On May 28, 2010 ALJ Essex issued an initial determination granting a joint motion to terminate Inv. No. 337-TA-697, Certain Authentication Systems, Including Software and Handheld Electronic Devices. The parties had filed their motion to terminate on the basis of a settlement agreement reached between complainant Prism Technologies, LLC and respondents Research in Motion Ltd. and Research in Motion Corporation.
Complaint 2737 was filed today, listing as complainant S3 Graphics, Inc. and S3 Graphics Co., Ltd. The proposed respondent is Apple, Inc., and the proposed products are electronic devices with image processing systems, components thereof, and associated software.
Chief ALJ Luckern issued notice assigned ALJ Essex to Inv. No. 337-TA-719, Certain Lighting Products. (PDF 052710-3).
On May 27, 2010 ALJ Gildea issued an abbreviated notice regarding issuance of a remand initial determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-650, Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same. The complainant is John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. The ALJ determined that no domestic industry existed that practices U.S. Patent No. D440,539. A complete public version is expected to be issued shortly.
On May 26, 2010 ALJ Charneski issued an initial determination terminating Inv. No. 337-TA-680, Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same, as to respondent Rasco GmbH on the basis of a consent order and a settlement agreement with complainants Cognex Corporation and Cognex Technology and Investment Corporation.
ALJ Charneski issued an initial determination extending the target date in Inv. No. 337-TA-617, Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing the Same and Methods of Using Same, by one month from September 27 to October 27, 2010 in order to provide the parties with an opportunity to comment on the simultaneous filing of a motion to terminate as to certain respondents and release of an opinion from the Federal Circuit concerning the underlying investigation. The parties were given notice that they would receive a schedule to comment on the Federal Circuit's decision shortly.
Order Number 31 (Initial Determination) (.PDF)
The Federal Circuit in a 2-1 decision in Vizio v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, No. 2009-1386, today affirmed in part and reversed in part the Commission's ruling in 337-TA-617, In the Matter of Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same. The Complainant in the investigation was Funai Electric Co., Ltd. and Funai Corporation, and the remanining Respondents were Vizio, Inc., Amtran Technology Co., TPV Technology Ltd., TPV International (USA), Inc., Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co., Ltd., and Envision Peripherals, Inc. The investigation covered claims 1, 5, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 6,115,074.
After analyzing claim construction for three separate sets of terms, the panel agreed with the Commission's constructions for all but the "suitable for use," "for identifying," or "for decoding" terms. The panel also agreed with the Commission that the claims asserted were not invalid. However, the panel reversed the Commission's ruling that the so-called "work around products" infringed because they did not satisfy the "suitable for use," "for identifying," or "for decoding" limitations of the '074 patent.
Judges Dyk and Mayer filed the majority opinion, while Judge Clevenger filed a dissent arguing for affirmance because Vizio's arguments for the "suitable for use," "for identifying," or "for decoding" had been waived.
The Federal Circuit in a 2-1 decision in Deere v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, No. 2009-1016, today affirmed in part and reversed in part the Commission's ruling in 337-TA-487, In the Matter of Certain Agricultural Vehicles and Components Thereof. The Complainant in the investigation was Deere & Co., and the remaining Respondents were Bourdeau Brothers, Inc., OK Enterprises and Sunova Implement Co. The investigation covered whether Deere's trademarks were infringed through the "gray market" importation of European-market harvesters into the United States by Respondents.
In 2006, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded this case after a finding of infringement, in order to determine whether "all or substantially all" of Deere's authorized domestic sales were materially different from the European-market harvesters. The ALJ, on remand, found that the number of authorized sales was so small that "substantially all" of Deere's U.S. sales were of North American-market harvesters. The Commission reversed, finding substantial evidence that Deere's own dealers were responsible for introducing a substantial quantity of nonconforming goods into the marketplace, and that 40-57% of the European-harvesters in the U.S. were sold by Deere authorized dealers.
The panel reversed the Commission, finding that it had focused on the number of European harvesters sold by authorized Deere distributors in the U.S., as opposed to the total number of harvesters of all kinds. Based on this analysis, the panel found that at most 3.4% of Deere's U.S.-authorized goods were European-market harvesters, as opposed to the 40-57% found by the Commission. The panel remanded for a determination as to whether this percentage permitted a finding that "all or substantially all" of Deere's sales were materially different.
