How to Search
Initial Determinations

ALJ Essex Issues Initial Determination Finding Violation Of Section 337 In Certain Optoelectronic Devices (337-TA-669)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
16
On March 12, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Optoelectronic Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-669).

The Complainants in this investigation are Avago Technologies Fiber IP Pte. Ltd., Avago Technologies General IP Pte. Ltd., and Avago Technologies Ltd.  The sole Respondent is Emcore Corporation.
Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
23
On March 22, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice of Supplemental Initial Determination (“Supplemental ID”) in Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-501).  According to the notice, in the Supplemental ID, ALJ Bullock modified his previous finding of violation and determined that no violation of Section 337 had occurred.

By way of background, the ITC issued a notice and order on February 18, 2010 reversing ALJ Bullock’s October 30, 2009 Supplemental Initial Determination finding that non-party ASAT’s LPCC invention is not prior art to the patents-in-suit and remanding the investigation to the ALJ to make “necessary findings on anticipation and obviousness in view of the Commission’s determination that the ASAT LPCC invention is prior art to Amkor’s asserted patents.”  See our February 22, 2010 post for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Denies Motion For Temporary Relief In Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-695)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
25
On March 24, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) on Complainant Knowles Electronics LLC’s (“Knowles”) motion for temporary relief in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-695).  Please see our November 17, 2009 and December 18, 2009 posts for more details on this investigation.

According to the notice, a complete public version of the ID will be issued when all the parties have submitted their redactions and the ALJ has had an opportunity to review them.
Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Grants Motion For Summary Determination Of Non-Infringement In Certain Dual Access Locks (337-TA-689)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Mar
30
On March 23, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 6 (dated March 18, 2010) in Certain Dual Access Locks and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-689), granting Respondents motion for summary determination of non-infringement and terminating the investigation.

By way of background, Complainants Safe Skies, LLC and David Tropp (collectively, “Safe Skies”) alleged violations of Section 337 against several respondents regarding certain dual access locks, which allegedly infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,021,537 (the ‘537 patent) and 7,036,728 (the ‘728 patent).  See our September 17, 2009 and October 19, 2009 posts for more details.  According to the Order, on February 23, 2010, the Respondents filed a motion for summary determination of non-infringement of all asserted claims of the ‘537 and ‘728 patents.  On February 24, 2010, the Commission Investigative Staff filed a motion for summary determination that the accused products do not infringe the asserted claims of the ‘537 and ‘728 patents.
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Optoelectronic Devices (337-TA-669)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
01
Further to our March 16, 2010 post, on March 29, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of the Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) in Certain Optoelectronic Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-669).

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are Avago Technologies Fiber IP Pte. Ltd., Avago Technologies General IP Pte. Ltd., and Avago Technologies Ltd. (collectively “Avago”).  The sole Respondent is Emcore Corporation (“Emcore”).  In the ID, ALJ Essex determined that a violation of Section 337 occurred in connection with the importation into the U.S., sale for importation, or sale within the U.S. after importation of certain optoelectronic devices, components thereof, and products containing same because of infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,359,447 (the ‘447 patent).  However, ALJ Essex found no violation of Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent No. 5,761,229 (the ‘229 patent) and claim 6 of the ‘447 patent.  ALJ Essex determined that the asserted claims of the ‘447 patent are valid and enforceable.   ALJ Essex further determined that a domestic industry existed with respect to the ‘447 patent, but not with respect to the ‘229 patent since the technical prong for the ‘229 patent had not been satisfied.  He also found that Emcore did not have an implied license to practice the claims of the ‘447 patent.  Regarding the ‘229 patent, ALJ Essex determined that the asserted claim was valid, but not infringed.
Share

Read More

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

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
09
Further to our March 23, 2010 post, on April 7, 2010, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of his Supplemental Initial Determination (“Supplemental ID”) in Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-501), in which he modified his previous finding of violation and determined that no violation of Section 337 had occurred.

