ALJ Shaw

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
06
On March 1, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 36 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 LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (collectively “LGE”) to terminate the investigation as to LGE based on a settlement agreement.

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
08
On March 5, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 30 (dated February 14, 2013) in Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Control Technology (Inv. No. 337-TA-845).

According to the Order, Respondents Netflix, Inc. and Roku, Inc. (collectively, “Netflix”) filed a motion seeking an order compelling Complainants Rovi Corporation; Rovi Guides, Inc.; Rovi Technologies Corporation; Starsight Telecast, Inc.; United Video Properties, Inc.; and Index Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Rovi”) to produce documents improperly withheld based on claims of privilege.  At issue are more than 100,000 documents involving two of Rovi’s in-house attorneys.  Netflix argued that Rovi’s assertions that the documents are privileged were facially improper.  Specifically, Netflix objected to Rovi’s assertions that the documents are privileged because they involve in-house attorneys roles relating solely to licensing negotiations and strategy.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Denies Motion To Compel Additional Expert Deposition Testimony In Certain Audiovisual Components (337-TA-837)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
15
On March 14, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 75 denying Respondents Funai Electric Co., Ltd.; Funai Corporation, Inc.; P&F USA, Inc.; and Funai Service Corporation's (collectively, "Funai") motion to compel in Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-837).

According to the Order, Funai filed a motion seeking an order compelling Complainants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems LLC (collectively, “Complainants”) to produce their expert witnesses for additional deposition testimony.  Specifically, Funai sought to depose one expert for an additional day and the other expert for an additional three hours.  Complainants opposed Funai's motion arguing that a private agreement between the parties prohibited the additional expert deposition testimony sought by Funai's motion. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Grants Canon Motion For Summary Determination Concerning the Economic Prong In Certain Toner Cartridges (337-TA-829)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
18
On March 14, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 24 (dated February 26, 2013) granting Complainants Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc., and Canon Virginia, Inc.’s (collectively, “Canon”) Motion for Summary Determination that Canon satisfies the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for the asserted patents in Certain Toner Cartridges (337-TA-829).

According to the Order, Canon argued that it satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement based on all three subsections of 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3).  Specifically, Canon argued that its “significant investment in plant and equipment, its significant employment of labor and capital, and its substantial investment in the exploitation of the asserted patents, including engineering and quality assurance activities, each independently meet the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.”  The Commission Investigative Staff supported the motion. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Rules On Motion To Preclude Reliance On Documents In Certain Audiovisual Components (337-TA-837)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
18
On March 14, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 68 denying Respondents Funai Electric Co., Ltd., Funai Corporation, Inc., P&F USA, Inc., and Funai Service Corporation’s (collectively, “Funai”) motion to preclude Complainants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems LLC (collectively, “Complainants”) from relying on certain documents in Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-837).

According to the Order, Funai argued that Complainants should be precluded from relying on certain documents relating to their domestic industry arguments because such documents were produced by Complainants after the close of fact discovery.  Additionally, Funai asserted that the documents at issue did not relate to the extended discovery set by Order Nos. 37 and 48.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Issues Notice Of Remand Initial Determination In Certain Gaming And Entertainment Consoles (337-TA-752)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
25
On March 22, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued a notice of the final initial remand determination (“RID”) 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 alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondent Microsoft Corp. 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 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 (the ‘571 patent); 6,069,896 (the ‘896 patent); 6,980,596 (the ‘596 patent); and 7,162,094 (the ‘094 patent).  See our May 24, 2012 post for more details on the public version of the ID.  On June 29, 2012, the ITC issued a notice determining to review the ID in its entirety.  The Commission also remanded the investigation to the ALJ to “(1) 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); (2) rule on Microsoft’s motion for partial termination of the investigation …; and (3) set a new target date for completion of the investigation,” which allows four months for Commission review.  See our July 3, 2012 post for more details.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Denies Motion To Strike In Certain Audiovisual Components (337-TA-837)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
26
On March 21, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 79 denying Respondents Funai Electric Co., Ltd., Funai Corporation, Inc., P&F USA, Inc., Funai Service Corporation, and Realtek Semiconductor Corporation’s (collectively, “Respondents”) motion to strike certain portions of Complainants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems LLC’s (collectively, “Complainants”) rebuttal expert reports in Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-837).

According to the Order, Respondents argued that Complainants consistently took the position that there were no secondary considerations of nonobviousness with respect to any of the asserted patents.  However, after the filing of Respondents’ initial expert reports, Complainants’ experts took a diametrically opposite position, offering opinions and evidence concerning secondary considerations of nonobviousness in their rebuttal expert reports, and directly contradicting the testimony of Complainants’ corporate witness on this subject.  