Judges Michel and Lourie filed the majority opinion. Judge Newman concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing with the majority that the Commission had misapplied the "all or substantially all" test, but dissenting in its analysis of whether particular sales were authorized by Deere.
On May 26, 2010 ALJ Essex granted complainant Prism Technologies LLC and respondents Research In Motion Ltd.'s joint motion to stay the procedural schedule pending a final determination on joint motion to terminate Inv. No. 337-TA-697, Certain Authentication Systems, Including Software and Handheld Electronic Devices.
The Commission issued notice of its decision to extend the target date for completion by two months, from May 27, 2010 to July 26, 2010 for Inv. No. 337-TA-661, Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Products Containing Same so that the Commission may accept and consider further briefing regarding complainant Rambus, Inc. and Samsung Electronics' licensing agreement. (PDF)
ALJ Essex issued an initial determination granting a joint motion to terminate Inv. No. 337-TA-713, Certain Display Devices, Including Digital Televisions and Monitors, as to respondent Viewsonic on the basis of a settlement agreement with complainant Sony Corporation. (PDF)
On May 25, 2010 the Commission issued its determination not to review an intial determination of presiding ALJ Essex terminating Inv. No. 337-TA-707, Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors and Products Containing Same, Including Memory Modules as to respondents Buffalo, Inc. of Japan and Buffalo Technology (USA) of Austin, Texas. (PDF)
On May 24, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its determination to etend the target date for completion of Inv. No. 337-TA-661, Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Products Containing Same, including Graphics and Motherboards. The new target date for completion of the investigation is May 26, 2010. (PDF)
ALJ Charneski issued an initial determination terminating Inv. No.. 337-TA-680, Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems and Products Containing Same as to respondent Subtechnique, Inc. on the basis of a consent order reached with Complainant Cognex Corporation and Cognex Technology & Investment Corporation. (PDF)
On may 24, ALJ Charneski set August 5, 2011 as the target date for completion of Inv. No. 337-TA-716, Certain Large Scale Integrated Circuit Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same. ALJ Charneski set April 5, 2011 as the due date for Initial Determination on an alleged violation of Section 337. (PDF)
The ITC issued notice that it will not review a final ID of finding a violation of section 337 in Inv. No. 337-TA-669, In the Matter of Certain Optoelectronic Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, and requested written submissions regarding remedy, bonding, and the public interest.
The complaint alleges violations of section 337 by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,359,447 and 5,761,229. Complainants are Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. of Singapore; Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. of Singapore; and Avago Technologies Ltd. of San Jose, California. The sole Respondent is Emcore Corporation.
In his final ID, dated March 12, 2010, the ALJ found that Emcore violated section 337 by infringing one or more of claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the ‘447 patent. The ALJ found no violation of section 337 with respect to the ‘229 patent. Emcore and the IA filed petitions for review of the final ID on March 29, 2010. The Commission determined not to review the final ID, but requested written submissions from parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Any such submissions should address the recommended determination on remedy and bonding provided by the ALJ.
The ITC issued notice that it will not review the presiding administrative law judge's initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 6) granting Respondent Auront’s second amended motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on a consent order stipulation and to issue a consent order in Inv. No. 337-TA-696, In the Matter of Certain Restraining Systems for Transport Containers, Components Thereof, and Methods of Using Same, and that it will issue the consent order submitted by Auront.
The ITC issued notice of Inv. No. 337-TA-718, In the Matter of Certain Electronic Paper Towel Dispensing Devices and Components Thereof. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,871,815; 7,017,856; 7,182,289; and 7,387,274. Complainant is Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP of Atlanta, Georgia. Respondents are Kruger Products LP, KTGUSALP, Stefco Industries, Inc., Cellynne Corporation, Draco Hygienic Products Inc., NetPak Electronic Plastic and Cosmetic, Inc., NetPak Elektronik Plastik ve Kozmetik Sanayi, Paradigm Marketing Consortium, Inc., United Sourcing Network Corp., New Choice (H.K.) Ltd., and Vida International Inc. Commission IA will be Lisa A. Murray, Esq. The investigation has been assigned to ALJ Gildea.
The ITC issued notice that it will not review the presiding administrative law judge's initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 19) granting complainants' motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation in Inv. No. 337-TA-698, In the Matter of Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same.