By way of background, the ITC issued a notice and order on February 18, 2010 reversing ALJ Bullock’s October 30, 2009 Supplemental Initial Determination finding that non-party ASAT Inc.’s LPCC invention is not prior art to the patents-in-suit and remanding the investigation to the ALJ to make “necessary findings on anticipation and obviousness in view of the Commission’s determination that the ASAT LPCC invention is prior art to Amkor’s asserted patents.”  See our February 22, 2010 post for more details.
Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination Denying Motion For Temporary Relief In Certain Silicon Microphone Packages (337-TA-695)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
15
Further to our March 25 post, on April 6, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of the Initial Determination on Complainant’s Motion for Temporary Relief (“ID”) (dated March 24, 2010) in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-695).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Knowles Electronics LLC (“Knowles”), and the Respondent is Analog Devices, Inc. (“ADI”).  On November 12, 2009, Knowles filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337 concerning certain ADI silicon microphone packages and products containing the same that allegedly infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,781,231 (the ‘231 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 7,242,089 (the ‘089 patent).  On the same day, Knowles also filed a motion for temporary relief seeking a temporary exclusion order and a temporary cease and desist order against ADI.  See our November 17, 2009 post for more details.  The investigation was formally instituted on December 17, 2009, and an evidentiary hearing regarding Knowles’s motion for temporary relief was held from February 17-19, 2010.
Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination Finding Violation of Section 337 In Certain Energy Drink Products (337-TA-678)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
16
On April 12, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of his Initial Determination (dated March 30, 2010) (“ID”) in Certain Energy Drink Products (Inv. No. 337-TA-678).  In the ID, ALJ Luckern found a violation of Section 337.

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are Red Bull GmbH and Red Bull North America, Inc. (collectively, “Red Bull”). The Respondents are Avalon International General Trading, LLC (“Avalon”); Posh Nosh Imports (USA), Inc. (“Posh Nosh”); Greenwich, Inc. (“Greenwich”); Advantage Food Distributers (“Advantage Food”); Central Supply, Inc. (“Central Supply”), Chicago Import Inc. (“Chicago Import”), and Lamont Dist., Inc. (“Lamont”) (collectively, “Defaulting Respondents”).  On December 2, 2009, Red Bull moved for summary determination on the issues of domestic industry, importation and violation of Section 337.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Initial Determination In Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp ("CCFL") Inverter Circuits (337-TA-666)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Apr
22
On April 19, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) in Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-666).

The Complainants in this investigation are O2 Micro International Ltd. and O2 Micro Inc.  The Respondents are Monolithic Power Systems Inc., Microsemi Corporation, ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International America (collectively, the “Respondents”).
Share

Read More

ALJ Essex Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination in Certain Semiconductor Chips (337-TA-661)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
04
On April 26, 2010, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of his 132 page Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated January 22, 2010) in Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-661).

Complainant Rambus, Inc. (“Rambus”) accused Respondents NVIDIA Corporation, Asustek Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer International, Inc., BFG Technologies, Inc., Biostar Microtech (USA) 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. (collectively, “Respondents”) of infringing five patents directed towards memory devices and associated memory controllers used, for example, in personal computers, game systems and mobile phones.
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Public Version of Initial Determination In Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits (337-TA-666)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
May
24
Further to our April 22, 2010 post, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of the Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) in Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-666).

By way of background, the Complainants in this investigation are O2 Micro International Ltd. and O2 Micro Inc. (collectively, “O2 Micro”).  The Respondents are Monolithic Power Systems Inc. (“MPS”), ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International America (“collectively, “ASUS”), and Microsemi Corporation (“Microsemi”) (collectively, the “Respondents”).
Share

Read More

ALJ Luckern Issues Initial Determination on Claim Construction In Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras (337-TA-703)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jun
23
On June 22, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued a Notice regarding the Markman hearing Initial Determination (ID) in Certain Mobile Telephones And Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-703).

For background on the procedural history leading to the Markman hearing in this investigation, please see our April 28, 2010 post.
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Initial Determination In Certain Machine Vision Software (337-TA-680)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Jul
16
On July 16, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-680).

According to the notice, ALJ Charneski held that there was no violation of Section 337 in this investigation.  Specifically, ALJ Charneski determined that none of the accused products practiced U.S. Patent Nos. 7,016,539 (the ‘539 patent) and 7,065,262 (the ‘262 patent).  ALJ Charneski also determined that certain claims of the ‘262 patent were invalid as anticipated and that all asserted claims of the ‘262 and ‘539 patents were invalid for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter.  Lastly, ALJ Charneski determined that the “domestic industry requirement is satisfied with respect to the ‘539 patent and the ‘262 patent.”
Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Issues Initial Determination In Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers (337-TA-686)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
02
On July 29, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) in Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (Inv. No. 337-TA-686).

