ALJ Shaw

ALJ Shaw Grants Motion To Quash In Certain Microprocessors (337-TA-781)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
07
On April 19, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 50 (dated August 9, 2012) granting Complainant X2Y Attenuator ("X2Y") and non-parties Messrs. Draganic and Wish's motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum issued at the request of Respondents Intel Corporation, Intel Americas, Inc., Componentes Intel de Costa Rica S.A., Intel Technology Sdn. Bhd, Intel Products (Chengdu) Ltd., Inc. (together, "Intel"), Apple Inc., and Hewlett-Packard Company (collectively, "Respondents") in Certain Microprocessors, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-781).

According to the Order, Respondents argued that discovery from Messrs. Draganic and Wish was "highly relevant" and non-cumulative inasmuch as they were provided with information directly relevant to the investigation from X2Y et al., including information relating to characterization of the patents-in-suit, the value of the alleged inventions, the accused products, and X2Y's view on interactions with Intel.  The movants claimed that Messrs. Draganic and Wish had no role in the day-to-day affairs of X2Y or this investigation, that neither person held any employment position (formal or informal) with X2Y or its managing entity, A-Cubed Management Services Inc., and that neither person is listed as an investor on any patent or patent application assigned to or owned by X2Y.  Further, the movants argued that the information sought by Respondents is cumulative of information produced by X2Y, and that Respondents are engaged in "harassing discovery."

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Issues Public Version Of Rulings On Discovery Motions In Certain Video Analytics Software (337-TA-795)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
08
On April 23, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public versions of Order No. 21 and Order No. 25 (dated April 16, 2012 and June 21, 2012, respectively) in Certain Video Analytics Software, Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-795).

By way of background, this investigation was terminated in its entirety on November 14, 2012 after Complainant ObjectVideo, Inc. (“ObjectVideo”) and Respondents Robert Bosch GmbH, Bosch Security Systems, Inc., Bosch Sicherheissysteme GmbH, Bosch Security Systems B.V., Bosch Sicherheitssysteme Engineering GmbH, Bosch Security Systems – Sistemas de Seguranca, S.A., Bosch (Zhuhai) Security Systems, Co., Ltd., and Extreme CCTV, Inc. (collectively, “Bosch”) entered into a license agreement.  Previously, on July 17, 2012, ObjectVideo withdrew its complaint against Respondents Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd. and Samsung Opto-Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) after executing a covenant not to sue.  The ALJ recently issued the public versions of Order Nos. 21 and 25 involving ObjectVideo and Samsung.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Grants-In-Part Motions For Summary Determination In Certain Audiovisual Components (337-TA-837)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
09
On May 7, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public versions of Order No. 67 (dated February 27,2013) and Order No. 71 (dated March 5, 2013) in Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-837).

According to Order No. 67, Respondents Funai Corporation, Inc., Funai Electric Co., Ltd., P&F USA, Inc., Funai Service Corporation (collectively, "Funai") moved for summary determination that certain accused products do not infringe the patents asserted by Complainants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems LLC's (collectively, "Complainants") on the grounds that none of Complainants' experts alleges that those products infringe.  Specifically, Funai argued that it identified over 200 products as "accused products" in its interrogatory responses, but that Complainants' experts provide the bases of Complainants' infringement contentions for only 39 of these products.  Complainants did not dispute this, but countered that Funai's motion is a "premature and improper attempt to prevent Complainants from obtaining and utilizing evidence procured from third parties."  As an initial matter, ALJ Shaw found that the majority of the Funai products listed in its motion are not identified in the parties' joint statement of accused products (a joint filing required by the procedural schedule that indicates the final extent of Complainants' accusations in the investigation), and thus have not been accused of infringement.  Of the products listed in Funai's motion that do appear in the parties' joint filing, Funai argued that Complainants' experts provided no infringement opinions for ten of them.  The ALJ agreed, and also rejected Complainants' argument that sufficient time remains in the procedural schedule to receive additional evidence from third parties.  Accordingly, the motion was granted-in-part.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Grants Motion To Compel In Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps (337-TA-872)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
09
On May 6, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 17 granting Complainant Neptun Light Inc. and Andrezj Bobel's (collectively, "Neptun") motion to compel discovery from Respondent Satco Products, Inc. ("Satco") in Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps, Products Containing Same and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-872).

