How to Search
Initial Determinations

ALJ Rogers Issues Initial Determination Granting Philip’s Motion For Termination Of Investigation In Certain High-Brightness Light-Emitting Diodes (337-TA-556)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
19
On August 18, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 5 in Certain High-Brightness Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-556).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers granted Complainant Philips Lumileds Lighting Company, LLC’s (“Philips Lumileds”) motion to withdraw its complaint and terminate the investigation in its entirety.

By way of background, on May 24, 2009, the Federal Circuit vacated the Commission’s limited exclusion order and remanded the case to the Commission to allow Respondent Epistar Corp. (“Epistar”) to challenge the validity of U.S. Patent No. 5,008,718 (the “‘718 patent”).  See our May 26, July 28, and July 29 posts for more information.  According to the Order, the ‘718 patent will expire on December 18, 2009, and “Philips Lumileds has been advised that it will not be able to complete the entire remand proceeding prior to the expiration of the ‘718 patent.”  Accordingly, Philips Lumileds moved for termination of the investigation while noting “that it does not waive any rights in its currently-pending lawsuit against Epistar in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.”
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Initial Determination Finding No Violation Of Section 337 In Certain Semiconductor Chips (337-TA-630)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
01
On August 28, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a notice regarding his Final Initial and Recommended Determinations (“ID”) in Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-630).

The Complainant in this investigation is Tessera, Inc. and the Respondents are Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation, Nanya Technology Corporation, Nanya Technology Corporation U.S.A., Powerchip Semiconductor Corporation, Elpida Memory, Inc., Elpida Memory (USA) Inc., ProMOS Technologies, Inc., Kingston Technology Co., Ltd., Ramaxel Technology Ltd., Centon Electronics, Inc., Smart Modular Technologies, Inc., TwinMOS Technologies Inc., and TwinMOS Technologies USA Inc.
Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination Finding No Violation In Certain 3G Mobile Handsets (337-TA-613)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
23
Further to our August 17 post, on September 17, 2009, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the heavily redacted public version of his 245 page August 14, 2009 Final Initial and Recommended Determinations (“ID”) in Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components (Inv. No. 337-TA-613).

By way of background, InterDigital Communications, LLC and InterDigital Technology Corp. (“InterDigital”) filed a complaint against Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corp. (“Nokia”) in August 2007 alleging that importation, sale for importation, and sale within the U.S. after importation of certain 3G mobile handsets and components infringed InterDigital’s ‘004, ‘966, ‘847 and ‘579 patents.  According to the ID, ALJ Luckern found no violation of Section 337, determined that the asserted claims are not invalid and not infringed, and also determined that a domestic industry exists with respect to the patents-in-suit.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Public Version of Initial Determination Finding No Violation In Certain Semiconductor Chips (337-TA-630)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
01
Further to our September 1 post, on September 24, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of his Final Initial and Recommended Determinations (“ID”) in Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-630).  The Complainant in this investigation is Tessera, Inc. (“Tessera”) and the Respondents are Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation, Elpida Memory, Inc., Elpida Memory (USA) Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, Nanya Technology Corporation, Nanya Technology Corporation U.S.A., Powerchip Semiconductor Corporation, ProMOS Technologies, Inc., Ramaxel Technology, Ltd., Centon Electronics, Inc., SMART Modular Technologies, Inc., TwinMOS Technologies, Inc., and TwinMOS Technologies USA Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”).

In the 185-page ID, ALJ Essex determined that no violation of Section 337 had occurred in connection with the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, or the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain semiconductor chips with minimized chip package size and products containing same in connection with certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106 (the ‘106 patent), U.S. Patent No. 5,679,977 (the ‘977 patent), and U.S. Patent No. 6,133,627 (the ‘627 patent).  Further, ALJ Essex determined that a domestic industry exists that practices the patents-in-suit.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Initial Determination In Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors (337-TA-650)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
15
On October 13, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued a notice regarding the Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) in Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-650).

The Complainant in this investigation is John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC, Inc. (“PPC”) and the Respondents are Fu Ching Technical Industry Co. Ltd. and Gem Electronics, Inc. (“Respondents”).
Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Issues Initial Determination In Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits (337-TA-665)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
19
On October 14, 2009, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination On Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-665).

