ALJ Shaw

ALJ Shaw Issues Public Version Of Enforcement Initial Determination In Certain DC-DC Controllers (337-TA-698)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
07
On November 30, 2012, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of the Enforcement Initial Determination (“EID”) (dated June 8, 2012) in Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-698).

By way of background, the Commission instituted this enforcement proceeding on September 6, 2011 based on an enforcement complaint filed by Richtek Technology Corp. and Richtek USA, Inc. (collectively, “Richtek”).  The enforcement complaint alleged that Respondents uPI Semiconductor Corp. (“uPI”) and Sapphire Technology Limited (“Sapphire”) had violated consent orders that issued in the underlying investigation on August 13, 2010.  The alleged violations included the continued importing, offering for sale, and selling for importation of DC-DC controllers that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,315,190 (the ‘190 patent); 6,414,470 (the ‘470 patent); and 7,132,717 (the ‘717 patent) and/or that make use of certain misappropriated Richtek trade secrets.  See our July 25, 2011 and September 5, 2011 posts for more details.  On March 20, 2012, ALJ Shaw issued an initial determination granting a joint motion to terminate the enforcement proceeding as to Sapphire based on a settlement agreement.  See our March 22, 2012 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain Microprocessors (337-TA-781)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
18
On December 14, 2012, ALJ David P. Shaw issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Microprocessors, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-781).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is X2Y Attenuators, LLC and the Respondents are Intel Corporation, Componentes Intel de Costa Rica S.A., Intel Malaysia Sdn. Bhd, Intel Products (Chengdu) Ltd., Intel Products (Shanghai) Ltd., Apple Inc., and Hewlett-Packard Company (collectively, the “Respondents”).  See our June 30, 2011 post for more details on the investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Rules On Motions In Certain Microprocessors (337-TA-781)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
31
On December 21, 2012, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public versions of Order Nos. 36 (dated June 19, 2012), 42 (dated July 17, 2012), 44 (dated July 20, 2012), 51 (dated August 15, 2012), 56 (dated August 20, 2012), and 57 (dated August 20, 2012) in Certain Microprocessors, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-781).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is X2Y Attenuators, LLC (X2Y) and the Respondents are Intel Corporation; Componentes Intel de Costa Rica S.A.; Intel Malaysia Sdn. Bhd; Intel Products (Chengdu) Ltd.; Intel Products (Shanghai) Ltd.; Apple Inc.; and Hewlett-Packard Company (collectively, the “Respondents”).  On December 14, 2012, ALJ Shaw issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) holding: a violation of Section 337 has not occurred, certain claims of the 7,916,444 (the ‘444 patent) and 8,023,241 (the ‘241 patent) patents are invalid, and the domestic industry requirement was satisfied with respect to all asserted patents.  See our December 18, 2012 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Grants-In-Part Motion To Compel In Certain Audiovisual Components (337-TA-837)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
02
On December 27, 2012, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 45 (dated October 11, 2012) granting-in-part Funai Electric Co., Ltd., Funai Corporation, Inc., P&F USA, Inc., Funai Service Corporation, MediaTek Inc., MediaTek USA Inc., MediaTek Wireless, Inc. (USA), Ralink Technology Corporation, Ralink Technology Corporation (USA), and Realtek Semiconductor Corporation’s (collectively, the “Respondents”) motion to compel in Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-837).

According to the Order, Respondents filed a motion seeking an order compelling Complainants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems LLC (collectively, “Complainants”) to produce information relating to Complainants’ domestic industry allegations.  Specifically, Respondents sought (1) the spreadsheet used to derive information contained in Complainants’ amended complaint and (2) all “teardown reports” of Funai products accused of infringing the patents-in-suit.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Rules On Motions In Certain Gaming And Entertainment Consoles (337-TA-752)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
03
On December 21, 2012, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 49 (dated November 21, 2012) ruling on motions to strike expert reports and preclude evidence in Certain Gaming And Entertainment Consoles, Related Software, And Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-752).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Motorola Mobility, Inc. and General Instrument Corporation (collectively, “Motorola”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondent Microsoft Corp. (“Microsoft”) for its importation into the U.S. and sale of certain models of Microsoft’s popular Xbox product.  See our November 24, 2010 post for more details.  On April 23, 2012, ALJ Shaw issued an initial determination (“ID”) which found that a violation of Section 337 occurred by reason of infringement of certain valid claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,357,571; 6,069,896; 6,980,596; and 7,162,094.  See our May 24, 2012 post for more details on the public version of the ID.  On June 29, 2012, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a notice determining to review the final initial determination (“ID”).  Specifically, the Commission remanded the investigation to ALJ Shaw to “apply the Commission’s opinion in Certain Electronic Devices with Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-724, Comm’n Op. (Dec. 21, 2011).”  See our July 3, 2012 post for more details on the Commission’s notice to review the ID.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Rules On Motions In Certain Microprocessors (337-TA-781)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
14
On January 11, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 43 (dated July 20, 2012) in Certain Microprocessors, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-781).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is X2Y Attenuators, LLC (“X2Y”) and the Respondents are Intel Corporation; Componentes Intel de Costa Rica S.A.; Intel Malaysia Sdn. Bhd; Intel Products (Chengdu) Ltd.; Intel Products (Shanghai) Ltd.; Apple Inc.; and Hewlett-Packard Company (collectively, the “Respondents”).  On December 14, 2012, ALJ Shaw issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) holding: a violation of Section 337 has not occurred, certain claims of the 7,916,444 (the ‘444 patent) and 8,023,241 (the ‘241 patent) patents are invalid, and the domestic industry requirement was satisfied with respect to all asserted patents.  See our December 18, 2012 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Rules On Discovery Motion in Certain Wireless Devices With 3G Capabilities (337-TA-800)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
15
On January 11, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 78 (dated October 23, 2012) 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 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; 7,502,406; 7,536,013; 7,616,970; 7,706,332; 7,706,830; and 7,970,127.  See our August 29, 2011 post for more details about this investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Denies Motion For Protective Order And Grants Motion To Compel In Certain Personal Data And Mobile Communications Devices (337-TA-710)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
15
On January 11, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 124 and Order No. 125 (both dated September 19, 2012) in Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software(Inv. No. 337-TA-710).

