How to Search
ALJs

ALJ Bullock Terminates Investigation As To Hong-Kong Tri-Ace Tire Co. In Certain Tires (337-TA-894)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
12
On March 4, 2014, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 38 in Certain Tires and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-894).

According to the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a motion filed by Complainants Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd.; Toyo Tire Holdings of Americas Inc.; Toyo Tire U.S.A. Corp.; Nitto Tire U.S.A. Inc.; and Toyo Tire North America Manufacturing Inc. to terminate the investigation as to Respondent Hong-Kong Tri-Ace Tire Co., Ltd. based on a settlement agreement.

Read More

ALJ Gildea Grants-In-Part Complainant’s Motion To Compel In Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-888)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
12
On March 6, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 26 (dated February 4, 2013) in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-888).

According to the Order, Complainant Knowles Electronics, LLC (“Knowles”) filed a motion to compel Respondents GoerTek, Inc. and GoerTek Electronics, Inc. (collectively, “GoerTek”) to designate individuals for corporate depositions on GoerTek’s document retention, document preservation, document destruction, and document collection practices.  Additionally, Knowles’ motion requested an order compelling GoerTek to supplement its response to Knowles’ Interrogatory No. 47 by identifying individuals knowledgeable about GoerTek’s document retention and destruction policies and practices.  Knowles argued that GoerTek’s corporate designee was not prepared to testify on these topics.  Furthermore, Knowles asserted that the information on document retention and destruction policies and practices is important based on deposition testimony allegedly showing that GoerTek destroyed certain documents.

Read More

ALJ Gildea Denies Summary Determination Of Non-Infringement In Certain Consumer Electronics With Display And Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
13
On March 11, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 54 (dated March 4, 2014) in Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities (Inv. No. 337-TA-884).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Respondents Toshiba Corp., Toshiba America, Inc., and Toshiba Information Systems, Inc.’s (collectively, “Toshiba”) motion seeking a summary determination that Complainant Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. (“GPH”) cannot meet its burden to show that the accused Toshiba “TV Products” and “Tablet Products” infringe the asserted patents.

According to the Order, Toshiba argued that GPH lacks certain evidence relating to the underlying graphics processor units (GPUs) and computer processing units (CPUs) used in Toshiba’s accused products.  The exact nature of Toshiba’s arguments is not clear from the redacted public version of the Order.

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Target Date And Procedural Schedule For Remand Investigation In Certain 3G Mobile Handsets (337-TA-613)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
13
On March 5, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order Nos. 47 and 48 in connection with the remand investigation in Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-613).

By way of background, the Commission instituted the investigation on September 11, 2007 based on a complaint filed by InterDigital Communications Corp. and InterDigital Technology Corp. (collectively, “InterDigital”).  The complaint, as amended, alleged violations of Section 337 in the importation and/or sale of certain 3G mobile handsets and components thereof that infringed certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,117,004 (the ‘004 patent), 7,190,966 (the ‘966 patent), 7,286,847 (the ‘847 patent), and 6,693,579 (the ‘579 patent) by Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”).  On August 14, 2009, ALJ Luckern issued his final Initial Determination (“ID”) finding no violation of Section 337 on the grounds that asserted claims of the patents-in-suit were not invalid and not infringed.  Additionally, the ALJ found that the ‘004, ‘966, and ‘847 patents were not unenforceable due to prosecution laches, and that the ‘579 patent also was not unenforceable.  See our September 23, 2009 post for more details on the ID.  The Commission reviewed the ID and on October 16, 2009 issued a notice modifying the ALJ’s construction of the term “access signal” in the asserted claims of the ‘847 and ‘004 patents.  The Commission also reviewed and took no position on the ALJ’s construction of the term “synchronize” in the asserted claims of the ‘847 patent.  Further, the Commission took no position on validity with respect to any of the asserted patents and did not review the ALJ’s construction of the terms “code” and “increased power level” in the asserted claims of the ‘966 and ‘847 patents.  See our October 19, 2009 post for more details.  InterDigital appealed the Commission’s final determination, specifically regarding the unreviewed constructions of the “code” and “increased power level” limitations.  The Federal Circuit reversed the Commission’s construction of these terms, reversed the Commission’s determination of non-infringement as to the ‘966 and ‘847 patents, and remanded the case to the Commission for further proceedings.  Nokia subsequently filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc on the issue of domestic industry which the Court denied.  See our August 3, 2012 and January 14, 2013 posts for more details on the Federal Circuit’s rulings.

