ALJ Bullock set the procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-679, In the Matter of Certain Products Advertised as Containing Creative Ethyl Ester. The date for final initial determination was set for June 25, 2010, while the target date was set for October 25, 2010. (PDF)
On September 29, 2009, Chief ALJ Luckern granted third party Alston & Bird, LLP’s motion to quash the subpoena served on it by respondents CompX International, Inc. and Waterloo Furniture Corporation Ltd. in Inv. No. 337-TA-670, In the Matter of Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof. Chief ALJ Luckern found that the discovery sought was not relevant, that the potential hardship to the third party was significant, and that respondents failed to show sufficient need for the discovery request. (PDF)
On September 24, 2009, ALJ Essex issued the public version of his August 28, 2009 Final Initial and Recommended Determinations for Inv. No. 337-TA-630, In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (III). ALJ Essex concluded that there was no violation of section 337 by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 17 and 18 of United States Patent No. 5,679,977; claims 1-4,9-12, and 15-16 of United States Patent No. 6,133,627; and claims 1-4, 9, 10 and 33-35 of United States Patent No. 5,663,106. While ALJ Essex found no violation of section 337, his Recommended Determination, in the event the Commission finds a violation of section 337, is that a general exclusion order that includes downstream products is not warranted. To the extent the Commission determines to issue a general exclusion order, ALJ Essexrecommended that the exclusion order include a certification provision. Should the Commission decide not to issue a general exclusion order, ALJ Essex recommends that the Commission should issue a limited exclusion order directed only to respondents Acer Inc.; Acer America Corp.; Centon Electronics, Inc.; Kingston Technology Corporation; Nanya Technology Corporation; Nanya Technology Corp. USA; Powerchip Semiconductor Corp.; ProMos Technologies, Inc.; Ramaxel Technology, Ltd; SMART Modular Technologies, Inc.; TwinMOS Technologies, Inc.; and TwinMOS Technologies, USA, Inc. and all of their affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, or other related business entities, or their successors or assigns. Should the Commission find a violation, ALJ Essex recommended that the Commission issue a cease and desist order directed toward the domestic respondents Acer, Centon, Kingston, Nanya, Elpida and SMART. (PDF)
On September 24, 2009, the Commission issued a notice that it would review in part the final initial determination of ALJ Gildea in Inv. No. 337-TA-636, In the Matter of Certain Laser Imageable Lithographic Printing Plates. The Commission determined to modify the ALJ’s claim construction analysis, but to affirm the ALJ’s determination of violation of section 337. (PDF)
On September 24, 2009, the Commission issued the public version of its August 28, 2009 opinion in Inv. No. 337-TA-565 (Consolidated Enforcement Proceeding and Enforcement Proceeding II), In the Matter of Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof. The Commission determined not to review Chief ALJ Luckern’s determination of violations as to cease and desist and consent orders applicable to respondents Ninestar Technology Co., Ltd., Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd., and Town Sky Inc. (the “Ninestar Respondents”), Mipo America Ltd. and Mipo International, Ltd. (the “Mipo Respondents”), nor to review the consent order applicable to Ribbon Tree USA, Inc. (d/b/a Cana-Pacific Ribbons) and Apex Distributing Inc. (the “Apex Respondents”). The Commission further determined to adopt Chief ALJ Luckern’s analysis and recommendations on penalties with respect to the Mipo Respondents and Apex Respondents, but determined to impose a lesser penalty on the Ninestar Respondents. (PDF)
On September 23, 2009, a complaint was filed requesting a section 337 investigation on behalf of Hewlett-Packard Co. The proposed respondents are: Zhuhai Gree Magneto-Electric Co., Ltd., InkPlusToner.com, Mipo International Ltd., Mextec Group Inc. d/b/a Mipo America Ltd., Shanghai Angel Printer Supplies Co. Ltd., SmartOne Services LLC d/b/a InkForSale.net, Shenzhen Print Media Co., Ltd., Comptree Ink d/b/a Meritline, ABCInk, EZ Label, and CDR DVDR Media, Zhuhai National Resources & Jingjie Imaging Products Co., Ltd., Tatrix International, and Ourway Image Co., Ltd. The products involved are Inkjet Supplies. Hewlett-Packard allege that the proposed respondents have engaged in violations of Section 337 in connection with certain inkjet ink supplies and components thereof that allegedly infringe one or more claims of United States Patent Nos. 6,959,985; 7,104,630; 6,089,687; and 6,264,301. (PDF)
On September 22, 2009, Chief ALJ Luckern issued the public versions of his August 25, 2009 Initial Determinations terminating respondents Tyntek Corporation, Tekcore Co., Ltd. and Arima Optoelectronics Corp. from Inv. No. 337-TA-674, In the Matter of Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips, Laser Diode Chips and Products Containing Same. The respondents each moved to be terminated from the investigation in July based upon a proposed consent order. (PDF)
