ITC Blog: ITC 337 Update

On November 28, 2011, ALJ Essex issued an order setting the procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-804, Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof. The hearing is scheduled to begin on June 18, 2012. The Complainants in the Investigation are Litepanels Inc. and Litepanels, Ltd., and the Respondents are Fotodiox, Inc.; Yuyao Fotodiox Photo Equipment, Co., Ltd.; Yuyao Lishuai Photo-Facility Co., Ltd.; Yuyao Lily Collection Co., Ltd.; Prompter People, Inc.; FloLight, LLC; Advanced Business Computer Services, LLC, d/b/a Cool Light USA; Ikan Corporation, Fuzhou F&V Photographic Equipment Co., Ltd.; Shantou Nanguang Photographic Equipment Co., Ltd.; and Elation Lighting, Inc.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex issued an initial determination granting complainant Otter Products, LLC’s request for an entry of default in Inv. No. 337-TA-780, Certain Protective Cases and Components Thereof, as to respondents Anbess Electronics Co. Ltd.; Guangzhou Evotech Industry Co., Ltd.; Hoffco Brands, Inc. d/b/a/ Celltronix; Hong Kong HJJ Co., Ltd; Sinatech Industrial Co., Ltd.; Suntel Global Investment Ltd.; Trait Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.; Papaya Holdings Ltd.; Quanyun Electronics Co., Ltd; Papaya Holdings Ltd.; Quanyun Electronics Co., Ltd.; Topter Technology Co. Ltd.; and Cellet Products. Except for Cellet Products, all of these respondents previously failed to file responses to the complaint and Notice of Investigation, and orders to show cause previously issued. Cellet Products filed a notice electing to default on October 14, 2011. The investigation remains pending as to other respondents.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex issued an initial determination granting respondent Pass & Seymour, Inc.’s motion to terminate Investigation No. 337-TA-776, Certain Lighting Control Devices Including Dimmer Switches and Parts Thereof (IV), based on consent order. The Commission Investigative Staff supported Pass & Seymour’s motion. Complainant Lutron Electronics Co., Inc., however, unsuccessfully opposed the motion raising four objections to the precise language of the consent order, all of which ALJ Essex rejected. The investigation remains pending as to other respondents.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On November 8, 2011, ALJ Essex issued an order terminating respondent Visio Light, Inc. from Investigation No. 337-TA-804, Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof, based on entry of a consent order. Complainants Litepanels, Inc. and Litepanels, Ltd. did not oppose the motion. The Commission Investigative Staff filed a responses in support of the motion. ALJ Essex issued an initial determination terminating the investigation as to Visio Light, Inc. The investigation remains pending as to other respondents.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued an order in Certain Gaming and Entertainment Consoles, Related Software, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-752, which extends all dates listed in the procedural schedule by thirty days.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On September 15, 2011, ALJ Theodore R. Essex set the procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-784, Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing the Same, based on the parties joint proposed procedural schedule. The evidentiary hearing is set for April 26 – May 2, 2012, the final initial determination is due on July 9, 2012, and the target date is November 9, 2012. The complainant is Osram GmbH and the respondents are LG Electronics, Inc.; LG Innotek Co., Ltd.; LG Electronics USA, Inc.; and Innotek USA. 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued an order on September 9, 2011 directing certain Respondents to show cause why they should not be found in default by the close of business on September 23, 2011, in Certain Protective Cases and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-780, . The order is directed at Respondents Anbess Electronics Co. Ltd., Guangzhou Evotech Industry Co., Ltd.,, Hoffco Brands, Inc. d/b/a Celltronix, Hong Kong HJJ Co., Ltd., Sinatech Industrial Co., Ltd., Suntel Global Investment Ltd., and Trait Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd, all of whom have failed to respond to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation as required by 19 C.F.R. § 210.13.  The order rejected a request that an order to show cause be issued to respondent ShenZhen Star & Way Trade Co., Ltd.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued an order setting the target date in Certain Flat Panel Display Devices, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-793. The Investigation sought by Complainants AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America against Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Best Buy Co. Inc. Brands Mart USA and AT&T, Inc. is set to conclude November 28, 2012.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On September 1, 2011, ALJ Essex issued an order setting November 19, 2012 as the target date in Certain Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) Portable Storage Devices, Including USB Flash Drives and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-788.  The complainants are Trek 2000 International, Ltd., Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. and S-Com System (S) Pte. Ltd.  The respondents are IronKey, Inc., Imation Corp., Advanced Media, Inc./Ritek USA, Ridtek USA, Verbatim Corp., Verbatim Americas LLC, Kingston Technology Co., Inc. and Patriot Memory, LLC.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