The Complainant in this investigation is Qimonda AG (“Qimonda”) and the Respondents are LSI Corporation, Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Memory Products (US) Corporation, Seagate Technologies International (Singapore), and Seagate (US) LLC (collectively “Respondents”).
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Initial Determination In Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels (337-TA-655)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
19
On October 16, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination  (“ID”) in Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Certain Processes For Manufacturing Or Relating To Same And Certain Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-655).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Amsted Industries Inc. and the Respondents are Standard Car Truck Co., Inc., Barber Tianrui Railway Supply, LLC, Tianrui Group Company Limited, and Tianrui Group Foundry Company Limited (collectively, “Respondents”).
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version of Initial Determination In Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines (337-TA-641)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
29
Further to our August 10 post, on October 21, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated August 7, 2009) in Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-641).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is General Electric Co. (“GE”) and the Respondents are Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (“MHI”), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc. (“MHIA”), and Mitsubishi Power System, Inc. (“MPSA”) (collectively, “Mitsubishi”).  On August 7, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued the ID in this investigation finding that a violation of Section 337 had occurred in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain variable speed wind turbines and components thereof.  According to the ID, ALJ Charneski held that Mitsubishi’s turbines infringe claim 121 of the asserted ‘039 patent, and claim 15 of the asserted ‘985 patent.  Additionally, while ALJ Charneski determined that Mitsubishi’s turbines infringe claims 5, 7, and 8 of the asserted ‘221 patent, he also determined that GE did not practice any claim of the asserted ‘221 patent, and therefore did not satisfy the domestic industry (technical prong) requirement for the ‘221 patent.
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Supplemental Initial Determination In Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-501)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
30
On October 30, 2009, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice regarding the Supplemental Initial Determination (“Supplemental ID”) in Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-501).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Amkor Technology, Inc. and the  Respondents are Carsem (M) Sdn Bhd, Carsem Semiconductor Sdn Bhd, and Carsem, Inc.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Automotive Multimedia Display And Navigation Systems (337-TA-657)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
04
On October 27, 2009, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated September 22, 2009) in Certain Automotive Multimedia Display and Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-657).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Honeywell International, Inc. (“Honeywell”).  The original Respondents were Alpine Electronics, Inc.; Alpine Electronics of America, Inc.; Denso Corporation; Denso International America, Inc.; Pioneer Corp.; Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc.; Kenwood Corp.; and Kenwood USA Corp.  However, all of the Respondents other than Pioneer Corp. and Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. (collectively, “Pioneer”) were terminated from the investigation before the issuance of the ID as a result of settlement agreements with Honeywell.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Public Version of Initial Determination In Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors (337-TA-650)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
10
Further to our October 15 post, on November 4, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of the October 13, 2009 Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-650).

The Complainant in this investigation was John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC, Inc. (“PPC”).  PPC alleged that Fu Ching Technical Industry Co. Ltd. and Gem Electronics, Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”) were engaged in the manufacture and sale for importation, and the importation and sale after importation of coaxial cable connectors that infringed claims of United States Patent No. 5,470,257 (the ‘257 patent).  Four other respondents, Hanjiang Fei Yu Electronics Equipment Factory, Zhongguang Electronics, Yangzhou Zhongguang Electronics Co., Ltd., and Yangzhou Zhongguang Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. (collectively, the “Defaulting Respondents”), were previously found to be in default and were alleged to be in violation of Section 337 for reasons of infringement of the ‘257 patent, as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 6,558,194 (the ‘194 patent); D440,539 (the ‘539 patent); and D519,076 (the ‘076 patent).
Share

Read More

ALJ Bullock Issues Public Version of Supplemental Initial Determination In Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices (337-TA-501)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Nov
27
Further to our October 30 post, on November 20, 2009, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of the Supplemental Initial Determination (“Supplemental ID”) in connection with remand proceedings in Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-501).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Amkor Technology, Inc. and the Respondents are Carsem (M) Sdn Bhd, Carsem Semiconductor Sdn Bhd, and Carsem, Inc. (collectively “Carsem”).  On November 9, 2005, ALJ Bullock issued a Remand Initial Determination, finding that (1) there was a violation of Section 337 in connection with U.S. Patent No. 6,433,277 (the ‘277 patent); and (2) no violation of Section 337 had occurred in connection with U.S. Patent No. 6,630,728 (the ‘728 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 6,455,356 (the ‘356 patent).  In particular, ALJ Bullock found that certain of Carsem’s accused products infringe valid claims 2, 3, 21 and 22 of the ‘277 patent.
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version of Initial Determination Finding Violation of Section 337 in Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels (337-TA-655)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
04
Further to our October 19 post, on November 20, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated October 16, 2009) in Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Certain Processes For Manufacturing Or Relating To Same And Certain Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-655).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Amsted Industries Inc. (“Amsted”).  The Respondents are Tianrui Group Co. Ltd, Tianrui Group Foundry Co. Ltd, Standard Car Truck Company, Inc., and Barber Tianrui Railway Supply (collectively, “Tianrui”).  On October 16, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued the ID in this investigation finding that a violation of Section 337 “ha[d] occurred in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain cast steel railway wheels or products containing the same by reason of trade secret misappropriation.”
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Initial Determination In Certain Mobile Telephones (337-TA-663)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Dec
21
On December 17, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communications Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-663).