According to the Order, Neptun argued that Satco's discovery responses "improperly limit the scope of discovery to the Satco product identified in the Complaint," and that Satco should be ordered to provide responses that "properly reflect the scope of discovery."  Satco responded that (1) Neptun's "discovery demand is ambiguous and undefined as written," (2) the "demand seeks information related to products that are outside the scope of the Investigation," and (3) Neptun "failed to make a reasonable good faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute."  Noting his previous order that discovery was not limited to only the specific products identified in the complaint, but appropriately extends to all "compact fluorescent reflector lamps, products containing same and components thereof" imported and/or sold in the U.S., ALJ Shaw granted the motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Sets Target Date And Procedural Schedule In Certain Omeaga-3 Extracts From Marine Or Aquatic Biomass (327-TA-877)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
10
Further to our April 15, 2013 post, on May 7, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 6 and Order No. 7 in Certain Omega-3 Extracts From Marine or Aquatic Biomass and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-877) setting a target date and procedural schedule.

According to Order No. 6, ALJ Shaw set July 17, 2014 as the target date for completion of the investigation (which is approximately 15 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Shaw further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on March 17, 2014.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Control Technology (337-TA-845)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
11
On June 7, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and Parental Control Technology (Inv. No. 337-TA-845).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a May 1, 2012 complaint filed by Rovi Corporation; Rovi Guides, Inc.; Rovi Technologies Corporation; Starsight Telecast, Inc.; United Video Properties, Inc.; and Index Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Rovi”) alleging violation of Section 337 by, inter alia, Respondents Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”) and Roku, Inc. (“Roku”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain products containing interactive program guide and parental control technology that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,523; 6,898,762 (the ‘762 patent); 7,065,709 (the ‘709 patent); 7,103,906 (the ‘906 patent); 7,225,455; 7,493,643; and 8,112,776 (the ‘776 patent).  See our May 3, 2012 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps (337-TA-872)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
28
On June 11, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 20 in Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps, Products Containing Same and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-872).

According to the Order, Complainants Neptun Light Inc. and Andrezj Bobel and Respondent Technical Consumer Products, Inc. (“TCP”) filed a motion to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.  ALJ Shaw granted the motion and terminated the investigation as to TCP, 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 Shaw Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain Wireless Devices With 3G Capabilities (337-TA-800)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
02
On June 28, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Wireless Devices With 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-800).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a July 26, 2011 complaint filed on behalf of InterDigital Communications, LLC, InterDigital Technology Corporation, and IPR Licensing (collectively, “InterDigital”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondents Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA),  ZTE Corp., ZTE (USA) Inc., and Nokia (collectively, the “Respondents”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless devices with 3G capabilities and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,349,540 (the ‘540 patent); 7,502,406 (the ‘406 patent); 7,536,013 (the ‘013 patent); 7,616,970 (the ‘970 patent); 7,706,332 (the ‘332 patent); 7,706,830 (the ‘830 patent); and 7,970,127 (the ‘127 patent).  See our August 29, 2011 post for more details on this investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Denies Motion To Quash And Motion To Compel In Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps (337-TA-872)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
08
On July 2, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 22 in Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps, Products Containing Same and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-872).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Andrzej Bobel and Neptun Light, Inc. (collectively, “Neptun”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain compact fluorescent reflector lamps (“reflector CFLs”) and products and components containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,053,540.  See our January 30, 2013 post for more details on the complaint.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Rules On Motion To Compel In Certain Omega-3 Extracts From Marine Or Aquatic Biomass (337-TA-877)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
16
On July 5, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 8 in Certain Omega-3 Extracts from Marine or Aquatic Biomass and Products Containing the Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-877).  In the Order, ALJ Shaw ruled on Complainants Neptune Technologies & Bioressources Inc. and Acasti Pharma Inc.’s (collectively, “Neptune”) motion to compel Respondents Aker BioMarine AS, Aker BioMarine Antarctic AS, Aker BioMarine Antarctic USA, Inc., Olympic Seafood AS, Olympic Biotec Ltd., Avoca, Inc., Rimfrost USA, LLC, and Bioriginal Food & Science Corp. (collectively, “Aker Respondents”) and Enzymotec Ltd., Enzymotec USA, Inc. (collectively, “Enzymotec Respondents”) to complete document production and supplement disputed interrogatory responses.