• Email This
• 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.).

• Email This
• 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.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Complainant Rambus Inc. ("Rambus") and respondent Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. ("Freescale") filed a joint motion on June 7, 2011 to terminate the investigation as to Respondent Freescale based on the parties having entered into a settlement agreement in Inv. No. 337-TA-753, Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same. In his Order granting the joint motion, ALJ Essex found that the motion complied with the requirements of Rules 210.21(b) and that there was no indication that termination of Freescale based on a settlement agreement would have an adverse impact on the public interest. Accordingly, ALJ Essex issued an initial determination terminating the investigation as to Freescale. The terms of the settlement agreement were largely redacted.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On June 9, 2011, the International Trade Commission agreed to institute Investigation Number 337-TA-776, regarding Certain Lighting Control Devices Including Dimmer Switches and Parts Thereof. The complainant Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. claims that respondents Pass & Seymour, Inc., AH Lighting, American Top Electric Corp., Big Deal Electric Corp., Diode LED, Elemental LED, LLC, Wenzhou Huir Electric Science & Technology Co. Ltd., Westgate Mfg., Inc., Zhejiang Lux Electric Co. Ltd., and Zhejiang Yuelong Mechanical & Electrical Co. Ltd. are violating section 337 by importing devices that infringe claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,248,919, and 5,637,930. The investigation has been assigned to ALJ Essex.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex issued an order setting a target date of July 9, 2012, with an initial determination due by March 9, 2012 in Inv. No. 337-TA-762, Certain Strollers and Players. The Complainant in this investigation is Graco Children’s Products, Inc. and the Respondent is Baby Trend, Inc.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 17, 2011, ALJ Essex adopted the joint proposed procedural schedule of the parties, setting a target date of June 28, 2012 for Certain Game Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-757. The complainant is Microsoft Corporation and the respondents include Datel Design & Development, Inc., Datel Design & Development Ltd., Datel Direct Ltd., Datel Holdings Ltd., and Datel Electronics Ltd.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On February 15, 2011, ALJ Essex issued an initial determination amending the Complaint and Notice of Investigation in Inv. No. 337-TA-753, Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same, following a joint motion from Complainant Rambus, Inc. and Respondent Motorola, Inc. to substitute Motorola Mobility, Inc. for Motorola Inc. on the grounds that Motorola Mobility, Inc. is the entity responsible for importing the accused products for sale.

ALJ Essex further issued an order setting the target date and date for submission of proposed procedural schedules in Inv. No. 337-TA-753. Under the Order, the parties must submit proposed procedural schedules by March 1, 2011. ALJ Essex proposed a date of October 11, 2011 for a pre-hearing conference, with the hearing to commence on October 12, 2011.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex granted summary determination for Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP) in Inv. No. 337-TA-691, In the Matter of Certain Inkjet Supplies and Components Thereof. HP moved for summary determination that a domestic industry existed and that there were violations of Section 337 by seven defaulting respondents, Mipo International Ltd., Mextec Group Inc. d/b/a Mipo America Ltd. (“Mextec”), Shanghai Angel Printer Supplies Co. Ltd., Shenzhen Print Media Co., Ltd., Zhuhai National Resources & JingJie Imaging Products Co., Ltd., Tatrix International, and Ourway Image Co., Ltd., (all collectively "Defaulting Respondents"). The investigation has been terminated as to all other respondents. ALJ Essex found that the Defaulting Respondents literally infringe claims 6 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,089,687 (“‘687 patent”) and claims 1, 5, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 6,264,301 (“‘301 patent”). ALJ Essex also held that HP satisfied the domestic industry requirement and recommended a general exclusion order, a cease and desist order against Mextec, and a bond of 100%. ALJ Essex also granted HP’s unopposed motion to terminate the investigation as to claims 7 and 10 of the ’687 patent and claims 2 and 3 of the ‘301 patent.  