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Rules on Discovery Motions in Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities (337-TA-800)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
01
On March 21, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public versions of Order Nos. 96 and 98 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 (the ‘970 patent); 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 Denies Motions for Summary Determination in Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities (337-TA-800)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
01
On March 21, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public versions of Order Nos. 92, 93, and 99 in Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-800) denying Complainant and Respondent Nokia’s motions for summary determination.

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 (the ‘970 patent); 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 Sets 14.5-Month Target Date And Procedural Schedule In Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps (337-TA-872)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
02
Further to our March 1, 2013 post, on April 1, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order Nos. 8 and 9 in Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps, Products Containing Same and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-872).

In Order No. 8, ALJ Shaw set May 20, 2014 as the target date for completing the investigation (which is approximately 14.5 months after institution of the investigation).  ALJ Shaw further determined that the initial determination on violation shall be due on January 20, 2014.   

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Grants Funai’s Motion For Summary Determination Of Non-Infringement In Certain Audiovisual Components (337-TA-837)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
03
On March 15, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 67 (dated February 27, 2013) granting Respondents Funai Corporation, Inc.; Funai Electric Co., Ltd.; P&F USA, Inc.; and Funai Service Corporation’s (collectively, “Funai’) motion for summary determination of non-infringement in Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same(Inv. No. 337-TA-837).

According to the Order, Funai argued that it identified over 200 products in its interrogatory responses as “accused products,” but Complainants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems LLC’s (collectively, “Complainants”) experts provided infringement contentions for only 39 products.  Accordingly, Funai asserted that it was entitled to summary determination of non-infringement for all of the accused products that lack infringement contentions.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Issues Remand Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337 in Certain Gaming and Entertainment Consoles (337-TA-752)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
05
On April 2, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of the Remand Initial Determination (“RID,” dated March 22, 2013) 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. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Rules on Motions For Summary Determination and Motions In Limine In Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Control Technology (337-TA-845)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
09
On April 8, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public versions of Order Nos. 40 and 41 – both dated March 4, 2013 – in Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and Parental Control Technology (Inv. No. 337-TA-845).  Each will be discussed in turn below.

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 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 Denies Motion For Protective Order And Motion For Summary Determination In Certain Gaming And Entertainment Consoles (337-TA-752)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
10
On April 8, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 45 (dated September 27, 2012) denying Respondent Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) motion for a protective order precluding Complainants Motorola Mobility, Inc. and General Instrument Corp. (collectively, “Motorola”) from “propounding broad discovery requests outside the permissible scope of the remand,” and the public version of Order No. 51 (dated November 29, 2012) denying Microsoft’s motion for summary determination of no violation with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,069,896 and 6,980,596 in Certain Gaming and Entertainment Consoles, Related Software, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-752).

By way of background, ALJ Shaw issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) on April 23, 2012 which found that a violation of Section 337 occurred by reason of infringement of certain valid claims of various asserted patents.  See our May 24, 2012 post for more details on the public version of the ID.  On June 29, 2012, the ITC remanded the investigation to the ALJ to, among other things, “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 April 2, 2013, ALJ Shaw issued the public version of the Remand Initial Determination (“RID,” dated March 22, 2013) finding no violation of Section 337 had occurred, as there was no direct or indirect infringement of the ‘896 patent.  Seeour April 5, 2013 post for more details on the RID. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Denies Request For In-Person Conference On Proposed Motion In Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps (337-TA-872)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
19
On April 17, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 12 in Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps, Products Containing Same and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-872).  In the Order, ALJ Shaw denied Respondents Satco Products, Inc. (“Satco”) and Maxlite, Inc.’s (“Maxlite”) request for “a date for an in-person conference with respect to a motion to bifurcate this proceeding; to limit discovery to domestic industry issues, and to set a hearing date thereon.”

According to the Order, Satco sent a letter to ALJ Shaw on April 15, 2013 requesting a conference with the ALJ and all counsel with respect to a proposed motion to limit discovery to domestic industry issues and to set a hearing date on those issues.  In the letter, Satco referred to the Commission Order instituting Inv. No. 337-TA-874, where the Commission directed the ALJ to hold an evidentiary hearing, find facts, and issue an early decision on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.  See our March 25, 2013 post for more details. 