On April 12, 2010, Complainant Richtek had moved for leave to amend its complaint to assert dependent claims 8-11 of the ’190 patent on the basis of newly discovered evidence produced by the respondents. Respondents opposed the motion, arguing that Richtek's two-month delay in asserting these patent claims caused them prejudice. The IA did not oppose the motion. On April 22, 2010, the ALJ issued an ID granting Richtek's motion. Order No. 19 (Apr. 22, 2010), finding good cause for Richtek's delay.
On May 14, 2010, ALJ Theodore Essex terminated Inv. No. 337-TA-691, Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and Components Thereof, as to respondent SmartOne Services LLC d/b/a InkForSale.net on the basis of a settlement agreement with complainant Hewlett-Packard Company. The ALJ found that termination of the investigation does not impose any undue burdens on the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, or United States consumers. (PDF)
On May 14, 2010, the Commission determined to institute Inv. No. 337-TA-717, Certain Digital Imaging Devices and Related Software, in which complainant Apple, Inc., f/k/a Apple Computer, Inc., of California alleges violation of Section 337 by respondent Eastman Kodak Co. of New York. The Apple patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,031,964 and RE 38,911. Chief ALJ Luckern designated ALJ Robert Rogers, Jr. to preside over the investigation. (PDF) (PDF)
On May 14, 2010, the Commission determined not to review an Enforcement Initial Determination of ALJ Charneski finding a violation of the limited exclusion order by sole respondent Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc. of California, in Inv. No. 337-TA-564, Certain Voltage Regulators, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same. The complainant is Linear Technology Corporation of California, and the patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,411,531 and 6,580,258. The ALJ had found that respondent’s products infringe claims 2 and 34 of the ’258 patent. (PDF)
On May 14, 2010, the Commission determined not to review a final initial determination of ALJ Luckern finding a violation of Section 337 by respondents Avalon Int’l General Trading, LLC of United Arab Emirates, Posh Nosh Imports, Inc. of New Jersey, Greenwich, Inc. of New Jersey, Advantage Food Distributors Ltd. of the United Kingdom, Central Supply, Inc. of New York, and Chicago Import, Inc. of Illinois, in Inv. 337-TA-678, Certain Energy Drink Products. The complainants were Red Bull GmbH of Austria and Red Bull North America of California. (PDF)
On May 13, 2010, the Commission determined not to review a final initial determination of ALJ Theodore Essex finding a violation of Section 337 in Inv. No. 337-TA-669, Certain Optoelectronic Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same. The complainants were Avago Technologies Fiber IP Pte. Ltd. of Singapore, Avago Technologies General IP Pte. Ltd. of Singapore, and Avago Technologies Ltd. of California, and the patents at issue were U.S. Patent Nos. 5,359,447 and 5,761,229. ALJ Essex had found that the sole respondent, Emcore Corporation of New Mexico, infringed the ’447 patent but not the ’229 patent. (PDF)
On May 13, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea denied respondents’ motion for summary determination of invalidity of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,266,229 in Inv. No. 337-TA-692, Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same. The Order is confidential.
On May 13, 2010, FlashPoint Technology, Inc. (a Delaware corporation) filed a complaint, Certain Electronic Imaging Devices, alleging violation of Section 337 by proposed respondents Nokia Corp. (a Finish corporation), Nokia, Inc. (a Delaware corporation), Research in Motion Ltd. (a Canadian corporation), Research in Motion Corp. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Research in Motion Ltd.), HTC Corp. (a Taiwanese corporation), HTC America, Inc. (a Texas corporation), LG Electronics, Inc. (a South Korean corporation), LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of LG Electronics, Inc.), and LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.). The technology at issue relates to electronic imaging devices, and the FlashPoint patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,134,606, 6,163,816, and 6,262,769. (PDF)
HTC Corp. (a Taiwanese corporation) today filed a complaint, In the Matter of Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software, alleging a violation of Section 337 by proposed respondent Apple Inc., a/k/a Apple Computer, Inc. (a California corporation). The accused products include Apple’s iPod, iPhone, and iPad. The HTC patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,999,800, 5,541,988, 6,058,183, 6,320,957, and 7,716,505. (PDF)
On May 12, 2010, ALJ Paul Luckern granted respondent Research in Motion’s motion to amend its response to the complaint, in Inv. No. 337-TA-703, Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof. The Order is confidential.