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex granted complainant Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”)’s motion for default judgment against respondents Shanghai Angel Printer Supplies Co. Ltd., Zhuhai National Resources & JingJie Imaging Products Co. Ltd, Tatrix International, and Ourway Image Co., Ltd. in Inv. No. 337-TA-730, In the Matter of Certain Inkjet Supplies and Components Thereof. These respondents failed to respond to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation, submit discovery requests, or reply to the Order to Show Cause issued on December 8, 2010. The Commission investigative staff supported this motion. 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex set the target date and proposed procedural schedule for the investigation In the Matter of Certain Mobile Devices and Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-750.  In his order Essex set March 30, 2012 as the target date for this investigation.  Essex's order requests that the parties submit proposed procedural schedules based on this target date and indicates that the hearing in this investigation will begin Sept. 26, 2011.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex granted a motion filed by complainants Hewlett-Packard Co. and Hewlett-Packard Develpment Co., L.P. (collectively "HP") to terminate the investigation as to respondents Mipo International Ltd. and Shenzhen Print Media Co., Ltd. on the basis of withdrawing the allegations against those respondents in In the Matter of Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-730. 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex issued an initial determination granting BTG International ("BTG") and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively "Samsung") joint motion to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement in In the Matter of Certain MLC Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-683.  The specific terms of the settlement agreement were redacted from the public version of the initial determination.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex issued an initial determination granting Chimei Innolux Corp., Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Innolux Corp. (collectively "CMI") and Sony Corp., Sony Corp. America, Sony Electronics, Inc., and Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC (collectively "Sony") joint motion to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement in In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Interoperable with the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-737.  The specific terms of the settlement agreement were redacted from the public version of the initial determination.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On November 23, 2010, the Commission assigned Theodore R. Essex to Inv. No. 337-TA-750, In the Matter of Certain Mobile Devices and Related Software.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex issued an Initial Determination terminating Mextec d/b/a Mipo America Ltd. based on a settlement agreement in Inv. No. 337-TA-730, In the Matter of Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and Components Thereof.  Judge Essex's order granting the termination of Mipo found that there was "no indication that termination [of Mipo] . . . would have an adverse impact on the public interest."  The terms of the settlement agreement are confidential and the public version filed with the ITC is highly redacted.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex has issued an order setting the procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-730, Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and Components Thereof. The trial is set to begin on April 25, 2011 with the initial determination by August 5, 2011 and a target date of December 5, 2011.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On September 23, 2010, ALJ Essex issued an Initial Determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-719, Certain Lighting Products, granting a joint motion to terminate the investigation as to respondent Lights & More based on a settlement agreement and consent order. The complainant is Blumberg Industries, Inc. d/b/a Fine Art Lamps. Pursuant to the consent order, Lights and More agrees not to “import into the United States or sell in the United States after importation, or knowingly aid, abet, encourage, participate in or induce the sale for importation, importation into the United States or sale in the United States after importation of certain lighting products that infringe any of Fine Art Lamps’ United States Patent No. D570,038S; Copyright Registration Nos. VA 1-399-618 and VA 1-415-353; and U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 3,703,710; 3,703,711; 3,700,479; and 3,700,480.”