By way of background, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) filed an enforcement complaint on June 4, 2012 alleging that Respondents High Tech Computer Corp. and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) violated the Commission’s December 19, 2011 limited exclusion order (“LEO”) in the underlying investigation.  See our June 6, 2012 post for more details on Apple's enforcement complaint against HTC.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Grants Motion To Terminate Enforcement Proceeding In Certain Personal Data And Mobile Communications Devices (337-TA-710)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
16
On December 13, 2012, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 130 in Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-710).

By way of background, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) filed an enforcement complaint on June 4, 2012 alleging that Respondents High Tech Computer Corp. and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) violated the Commission’s December 19, 2011 limited exclusion order in the underlying investigation.  See our June 6, 2012 post for more details on Apple’s enforcement complaint against HTC.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Microprocessors (337-TA-781)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
25
Further to our December 18, 2012 post, on January 16, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) dated December 14, 2012 in Certain Microprocessors, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-781).  Due to its size, we have split the ID in seven parts here: part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, and part 7.

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is X2Y Attenuators, LLC (“X2Y”) and the Respondents are Intel Corporation, Componentes Intel de Costa Rica S.A., Intel Malaysia Sdn. Bhd, Intel Products (Chengdu) Ltd., Intel Products (Shanghai) Ltd. (collectively, “Intel”), Apple Inc. (“Apple”), and Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) (collectively, the “Respondents”).  X2Y accused Intel of importing and/or selling microprocessors and components thereof, and accused Apple and HP of importing and/or selling products containing Intel’s allegedly infringing microprocessors and components.  The remaining patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,023,241 (the ‘241 patent), 7,916,444 (the ‘444 patent) and 7,609,500 (the ‘500 patent) which relate to layered arrangements of conductive elements and dielectric materials incorporated into a substrate interposed between an integrated circuit chip and a printed circuit board for reducing electromagnetic interference in circuits.  In particular, the ‘241 patent relates to an arrangement for conditioning energy within electronic circuitry applications, the ’444 patent is directed to embodiments that allow the architecture to be incorporated into different electronic structures, and the ‘500 patent relates to embodiments that increase electrode shielding.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To VIZIO In Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Control Technology (337-TA-845)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
28
On January 22, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 21 in Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Control Technology (Inv. No. 337-TA-845).

In the Order, ALJ Shaw granted a joint motion filed by Complainants Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc., Rovi Technologies Corporation, Starsight Telecast, Inc., United Video Properties, Inc., and Index Systems, Inc. and Respondent VIZIO, Inc. to terminate the investigation as to VIZIO based on a settlement agreement.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Sets Target Date In Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Tablet Computers, Media Players and Televisions (337-TA-862)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
28
Further to our January 7, 2013 post, on January 22, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 4 setting a target date in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Tablet Computers, Media Players, and Televisions, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-862).

In the Order, ALJ Shaw stated that the Initial Determination is due on December 6, 2013 and the target date for completing the investigation is April 8, 2014 (approximately 15 months after institution of the investigation).  Further, ALJ Shaw directed the parties to submit proposed procedural schedules by January 25, 2013.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Denies Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Non-Accused Product In Certain Wireless Devices With 3G Capabilities (337-TA-800)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
15
On February 15, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 90 (dated January 16, 2013) 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 complaint filed on behalf of InterDigital Communications, LLC, InterDigital Technology Corporation, and IPR Licensing’s (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 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; 7,502,406; 7,536,013; 7,616,970; 7,706,332; 7,706,830; and 7,970,127.  See our August 29, 2011 post for more details about this investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Rules On Motions To Quash Non-Party Subpoenas In Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Control Technology (337-TA-845)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
15
On February 14, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order Nos. 22–25 in Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Control Technology (Inv. No. 337-TA-845).