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Grants Motion To Strike And Denies Motion To Quash In Certain Personal Data And Mobile Communications Devices (337-TA-710)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
22
On April 10, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public versions of Order No. 128 (dated November 1, 2012) and Order No. 129 (dated November 7, 2012) in Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-710).

According to Order No. 128, Complainant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) moved to strike Respondents High Tech Computer Corp. and HTC America Inc.’s (collectively, “HTC”) invalidity/unenforceability, written description, and prosecution history estoppel defenses on the ground of issue preclusion, arguing that the products at issue in the enforcement proceeding infringe the asserted claims for the very same reasons and based on the very same claim constructions that the ALJ and the Commission relied on in the violation investigation to conclude that HTC’s products infringe, and that HTC litigated and lost on each of the aforementioned defenses.  HTC argued that Apple was asserting new theories of infringement in the enforcement proceeding that depend on a broader claim scope than previously reviewed by the Commission and which implicate claim constructions and prior art that were not at issue during the violation phase.  The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) agreed with Apple, contending that neither party can seek to broaden (or narrow) the scope of the asserted claims in the enforcement proceeding, and that HTC had a full and fair opportunity to litigate its defenses in the violation phase.  ALJ Shaw agreed with Apple and the OUII, and granted the motion under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Denies Motion To Amend Complaint And Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation Based On Lack Of Standing In Certain Devices With Secure Communication Capabilities (337-TA-818)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
22
On April 9, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public versions of Orders No. 14 and 15 (both dated July 18, 2012) in Certain Devices with Secure Communication Capabilities, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-818).

According to Order No. 14, Complainant VirnetX, Inc. (“VirnetX”) filed a “Renewed Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation to Add Science Applications International Corporation (“SAIC”) As a Complainant” in response to Order No. 9, denying VirnetX’s original motion for leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation.  VirnetX argued that it had corrected the deficiencies in good cause cited in Order No. 9 by filing an amended complainant that includes the license, assignment, and security agreements between VirnetX and SAIC.  VirnetX further argued that it did not believe that SAIC had ownership rights in the asserted patent.  ALJ Shaw held that VirnetX failed to show good cause to amend the complaint and notice of investigation because VirnetX failed to provide any justification for its failure to include the assignment agreements in its original complaint. Accordingly, ALJ Shaw denied VirnetX’s motion.

Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
24
On April 12, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 77 (dated March 20, 2013) denying five motions for summary determination filed by Respondents in Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-837). 

By way of background, the investigation is based on a March 2, 2012 complaint and March 28, 2012 amended complaint filed by LSI Corporation and its subsidiary Agere Systems Inc. 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), 6,452,958 (the ‘958 patent), 6,707,867 (the ‘867 patent), and 6,982,663 (the ‘663 patent).  See our March 13, 2012 post for more details on the complaint.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Denies Motion To Strike Supplemental Discovery Responses And Motion For Summary Determination Of Non-Infringement In Certain Wireless Devices With 3G Capabilities (337-TA-800)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
03
On April 12, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public versions of Order No. 101 and Order No. 102 (both dated February 4, 2013) in Certain Wireless Devices With 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-800).

According to Order No. 101, Respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”) moved to strike supplemental discovery responses by Complainants InterDigital Communications, LLC, InterDigital Technology Corporation, and IPR Licensing, Inc. (collectively, “InterDigital”) and a supporting memorandum, arguing that the discovery responses, which relate to InterDigital’s licenses and Nokia’s FRAND defense, were served well after the close of fact discovery and are therefore untimely.  InterDigital responded that it supplemented its responses “promptly after learning that it had inadvertently omitted the production numbers of three license proposals from interrogatories asking InterDigital to identify proposals it contends are FRAND,” and that Nokia made no showing of prejudice, particularly since InterDigital’s prior responses state that all of its license proposals to Nokia are FRAND.  ALJ Shaw found InterDigital’s arguments persuasive and denied the motion.

Share

Read More

ALJ Shaw Grants Motion To Strike Testimony And Grants-In-Part Motion To Strike Defenses In Certain Audiovisual Components (337-TA-837)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
07
On April 17, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 89 and Order No. 90 (both dated April 16, 2013) in Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-837).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a March 2, 2012 complaint and March 28, 2012 amended complaint filed by LSI Corporation and its subsidiary Agere Systems Inc. alleging violation of Section 337 in regard to certain audiovisual components and products containing same including, without limitation, 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”), 6,452,958 (“the ‘958 patent”), 6,707,867 (“the ‘867 patent”), and 6,982,663 (“the ‘663 patent”).  See our April 13, 2012 post for more details.

Share

Read More

www.xxx-clips-online.com