According to the notice, ALJ Charneski held that there was a violation of Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,493,335 (the ‘335 patent) and 6,292,218 (the ‘218 patent).  Specifically, ALJ Charneski determined that “Samsung’s accused products” literally infringe certain claims of the ‘335 and ‘218 patents.  ALJ Charneski also determined that certain claims of the ‘335 and ‘218 patents are not invalid due to anticipation, obviousness, obviousness-type double patenting, or failure to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.  ALJ Charneski further determined that it “has not been shown that the ‘218 patent is unenforceable.”  Lastly, ALJ Charneski determined that the “domestic industry requirement is satisfied with respect to the ‘335 patent and the ‘218 patent.”
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Initial Determination Finding Violation Of Section 337 In Certain Semiconductor Chips (337-TA-661)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jan
25
On January 22, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-661).

The Complainant in this investigation is Rambus Inc. and the Respondents are NVIDIA Corp.; Asustek Computer Inc.; ASUS Computer International, Inc.; BFG Technologies, Inc.; Biostar Microtech (U.S.A.) Corp.; Biostar Microtech International Corp.; Diablotek Inc.; EVGA Corp.; G.B.T. Inc.; Giga-byte Technology Co., Ltd.; Hewlett-Packard Co.; MSI Computer Corp.; Micro-star International Co., Ltd.; Palit Multimedia Inc.; Palit Microsystems Ltd.; Pine Technology Holdings, Ltd.; and Sparkle Computer Co., Ltd.
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Semiconductor Integration Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization (337-TA-648)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
02
On January 29, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Initial Determination (dated September 21, 2009) in Certain Semiconductor Integration Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-648).

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are LSI Corporation and Agere Systems Inc. (collectively, “Complainants”) and the Respondents are Tower Semiconductor, Ltd. (“Tower”), Jazz Semiconductor (“Jazz”), Qimonda AG, Powerchip Semiconductor Corporation (“Powerchip”), Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (“Grace”), Integrated Device Technology, Inc. (“IDT”), Spansion, Inc. (“Spansion”), and Nanya Technology Corporation (“Nanya”) (collectively, “Respondents”).
Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Initial Determination Finding Violation Of Section 337 In Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems (337-TA-670)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Feb
24
On February 23, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-670).

The Complainant in this investigation is Humanscale Corporation and the Respondents are CompX International, Inc. and Waterloo Furniture Corporation Ltd. d/b/a CompX Waterloo.  According to the notice, ALJ Luckern held that a violation of Section 337 has occurred in connection with the importation into the U.S., sale for importation, and sale within the U.S. after importation of certain adjustable keyboard support systems and components thereof by reason of infringement of at least one claim of U.S. Patent No. 5,292,097 (the ‘097 patent).  ALJ Luckern also determined that at least one claim of the ‘097 patent is not invalid, and that a domestic industry exists with respect to the ‘097 patent.
Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits (337-TA-665)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
08
On February 25, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of the 629 page Initial Determination On Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) (dated October 14, 2009) in Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-665).  Due to its large size, the ID has been broken into two parts: Part 1 and Part 2.

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Qimonda AG (“Qimonda”) and the Respondents are LSI Corporation, Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Memory Products (US) Corporation, and Seagate (US) LLC (collectively, “Respondents”).
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Mobile Telephones (337-TA-663)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
12
On March 9, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated December 17, 2009) in Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communications Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-663).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”).  The original Respondents were Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”), LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc., and LG Electronics MobileComm USA, Inc. (collectively, “LGE”).  Prior to the issuance of the ID, LGE was terminated from the investigation.
Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Public Version of Initial Determination In Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems (337-TA-670)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
15
Further to our February 24, 2010 post, on March 8, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of the Final Initial and Recommended Determinations (“ID”) (dated February 23, 2010) in Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-670).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Humanscale Corporation and the Respondents are CompX International, Inc. and Waterloo Furniture Corporation Ltd. d/b/a CompX Waterloo.
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.