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On September 7, 2010, ALJ Essex issued an initial determination terminating eight respondents related to Top Victory Electronics Co. of Taiwan from 337-TA-713, Certain Display Devices Including Digital Televisions and Monitors, on the basis of a settlement agreement.  The ID, based on a motion filed August 24, finds that the settlement agreement between complainant Sony Corporation and the TPV parties will not have an adverse effect on the public interest.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex issued an Initial Determination today in Inv. No. 337-TA-688, Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof, granting complainant Paice LLC and respondents Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota North America and Toyota Motor Sales, Inc.'s joint motion to terminate . The parties filed the joint motion to terminate on the basis of a settlement agreement, and ALJ Essex determined that the settlement would be in the public interest.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex issued an order staying the procedural schedule following complainants' and respondents' joint motion to terminate Inv. No. 337-TA-688, Certain Hybrid Vehicles and Components Thereof, on the basis of a settlement agreement and stay the procedural schedule pending the Commission's final ruling on the settlement agreement.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex has set the procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-719, Certain Lighting Products.  The target date has been set for approximately October 3, 2011, and the date for the final initial determination is set for June 2, 2011.  The parties have been ordered to submit proposed procedural schedules by July 23.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky submitted a comment today in support of respondent Toyota Motor Corp. in Inv. No. 337-TA-688, Certain Hybrid Vehicles and Components Thereof. Sen. McConnell urged the Commission to give “full and fair consideration” to the submission made by Toyota in the investigation, as the complainant, Paice LLC of Bonita Springs, Florida, seeks to ban the import of Toyota hybrid vehicles and Toyota hybrid engines into the United States. Sen. McConnell echoed Toyota’s prediction of a “devastating impact on the production of its hybrid vehicles in Kentucky,” and urged the Commission to consider the serious impact an adverse ruling could have on thousands of Toyota workers in Kentucky. Sen. McConnell’s comments come in light of ALJ Essex’s June 23 Order denying Toyota’s renewed motion for summary determination on the basis of claim preclusion.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex issued an initial determination today granting a joint motion to terminate Inv. No. 337-TA-707, Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors and Products Containing Same, Including Memory Modules. Complainants Infineon Technologies AG and Infineon Technologies North America Corp., and Respondents Elpida Memory, Inc. (“Elpida”), Elpida Memory (USA) Inc., Rexchip Electronics Corporation, Kingston Technology Company, Kingston Technology (Shanghai) Co. Ltd., Kingston Technology Far East Co. Ltd., Kingston Technology Far East (M) Sdn. Bhd., Payton Technology Corp., Apacer Technology Inc., Apacer Memory America Inc., Corsair Memory, Corsair Memory (Taiwan), Mushkin Inc., Mushkin APAC, Transcend Information Inc., and Transcend USA filed a joint motion on June 18, 2010 to terminate the investigation on the basis of a settlement agreement. The agreement is between Infineon and Elpida, but while the remaining respondents are not party to the agreement, the motion requests that the investigation be terminated against those remaining respondents.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On June 18, 2010, Complainants Infineon Technologies AG and Infineon Technologies North America Corp. filed a Joint Motion to Terminate the Investigation Upon Settlement Agreement with all remaining respondents, in Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors and Products Containing Same Including Memory Modules, Inv. No. 337-TA-707. The parties seek to have ALJ Essex terminate the investigation based upon the confidential Patent Cross-License Agreement and Patent Assignment Agreement submitted confidentially.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Hewlett-Packard Co. ("HP") filed a motion for partial termination based on the withdrawal of claims 7 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,089,687 (" '687 Patent") and claims 2 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,264,301 (" '301 Patent") in Inv. No. 337-TA-691, Certain InkJet Ink Supplies and Components Thereof. On March 7, 2010 HP filed a motion for summary determination that a domestic industry exists and that there have been violations of Section 337 by seven defaulting respondents. The Commission Investigative Staff's response concluded that the motion should be granted with respect to claims 6 and 7 of the '687 Patent and claims 1, 5, and 6 of the '301 Patent. The Staff, however, concluded that HP's motion should be denied as to claims 7 and 10 of the '687 Patent and claims 2 and 3 of the '301 Patent. Today's motion seeks to remove those claims from the Investigation.