On May 11, 2010, Cross Match Technologies, Inc. (a Delaware corporation) filed a complaint alleging violation of Section 337. The proposed respondents are Suprema, Inc. (a Korean corporation) and Mentalix, Inc. (a Texas corporation). The technology at issue relates to biometric scanning devices, and the Cross Match patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,900,993, 6,483,932, 7,203,344, and 7,277,562. (PDF)
On May 11, 2010, ALJ Charles Bullock granted respondent Kikkerland Design, Inc.’s motion to amend its answer to add an affirmative defense of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), in Inv. No. 337-TA-693, Certain Foldable Stools. The Order is confidential.
On May 11, 2010, ALJ Bullock set the procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-708, Certain Stringed Musical Instruments and Components, with an August 2, 2011 target date for completion of the investigation. The complainant is Geoffrey McCabe, and the respondents are Floyd Rose Guitars, Floyd Rose Marketing, Inc., Davitt & Hanser Music Co., Ping Well Industrial Co., Ltd., Hoshino (U.S.A.) Inc., and Hoshino Gakki Co., Ltd. (PDF)
On May 10, 2010, ALJ Carl Charneski denied respondent MVTec Software GmbH’s motion for summary determination of non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,016,539 and 7,065,262. Complainants Cognex Corp. and Cognex Tech. & Investment Corp. and the Commission Investigative Staff opposed the motion. ALJ Charneski found that there exist disputed issues of material fact, especially in light of disputed claim terms coupled with the highly complex technology at issue. The ALJ noted that a hearing was necessary to resolve the disputed material facts and to properly construe the disputed claim terms. (PDF)
On May 7, 2010, the Commission published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that it had determined not to review an initial determination granting motions for summary determination of non-infringement and finding no violation of Section 337 in Inv. No. 337-TA-689, In the Matter of Certain Dual Access Locks and Products Containing Same. The petitioners in the case were Safe Skies, LLC and David Tropp. The respondents were C&C Luggage Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; Formosa Tai Ran Industrial Corp.; 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 Xianfeng 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 complainant alleged violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, sale for important, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain dual access locks and product containing same that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,021,537 and 7,036,728. Nineteen of the respondents filed a motion for summary determination of non-infringement of all asserted claims, which was granted. Only Formosa Tai Ran Industrial Corp. did not join the motion. The Commission determined not to review the initial determination of Chief ALJ Luckern, and to terminate the investigation. (PDF)
On May 6, 2010, ALJ Essex granted a unilateral motion to terminate the investigation as to respondents Buffalo, Inc. and Buffalo Technology ("Buffalo") in Inv. No. 337-TA-707, In the Matter of Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors and Products Containing Same, Including Memory Modules. The termination was based on a consent order between Buffalo and complainants Infineon Technologies AG and Infineon Technologies North America Corp. ("Infineon"), wherein Buffalo agreed not to import into the United States, sell for importation, sell in the United States after important, or knowingly aid in such activities with regard to products containing Elpida dynamic random access memory semiconductors or products containing the same, including memory modules that infringe the asserted claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 5,397,664, 5,422,309, 5,397,664, and 7,071,074. (PDF)
On May 5, 2010, the Office of the Secretary issued a Notice in the Federal Register announcing Inv. No. 337-TA-715, In the Matter of Certain Game Controllers. The complainant, Microsoft Corporation, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation and sale within the United States after importation of certain game controllers by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. D521,015; D522,011; D547,763; D581,422; D563,480; and D565,668. The respondents are Datel Design and Development Inc. and Datel Design and Development Ltd. Chief ALJ Luckern will designate the presiding law judge. (PDF)
On May 5, 2010, the Office of the Secretary issued a Notice announcing Inv. No. 332-TA-514, China: Intellectual Property Infringement, Indigenous Innovation Policies, and Frameworks for Measuring the Effects on the U.S. Economy. The investigation follows receipt of a request for two reports from the United States Senate Committee on Finance. The first report will describe the principal types of reported IPR infringement in China, describe China’s indigenous innovation policies, and outline analytical frameworks for determining the quantitative effects of the infringement and indigenous innovation policies on the U.S. economy as a whole and on sectors of the U.S. economy, including lost U.S. jobs. This first report is to be delivered by November 19, 2010. The second report, to be delivered by May 2, 2011, describes the size and scope of reported IPR infringement in China, a quantitative analysis of the impact of reported IPR infringement in China on the U.S. economy and U.S. jobs and on the potential effects on sales, profits, royalties, and license fees of U.S. firms globally, and actual, potential, and reported effects of China’s indigenous innovation policies on the U.S. economy and U.S. jobs, and quantifies these effects, to the extent feasible. The Commission scheduled a public hearing in connection with investigations relating to both reports for June 15, 2010. (PDF)
