ITC Blog: ITC 337 Update

ALJ Rogers denied Respondent Realtek Semiconductor Corporation's ("Realtek") motion to file high priority objections and motion in limine out of time in Inv. No. 337-TA-749, Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, and Modules, and Components Thereof.  In Realtek's motion, Realtek states that its high priority objections and motion in limine were inadvertently delivered to the ITC mailroom rather than to docket services.  Realtek states that upon learning of the errant delivery they filed their high priority objections electronically via EDIS at 5:32pm, fifteen minutes late, and their motion in limine first thing the next morning.  Realtek argued that there was no prejudice to any party because the documents were all timely served via email.  Citing Court Rule 1.8, ALJ Rogers denied Realtek's motion finding that Realtek had not shown good cause for an extension.  ALJ Rogers reminded the parties that while he "understand[s] that there are many deadlines that the parties must meet as they prepare for hearing; [] it is poor practice to wait until the last minute to file documents and then seek relief when the documents are not properly filed or otherwise deficient."

• Print
• Share Link

Complainant Otter Products, LLC and Respondent Hardy Candy Cases LLC d/b/a/ Gumdrop LLC ("Hard Candy") filed a joint motion to terminate Respondent Hard Candy on the basis of a consent order in Inv. No. 337-TA-780, Certain Protective Cases and Components Thereof.  In the consent order stipulation filed with the parties' motion, Hard Candy stipulated and agreed that it would not import the protective cases and components thereof accused of infringement.

• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Gildea denied a joint motion to terminate the investigation as to Respondent Bensussen Deutsch & Associates, Inc. on the basis of a settlement agreement in Inv. No. 337-TA-773, Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices and Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing Same.  ALJ Gildea ruled that the parties failed to satisfy Rule 210.21(b)(1) by failing to attach a public version of the settlement agreement.  Due to this failure, ALJ Gildea denied, without prejudice, the parties' joint motion.

• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Rogers assigned to Inv. No. 337-TA-802, Certain Light Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same.

• Print
• Share Link

Technology Properties Limited LLC ("TPL") filed a Complaint concerning Certain Digital Photo Frames and Image Display Devices and Components Thereof, which asserts four patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,976,623, 7,162,549, 7,295,443, and 7,522,424).  TPL alleges a violation of Section 337 by proposed Respondents Action Electronics Co., Ltd., Taiwan; Aiptek International Inc., Taiwan; Aluratek Inc., Tustin, California; Audiovox Corporation, Happauge, New York; CEIVA Logic, Burbank, California; Circus World Displays Ltd., Canada; Coby Electronics Corporation, Lake Success, New York; Curtis International Ltd., Canada; Digital Spectrum Solutions Inc., Irvine, California; Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, New York; Mustek Systems, Inc., Taiwan; Nextar Inc., La Verne, California; Pandigital, Dublin, California; Royal Consumer Information Products Inc., Somerset, New Jersey; Sony Corporation, Japan; Transcend Information Inc., Taiwan; ViewSonic Corporation, Walnut, California; Win Accord Ltd., Taiwan; and WinAccord USA Inc., San Jose, California.

• Print
• Share Link

 In response to Order No. 11 in Inv. No. 337-TA-752, Certain Gaming and Entertainment Consoles, Related Software, and Components Thereof (“753 Investigation), Motorola filed a statement identifying the products it is accusing of infringement in the 752 Investigation.  Motorola’s statement identified, inter alia, all “versions and configurations of the Microsoft Xbox 360 console imported into the United States and/or sold after importation into the United States on or after December 17, 2010.  Motorola went on to also identify the Xbox 360 Wireless N Adapter and all wireless accessories.

• Print
• Share Link

 Ogma and Respondents LEGO A/S dba LEGO Group and LEGO Systems, Inc. (“LEGO”) filed a joint motion under Rule 210.21(a)(1) to terminate Investigation No. 337-TA-773, Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices and Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing Same (“773 Investigation”) as to LEGO based Ogma’s withdrawal of its complaint with respect to LEGO.  Ogma’s withdrawal of its complaint against LEGO is based on LEGO’s representations that it does not import the LEGO NXT Accelerometer Sensor into the United States.  Ogma had accused LEGO’s combination of its NXT Accelerometer Sensor with LEGO’s Mindstorm NXT 2.0 product of infringing the asserted patent.