Unopposed Motion to Terminate Investigation as to Certain Claims (.PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex denied Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc.'s ("Toyota") Motion for Leave to File an Application for Interlocutory Review of the Court's Order finding that Complainant Paice LLC's claims were not barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion in Inv. No. 337-TA-688, Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof. The ALJ's previous order held that the doctrine of claim preclusion did not apply because Paice was unable to seek an exclusion order as a form of relief in the previous district court proceedings. ALJ Essex rejected Toyota's policy argument questioning "whether a patentee that fails to secure an injunction in district court should automatically be permitted to try to secure that same relief at the ITC of the same claim." The Court, instead, held that Toyota's characterization of the Court's Order "improperly . . .broadened the scope of the decision." The Court further found that given the established procedural schedule, the grant of an interlocutory appeal would, in all likelihood, not materially advance the ultimate completion of the investigation.

Order Denying Motion (.PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex denied Sony’s request for approval of a request for international judicial assistance in obtaining evidence from Taiwanese third parties. Sony argued that the Commission and the ALJ have authority to issue letters rogatory under the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory. ALJ Essex held that, while the Commission and the ALJs may have referred to themselves as tribunals in the past, the Commission is not a “tribunal” as defined by the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory. It was further determined to be unclear whether Taiwan was a party to that Convention. Lastly, APJ Essex held that Sony had failed to show that traditional means of discovery (interrogatories, requests for production, subpoenas, etc.) were insufficient to obtained the requested discovery. International judicial assistance is appropriate only after exhausting traditional means of discovery.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex has filed an initial determination granting Complainant Hewlett-Packard's motion to terminate Inv. No. 337-TA-691, Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and Components Thereof, with repsect to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,959,985 and 7,104,630.

ID Terminating Investigation As To Two Patents (.PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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.

ID Terminating Investigation (.PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Chief ALJ Luckern issued notice assigned ALJ Essex to Inv. No. 337-TA-719, Certain Lighting Products. (PDF 052710-3).

Notice of Assignment (.PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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. 