Read More

ALJ Shaw Sets Target Date And Procedural Schedule In Certain Non-Volatile Memory Devices (337-TA-909)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
13
On March 5, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order Nos. 6 and 7 in Certain Non-Volatile Memory Devices And Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-909).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a December 27, 2013 complaint filed by Macronix International Co., Ltd of China and Macronix America, Inc. of Milpitas, California alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain non-volatile memory devices and products that contain the same that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,552,360; 6,100,557; and 6,002,630.  See our December 31, 2013 and January 30, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Claim Construction Order In Certain Consumer Electronics With Display and Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
13
On March 6, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 52 in Certain Consumer Electronics With Display and Processing Capabilities (Inv. No. 337-TA-884). 

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Graphics Properties Holding Inc. (“GPH”) alleging a violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S., sale of importation into the U.S., or sale after importation into the U.S. of certain consumer electronics with display and processing capabilities that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,650,327 (the ‘327 patent), 8,144,158 (the ‘158 patent), and 5,717,881 (the ‘881 patent) by numerous Respondents.  See our May 21, 2013 and June 24, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Read More

ALJ Essex Grants Summary Determination Motion On Domestic Industry In Certain Mobile Devices (337-TA-750)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
13
On March 6, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 14 granting Apple’s motion for summary determination that it had satisfied the economic industry prong of the domestic industry requirement in Certain Mobile Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-750).

According to the Order, Complainant Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) filed a motion for summary determination that it had satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.  Apple argued that it satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement in light of its significant investment in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor and capital, and substantial investment in the exploitation of the asserted patents through engineering and research and development.  According to Apple, each of these activities independently meet the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement enumerated in § 1337(a)(3).  Regarding investments in plant and equipment, Apple pointed to its Cupertino, CA headquarters, its call center in Elk Grove, CA and numerous capital investments between 2008 and 2011 for leases in equipment and retail stores.  With respect to its significant labor investments, Apple argued that it employed numerous people in the U.S. dedicated to research and development on the iPhone 4 and Mac OS X and also employed many people to work in its retail stores.  Apple also argued that it had substantially invested in research and development by investing large amounts of money in research and development in 2008, 2009, and 2010, substantially all of which occurred in the U.S.  Apple further provided itemized expenditures regarding research and development for the technology of the asserted patents.

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motion To Compel Deposition In Advisory Opinion Proceeding In Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems (337-TA-879)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
13
On March 10, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 17 (dated February 27, 2014) in Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-879).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted-in-part Complainants ResMed Inc., ResMed Ltd., and ResMed Corp.’s (collectively, “ResMed”) motion to compel Respondents Apex Medical Corp. and Apex Medical USA Corp. (collectively, “Apex”) to present Mr. P. J. Hsueh for completion of his deposition and for Apex to pay the costs and fees associated with the completion of the deposition and the filing of the instant motion.

According to the Order, ResMed asserted that Apex had unilaterally ended the deposition of Mr. Hsueh before it had been completed, leaving ResMed with an unfinished deposition of a crucial witness.  ResMed stated that Mr. Hsueh had provided a declaration included with Apex’s request for an advisory opinion that indicated that Mr. Hsueh was familiar with the facts related to the redesign of Apex’s products.  See our December 16, 2013 post for more details on this advisory opinion proceeding.  Accordingly, ResMed argued that it was improper for Apex to unilaterally terminate the deposition.  ResMed further argued that it was entitled to its costs and fees associated with preparing the instant motion and pursuing a second deposition of Mr. Hsueh.

Read More

ALJ Lord Issues Notice Of Enforcement Initial Determination In Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices (337-TA-854)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
14
On March 7, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued a notice regarding the Enforcement Initial Determination (“EID”) in Certain Two-Way Global Satellite Communication Devices, System, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-854).