The Complainants in this investigation are The Lincoln Electric Company and Lincoln Global, Inc.  The Respondents are The ESAB Group, Inc. and Sidergas SpA.
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Remand Initial Determination In Certain Connecting Devices (337-TA-587)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
13
On August 5, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued a notice regarding the Remand Initial Determination (ID) in Certain Connecting Devices (“Quick Clamps”) For Use With Modular Compressed Air Conditioning Units, Including Filters, Regulators, and Lubricators (“FRL’s”) That Are Part Of Larger Pneumatic Systems and the FRL Units They Connect (Inv. No. 337-TA-587).  Please note that Oblon Spivak represents Respondents SMC Corporation and SMC Corporation of America in this matter.

According to the notice, ALJ Charneski determined that “it was not found that any asserted claim of United States Patent No. 5, 372,392 is invalid due to obviousness.”
Share

Read More

ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Machine Vision Software (337-TA-680)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Aug
26
On August 13, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version (dated July 16, 2010) of the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing the Same (337-TA-680).

By way of background, the Complainants in this matter are Cognex Corporation and Cognex Technology & Investment Corporation (“Cognex”).  The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent No. 7,016,539 (the ‘539 patent) and 7,065,262 (the ‘262 patent).  A number of respondents were terminated from the investigation and the remaining respondents are MVTec Software GmbH and MVTec LLC, Omron Corporation, Resolution Technology, Inc., Visics Corp., Daiichi Jitsugyo Viswill Co., Ltd., and Daiichi Jitsugyo (America), Inc. (collectively, the “Respondents”).
Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Issues Public Version of Initial Determination In Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers (337-TA-686)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
20
Further to our August 2, 2010 post, on August 31, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of the Initial Determination on Violation and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) (dated July 29, 2010) in Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire (Inv. No. 337-TA-686).

The Complainants in this investigation are The Lincoln Electric Company and Lincoln Global, Inc. (collectively, “Lincoln”).  The Respondents are The ESAB Group, Inc. (“ESAB”) and Sidergas SpA (“Sidergas”) (collectively “Respondents”).
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Initial Determination In Certain Video Displays (337-TA-687)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
20
On September 17, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued a notice regarding issuance of the Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) in Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-687).

The Complainant in this investigation is LG Electronics, Inc.  The Respondents are Vizio, Inc., AmTran Technology Co., Ltd., and AmTran Logistics, Inc. (collectively the “Respondents”).
Share

Read More

ALJ Rogers Issues Initial Determination In Certain Printing And Imaging Devices (337-TA-690)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Sep
27
On September 23, 2010, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-690).

The Complainants in this investigation are Ricoh Company, Ltd., Ricoh Americas Corporation, and Ricoh Electronics, Inc.  The Respondents are Oki Data Corporation and Oki Data Americas, Inc. (collectively the “Respondents”).
Share

Read More

ALJ Gildea Issues Initial Determination In Certain Video Displays (337-TA-687)

By Eric Schweibenz
|
Oct
05
Further to our September 20, 2010 post, on September 29, 2010 ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of the Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“ID”) (dated September 17, 2010) in Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-687).

According to the ID, ALJ Gildea determined that no violation of Section 337 had occurred by Vizio, Inc. (“Vizio”), AmTran Technology Co., Ltd., and AmTran Logistics, Inc. (“AmTran”) (collectively, the “Respondents”) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain liquid crystal display (“LCD”) and plasma flat screen televisions by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 24 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 5,790,096 (the ‘096 patent), claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,459,522 (the ‘522 patent), and claims 1, 4, 5 and 11-13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,154,564 (the ‘564 patent).  However, ALJ Gildea found that a violation had occurred with respect to infringement of claims 4, 6 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 5,537,612 (the ‘612 patent), and that a domestic industry exists that practices the ‘612 patent, the ‘522 patent and the ‘564 patent, but not the ‘096 patent.
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.