• Print
• Share Link

• Print
• Share Link

The Commission determined not to review the ALJ's ID terminating Yongkang Boyu Auto Motor Company based on a consent order in Investigation No. 337-TA-755, Certain Starter Motors and Alternators.

• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Rogers granted-in-part Complaints' motion to strike untimely prior art contentions and related portions of expert reports in Investigation Nos. 337-TA-749 & 741, Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, and Modules, and Components Thereof ("749 Investigation").  In his order, ALJ Rogers found that the procedural schedule set the deadline for the notice of prior art as April 15, 2011.  The ALJ went on to find that there was no reason to strike references which were identified in Respondents' April 15 notice and for which Respondents had supplemented their responses to contention interrogatories within one month of the notice.  Such supplementation occurred before the close of fact discovery and was reasonable under the circumstances.

The ALJ, however, went on to find that three references were untimely identified.  Claim charts for these references were either provided for the first time with expert reports or provided more than than one month after the filing of the notice of prior art.  As a result, sections of the expert reports regarding those three references were stricken.

• Print
• Share Link

 Respondents RITEK Corporation and Advanced Media, Inc./RITEK USA (“Ritek”) filed a motion for termination based upon a consent order stipulation and proposed consent order in Investigation No. 337-TA-788, Certain Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) Portable Storage Devices, Including USB Flash Drives and Components Thereof (“788 Investigation”).  Notably, Ritek’s motion is not joined by the Complainants (Trek 2000 International Ltd., Trek Technology Pte. Ltd., and S-Com System Pte. Ltd.) who indicated it would “take a position after filing.”  In the proposed consent order and stipulation, Ritek agrees to immediately cease and desist from selling for importation, importing into the United States and/or selling in the United States after importation USB drives and components thereof, except for those USB drives and components thereof that are purchased and/or licensed from Complainants or their licensees.

• Print
• Share Link

Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge Bullock denied a motion to consolidateinvestigations filed by Respondents LG Electronics, Inc., LG Innotek Co., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Innotek U.S.A., Inc. (“LG") in Investigation No. 337-TA-785, Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (“785 Investigation”).   In their motion to consolidate the 785 Investigation with the earlier instituted 784 Investigation, LG argued that such consolidation would conserve resources, allow for efficient discovery, expert reports, motions and a single evidentiary hearing.  However, the motion was opposed by Complainant OSRAM GmbH and, while not opposed by Samsung, Samsung indicated that it “remained skeptical that a consolidated investigation -- which would result in an inordinately complex investigation involving a total of fourteen patents and more than 210 asserted claims -- would not work to their disadvantage.”  Acting Chief Administrative Judge Bullock, finding no compelling reason to combine the investigations, agreed with Samsung that consolidation would result in an complex investigation which would not simplify and expedite the Commission’s investigations. On the same day, August 23, 211, ALJ Essex denied LG’s companion motion to consolidate filed in the 784 Investigation. 

• Print
• Share Link

• Print
• Share Link

• Print
• Share Link

The International Trade Commission issued a notice today that it would not review the Initial Determination (ID) terminating Investigation No. 337-TA-736, Certain Wind and Solar-Powered Light Posts and Street Lamps (“736 Investigation").  The underlying ID, granted August 2, 2011, terminated the 736 Investigation on the basis of a settlement agreement.    

• Print
• Share Link

• Print
• Share Link

On August 8, 2011, the Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-797, Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software. The Complainant is Apple Inc. The Respondents are HTC Corp., HTC America, Inc., and Exedia, Inc. Apple’s complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain portable electronic devices and related software by reason of infringement of certain claims of US. Patent No. 7,844,915 ("the '915 patent"); US. Patent No. 7,469,381 ("the '381 patent"); US. Patent No. 7,084,859 ("the '859 patent"); US. Patent No. 7,920,129 ("the '129 patent"); and U.S. Patent No. 6,956,564 ("the '564 patent"). The Commission also issued notice that this Investigation has been assigned to ALJ Gildea.

• Print
• Share Link

On August 9, 2011, ALJ Essex issued an order granting a joint motion to amend the procedural schedule to amend certain dates to permit additional time for certain pre-hearing events and to facilitate the efficient completion of prehearing submissions. The amendments to the procedural schedule do not affect the dates for the pre-hearing conference or the hearing, which is scheduled to begin September 26, 2011. The Complainant in the Investigation is Apple Inc. The Respondent is Motorola Solutions Inc. (n/k/a/ Motorola Mobility, Inc.).