On September 21, 2009, the Commission issued a notice reversing a Remand Initial Determination of Chief ALJ Luckern and denying respondent’s motions to strike and to conform pleadings to evidence taken in Inv. No. 337-TA-623, In the Matter of Certain R-134a Coolant (Otherwise Known as 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane). The Commission reversed the RID’s conclusion that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,559,276, concluding that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. The Commission disagreed with Chief ALJ Luckern’s determination on remand that it was not necessary to consider the respondent’s arguments relating to admissions by complainants and the “state of the prior art at the time of invention.” The Commission was able to find the claim at issue obvious without consulting the specific remand references, and determined that, were they consulted, the conclusion would be the same. (PDF)
On September 21, 2009, the Commission issued a notice affirming the initial determination by ALJ Gildea that section 337 was violated, terminating the investigation, and issuing a general exclusion order in Inv. No. 337-TA-643, In the Matter of Certain Cigarettes and Packaging Thereof. (PDF)
On September 21, 2009, ALJ Bullock issued an Initial Determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-679, In the Matter of Certain Products Advertised as Containing Creatine Ethyl Ester, determining that respondents Bodyonics, Ltd; NRG-X Labs; and Proviant Technologies, Inc. were in default, based on their failure to respond to the complaint and notice of investigation.(PDF)
On September 21, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued his Initial Determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-648, In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same. ALJ Charneski determined that the Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and investigation, and that all respondents but one had sold for importation, imported, or sold after importation into the United States products made according to the accused processes. ALJ Charneski also determined that, while each accused process of each respondent practiced each of the claims of the patent asserted against it, claims 1, 3, and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 5,227,335 are invalid as anticipated by prior art. Thus, there was no violation of section 337 with respect to those claims. (PDF)
On September 18, 2009, a complaint was filed requesting a section 337 investigation on behalf of Ricoh Company, Ltd., Ricoh Americas Corp. and Ricoh Electronics. The proposed respondents are Oki Data Corp. and Oki Data Americas, Inc. The products involved include (but are not limited to) multifunction printers and components thereof, including at least image drums and fuser units. The accused products are alleged to infringe one or more claims of United States Patent Nos. 5,764,866; 6,388,771; 6,209,048; and 5,863,690. (PDF)
On September 18, 2009, ALJ Rogers issued notices setting the target date and procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-686, In the Matter of Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire. ALJ Rogers set the date for the Final Initial Determination on alleged violation of section 337 for August 9, 2010, and the target date for completion of the investigation for December 7, 2010. (PDF)
ALJ Gildea set the target date in Inv. No. 337-TA-687, In the Matter of Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same. The date for Final Initial Determination was set for September 18, 2010, with a target date of January 18, 2011. ALJ Gildea also set ground rules and a date for submission of the proposed procedural schedule. (PDF)
On September 17, 2009, Chief ALJ Luckern issued the public version of his August 14, 2009 Final Initial and Recommended Determinations in Inv. No. 337-TA-613, In the Matter of Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components. Chief ALJ Luckern concluded that there was jurisdiction, but there was no violation of section 337 due to infringement of claims 1, 2, 31, and 59 of U.S. Patent No. 7,117,004, claims 1, 3, 8, 9, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 7,190,966, claims 5, 6, 9, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 7,286,847, and claims 1, 3, and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 6,973,579. Furthermore, Chief ALJ Luckern found that not only were the asserted patent claims not infringed, but the claims of the asserted patents were also invalid. Should the Commission find a violation, Chief ALJ Luckern recommended the issuance of a limited exclusion order barring entry into the United States of infringing 3G mobile handsets and components thereof, as well as the issuance of appropriate cease and desist orders. The imposition of any bond during the Presidential Review period was not recommended. (PDF)
On September 15, 2009, a new complaint was filed requesting a section 337 investigation on behalf of Safe Skies, LLC, and David Tropp. The proposed respondents are: C & C Luggage Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Diplomat, Hangzhou Gema Suitcases & Bags Co. Ltd., La Pearl Luggage and Leather Goods Co., Ltd., Hinomoto Jomae, Ltd., Sinox Company, Ltd., Yi Feng Manufacturing, Co., Ltd., Jin Tay Industries Co., Ltd., Fullyear-Brother Enterprise, Co., Ltd., Zhuhai SkyGood Tech. Industrial Corp., Ltd., Ningbo Zianfeng Art & Craft Co., Ltd., Paloma Enterprises Co., Ltd., Tekraft Industrial Co., Ltd., Hangzhou Travelsky Co., Ltd., The Sun Lock Company Ltd., Alloy Metal Manufactory, Ltd., Cometform, Ltd., Design Go Ltd., Franzen International, and M-Power Lock Manufactory. The products involved include certain locks, luggage and baggage containing dual access locks that complainants allege infringe certain methods of improving airline luggage inspection covered by U.S. Patent Nos. 7,021,537 and 7,036,728. (PDF)