Joint Motion to Stay Procedural Schedule (.PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex extended the target date by three months in 337-TA-688, Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof. The ALJ found good cause due to the Commission’s April 2 reversal of his initial determination on claim preclusion. The new target date is February 9, 2011, with a final initial determination due on October 8, 2010.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 29, 2010, ALJ Essex issued the public version of his March 12, 2010 initial determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-669, In the Matter of Certain Optoelectronic Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same. ALJ Essex determined that a violation of section 337 occurred in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain optoelectronic devices, components thereof and products containing the same that infringe one or more of claims 1, 2, 3 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,359,447. ALJ Essex determined that no violation of section 337 occurred with respect to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 5,359,447 and claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 5,761,229. ALJ Essex issued his recommended determination that a limited exclusion order be issued for accused products that infringe claims 1, 2, and 3 of the ‘447 paten and that the Commission may also issue a cease and desist letter against respondent Emcor Corporation and a bond set at 3%, the reasonable royalty rate of the entered value of the accused products during the Presidential review period. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 25, 2010, ALJ Essex issued an order setting the ground rules in Inv. No. 337-TA-707, In the Matter of Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors and Products Containing the Same Including Memory Modules. ALJ Essex also set April 15, 2010 as the deadline to submit a discovery statement and April 28, 2010 as the date for a preliminary conference. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex issued the public version of his March 3, 2010 initial determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-688, In the Matter of Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components, granting complainant Paice LLC’s motion for summary determination of infringement, validity and unenforceability of U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970, finding that the ‘970 patent is valid and enforceable and that the accused products of respondents Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North America, and Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc. literally meet each and every limitation of claims 11 and 39 of the ‘970 patent. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 15, 2010 ALJ Essex issued an initial determination terminating respondent Inkplustoner.com in Inv. No. 337-TA-691, In the Matter of Certain Inkjet Supplies and Components Thereof, following a motion filed by complainant Hewlett-Packard Company to terminate the investigation as to respondent on the basis of a settlement agreement.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 15, 2010 ALJ Essex issued an Initial Determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-669, In the Matter of Certain Optoelectronic Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, that a violation of section 337 occurred in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain optoelectronic devices, components thereof and products containing the same infringe one or more of claims 1, 2, 3 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,359,447. ALJ Essex found that no violation of section 337 occurred with respect to claim 6 of the ‘447 patent and one of more of claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 5,761,229.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 11, 2010, the Commission issued the public version of its February 12, 2010 notice of its final determination affirming the presiding ALJ Essex’s finding that no violation of section 337 occurred in the importation into the United States, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain refrigerators and components thereof by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,082,130. The Commission reversed the ALJ’s finding of non-infringement, finding that the accused side-by-side models of respondent LG infringe claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 9 of the ‘130 patent. The Commission affirms the remainder of the ALJ Essex’s findings, including that the accused products do not infringe claim 8 of the ‘130 patent, that claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9 of the ‘130 patent are invalid for obviousness, and that a domestic industry exists. The investigation is Inv. No. 337-TA-632, In the Matter of Certain Refrigerators.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 1, 2010, ALJ Essex issued an order setting the procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-697, In the Matter of Certain Authentication Systems, Including Software and Handheld Electronic Devices. ALJ Essex denied Respondent Research in Motion’s request for a Markman hearing, finding that while there were several asserted claims in the litigation, the claims were limited to a single patent and specification and parties could adequately address claim construction issues in pre-hearing and post-hearing briefs and at the evidentiary hearing. ALJ Essex determined that a technology tutorial would be beneficial, however, and set June 3, 2010, as the date for the tutorial. ALJ Essex also set April 5, 2011 as the target date for completion of the investigation.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On February 26, 2010 ALJ Essex issued his initial determination, terminating Inv. No. 337-TA-702, In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal Display Modules and Products Containing the Same, and Methods for Making the Same following complainant Sharp Corporation’s motion to terminate on the basis of a settlement agreement reached with respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On February 24, 2010 the Commission issued its opinion affirming ALJ Essex’s determination that respondents Acer, Incorporated, Nanya Technology Corporation, Powerchip Semiconductor Corporation and others, did not violate section 337 in connection with claims 1-4, 9, 10 and 33-35 of U.S. Patent No. 5,663,106, claims 17 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 5,679,977 and claims 1-4, 9-12, 15 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,133,627. The investigation is Inv. No. 337-TA-630, Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On February 18, 2010 ALJ Essex issued his Initial Determination granting Respondent Zhuhai Gree Magneto-Electric Ltd.’s motion to terminate Inv. No. 337-TA-691, In the Matter of Certain Inkjet Supplies and Components Thereof.  Respondent filed a motion to terminate following its entry of a Consent Order, stating that Zhuhai “will not directly or indirectly import into the United States, sell for importation into the United States, or sell within the United States after importation any inkjet supplies or components thereof” that infringe claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,959,985, 7,104,630, 6,089,687 and 6,264,301 of Complainant Hewlett-Packard Company.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex issued an intial determination that Investigation No. 337-TA-691, Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and Components Thereof, be terminated based on entry of a consent order against respondent Zhuhai Gree Magneto-Electric Co., Ltd.  Zhuhai agreed not to import or sell within the U.S. any ink supplies or components that infringe the patents at issue in the investigation.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex issued an initial determination in Investigation No. 337-TA-691 that the investigation be terminated with respect to respondents Comptree Inc. d/b/a/ Merithine, ABC Ink, EZ Label, and CDR DVDR Media based on a settlement between the parties.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex set a target date of April 5, 2011 for Investigation No. 337-TA-697, Certain Authentication Systems, Including Software and Handheld Electronic Devices.  The final determination should be filed no later than December 3, 2010.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex issued correspondence to all counsel of record, explaining that:

[T]he issue of public interest is not one where there is an actual "burden" per se on any party. It is, instead, a factor that the Commission is specifically required to take into consideration. As such, if there is such a thing as "burden" as it relates to public interest, it falls on both Complainant and Respondents to present evidence as to how public interest is impacted by the issuance of an exclusion order.

Inv. No. 337-TA-688, In the Matter of Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof. 

