How to Search
Initial Determinations

ALJ Gildea Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices (337-TA-853)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
10
On September 6, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued a notice regarding issuance of the Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding (“ID”) in Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-853).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a July 24, 2012 complaint filed by Technology Properties Limited LLC and Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC, both of Cupertino, California, and Patriot Scientific Corporation of Carlsbad, California alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless consumer electronics devices and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 (the ‘336 patent).  See our July 26, 2012 and August 24, 2012 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.
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 Pender Issues Notice Of Initial Determination Finding HTC Violated Section 337 In Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones And Tablet Computers (337-TA-847)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
23
On September 23, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-847).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Nokia Corp.; Nokia, Inc.; and Intellisync Corporation (collectively, “Nokia”) alleging violation of Section 337 by HTC Corp.; HTC America, Inc.; and Exedea, Inc. in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain electronic devices that infringe one or more claims of certain patents.  See our May 3, 2012 and June 7, 2012 posts for more details on Nokia’s complaint and the notice of investigation, respectively.  On August 7, 2012, Google, Inc. was granted status as an Intervenor, but denied status as a respondent.  See our August 10, 2012 post for more details. 
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (337-TA-850)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
18
On September 30, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-850).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a May 23, 2012 complaint filed by FlashPoint Technology, Inc. of Peterborough, New Hampshire alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain electronic imaging devices that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,400,471 (the ‘471 patent), 6,222,538 (the ‘538 patent), 6,504,575, and 6,223,190 (the ‘190 patent).  See our June 27, 2012 postfor more details on this investigation.
Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones And Tablet Computers (337-TA-847)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
04
Further to our September 23, 2013 post, on October 24, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of his Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) (dated September 23, 2013) in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-847).  Due to the large size of the ID, we have split the document into part 1 and part 2.  

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Nokia Corp.; Nokia, Inc.; and Intellisync Corporation (collectively, “Nokia”) alleging violation of Section 337 by HTC Corp.; HTC America, Inc.; and Exedea, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”)  in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain electronic devices that infringe one or more claims of certain patents.  See our May 3, 2012 and June 7, 2012 posts for more details on Nokia’s complaint and the notice of investigation, respectively.  On August 7, 2012, ALJ Pender granted Google, Inc. status as an Intervenor, but denied status as a respondent.  See our August 10, 2012 post for more details. 
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices (337-TA-853)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
05
On October 24, 2013, ALJ James E. Gildea issued the public versions (dated September 6, 2013) of his Initial Determination (“ID”) and Recommended Determination (“RD”) on remedy and bond in Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-853).  Due to its large size, we have separated the ID into part 1, part 2, and part 3.

By way of background, this investigation is based on a July 24, 2012 complaint filed by Technology Properties Limited LLC and Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC, both of Cupertino, California, and Patriot Scientific Corporation of Carlsbad, California (collectively, “Complainants”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless consumer electronics devices and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 (the ‘336 patent).  See our July 26, 2012 and August 24, 2012 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Finds Respondents In Default And Denies Motion To Terminate In Certain Tires (337-TA-894)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
10
On December 6, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 15 and Order No. 17 in Certain Tires and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-894).

According to Order No. 15, 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. (collectively, “Toyo”) filed a corrected motion to terminate the investigation as to Respondent Weifang Shunfuchang Rubber & Plastic Co., Ltd. (“Weifang”) based on a consent order stipulation.  ALJ Bullock observed that while the motion included the required statement under Commission Rule 210.21(c) that “there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied between Toyo and SoCal Wheels concerning the subject matter of this investigation,” the statement erroneously referred to Respondent “SoCal Wheels” instead of Weifang.  Accordingly, the motion was denied.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain Optoelectronic Devices For Fiber Optic Communications (337-TA-860)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
17
On December 13, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a notice regarding his Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Optoelectronic Devices for Fiber Optic Communications, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-860).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a complaint and letters supplementing the complaint filed by Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation and sale of certain optoelectronic devices for fiber optic communications, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,947,456 (“the ‘456 patent”) and 5,596,595 (“the ‘595 patent”).  See our September 26, 2012 post for more details about the complaint.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Optoelectronic Devices For Fiber Optic Communications (337-TA-860)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
22
Further to our December 17, 2013 post, on January 9, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of his Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination of Remedy and Bond (“ID”) (dated December 13, 2013) in Certain Optoelectronic Devices for Fiber Optic Communications, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-860).  Due to the large size of the ID, we have split the document into part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4.

By way of background, this investigation is based on a complaint filed by Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. (collectively, “Avago”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation and sale of certain optoelectronic devices for fiber optic communications, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,947,456 (the ‘456 patent) and 5,596,595 (the ‘595 patent).  See our September 26, 2012 and October 30, 2012 posts for more details about the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.
Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
03
On February 3, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued a notice of the Final 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 one or more claims 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.
Share

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.
Share

Read More

ALJ Lord Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain Integrated Circuit Chips (337-TA-859)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
24
On March 21, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Integrated Circuit Chips and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-859).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Realtek Semiconductor Corp. (“Realtek”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain integrated circuit chips and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,787,928 (the ‘928 patent) and 6,963,226 (the ‘226 patent).  See our September 20, 2012 and October 22, 2012 posts for more details on Realtek’s complaint and the Notice of Investigation, respectively.  On January 30, 2013, former ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. partially terminated the investigation with respect to the ‘226 patent.  See our February 1, 2013 post for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Lord Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Integrated Circuit Chips (337-TA-859)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
07
Further to our March 24, 2014 post, on April 21, 2014 ALJ Dee Lord issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Integrated Circuit Chips and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-859).  Due to the large size of the ID, we have split the document into part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4.