In Order No. 22, ALJ Shaw denied non-party Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum and the subpoena ad testificandum (“subpoenas”) issued at the request of complainants Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc., Rovi Technologies Corporation, Starsight Telecast, Inc., United Video Properties, Inc., and Index Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Rovi”).  Apple argued that the subpoenas were “unduly burdensome and vastly overbroad.”  In opposition, Rovi asserted that the information sought in the subpoenas was highly relevant and narrowly tailored to minimize the burden on non-party Apple.  ALJ Shaw held that Apple failed to prove that the potential hardship of the subpoenas outweighed the relevance and need of the discovery sought.  Accordingly, ALJ Shaw denied Apple’s motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Denies Motions In Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Control Technology (337-TA-845)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
21
On February 13 and February 14, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 29 and the public version of Order No. 26 (dated February 7, 2013), respectively, in Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Control Technology (Inv. No. 337-TA-845).

According to Order. No. 26, Complainants Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc., Rovi Technologies Corporation, Starsight Telecast, Inc., United Video Properties, Inc., and Index Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Rovi”) filed a motion requesting an order permitting one of Rovi’s expert witnesses, Dr. Shamos, to provide his testimony on February 13, 14, or 15.  Rovi argued that the schedule change was necessary because “Dr. Shamos has an unchangeable academic appointment at the University of Hong Kong to teach an Electronic Payment Systems course on a schedule that is interleaved with many other courses.”  Rovi asserted that permitting Dr. Shamos to testify on February 13, 14, or 15 was a reasonable request and did not prejudice respondents Netflix, Inc.; Roku, Inc.; LG Electronics, Inc.; and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”).

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Rules On Motions In Certain Wireless Devices With 3G Capabilities (337-TA-800)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
22
On February 13 and February 15, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 104 and the public version of Order No. 70 (dated September 19, 2012), respectively, in Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-800).

According to Order No. 70, Respondents Nokia Corp. and Nokia Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”) filed  a motion for an order compelling complainants InterDigital Communications, LLC, InterDigital Technology Corporation, and IPR Licensing’s (collectively, “InterDigital”) to answer interrogatories and produce documents relating to: 1) InterDigital’s licensing negotiations and 2) products embodying any claims of the patents-in-suit.  Additionally, InterDigital filed a cross-motion to compel the production of information relating to Nokia’s licensing activities and FRAND defenses.  Both parties asserted that they have agreed to provide the requested information. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Rules On Motions To Strike In Certain Wireless Devices With 3G Capabilities (337-TA-800)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
26
On February 21, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 89 (dated January 16, 2013) 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; 7,502,406; 7,536,013; 7,616,970; 7,706,332; 7,706,830; and 7,970,127.  See our August 29, 2011 post for more details on this investigation.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Grants Motion To Compel Litigation Invoices In Certain Audiovisual Components (337-TA-837)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
28
On February 19, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 62 (dated February 5, 2013) granting Respondents Funai Electric Co., Ltd.; Funai Corporation, Inc.; P&F USA, Inc.; Funai Service Corporation; MediaTek Inc.; MediaTek USA Inc.; MediaTek Wireless, Inc.; Ralink Technology Corporation; and Ralink Technology Corporation USA’s (collectively, the “Respondents”) motion to compel in Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-837).

According to the Order, Respondents filed a motion seeking an order compelling Complainants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems LLC (collectively, “Complainants”) to produce unredacted versions of litigation invoices or, in the alternative, to preclude Complainants from relying on these invoices at the evidentiary hearing.  Respondents argued that the redacted litigation invoices, which Complainants used to support its domestic industry allegations, are so heavily redacted that it is impossible to determine whether the costs are associated with licensing activities.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Grants Canon’s Summary Determination Motion And Recommends General Exclusion Order In Certain Toner Cartridges (337-TA-829)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
06
On February 28, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued a notice in Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-829).

In the notice, ALJ Shaw indicated that he issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) granting Complainants Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc., and Canon Virginia, Inc.’s motion for summary of determination of violation of Section 337 by the defaulting respondents.  ALJ Shaw further indicated that “it was recommended, among other things, that the Commission issue a general exclusion order.” 

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation As To Mitsubishi Respondents In Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Control Technology (337-TA-845)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
06
On February 27, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 34 in Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Control Technology (Inv. No. 337-TA-845).

In the Order, ALJ Shaw granted a joint motion filed by Complainants Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides, Inc., Rovi Technologies Corporation, Starsight Telecast, Inc., United Video Properties, Inc., and Index Systems, Inc. and Respondents Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc., and Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (collectively “Mitsubishi”) to terminate the investigation as to Mitsubishi based on a settlement agreement.

Share

Read More

www.xxx-clips-online.com