively, “Wistron”) motion for summary determination of non-infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,156,693.  In support of its motion, Wistron asserted that “its pointing devices are not completely enclosed inside a housing” as required by the asserted claims, as construed by Wistron.  Specifically, Wistron asserted that the “pointing device” includes touchpad buttons that “are not enclosed inside the housing, but instead appear through an aperture in the housing.”  In opposition to the motion, both Complainant Toshiba Corporation (“Toshiba”) and the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) asserted that “there is a genuine factual dispute regarding whether or not the accused products meet the ‘pointing device’ limitation under the proposed constructions.”  In this regard, Toshiba and OUII asserted “that the touchpad itself, and nothing else in the accused products constitutes the ‘pointing device’ of the asserted claims.”  Accordingly, ALJ Rogers denied the motion finding a genuine dispute of material fact regarding “whether or not the buttons below the touchpad are part of the ‘pointing device.’”

Read More

ALJ Rogers Rules On Motion For Summary Determination Regarding Affirmative Defenses In Certain Notebook Computer Products (337-TA-705)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
01
On October 27, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 22 (dated September 28, 2010) in Certain Notebook Computer Products and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-705).  ALJ Rogers granted-in-part Complainant Toshiba Corporation’s (“Toshiba”) motion for summary determination regarding the Second and Third Affirmative Defenses of Respondents Wistron Corporation, Wistron InfoComm (Texas) Corporation, and Wistron InfoComm Technology (America) Corporation (collectively, “Wistron”).  ALJ Rogers granted Toshiba’s motion regarding Wistron’s defenses of unclean hands, laches, acquiescence, and waiver, while granting it in part with respect to Wistron’s equitable estoppel defense.

Unclean Hands

Read More

ALJ Rogers Rules On Motion For Summary Determination Regarding Importation In Certain Notebook Computer Products (337-TA-705)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
01
On October 27, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 25 (dated September 29, 2010) in Certain Notebook Computer Products and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-705), granting-in-part Complainant Toshiba Corporation’s (“Toshiba”) motion for summary determination regarding importation.

According to the Order, Toshiba argued in its motion that Respondents Wistron Corporation, Wistron InfoComm (Texas) Corporation, and Wistron InfoComm Technology (America) Corporation’s (collectively, “Wistron”) imports accused notebook computers, and that by selling certain computers outside the United States, such sales constituted  a “sale for importation,” when the computer purchasers imported those computers to the United States.  Wistron responded that solely the Acer Aspire 4810T identified by Toshiba in its Complaint was properly part of this investigation, and that as an original equipment manufacturer in China, it has no involvement in the importation and/or sale for importation of the accused products into the United States.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) supported Toshiba’s motion, noting that statements in Wistron’s verified response to the Complaint, as well as statements in the Joint Stipulation of Contested Issues support a finding that the importation requirement is met.

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.