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Realtek Semiconductor Corporation (“Realtek”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S., sale for importation, or sale within the U.S. after importation of certain integrated circuit chips and products containing the same that infringe one or more of claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 6,787,928 (the ‘928 patent) and claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 6,963,226 (the ‘226 patent).  See our September 20, 2012 and October 22, 2012 posts for more details on Realtek’s complaint and the Notice of Investigation, respectively.  The respondents in the investigation are LSI Corporation and Seagate Technology (collectively, “Respondents”).  On January 30, 2013, former ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. partially terminated the investigation with respect to the ‘226 patent.  See our February 1, 2013 post for more details. 
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain Windshield Wipers (337-TA-881)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
09
On May 8, 2014, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Windshield Wipers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-881). 

By way of background, this investigation was instituted by the ITC on June 11, 2013 based on a complaint filed by Federal-Mogul Corporation and Federal-Mogul S.A. alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondents Trico Corporation, Trico Products, and Trico Components SA de CV in the importation and/or sale of certain windshield wiper devices and components thereof that infringe claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,347,449 (the ‘449 patent).  See our May 13, 2013 and June 10, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Windshield Wipers (337-TA-881)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
29
Further to our May 9, 2014 post, on May 20, 2014, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) finding a violation of Section 337 in Certain Windshield Wiper Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-881).

According to the ID, ALJ Bullock found that Respondents Trico Corporation, Trico Products, and Trico Components SA de CV (collectively, “Trico”) violated Section 337 based on the importation and/or sale of Ford F-Series and Chrysler 200 wiper blades that infringe claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,347,449 (the ‘449 patent).  The Complainants in the investigation are Federal-Mogul Corporation and Federal-Mogul S.A. (collectively, “Federal-Mogul”).  See our May 13, 2013 and June 10, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.
Share

Read More

ALJ Lord Issues Notice Denying Motion For Temporary Relief In Certain Sulfentrazone (337-TA-914)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
13
On August 12, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued a notice Regarding Initial Determination Concerning Complainant's Motion for Temporary Relief ("IDTR") in Certain Sulfentrazone, Sulfentrazone Compositions, and Processes for Making Sulfentrazone (Inv. No. 337-TA-914).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a March 5, 2014 complaint filed by FMC Corp. ("FMC") alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain certain sulfentrazone active ingredient and formulated sulfentrazone compositions made by a process that infringes one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,169,952 (the '952 patent). See our March 6, 2014 and April 11, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.
Share

Read More

ALJ Pender Issues Notice Finding Violation Of Section 337 In Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems (337-TA-890)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
25
On August 22, 2014, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued a notice of Initial Determination ("ID") on violation of Section 337 in Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-890).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by ResMed Corporation, ResMed Incorporated, and ResMed Limited (collectively, "ResMed") alleging violation of Section 337 by BMC Medical Co., Ltd., 3B Medical, Inc., and 3B Products, L.L.C. (collectively, "Respondents") in the importation and/or sale of certain sleep-disordered breathing treatment systems and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of various patents.  See our July 22, 2013 and August 20, 2013 posts for more details on ResMed's complaint and the Notice of Investigation, respectively.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Finds Violation Of Section 337 In Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-888)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
04
On August 29, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued a notice of the Initial Determination ("ID") in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-888).

By way of background, the Commission instituted this investigation on July 23, 2013 based on a complaint filed by Knowles Electronics, LLC ("Knowles") alleging a violation of Section 337 by Respondents GoerTek, Inc. and GoerTek Electronics, Inc. (collectively, "GoerTek") in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain silicon microphone packages and products containing the same that infringe, or that are made by a process that infringes, one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,439,616; 8,018,049; and 8,121,331 (collectively, the "asserted patents").  See our June 25, 2013 and July 24, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Finds Violation Of Section 337 In Certain Consumer Electronics With Display And Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
09
On August 29, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued a notice of the Initial Determination ("ID") in Certain Consumer Electronics With Display and Processing Capabilities (Inv. No. 337-TA-884).

By way of background, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. alleging a violation of Section 337 by Respondents Toshiba America, Inc., Toshiba Corp., and Toshiba America Information Systems 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) (collectively, "the Asserted Patents").  See our May 21, 2013 and June 24, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.
Share

Read More

ALJ Lord Issues Initial Determination Denying Motion For Temporary Relief In Certain Sulfentrazone (337-TA-914)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
10
On August 28, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued the public version of an Initial Determination ("ID") On Complainant's Motion for Temporary Relief in Certain Sulfentrazone, Sulfentrazone Compositions, and Processes For Making Sulfentrazone (Inv. No. 337-TA-914).

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by FMC Corp. ("FMC") alleging the violation of Section 337 by Summit Agro USA, LLC, Summit Agro North America, Holding Corporation (collectively, "Summit"), Nutrichem Co., Ltd. ("Nutrichem"), and Jiangxi Heyi Chemicals Co., Ltd. ("Heyi") (collectively, "Respondents") in the importation into the U.S., sale for importation, or sale after importation of certain sulfentrazone, sulfentrazone compositions, and processes for making sulfentrazone that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,169,952 (the '952 patent).  See our March 6, 2014 and April 11, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.  When filing the complaint, FMC moved for temporary relief under subsection (e) of Section 337.
Share

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.