• Print
• Share Link

On August 8, 2011, ALJ Gildea issued an order setting the procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-773, Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices and Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing Same. This investigation was previously consolidated with Inv. No. 337-TA-787. The hearing is scheduled to begin on March 5, 2012, with the Initial Determination due on May 18, 2012 and a target date set for September 19, 2012. The Complainant in the Investigation is Ogma, LLC.

• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Rogers issued his Initial Determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-723, Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges With Printheads and Components Thereof. ALJ Rogers found that Respondents PTC Holdings Limited of Kowloon and Microjet Technology Co., Ltd. infringe the remaining five patents-in-suit. Respondent Asia Pacific Microsystems, Inc. was found not to infringe any of the patents-in-suit. ALJ Rogers found that a domestic industry exists for all patents and all patents had previously been found not invalid on summary determination. Respondent Microjet was found to be in default in a prior Initial Determination. ALJ Rogers recommended a general exclusion order and that bond be set at 100% of the entered value of the imported infringing goods.

• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Gildea granted a joint motion filed by Complainant Ogma, LLC and Respondents Sony Ericsson Mobil Communications (USA) Inc. and Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB (collectively “Sony Ericsson”) to terminate Investigation No. 337-TA-773, Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices and Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing Same, as to Sony Ericsson. The motion was filed because Sony Ericsson’s parent company executed a Membership and License Agreement with RPX, which is a licensee of the asserted patents. The Commission Investigation Staff supported the motion. The Investigation is still pending as to all other remaining respondents.

• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Rogers denied a Motion for Presumption of Infringement Under 35 U.S.C. § 295 filed by Eli Lilly & Company (“Lilly”) in Inv. No. 337-TA-766, Certain Gemcitabine and Products Containing the Same. ALJ Rogers rejected Respondents Jiangsu Hansoh Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Chemwerth, Inc. and Hospira, Inc.’s argument that § 295 is not applicable in the ITC, but nevertheless denied Lilly’s motion finding that it had not met the requirement that it follow all avenues of discovery likely to uncover Hansoh’s process before a presumption of infringement can be granted. The Court also denied Lilly’s motion to inspect Hansoh’s manufacturing facilities, but granted Lilly’s motion to compel forensic testing of Hansoh’s original batch records.

• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex set a sixteen month target date of October 30, 2012, with a final determination due by June 30, 2012 in Inv. No. 337-TA-780, Certain Protective Cases and Components Thereof. The hearing is set to begin on April 6, 2012.

• Print
• Share Link

Chief Administrative Law Judge Paul J. Luckern has announced he will retire. Chief Judge Luckern has served as an ALJ since 1984 and Chief ALJ since 2008, making him the longest-serving ALJ at the International Trade Commission, with deep technical knowledge as well as expertise in Section 337 investigations. ALJ Luckern has over the years provided strong administrative guidance and leadership at the ITC.  ALJ Bullock has been appointed Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge until a permanent replacement can be named.

• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Gildea set a target date of December 3, 2012 in Inv. No. 337-TA-794, Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers. The Initial Determination will issue no later than August 3, 2012. Complainants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC and Respondent Apple, Inc. are ordered to submit a proposed procedural schedule by September 7, 2011.

• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Rogers issued an Order setting a 17 month Target Date of December 31, 2012 in Inv. No. 337-TA-795, Certain Video Analytics Software, Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same. The Initial Determination is due on August 31, 2012. This investigation was instituted based on a Complaint filed by ObjectVideo, Inc. against Robert Bosch GmbH; Bosch Security Systems, Inc.; Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd.; Samsung Opto-Electronics America, Inc.; Sony Corporation, and Sony Electronics, Inc and involves 108 patent claims.

• Print
• Share Link

Litepanels, Ltd. and Litepanels Inc. (collectively “Litepanels”) filed a Complaint concerning Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof, which asserts five patents. Litepanels alleges a violation of Section 337 by proposed Respondents Flolight, LLC; Prompter People, Inc.; Ikan Corporation; Advanced Business Computer Services, LLC d/b/a Cool Lights USA; Elation Lighting, Inc.; Fotodiox Inc.; Fuzhou F&V Photographic Equipment Co., Ltd; Yuyao Lishuai Photo-Facility Co., Ltd.; Yuyao Fotodiox Photo Equipment Co., Ltd.; Shantou Nanguang Photographic Equipment, Ltd.; Visio Light, Inc.; Tianjin Wuqing Huanyu Film and TV Equipment Factory; Stellar Lighting Systems; Yuyao Lily Collection Co., Ltd.

• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Gildea issued a public version of his Initial Determination and Recommended Remedy in Inv. No. 337-TA-734, Certain Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software. The investigation arose out of a complaint filed by S3 Graphics Co. Ltd and S3 Graphics, Inc. (collectively “S3 Graphics”) against Apple Inc. S3 Graphics alleged that various Apple products infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,043,087 (“the ‘087 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,775,417 (“the ‘417 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,683,978 (“the ‘978 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 6,658,146 (“the ‘146 patent”).

ALJ Gildea found no violation of Section 337 with respect to the ‘087 patent or the ‘417 patent because, although Apple’s Mac OS X Devices directly infringe the asserted claims, those claims are obvious. Apple’s Mac OS X Devices were found to directly infringe asserted claims 11, 14, and 16 of the ‘978 patent, but a violation of Section 337 was found only with respect to claim 11, because claim 14 and 16 are invalid for obviousness. Similarly, Apple’s Mac OS X Devices were found to directly infringe asserted claims 4, 13, and 16 of the ‘146 patent, but a violation was found only with respect to claims 4 and 16 because claim 13 is obvious. Additionally, the Court held that an implied license and the doctrine of patent exhaustion apply to those Mac OS X Devices incorporating Nvidia GPU that are protected by an NVidia License. A domestic industry exists with respect to all patents-in-suit. ALJ Gildea found that none of the asserted claims of the four patents-in-suit are indirectly infringed or invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 112. In his remedy and bond determination, ALJ Gildea recommended a limited exclusion order, a cease and desist order and that Apple be required to post a bond.
 

• Print
• Share Link

On August 2, 2011, ALJ Gildea granted an unopposed motion filed by Complainants Duggal Dimensions LLC, Duggal Energy Solutions LLC, and Duggal Visual Solutions, Inc. (collectively “Duggal”) to terminate Inv. No. 337-TA-736, Certain Wind and Solar Powered Light Posts and Street Lamps, based on withdrawal of the Complaint. Duggal has entered into a settlement agreement with the other private parties: Respondents Gus Power Incorporated, Efstonscience Inc., King Luminair, Inc., and The Stresscrete Group.

• Print
• Share Link

On August 2, 2011 the Commission issued its Opinion on remedy and bond in Inv. No. 337-TA-567, Certain Foam Footwear. This Investigation was instituted in 2006 based on a Complaint filed by Crocs, Inc. Double Diamond, Holey Soles and Effervescent are the only remaining Respondents. The Federal Circuit previously reversed a finding of no violation of Section 337 by the Commission and remanded for consideration of enforceability. The presiding ALJ determined, and the Commission agreed, that the patents-at-issue are enforceable.

Now, in its determination of remedy and bond, the Commission held that a general exclusion order and cease and desist order are appropriate. Additionally, the Commission found that public interest factors do not preclude issuance of a general exclusion order or a cease and desist order. Finally, the Commission set the bond at $0.00 for Respondent Double Diamond’s covered products, at $0.01 per pair of shoes for Respondent Holey Soles’ covered products, at $0.05 per pair of shoes for Respondent Effervescent’s covered products and at 100% of the entered valued for all other covered products during the presidential review period.
 

• Print
• Share Link

On August 2, 2011 ALJ Bullock issued an order setting an eighteen month target date of January 21, 2013 for Inv. No. 337-TA-789, Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof. Complainant Vizio, Inc. and Respondents Corpus, Inc.; Westinghouse Digital, LLC; Mstar Semiconductor, Inc.; Coby Electronics, Corp.; Sceptre, Inc.; Renesas Electronics Corp.; Renesas Electronics America, Inc.; Curtis International Ltd.; and E&S International Enterprises Inc. are ordered to submit a proposed procedural schedule by August 8, 2011.

• Print
• Share Link

On August 2, 2011, ALJ Bullock issued an order setting the procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-781, Certain Microprocessors, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same. The hearing is scheduled to begin on May 14, 2012, with the Initial Determination due on October 5, 2012 and a target date set for February 7, 2013. The Complainant in the Investigation is X2Y Attenuators, LLC and the Respondents are Intel Corporation, Componentes Intel de Costa Rica S.A., Intel Malaysia Sdn. Bhd, Intel Products (Shanghai) Ltd., Intel Products (Chengdu) Ltd., Apple Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Company.

• Print
• Share Link