According to the Order, Neptune argued that the Aker Respondents and Enzymotec Respondents should be compelled to complete their document production and supplement certain disputed interrogatory responses by June 20, 2013.  The Aker Respondents argued that Neptune’s request regarding the Aker Respondents’ document production had been substantially mooted by the Aker Respondents’ subsequent document production.  The Enzymotec Respondents argued that while Neptune had complained that the Enzymotec Respondents had not completed their document production, the same was true of all parties, including Neptune itself.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) supported Neptune’s motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Issues Recommended Determination On Remedy And Bond In Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Control Technology (337-TA-845)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
16
On July 3, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of his recommended determination (“RD”) on remedy and bond (dated June 13, 2013) in Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and Parental Control Technology (Inv. No. 337-TA-845).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a May 1, 2012 complaint filed by Rovi Corporation; Rovi Guides, Inc.; Rovi Technologies Corporation; Starsight Telecast, Inc.; United Video Properties, Inc.; and Index Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Rovi”) alleging violation of Section 337 by, inter alia, Respondents Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”) and Roku, Inc. (“Roku”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain products containing interactive program guide and parental control technology that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,523; 6,898,762; 7,065,709; 7,103,906; 7,225,455; 7,493,643; and 8,112,776.  See our May 3, 2012 post for more details. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Sets Target Date In Certain Digital Media Devices (337-TA-882)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
23
Further to our June 20, 2013 post, on July 19, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 8 in Certain Digital Media Devices, Including Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets and Mobile Phones, Components Thereof and Associated Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-882).

In the Order, ALJ Shaw set October 20, 2014 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is approximately sixteen months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Shaw further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on June 18, 2014.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Sets Target Date In Certain Crawler Cranes (337-TA-887)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
25
Further to our July 15, 2013 post, on July 24, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 3 in Certain Crawler Cranes and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-887).

In the Order, ALJ Shaw set November 3, 2014 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is approximately 15.5 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Shaw further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on July 3, 2014.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Crawler Cranes (337-TA-887)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
02
Further to our July 15, 2013 and July 25, 2013 posts, on July 31, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 5 in Certain Crawler Cranes and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-887).

In the Order, ALJ Shaw included provisions for the early exchange of infringement and invalidty contentions as well as claim terms and proposed constructions.  In addition, ALJ Shaw determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on March 25, 2014; the Initial Determination is due on July 3, 2014; and the target date for completing the investigation is November 3, 2014 (which is approximately 15.5 months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Digital Media Devices (337-TA-882)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
13
Further to our June 20, 2013 and July 23, 2013 posts, on August 12, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 15 in Certain Digital Media Devices, Including Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets and Mobile Phones, Components Thereof and Associated Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-882).

In the Order, ALJ Shaw included provisions for the early exchange of claim terms and proposed constructions.  In addition, ALJ Shaw determined that the evidentiary hearing will commence on February 18, 2014; the Initial Determination is due on June 20, 2014; and the target date for completing the investigation is October 20, 2014 (which is approximately 16 months after institution of the investigation).