By way of background, the Commission instituted the underlying investigation on September 18, 2012 based on BriarTek IP, Inc.’s (“BriarTek”) complaint of August 17, 2012.  See our September 19, 2012 post for more details.  On March 15, 2013, former ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. granted a motion by DeLorme Publishing Co., Inc. and DeLorme InReach, LLC’s (collectively, “DeLorme”) to terminate the investigation and for entry of a proposed consent order (“the consent order”).  See our March 19, 2013 post for more details.  In the consent order, DeLorme agreed that it would not import or sell two-way global satellite communication devices, systems, or components thereof that infringe BriarTek’s U.S. Patent No. 7,991,380 after April 1, 2013.  On April 10, 2013, BriarTek filed an enforcement complaint alleging that DeLorme violated the consent order.  See our April 11, 2013 post for more details.

Read More

ALJ Shaw Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps (337-TA-872)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
14
Further to our February 3, 2014 post, on March 6, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) 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 claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 7,053,540 (the ‘540 patent).  See our January 30, 2013 and March 1, 2013 posts for more details on Neptun’s complaint and the Notice of Investigation, respectively.  In Order No. 20, ALJ Shaw terminated the investigation as to Respondent Technical Consumer Products, Inc. based on a settlement agreement.  Accordingly, Maxlite, Inc. (“Maxlite”); Satco Prodcust, Inc. (“Satco”); and Litetronics International, Inc. (“Litetronics”) (collectively, “Respondents”) remained as respondents to the investigation.

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motion To Preclude Testimony And Strike Portions Of Expert Report In Certain Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-873)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
14
On March 10, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 44 (dated February 10, 2014) in Certain Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-873).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Respondents’ request to strike portions of an expert report of a Dr. Kruglick, which had been served on behalf of Complainant Tela Innovations, Inc. (“Tela”).  However, the ALJ granted-in-part Respondents’ request to preclude Tela from eliciting and relying on certain testimony from Dr. Kruglick.

According to the Order, Respondents asserted that Tela had served an initial expert report from Dr. Kruglick that repeatedly promoted constructions for certain claim terms which had been the subject of Order No. 14 in the investigation.  See our July 9, 2013 post for more details on Order No. 14.  Respondents argued that Dr. Kruglick’s report constituted extrinsic evidence of claim construction that was precluded by Order No. 14.

Read More

ALJ Gildea Rules On Motion For Clarification And/Or Reconsideration In Certain Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-873)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
17
On March 10, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 56 (dated February 21, 2014) in Certain Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-873).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted-in-part Complainant Tela Innovations, Inc.’s (“Tela”) motion for clarification of Order Nos. 14, 44, and 46 and/or reconsideration of Order No. 14.  See our July 9, 2013 post for more details on Order No. 14 and our March 14, 2014 post for more details on Order No. 44.

According to Order No. 56, Tela argued that Order Nos. 44 and 46 should be clarified because they appeared to modify the scope of Order No. 14.  In particular, Tela argued that Order Nos. 44 and 46 appeared to impose additional evidentiary sanctions related to certain claim terms that had not been originally contemplated in Order No. 14.  Tela further requested that Order Nos. 44 and 46 be reconsidered to the extent that they are deemed to be consistent with Order No. 14.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Terminates Investigation As To Doublestar Dong Feng Tyre In Certain Tires (337-TA-894)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
17
On March 4, 2014, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the corrected version of Order No. 36 in Certain Tires and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-894).

According to the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a motion filed by Respondent Doublestar Dong Feng Tyre Co., Ltd (“Doublestar”) over Complainants Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd.; Toyo Tire Holdings of Americas Inc.; Toyo Tire U.S.A. Corp.; Nitto Tire U.S.A. Inc.; and Toyo Tire North America Manufacturing Inc.’s opposition to terminate the investigation as to Doublestar based on a consent order stipulation and proposed consent order.