 (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex issued an order setting an Amended Procedural Schedule 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

ALJ Essex issued Ground Rules in Inv. No. 337-TA-697, In the Matter of Certain Authentication Systems, Including Software and Handheld Electronic Devices.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex entered a procedural schedule, taking into account the target dates proposed by the complainant and the Commission Investigative Staff that set a target date of approximately sixteen months for Inv. No. 337-TA-691, In the Matter of Certain Inkjet Supplies and Components Thereof. ALJ Essex also ordered the parties to submit their proposed procedural schedules by December 7, 2009. ALJ Essex set a target date of approximately 16 months, February 28, 2011 and stated that any final determination should be filed no later than October 29, 2010. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On November 20, 2009 ALJ Essex set forth the joint proposed procedural schedule agreed upon by complainant Paice LLC and respondents Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North America, and Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., in Inv. No. 337-TA-688, In the Matter of Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof. ALJ Essex set July 9, 2010 as the date for initial determination and November 9, 2010 as the target date for completion of the investigation. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On November 4, 2009 ALJ Essex issued the public version of his October 9, 2009 initial determination following a remand ordered by the Commission in Inv. No. 337-TA-632, In the Matter of Certain Refrigerators and Compnents Thereof. ALJ Essex found that the new claims construction ordered specifically by the Commission did not effect his analysis of whether complainant Whirlpool had met the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement in his original Initial Determination, made on February 26, 2009. ALJ Essex made the conclusion of law, among others, that a domestic industry exists, as required by section 337. The respondents were LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc. and LG Electronics Monterrey. (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 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)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex found two respondents to be in default pursuant to 19 CFR §§ 210.16(a)(1) and 210.17 in Inv. No. 337-TA-630, In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same. ALJ Essex found that two respondents (TwinMOS Technologies Inc. and TwinMOS Technologies USA Inc.) had failed to show that they should not be found in default for failure to respond to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation. TwinMOS’s only response was a letter stating that TwinMOS is a “memory module house” and “not in a position to involve in the patent litigation matters or to be liable to the charge.” Both companies filed to participate in the investigation in its entirety and as a result ALJ Essex entered an initial determination of default for these two companies.(PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex issued an initial determination on violation of section 337 and a recommended determination on remedy and bonding in Inv. No. 337-TA-630, In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same. ALJ Essex held that no violation of section 337 has occurred. The products at issue do not literally infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,679,977 and 6,133,627, nor do they infringe under the doctrine of equivalents U.S. Pat. No. 5,663,106. The ALJ also found that all three patents were not invalid for anticipation, obviousness, or indefiniteness and that a domestic industry exists. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex set the procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-669, In the Matter of Certain Optoelectronic Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On August 10, 2009, ALJ Essex extended the target date by one month and moved the hearing dates back by approximately one month in Inv. No. 337-TA-669, In the Matter of Certain Optoelectronic Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same. ALJ Essex attributed the extension to a busy docket. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On July 24, 2009, ALJ Essex issued an Initial Determination Staying Investigation No. 337-TA-677 pending the completion of a Federal Circuit Appeal. ALJ Essex issued the stay pursuant to his authority under Commission Rule 210.15(a)(1) and considered the five factors set forth in Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-605, Comm’n Op. at 3, 2008 ITC LEXIS 888 at *4 (May 27, 2008). 

In its Notice of institution, the Commission acknowledged that the asserted patent was involved in reexam proceedings at the USPTO and was the subject of a Federal Circuit Appeal. In the Notice the Commission affirmatively stated that it was not making a determination whether a stay was warranted at that time and further stated that the presiding ALJ may want to make that determination at the outset of the investigation. Respondent Desire2Learn Inc. (D2L) filed for the stay on June 12, 2009, and Complainant Blackboard, Inc. opposed the motion.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On July 20, 2009, ALJ Essex issued the public version of his July 17, 2009, Recommended Determination granting in part complainants Magotteaux International S/A and Magotteaux, Inc.’s (collectively “Magotteaux”) motion for attorney’s fees and sanctions in Inv. No. 337-TA-644, In the Matter of Certain Composite Wear Components and Proucts Containing the Same. The ALJ awarded Magotteaux its attorney’s fees caused by the failure of respondents Vega Industries and AIA Engineering Limited to comply with the ALJ’s order compelling discovery.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link