On May 5, 2010, the Office of the Secretary issued a Notice in the Federal Register announcing Inv. No. 337-TA-716, In the Matter of Certain Large Scale Integrated Circuit Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same. The complainant, Panasonic Corporation, Ltd., alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation and sale within the United States after importation of certain large scale integrated circuit semiconductor chips and products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,933,364 and 6,834,336. The respondents are Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.; Freescale Semiconductor Japan Ltd.; Freescale Semiconductor, Xiqing Integrated Semiconductor; Freescale Semiconductor, Innovation Center; Freescale Semiconductor Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.; Freescale Semiconductor Pte. Ltd.; Freescale Semiconductor Taiwan Ltd.; Mouser Electronics, Inc.; Premier Farnell Corporation d/b/a Newark; and Motorola Inc.. Chief ALJ Luckern designate the presiding law judge. (PDF)
On May 4, 2010, the Office of the Secretary issued a Notice in the Federal Register announcing a review by the Commission of a portion of the final initial determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-670, In the Matter of Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof. Chief ALJ Luckern issued a final initial determination on February 23, 2010, finding that respondents CompX International, Inc. and Waterloo Furniture Components Ltd. did not violate section 337 by infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,292,097 with respect to their “Wedge-Brake” products, but did violate section 337 with respect to their “Brake-Shoe” products. Complainants Humanscale Corporation, the respondents, and the Commission investigative attorney filed petitions for review of the ALJ’s final initial determination on March 9, 2010. The Commission determined to review certain claim constructions, the infringement determination concerning the “Brake-Shoe” products, the invalidity determination for anticipation and obviousness of claim 7 of the patent, and the denied defense of intervening rights.
On May 4, 2010, Blumberg Industries, Inc. d/b/a Fine Art Lamps (“Fine Art Lamps”) filed a complaint requesting a section 337 investigation. The proposed respondent is Lights & More, Inc. (“L&M”). The products involved are lighting products, lamps, and/or lighting fixtures. Fine Art Lamps alleges that certain lamps and lighting fixture products imported by L&M and sold within the United States infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. D570,038S, “Decorative Element of Lighting Fixtures,” along with other intellectual property rights afforded to Fine Art Lamps under U.S. copyright, trademark, and unfair competition laws.
On May 4, 2010, the Office of the Secretary issued a Notice in the Federal Register announcing Inv. No. 337-TA-714, In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices with Multi-Touch Enabled Touchpads and Touchscreens. The complainant, Elan Microelectronics Corporation, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation and sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic devices with multi-touch enabled touchpads and touchscreens by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5, 825, 352. The respondent is Apple Inc. Chief ALJ Luckern will preside over the investigation.
On May 3, 2010, ALJ Charneski denied respondent MVTec Software GmbH (“MVTec”) its motion for summary determination that each of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,016,539 and 7,065,262 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter in Inv. No. 337-TA-680, In the Matter of Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same. MVTec based its motion on the Federal Circuit In re Bilski decision, and the Commission Investigation Staff supported the motion. ALJ Charneski held summary determination was inappropriate in light of an undeveloped record and the impending Supreme Court decision regarding Bilski. (PDF)
On May 3, 2010, ALJ Charneski issued the public version of his March 24, 2010 order denying respondents Garmin Corporation and Garmin International, Inc. their motion to compel complainants Pioneer Corporation and Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. to submit supplemental responses and produce additional documents in Inv. No. 337-TA-694, In the Matter of Certain Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices and Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same. The Commission Investigation Staff supported the motion, but ALJ Charneski viewed the requests as exceeding the discovery provisions to establish domestic industry, holding Pioneers’ submissions concerning certain licensing negotiations to be sufficient. (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: