ITC Blog: ITC 337 Update

On October 30, 2009 the Commission determined to review in part the final initial determination of ALJ Essex, which had found no violation of § 337. Specifically, the Commission determined to review: the findings regarding the meanings of certain claim terms, and the effect of those findings on the infringement analysis, invalidity analysis, and domestic industry analysis; the finding that certain expert analysis was unreliable; and the finding that a certain product failed to anticipate certain claims of a patent-in-suit. Inv. No. 337-TA-630, In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (III).  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On October 30, 2009 the Commission extended the target date by approximately six weeks, from February 16, 2010 to March 29, 2010, in Inv. No. 337-TA-665, In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same. The Commission gave no reason for the extension.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On October 29, 2009, the Commission ordered an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of § 337(a)(1)(B) and whether a domestic industry exists as required by § 337(a)(2). The complaint was filed on October 1, 2009 on behalf of Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd of Japan and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. alleging infringement of U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,266,229, 6,014,309, 6,377,439, 6,243,254. The proposed respondents are Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc. Inv. No. 337-TA-692, In the Matter of Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On October 23, 2009, the Commission determined no violation of § 337 and terminated Inv. No. 337-TA-619, In the Matter of Certain Flash Memory Controllers, Drives, Memory Cards, and Media Players and Products Containing Same. The Commission reversed some of ALJ’s Bullock’s claim construction findings, but nevertheless affirmed ALJ Bullock’s finding that the accused products did not infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,426,893, 6,763,424, 5,719,808, 6,947,332, 7,137,011 asserted by complainant SanDisk Corp.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On October 23, 2009, the Commission ordered an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of § 337(a)(1)(B) and whether a domestic industry exists as required by § 337(a)(2). The complaint was filed on September 23, 2009 on behalf of Hewlett-Packard Company of California alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,959,985, 7,104,630, 6,089,687, 7,104,301. The proposed respondents are Zhuhai Gree Magneto-Electric Co., Ltd., China; InkPlusToner.com, Canoga Park, CA; Mipo International Ltd., Hong Kong; Mextee Group Inc. d/b/a Mipo America Ltd., Miami, FL; Shanghai Angel Printer Supplies Co., Ltd, China; SmartOne Services LLC d/b/a InkForSale. net, Hayward, CA; Shenzhen Print Media Co., Ltd., China; Comptree Ink d/b/a Meritline ABCInk, EZ, City of Industry, CA; Zhuhai National Resources & Jingjie Imaging Products Co., Ltd, China; Tatrix International, China; Ourway Image Co., Ltd., China. Inv. No. 337-TA-691, In the Matter of Certain Inkjet Supplies and Components Thereof.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On October 20, 2009, the Commission ordered that an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of § 337(a)(1)(B) and whether a domestic industry exists as required by § 337(a)(2). The complaint was filed on September 18, 2009 on behalf of Ricoh Company, Ltd. of Japan, Ricoh Americas Corp. of New Jersey, and Ricoh Elec., Inc. of California alleging infringement of U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,764,866, 6,388,771, 6,209,048, 6,212,343, 5,863,690. The proposed respondents are Oki Data Corp. of Japan and Oki Data Americas, Inc. Inv. No. 337-TA-690, In the Matter of Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On October 16, 2009, the Commission terminated Inv. No. 337-TA-613, In the Matter of Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof by affirming ALJ Luckern’s determination of no violation, because although the Commission modified ALJ Luckern’s claim construction, that modified construction did not necessitate a finding of no violation. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On October 16, 2009, the Commission ordered that an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of § 337(a)(1)(B) and whether a domestic industry exists as required by § 337(a)(2). The complaint was filed on September 15, 2009 on behalf of Safe Skies, LLC of New York and David Tropp of New York. The proposed respondents are C&C Luggage Manufacturing Co., Ltd., et al. Inv. No. 337-TA-689, In the Matter of Certain Dual Access Locks and Products Containing Same, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,021,537 and 7,036,728.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On October 13, 2009, ALJ Gildea issued a final initial determination and recommended determination on remedy and bond in Inv. No. 337-TA-650, In the Matter of Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same. The determination found defaulting respondents Hanjiang Fei Yu Electronics Equipment Factory, Zhongguang Electronics, Yangzhou Zhongguang Electronics Co., Ltd., and Yangzhou Zhongguang Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. in violation of § 337, and respondents Fu Ching Technical Industrial Co., Ltd. and Gem Electronics, not in violation of § 337. The complainant was John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. U.S. Pat. No. 5,470,257.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On October 13, 2009, ALJ Rogers granted-in-part and denied-in-part respondents’ motion for leave to file a second amended response to complainant’s verified amended complaint. The motion was granted-in-part because the amended response provided additional specificity to the affirmative defense of inequitable conduct, and that defense was previously plead, but not with the required level of particularity. The motion was denied-in-part with respect to new allegations regarding a specific reference that only appeared in the amended response and not in the original response. Inv. Nos. 337-TA-673, 667, In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,235,635, 5,530,597, 5,608,873.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On October 13, 2009, ALJ Luckern found respondent UniLite Corporation of Taiwan in default for failure to respond to the second and third amended complaints and notice of investigation, and for failure to respond to a previous order demanding good cause why respondent should not be found in default. Inv. No. 337-TA-674, In the Matter of Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips, Laser Diode Chips and Products Containing Same.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On October 8, 2009, the Commission determined to review in part the final initial determination of the ALJ Charneski, which had found a violation of § 337, but not to review the issue of importation and the intent finding underlying the ALJ’s inequitable conduct determination. Inv. No. 337-TA-641, In the Matter of Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On October 6, 2009, ALJ Bullock set a Procedural Schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-684, In the Matter of Certain Articulated Coordinate Measuring Arms and Components Thereof, which included a due date for an Initial Determination of September 28, 2010. U.S. Pat. No. 5,829,148.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On October 6, 2009, ALJ Charneski set a procedural schedule, as well as a target date of September 27, 2010, in Inv. No. 337-TA-617, In the Matter of Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On October 6, 2009, ALJ Essex set an approximate target date of November 30, 2010 and a proposed procedural schedules submission date of October 13, 2009, as well as an approximate final initial determination date of July 20, 2010, in Inv. No. 337-TA-683, In the Matter of Certain MLC Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On October 5, 2009, the Commission ordered an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of § 337(a)(1)(B) and whether a domestic industry exists as required by § 337(a)(2). The complaint was filed on September 3, 2009 on behalf of Paice, LLC of Florida. The proposed respondents are Toyota Motor Corp. of Japan, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. Inv. No. 337-TA-688, In the Matter of Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof, U.S. Pat. No. 5,343,970. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On October 5, 2009, ALJ Luckern granted a joint motion to terminate based on a settlement between the parties in Inv. No. 337-TA-658, In the Matter of Certain Video Game Machines and Related Three-Dimensional Pointing Devices, U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,139,983, 7,158,118, 7,262,760, 7,414,611.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On October 1, 2009, a new complaint was filed requesting a § 337 investigation on behalf of Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd of Japan and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. The proposed respondents were Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc. Inv. No. 337-TA-692, In the Matter of Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same, U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,266,229, 6,014,309, 6,377,439, 6,243,254.  (PDF)itc337update.lexblognetwork.com/uploads/file/100109-1(2).pdf

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On October 1, 2009, ALJ Rogers granted a joint motion to terminate based on a settlement between the parties in Inv. Nos. 337-TA-673 and 337-TA-667, In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,235,635, 5,530,597, 5,608,873. 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link