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Rules On Motion To Compel In Certain Omega-3 Extracts From Marine Or Aquatic Biomass (337-TA-877)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
10
On August 27, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 20 in Certain Omega-3 Extracts from Marine or Aquatic Biomass and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-877).

According to the Order, Respondents Aker BioMarine AS, Aker BioMarine Antarctic AS, Aker BioMarine Antarctic USA, Inc., Olympic Seafood AS, Olympic Biotec Ltd., Avoca, Inc., Rimfrost USA, LLC, Bioriginal Food & Science Corp., and Enzymotec Ltd., Enzymotec USA, Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”) filed a motion to compel Complainants Neptune Technologies & Bioressources Inc. and Acasti Pharma Inc. (collectively, “Neptune”) to: 1) produce emails responsive to Respondents’ requests for production, 2) produce responsive emails from custodian Benoit Huart, and 3) make any witness whose emails are produced after his/her deposition available for further deposition.  Following ALJ Shaw’s order that the parties meet and confer to further narrow the disputed discovery issues, Respondents proposed a modified request for production.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Denies Motion To Strike In Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Tablet Computers, Media Players, And Televisions (337-TA-862)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
16
On August 27, 2013 ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 61 in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Tablet Computers, Media Players, And Televisions, And Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-862).

According to the Order, Respondents Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications America LLC; and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Samsung”) filed a motion to strike portions of the initial expert report of Dr. Vijay Madisetti submitted by Complainants Ericsson, Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively, “Ericsson”).  Specifically, Samsung argued that the Dr. Madisetti’s initial expert report expanded the technology at issue to include WiFi technology.  Furthermore, Samsung asserted that Ericsson was attempting to add new accused products and infringement theories for existing accused products.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Issues Public Version of Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond In Certain Audiovisual Components (337-TA-837)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
16
On August 14, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued public versions of his Initial Determination (“ID”) and Recommended Determination (“RD”) on remedy and bond in Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-837).  Due to its large size, we have separated the ID into eight parts:  part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, and part 8

By way of background, the investigation is based on a March 2, 2012 complaint filed by LSI Corporation and its subsidiary Agere Systems Inc. (collectively, “Complainants”) alleging violation of Section 337 with regard to certain audiovisual components and products containing the same including, certain digital televisions, Blu-ray disc players, home theater systems, DVD players and/or recorders that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,870,087 (the ‘087 patent), 6,982,663 (the ‘663 patent),  6,452,958 (the ‘958 patent), and 6,707,867 (the ‘867 patent).  See our April 13, 2012 post for more details on the investigation.  On March 7, 2013, the ALJ granted a motion to terminate the investigation as to certain claims of those patents.  As of the date of the ID and RD, the remaining respondents in the investigation were Funai Electric Company, Ltd., Funai Corporation, Inc., P&F USA, Inc., and Funai Service Corporation (collectively, “Funai”) and Realtek Semiconductor Corporation (“Realtek”).

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Denies Motion for Summary Determination In Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps (337-TA-872)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
19
On September 16, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 29 in Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps, Products Containing Same and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-872).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Andrzej Bobel and Neptun Light, Inc. (collectively, “Neptun”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain compact fluorescent reflector lamps (“reflector CFLs”) and products and components containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,053,540.  See our March 1, 2013 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Requests Positions Of Unidentified Licensees In Connection With Motion To Declassify In Certain Digital Media Devices (337-TA-882)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
20
On September 19, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 19 in Certain Digital Media Devices, Including Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets and Mobile Phones, Components Thereof and Associated Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-882).

By way of background, this investigation was instituted on June 12, 2013 and is based on a May 13, 2013 complaint filed by Black Hills Media, LLC (“BHM”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain digital media devices that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,028,323; 8,214,873; 8,230,099; 8,045,952; 8,050,652 and 6,618,593.  See our May 16, 2013 and June 20, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and the notice of investigation, respectively.

Share

Read More

www.xxx-clips-online.com