ALJ Rogers Denies Motion for Temporary Relief in Inv. No. 337-TA-777
On August 31, 2011, ALJ Rogers issued a confidential initial determination denying temporary relief in Inv. No. 337-TA-777, Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms and Components Thereof. A public version of the opinion, just recently became available.
Examining the four factors used in analyzing whether temporary relief will be granted, ALJ Rogers denied Complainants’ motion. In assessing likelihood of success on the merits, ALJ Rogers construed certain claim terms and determined that respondents failed to raise substantial questions of invalidity. ALJ Rogers held that but that respondents raised a substantial question concerning infringement regarding claims 1 and 11 and accordingly that complainants failed to meet their burden on these claims. However, ALJ Rogers found that complainants did show a likelihood of success on the merits regarding infringement of claim 10 and on both the technical and economic prongs of the domestic industry requirement. Assessing the other three factors, ALJ Rogers further held that complaints failed to demonstrate the irreparable harm necessary for temporary relief; that the balancing of the hardships did not weigh for or against the granting of temporary relief; and that there was no critical public interest that would be injured if complainants were awarded temporary relief.
Inv. No. 337-TA-777 was filed by Complainants Thompson/Center Arms Company, Inc. and Smith & Wesson, Corp. in June 2011. Concurrently with the complaint, Thompson/Center Arms Company, Inc. and Smith & Wesson, Corp filed a motion for temporary relief directed to respondents Traditional Sporting Goods, Inc. d/b/a/ Traditions Sporting Firearms and Ardesa S.A. d/b/a Ardesa Firearms regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,814,694 (“the ’694 patent”).