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets 17-Month Target Date In Certain Vision-Based Driver Assistance System Cameras (337-TA-907)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
17
On March 4, 2014, ALJ Theodorde R. Essex issued Order No. 3 in Certain Vision-Based Driver Assistance System Cameras And Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-907).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a December 23, 2013 complaint filed by Magna Electronics Inc. of Auburn Hills, Michigan against TRW Automotive U.S. LLC of Livonia, Michigan alleging violations of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain vision-based driver assistance system cameras that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,116,929 and 8,593,521.  See our December 30, 2013 and January 24, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Terminates Investigation As To Shandong Hengyu In Certain Tires (337-TA-894)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
17
On March 14, 2014, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 40 in Certain Tires and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-894).

According to the Order, ALJ Bullock granted a motion filed by Complainants Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd.; Toyo Tire Holdings of Americas Inc.; Toyo Tire U.S.A. Corp.; Nitto Tire U.S.A. Inc.; and Toyo Tire North America Manufacturing Inc. to terminate the investigation as to Respondent Shandong Hengyu Science & Technology Co., Ltd. based on a settlement agreement between the private parties.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Summary Determination Motion In Certain Antivenom Compositions (337-TA-903)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
18
On March 11, 2014, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 12 in Certain Antivenom Compositions and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-903).

By way of background, the investigation is based on an October 20, 2013 complaint filed by BTG International Inc. (“BTG”) alleging violations of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain antivenom compositions and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,048,414.  See our November 1, 2013 post for more details on the complaint.  According to the Notice of Investigation, the Commission has identified a number of entities as the respondents in this investigation, including BioVeteria Life Sciences, Instituto Bioclon S.A. de C.V., Laboratories Silanes SA de CV and Rare Disease Therapeutics, Inc. (collectively, the “Movants”).  See our December 2, 2013 post for more details on the Notice of Investigation.

Read More

ALJ Shaw Sets 15-Month Target Date And Procedural Schedule In Certain Standard Cell Libraries (337-TA-906)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
18
On March 12, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order Nos. 8 and 9 in Certain Standard Cell Libraries, Products Containing Or Made Using The Same, Integrated Circuits Made Using The Same, And Products Containing Such Integrated Circuits (Inv. No. 337-TA-906).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a December 23, 2013 complaint filed by Tela Innovations, Inc. against Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC North America alleging violations of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain standard cell libraries, products containing or made using the same, integrated circuits made using the same, and products containing such integrated circuits that infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,490,043.  See our December 31, 2013 and January 24, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Terminates Investigation As To Veteria Labs And BioVeteria Life Sciences In Certain Antivenom Compositions (337-TA-903)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
18
On March 11, 2014, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 14 in Certain Antivenom Compositions and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-903).

By way of background, the investigation is based on an October 20, 2013 complaint filed by BTG International Inc. (“BTG”) alleging violations of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain antivenom compositions and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,048,414.  See our November 1, 2013 and December 2, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

Read More

ALJ Bullock Denies Summary Determination Of No Violation Based On Induced Infringement In Certain Antivenom Compositions (337-TA-903)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
19
On March 14, 2014, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 16 in Certain Antivenom Compositions and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-903).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock denied Respondents Laboratorios Silanes S.A. de C.V. and Instituto Bioclan S.A. de C.V.’s (collectively, “Silanes”) motion for summary determination of no violation of Section 337 based on induced infringement.

According to the Order, Silanes argued that it is entitled to summary determination of no violation based on no induced infringement in view of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding in Suprema Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, -- F.3d --, 2013 WL 6510929, No. 2012-1170 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 12, 2013).  See our December 19, 2013 post for more details on the Suprema decision.  Complainant BTG International Inc. and the Commission Investigative Staff opposed Silanes’s motion.

Read More

ALJ Essex Sets Procedural Schedule In Certain Acousto-Magnetic Electronic Article Surveillance Systems (337-TA-904)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
19
On February 27, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 5 in Certain Acousto-Magnetic Electronic Article Surveillance Systems, Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-904).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a December 11, 2013 complaint filed by Tyco Fire & Security GmbH, Sensormatic Electronics, LLC, and Tyco Integrated Security, LLC alleging violations of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain acousto-magnetic electronic article surveillance devices that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,729,200 and 6,181,245.  See our December 13, 2013 and January 10, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint.

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.