On September 14, 2009, the Commission issued a notice that it would review in part the Final Initial Determination of ALJ Bullock in Inv. No. 337-TA-621, In the Matter of Certain Probe Card Assemblies, Components Thereof and Certain Tested DRAM and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same. The Commission determined to review: 1) the Initial Determination’s finding that a prior patent application publication did not anticipate the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,509,751, 2) the Initial Determination’s conclusion of law regarding non-infringement of the ‘751 patent by the accused products, and 3) the Initial Determination’s conclusion that no analysis of the validity of the asserted claims that depend from claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 5,994,152 was needed. (PDF)
On September 10, 2009, Chief ALJ Luckern issued an Initial Determination finding Toyolite Technologies Corp. in default in Inv. No. 337-TA-674, In the Matter of Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips, Laser Diode Chips and Products Containing Same. Respondent was issued an order to show cause in July, but after being notified that the letter in response to that order did not comply with procedural requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations, there was no further response. (PDF)
On September 10, 2009, ALJ Rogers granted a joint motion by complainant Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. and respondent Neptun Lights, Inc. to terminate the investigation based upon a consent order in Inv. No. 337-TA-681, In the Matter of Certain Lighting Control Devices Including Dimmer Switches and Parts Thereof. (PDF)
On September 9, 2009, ALJ Gildea issued the public version of his Initial Determination granting the joint motion by complainants O2 Micro International Ltd. and O2 Micro Inc.and respondents LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc. (collectively, “LGD”) to terminate the investigation with respect to LGD on the basis of a consent order stipulation in Inv. No. 337-TA-666, In the Matter of Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (“CCFL”) Inverter Circuits and Products Containing the Same. (PDF)
On September 9, 2009, ALJ Gildea set the procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-682, In the Matter of Certain Collaborative System Products and Components Thereof. The schedule set a Final Initial Determination date of August 2, 2010, and a target date of December 2, 2010. (PDF)
On September 9, 2009, ALJ Charneski granted a joint motion by complainant Linear Technology Corporation and respondent Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc. to partially terminate the enforcement proceeding on the basis of a consent order in Inv. No. 337-TA-564, In the Matter of Certain Voltage Regulators, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same. On the same day, ALJ Charneski issued an order requesting that the parties to file a joint statement specifying the products remaining in dispute, and the issues to be decided. (PDF)
On September 8, 2009, ALJ Bullock denied a motion for summary determination by complainants Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in Inv. No. 337-TA-671, In the Matter of Certain Digital Cameras. The motion asserted that complainants satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. (PDF)
On September 8, 2009, Chief ALJ Luckern issued an Initial Determination granting the complainants’ motion to amend the complaint and giving notice of investigation to add six additional respondents in Inv. No. 337-TA-678, In the Matter of Certain Energy Drinks. The six respondents are Posh Nosh Imports, Greenwich, Inc., Advantage Food Distributors, Ltd., Wheeler Trading, Inc., Avalon International General Trading, LLC, and Central Supply, Inc. Accordingly, Chief ALJ Luckern extended the fact discovery request and discovery completion dates for an additional month. (PDF)
On September 3, 2009, a complaint was filed requesting a section 337 investigation on behalf of Paice, LLC. The proposed respondents are: Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. The products involved are certain hybrid electric vehicles and components thereof that allegedly infringe United States Patent No. 5,343,970. (PDF)
On September 3, 2009, ALJ Rogers issued an Initial Determination granting complainant Saxon Innovations, LLC’s unopposed motion for partial termination of the investigation as to all allegations relating to claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 5,530,597 in Inv. Nos. 337-TA-673 and 337-TA-667, In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices. (PDF)
On September 2, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued an Initial Determination modifying the procedural schedule and target date in the enforcement proceeding Inv. No. 337-TA-564, In the Matter of Certain Voltage Regulators, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same. The date for Enforcement Initial Determination was moved from January 28, 2010 to March 19, 2010, while the target date was moved from May 28, 2010 to July 19, 2010. (PDF)
On September 2, 2009, ALJ Bullock denied complainant UneMed Corporation’s motion seeking a determination that respondents Bodyonics, Ltd., EST Nutrition LLC d/b/a Engineered Sports Technology, NRG-X Labs, and Proviant Technologies, Inc. were in default in Inv. No. 337-TA-679, In the Matter of Certain Products Advertised as Containing Creatine Ethyl Ester. ALJ Bullock did issue an order to show cause to the four respondents as to why they should not be found in default for failing to respond to the complaint and notice of investigation, with a deadline of Septemeber 16, 2009. (PDF)
Add this blog to your feeds or put your e-mail in the box below and hit GO to subscribe by e-mail.
Enter keywords: