ITC Blog: ITC 337 Update

On October 17, the Commission issued a notice extending the target date in Inv. No. 337-TA-720, Certain Biometric Scanning Devices, Components Thereof, Associated Software, and Products Containing the Same, by one week to October 24, 2011.  No reason was given, although the Commission noted that it had determined to review former Chief ALJ Luckern's initial determination finding a violation of claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,203,344 and that it had received briefing from the parties on this issue.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On October 11, 2011, the Federal Circuit, by a 2-1 majority in TianRui Group Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2010-1395, affirmed the Commission’s ruling in Inv. No. 337-TA-655, In the Matter of Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same. The Complainant in the investigation was Amsted Industries Incorporated, and the Respondents were Standard Car Truck Company, Barber TianRui Railway Supply LLC, TianRui Group Company Limited, and TianRui Group Foundry Company Limited. The Commission determined that Respondents violated Section 337 by virtue of misappropriating certain trade secrets relating to the manufacturing of cast steel railway wheels (“the ABC process”) and issued a limited exclusion order barring the importation of any unlicensed cast steel railway wheels manufactured by or on behalf of Respondents using those trade secrets.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit first addressed what particular law should be used to determine whether there has been a Section 337 violation in investigations involving an allegation of trade secrets misappropriation. In the context of determining what constitutes a misappropriation of trade secrets sufficient to establish an “unfair method of competition” under Section 337, the panel held that “the issue is one of federal law, and should be decided under a uniform federal standard,” rather than by reference to the trade secrets or tort law of one particular state. While the panel found that the presiding ALJ erred by relying upon Illinois trade secrets law, it nonetheless found that the ALJ’s choice of law was a harmless error because Respondents’ actions would also have constituted misappropriation under the generally understood law of trade secrets, as reflected in the Restatement of Unfair Competition and the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

The trade secret misappropriation in this case involved allegations of a Chinese company poaching several employees from another Chinese competitor who were knowledgeable about Amsted’s ABC process and who were under an obligation not to disclose that secret process. The panel majority rejected Respondents’ argument that Section 337 was inapposite under these circumstances because Amsted’s alleged confidential information was only disclosed entirely within China. The majority found that the presumption against the extraterritorial application of U.S. law did not apply to Section 337 because the statute is clearly intended to address an inherently international transaction, i.e., importation. The majority also found that the Commission had not applied Section 337 to sanction purely extraterritorial conduct because “the foreign ‘unfair’ activity at issue is relevant only to the extent that it results in the importation of goods into this country causing domestic injury.”

The majority also rejected Respondents’ alternative grounds for appeal, which contended that in trade secrets cases, the domestic industry must practice the misappropriated trade secret in order for the Commission to be authorized to grant relief. Unlike the domestic industry requirement for Section 337 investigations based on statutory intellectual property rights (such as patents, copyrights, and registered trademarks), the majority opinion held that the general provision in the statute relating to “unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation of articles” (19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(A)) requires that the unfair practices threaten to “destroy or substantially injure” a domestic industry, but does not require that the domestic industry relate to the intellectual property involved in the investigation. Accordingly, even though the Complainant no longer practiced the ABC process that Respondents were found to misappropriate, the majority concluded that the Commission did not err in defining the domestic industry in this case because the evidence established that the imported wheels could directly compete with the wheels domestically produced by the trade secret owner.

The majority opinion was authored by Judge Bryson and joined by Judge Schall. Judge Moore filed a dissent citing Supreme Court precedent and maintaining that Section 337 cannot apply where as here the alleged trade secret misappropriation took place entirely in China. The dissent noted that “United States trade secret law simply does not extend to acts occurring entirely in China,” and therefore disagreed with the majority’s holding that “[t]he act of importation opens the door to scrutiny of all business practices of the importer associated with the goods including those conducted entirely within China.” The dissent explained that “there is nothing inherently unfair about the importation of the wheels in this case (the appropriate inquiry under § 337) as opposed to their manufacture abroad (which is outside the scope of the plain language of the statute).” The dissent contrasted the provision in the statute relating to “unfair acts” with a separate provision in the statute relating infringement of a process patent abroad. Unlike the process patent provision of Section 337 (19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B)(ii)), the dissent found that the generic provision in the statute upon which a trade secret misappropriation claim could be based was not a clear indication by Congress to authorize the extraterritorial application of U.S. law.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On October 4, 2011, a divided Federal Circuit panel issued an opinion that affirmed the Commission’s ruling in Inv. No. 337-TA-650, Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same, that Complainant John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC, Inc. (“PPC”) had failed to satisfy the “domestic industry” requirement. The panel majority ruled that it was appropriate for the Commission to conclude that the expenses PPC incurred in litigating the patent at issue did not rise to the level of a “substantial investment in exploitation” needed to satisfy the domestic industry requirement.

Section 337 prohibits the importation of articles that infringe valid and enforceable U.S. patents only if a domestic industry of products practicing the asserted patents “exists or is in the process of being established” in the United States. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2). PPC could have satisfied this “domestic industry” requirement by demonstrating “(A) significant investment in plant and equipment; (B) significant employment of labor or capital; or (C) substantial investment in [the asserted patents’] exploitation, including engineer, research and development, or licensing.” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3).

Because PPC had only licensed the asserted patent—a design patent—it was forced to rely on the third alternative. PPC had granted only one license for the design patent. That license was the result of a settlement agreement that ended years of litigation between PPC and two other parties.

The Federal Circuit Court agreed with the Commission that “expenditures on patent litigation do not automatically constitute evidence of the existence of an industry in the United States established by substantial investment in the exploitation of a patent.” (emphasis added). Indeed, the Commission had ruled the converse would lower the bar for satisfying the domestic industry requirement to such an extent as to effectively render it meaningless. Furthermore, the Court held that, in light of the evidence presented, the Commission properly found that the expenses that PPC had spent during the litigation on the negotiation and drafting of the licensing agreement were not “substantial.”

The dissent, penned by Judge Reyna, argued that the case should be remanded to the Commission to determine if PPC’s research and development expenses were a substantial investment in the patent’s exploitation, and whether PPC’s infringement litigation costs combined with those expenses were sufficient to establish a domestic industry. Characterizing the litigation expense issue as one of first impression, the dissent argued that an industry pattern of refusing to license patents and moving production between businesses overseas suggested there was at least an argument that litigation was necessary in order to obtain a license. Under these conditions, the Commission’s refusal to examine whether PPC’s litigation expenses should be considered for the purposes of establishing a domestic industry was an unduly narrow reading of Section 337.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On September 21, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review an initial determination granting Respondent BDT Solutions' motion for summary determination that no violation of section 337 occurred in Inv. No. 337-TA-746, Certain Automated Media Library Devices, due to lack of importation. The complainant is Overland Storage, Inc. of San Diego, CA.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On September 21, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review an initial determination terminating Inv. No. 337-TA-773, Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effect Devices and Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing Same, as to Respondents Optoma Corporation and Optoma Technology, Inc. based upon a settlement agreement. The complainant is Ogma, LLC.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On September 21, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review an initial determination extending the target date in Inv. No. 337-TA-721, Certain Portable Electronic Devices, and Related Software. The target date for completion of the investigation was extended by one month from January 17, 2012 to February 17, 2012.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On September 19, the Commission issued notice of its initial determination not to review an August 25, 2011 initial determination granting a joint motion by Complainant and Respondents to terminate in its entirety Inv. No. 337-TA-765, Certain Display Devices Including Digital Televisions and Monitors II. The complainant was Sony Corp. of Japan, and the respondents were LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics USA.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On September 19, the Commission issued notice of its initial determination not to review an August 31, 2011 initial determination granting a motion by Complainant Vizio, Inc. to terminate Inv. No. 337-TA-789, Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof, as to Respondent E & S International Enterprises, Inc. on the basis of a settlement agreement.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On September 15, 2011, the Commission determined to broadly review most of ALJ Charneski’s findings of violations, no violations, and validity in Inv. No. 337-TA-710, Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software. The complainant is Apple, Inc. of California, et al., and the respondents are HTC Corp. of Taiwan, et al. and Exedia, Inc. of Texas. ALJ Charneski's initial determination found violations of Section 337 as to two of the four patents-in-suit, no violation as to the other two patents, and that all four patents are valid. The Commission determined to review the claim constructions for terms in each of the four patents, as well as the finding of violation for two of the patents, the finding of no violation for two of the patents, the findings on domestic industry for three of the patents, and the findings of validity as to all four patents.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On September 13, 2011, in Inv. No. 337-TA-650, the Commission issued a general exclusion order following a remand from the Federal Circuit in John Mezzalingua Associates v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8806 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 28, 2011).  The Federal Circuit's opinion reversed the Commission’s prior finding of no violation due to no domestic industry. The complainant is John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc., the respondents are GEM Electronics and Fu Ching Technical Industry Co., Ltd., and the technology at issue is coaxial cable connectors.  The general exclusion order prohibits the entry of unlicensed coaxial cable connectors that infringe claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Pat. No. 5,470,257.

• Email This
• 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.

• Email This
• 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.    

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

• Email This
• 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.

• Email This
• 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.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On July 22, the full Commission reversed ALJ Charneski's finding that the Complainant’s portfolio licensing program satisfied the domestic industry requirement, and offered new guidance on the proof necessary to satisfying the requirement based on licensing, in Inv. No. 337-TA-694, Certain Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices and System Components Thereof and Products Containing Same.

On review of ALJ Charneski’s initial determination that the Complainant’s portfolio licensing program satisfied the domestic industry requirement of 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(C), the Commission noted that the statute requires proof of investment in the exploitation of the asserted patent, which involves establishing a nexus between the investments and the asserted patent. Second, the statute requires that the investment relate to licensing. Third, any investment must occur in the U.S. The Commission noted several factors relevant to whether there is a nexus between any investments and the asserted patents, including whether:
• any licensing activities were focused on the asserted patent,
• the licensee's efforts relate to an article protected by the asserted patent,
• the asserted patent has relative importance in the licensed portfolio,
• the asserted patent was discussed during the license negotiation process,
• the asserted patent was successfully litigated,
• the asserted patent relates to a standard,
• the asserted patent is a base or pioneering patent,
• the asserted patent was infringed or practiced in the U.S., or
• the asserted patent has been recognized by the market in some way.
 

The Commission further noted that any nexus may be stronger where the licensed portfolio includes fewer patents, has a narrow scope of technology compared to the asserted patent, and the patents in the portfolio are all related. The Commission explicitly rejected allocating licensing investments equally among patents in a portfolio, however; any nexus must be established on a case-by-case basis.
 

The Commission next adopted a flexible approach to determining if, once the three requirements had been shown, investments were “substantial” -- if a showing on any one requirement is weak, the complainant may overcome that weakness by demonstrating a large magnitude of activities/expenses relative to its size. Among the evidence that may also be offered by complainants in support of the “substantiality” requirement is (1) existence of other types of exploitation (research, development, and engineering); (2) existence of ancillary licensing activities (auditing licensees, training licensees), (3) whether licensing activities are continuing; and (4) whether licensing activities are referenced favorably in the legislative history of section 337(a)(3)(C).
 

With respect to the 694 Investigation, the Commission found that any nexus between licensing investments and the asserted patents was weak because the complainant’s portfolio included hundreds of patents, its licensing efforts were directed towards the entire portfolio, many of the patents were not U.S. patents, and there was no evidence of how the asserted patents fit together congruently with the other patents in the portfolio. The Commission also held that legal invoices that appeared to relate to the asserted patents were not solely an investment in licensing and significantly reduced the amount of investments claimed. As to whether there were "substantial investments," the Commission found that the complainant was a large international company with significant resources, and did not have any engineering, development, or research activities, or any "exploitation" or license-related ancillary activities, in the U.S. The Commission also gave complainant’s licensing activities less weight because those activities "on the whole, reflect a revenue-driven licensing model targeting existing production rather than the industry-creating, production-driven licensing activity that Congress meant to encourage." Given the relatively weak nexus and the lack of "substantial" investment, the Commission held that the complainant had not established a domestic industry.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On July 18, 2011, the Commission determined not to review ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr.’s final initial determination finding no violation of Section 337 in Certain Digital Imaging Devices and Related Software, 337-TA-717.  The complainant was Apple, Inc. of California, and the respondent was Eastman Kodak Company of New York.  The ALJ had found, in part, that Kodak did not infringe either of the two patents-in-suit.  Apple had petitioned the Commission to review the ALJ’s findings with respect to one of the patents-in-suit.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On July 15, the Commission issued its final determination finding a violation of Section 337 and issuing a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders in Inv. No. 337-TA-567, Certain Foam Footwear.  The complainant is Crocs, Inc.  The Commission determined the appropriate form of relief to be (1) a general exclusion order prohibiting unlicensed entry of foam footwear that infringes the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,858 or the claimed design of U.S. Patent D517,789 and (2) cease and desist orders preventing Respondents Double Diamond, Effervescent, and Holey Soles from marketing, advertising, distributing, and offering for sale foam footwear that infringe any of the asserted claims of the '858 patent or the '789 patent.  The Commission determined to set a bond of $0.00 for Double Diamond's products, $0.05 per pair of shoes for Effervescent's covered products as well as a bond of 100% of the entered value of these products to permit temporary importation during the Presidential Review period.  

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Rogers issued an order denying the motion of Respondents Funai Corporation and Funai Electric Co. Ltd. for a stay of proceedings in Inv. No. 337-TA-786, Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets and Products Containing Same, Including Televisions, pending resolution of whether this investigation is precluded in whole or in part based on the previously-litigation Inv. No. 337-TA-709.  ALJ Rogers also set August 15, 2011 as the date for the pre-hearing conference in this Investigation.  The complainant is Freescale Semiconductor. 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission issued an order granting Complainants Funai Electric Co. Ltd. and Funai Corporation Inc. and Respondents TPV Technology, Ltd. , TPV International (USA) Inc., Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co. Ltd. and Envision Peripherals' joint motion for rescission of the limited exclusion order and cease and desist order issued as to Respondents in Inv. No. 337-TA-617, Certain Digital Television Products and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same. 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission issued notice of its determination not to review ALJ Charneski's initial determination granting Complainant Lexmark International's motion for summary determination of violation of section 337 and requesting issuance of a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders against 23 defaulting respondents, including Nectron International, Inc., Ninestar Image Co., Ziprint Image Corporation and Quality Cartridges, Inc.  The investigation is Inv. No. 337-TA-740, Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof. 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission issued notice of its determination not to review ALJ Rogers' initial determination terminating Inv. No. 337-TA-735, Certain Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, on the basis of a settlement agreement between Complainant Spansion LLC and Respondents Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung International, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, Apple Computer, and others.  The Commission terminated the investigation.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission issued notice of its determination not to review ALJ Bullock's initial determination granting a joint motion by complainant Apple, Inc. and Respondent Nokia Corporation to terminate in its entirety Inv. No. 337-TA-704, Certain Mobile Communications and Computer Devices and Components Thereof.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Gildea issued an Order in Inv. No. 337-TA-736, Certain Wind and Solar Powered Light Posts and Street Lamps requiring the parties to prepare for trial despite a prior order suspending the investigation.  On May 20, the parties had submitted an unopposed joint motion to suspend the procedural schedule, claiming that the parties had reached an agreement that would resolve the issues in the Investigation.  ALJ Gildea granted the parties' motion.  As trial approached, the parties informed ALJ Gildea that they would not be be in a position to advise the ALJ whether settlement had been finalized until August 12, 2011.  ALJ Gildea ordered resumption of the procedural schedule, finding this delay "unacceptable," and noting that the Commission Rules require parties to "make every effort" to avoid delay.  ALJ Gildea set July 26, 2011 as the deadline for pre-hearing submission and set August 9, 2011 as the hearing date. 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission granted a joint motion filed by complainants Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively “Nokia”) and respondent Apple Inc. (“Apple”) to terminate Inv. No. 337-TA-701, Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, and Computers, on the basis of a settlement agreement. On March 25, 2011 the ALJ issued a final ID finding no violation of section 337 by Apple. On May 26, 2011 the Commission determined to review the ID in part. Thereafter, Nokia and Apple filed their joint motion to terminate, which was supported by the Commission investigative attorney. The Commission’s decision terminates this investigation in its entirety.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On July 7, 2011, the Commission granted a consent motion filed by complainant, Samsung Electronics Co. (“Samsung”) in Inv. No. 337-TA-685, Certain Flash Memory and Products Containing Same, to terminate the investigation in its entirety on the basis of settlement. The only respondents remaining in the investigation were Spansion LLC, Spansion Inc. (collectively “Spansion”), and D-Link. The ALJ had previously issued a final ID finding a violation of Section 337 by respondents. Respondents and Commission Staff separately requested review of the ALJ’s determination and the Commission issued notice of its determination to review on May 5, 2011.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On June 30, 2011, the Commission gave notice of its determination to affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand in part, the final ID of the presiding ALJ’s finding of no violation of Section 337 existed in Inv. No. 337-TA-703, Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras and Components Thereof. The Commission decided to modify certain of the ALJ’s claim constructions. The Commission remanded the question of infringement of the claim limitations in view of some of the modified constructions. While on remand, the Commission stated that it believed it to be appropriate to provide the ALJ and respondents the opportunity to revisit invalidity.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On June 24, 2011, the Commission gave notice of its determination that no violation of Section 337 existed in Inv. No. 337-TA-694, Certain Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices and Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, and terminated the investigation. The Commission provided notice that it determined to affirm, on modified grounds, the final ID issued by the ALJ on December 16, 2010, finding no violation of section 337. With regard to the first asserted patent, the Commission reversed the ALJ’s finding of no infringement. With regard to the second asserted patent, the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s finding of no infringement but reversed his finding that the patent was not invalid under section 112, first paragraph. In addition, with regard to both patents, the Commission reversed the ALJ’s finding that Complainant had established a licensing-based domestic industry.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission determined to extend the target date for its review an Initial Determination finding no violation of Section 337 in Inv. No. 337-TA-703, Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof. On January 24, 2011, the ALJ issued a final Initial Determination finding that there was no violation of Section 337 by Respondents Apple, Inc., Research in Motion, Ltd., and Research in Motion Corp. All parties filed petitions for review, and on March 25, 2011 the Commission determined to review the ID in its entirety. Pursuant to Rule 210.51, the commission extended the target date for its review by one week to June 30, 2011.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission extended the target date in Inv. No. 337-TA-685, Certain Flash Memory and Products Containing Same. The Commission's order extending the target date by one month to July 28, 2011 was the result of a consent motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on a settlement agreement filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("Samsung"). The only remaining participating respondents in this investigation were Spansion, LLC, Spansion, Inc. ("Spansion"), D-Link Corp. and D-Link Systems Inc. ("D-Link").

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission determined not to review an Initial Determination to partially terminate the investigation by S3G's withdrawal of its allegations that Apple infringes claims 2, 8, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,658,146; claims 1, 8, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,417; and claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,043,087 in Inv. No. 337-TA-724, Certain Electronics Devices with Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software. On March 11, 2011, S3G's filed an initial motion to partially terminate the investigation. This motion was denied by the ALJ because S3G failed to identify certain agreements between the parties as required by Rule 210.21(a). S3G filed a renewed unopposed motion and in their renewed motion S3G identified four stipulated agreements. This renewed motion was granted by the ALJ. The Commission determined not to review the ALJ's grant of partial termination.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission declined review today of ALJ Bullock's May 17 initial determination finding Respondents Norcross Electric Supply Co., Inc. in default, in Inv. No. 337-TA-739, Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter and Products Containing Same.  No party petitioned for review of the initial determination, which found that Norcross had refused to make or cooperate in discovery.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On May 25, ALJ Gildea issued the public version of his May 11 order denying Respondent Gas Power Inc.'s motion for summary determination that U.S. Patent D610,732S is invalid because it did not name the correct inventors. In denying the motion, ALJ Gildea cited testimony '732 inventors, which created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they contributed to the invention. ALJ Gildea's May 25 order also denied Respondents' motion for sanctions against Complainants Duggal Dimensions LLC et al. for seeking to enforce the '732 patent while allegedly knowing the patent to be invalid. In denying that motion, ALJ Gildea found that Complainants had an objectively reasonable basis to rely upon the validity of the '732 patent. The investigation is 337-TA-736, Certain Wind and Solar Powered Light Posts and Street Lamps.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On April 22, the Commission issued a final determination of no violation in Inv. No. 337-TA-692, Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same, and terminated the investigation.  The Commission's final determination resulted from a February 23 determination to review ALJ Gildea's December 22, 2009 initial determination finding no violation of Section 337 by Respondents Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics, Inc. with respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,266,229.  The Commission did not review the ALJ's determination that there was no violation of the remaining two patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,014,309 and 6,243,254.

In its final determination, the Commission reversed the ALJ's finding that the '229 patent was not obvious over the asserted prior art, and found that the applicant admitted prior art did constitute prior art against the '229 patent.  A public version of the Commission's determination will be published shortly.  

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 31, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the initial determinations finding Respondents W.E. Aubuchon Co. and Contractor Lighting & Supply, Inc. in default for failure to response to an order compelling discovery and failure to otherwise participate in Inv. No. 337-TA-739, Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing Same.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 28, the Commission issued notice of its decision not to review the initial determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-714, Certain Electronic Devices with Multi-Touch Enabled Touchpad and Touchscreens, granting Complainant's motion to terminate the investigation as to claims 4, 12, 14, 18, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 5,825,352.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 25, 2011, the Commission gave notice that it will review ALJ Paul J. Luckern’s January 24th final initial determination of no violation in Inv. No. 337-TA-703, Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof. The ALJ had found that none of the accused Apple and RIM products infringes claim 15 of U.S. Pat. No. 6,292,218, and that claim 15 is invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The complainant is Eastman Kodak Company of New York. The Commission determined to review the final ID in its entirety, and requested further briefing by the parties regarding five discrete issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The International Trade Commission issued an opinion on February 10, 2011 temporarily rescinding the limited exclusion order and cease and desist order against AIA from Investigation No. 337-TA-644 in light of a U.S. District Court decision finding the sole patent covered invalid.  The Commission stated that it will either reinstate the orders or make the rescission permanent based on the outcome of the appeal of the district court’s decision.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On January 28, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued an order establishing the construction of disputed claim terms of the patents at issue in Inv. No. 337-TA-721, Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software. The complainant is HTC Corp and the respondent is Apple Inc., a/k/a Apple Computer, Inc

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On January 25, 2011, the Commission reversed ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr.’s final initial determination finding that respondent Oki Data Corp. and Oki Data Americas violated Section 337 by reason of infringing U.S. Pat. No. 5,863,690, in Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof. The complainant was Ricoh Company, Ltd., et al. Specifically, the Commission reversed the ALJ’s finding that Ricoh satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement as to the ‘690 patent. Furthermore, the Commission reversed the ALJ’s finding that certain claims of the ‘690 patent are not anticipated by prior art.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Luckern granted respondents Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic of North America, Victor Company of Japan Limited, JVC America Corp., Best Buy Purchasing, LLC, BestBuy.com, LLC, and Best Buy Stores, L.P., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp., Buy.com Inc., QVC, Inc. Crutchfield Corporation, and Computer Nerds International, Inc. motion finding non-infringement of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,199,306 (‘306 patent). The commission investigative staff supported this motion. ALJ Luckern held that under the correct construction of “thickness,” there can be no literal infringement of claim 1 of the '306 patent and that complainant Freescale Semiconductor’s criticisms of the prior art printed circuit boards that were thinner than 0.35 mm during prosecution amounted to a legal disclaimer of a scope of equivalents encompassing those prior art PCBs. Accordingly, ALJ Luckern found that there can be no infringement of claim 1 of the '306 patent under the doctrine of equivalents because the Panasonic accused products fall within the scope of the disclaimer. 

• 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

On January 14, 2011, ALJ Gildea released the public version of two orders dated January 4, 2011 denying motions for summary determination filed by respondent in Inv. No. 337-TA-712, Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof. In the first motion, respondent alleged that a single claim of an asserted patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by a prior U.S. patent. The complainant and staff attorney opposed the motion. The dispute centered on the scope of the allegedly novel step of "transforming the data processing network information from the network format … to a television format" and which components perform that step. ALJ Gildea, confirming that he would not construe claims prior to the hearing on the merits, found that genuine material issues of disputed fact prevented a finding of summary determination.

In the second motion, respondent sought a summary determination that complainants failed to satisfy the importation requirement of section 337 and failed to tie any importation to alleged acts of infringement. Regarding importation, respondent argued that it contracted with a third-party for the manufacture and importation of the accused product, and thus it does not import the products. Regarding nexus, respondent argued that there can be no nexus because infringement requires end-use, and, according to respond, no evidence of use had been submitted. Complainant and the staff attorney opposed the motion. The ALJ found that genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute such that a trial on the merits is warranted.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Respondents General Protecht Group, Inc. ("Protecht") and Wenzhou Trimone Science & Technology Electric Co., Ltd. ("Trimone") filed a petition with the Commission to rescind in part the limited exclusion order in In the Matter of Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-615.  Protecht and Trimone's request is in response to the Federal Circuit decision in GPG v. ITC, 619 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 27, 2010), reh'g denied, (Fed. Cir. Dec. 14, 2010), mandate issued (Fed. Cir. Dec. 21, 2010) reversing the ITC's finding of infringement.  

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission determined not to review an initial determination terminating TENGA Co., Ltd. and One Up Innovations, Inc. based on a consent order in In the Matter of Certain Devices Having Elastomeric Gel and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-732.  No party filed a petition for review of the initial determination.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission determined not to review an initial determination that the importation requirement was satisfied in In the Matter of Certain Digital Imaging Devices and Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-717.  No party filed a petition for review of the initial determination.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The commission decided not to review the ALJ determination to consolidate Investigation Nos. 337-TA-741 with 337-TA-749.  The ALJ consolidated the two investigations because they involved the same complainants and, according to the ALJ, had significant issues in common.  The target date for the 337-TA-741 investigation is extended to March 29, 2012 to coincide with the target date for completion of the 337-TA-749 investigation.  None of the parties petitioned for review of the ALJ's initial determination.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On December 27, 2010, the Commission declined review of ALJ Luckern's initial determination terminating certain patent claims from Inv. No. 337-TA-720, Certain Biometric Scanning Devices, Components Thereof, Associated Software, and Products Containing the Same.  The seventeen patent claims were terminated at the request of the complainant, Cross Match Technologies, Inc.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On December 22, 2010, ALJ Carl Charneski issued the public version of his Order denying respondents Spansion, LLC and Spansion, Inc.’s motion for summary determination that the asserted claims of U.S. Pat. No. 5,740,065 are not infringed or, in the alternative, invalid for indefiniteness. Inv. No. 337-TA-685, Certain Flash Memory and Products Containing Same. In support of his decision, the ALJ cited conflicting testimony between the parties’ experts. The complainant is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On December 22, 2010, ALJ Carl Charneski issued the public versions of two initial determinations granting summary determination that the Alpine and D-Link downstream respondents have met the importation requirement in Inv. No. 337-TA-685, Certain Flash Memory and Products Containing Same. In each, the ALJ noted that the two downstream respondents do not dispute that the Commission has jurisdiction over certain products that contain an accused chip and that have been imported into the United States, and therefore that there is no real dispute in substance. The complainant is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On December 21, 2010, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion affirming the Commission’s May 20, 2009 final determination of direct and contributory infringement of U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,852,326 and 6,433,419, respectively, in Inv. No. 337-TA-605, Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same. Spansion, Inc., et al. v. International Trade Commission, 2009-1460, -1461, -1462, -1465 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 21, 2010). The complainant was Tessera, Inc., and the affected respondents are Spansion, Inc., Spansion, LLC, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., ATI Technologies, ULC, STMicroelectronics N.V., and QUALCOMM, Inc. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the Commission’s determination that the asserted claims are not indefinite.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On December 21, 2010, the Commission determined to modify a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders issued in Inv. No. 337-TA-617, Certain Digital Television Products and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same, following the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Vizio, Inc. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, 605 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The complainant is Funai Electric Co., Ltd., and the affected respondents are TPV International, Inc. and Envision Peripherals, Inc. With respect to those respondents, the Federal Circuit had reversed certain Commission findings of infringement by so-called “work-around” products and ordered the Commission to take action consistent with that opinion. The Commission thus modified the previously-issued limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders according.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On December 16, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review an initial determination granting the motion to terminate Inv. No. 337-TA-718, In the Matter of Electronic Towel Dispensing Devices and Components Thereof, as to respondents Draco Hygienic Products, Vida International, Inc., New Choice (HK) Ltd., Kruger Products LP, and KTG USA LP, based on consent order stipulations.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On December 13, the Commission issued notice of the issuance of a limited exclusion order against infringing products of respondent Ataudes Aguilares S. de R.L. de C.V. of Guadelajara, Mexico. The Commission had previously found respondent to be in default in Investigation No. 337-TA-725, In the Matter of Certain Caskets.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On December 1, 2010, ALJ Gildea issued the public version of his Initial determination Granting Nokia’s Motion for Summary Determination that it has Satisfied the Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry Requirement in Inv. No. 337-TA-701, Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, and Computers. ALJ Gildea ruled that no genuine issues of material fact precluded summary determination that complainant satisfied economic prong of the domestic industry requirement through substantial investment in its exploitation, including engineering, research and development or licensing.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On November 23, 2010, ALJ Gildea issued an Order construing many claim terms in six asserted patents in Inv. No. 337-TA-701, In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, and Computers.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

In Enforcement Proceedings in Inv. No. 337-TA-617, ALJ Charneski issued an Order granting an Unopposed Motion of the Funai Complainants to terminate the proceedings based upon the conditional withdrawal of the complaint.  Funai’s motion to terminate, stated in part, “the private parties have met and conferred and Funai has agreed to submit a letter to Customs to clarify that importation of TPV-made DTVs with the Redesigned Chipsets that were the subject of this Enforcement Proceeding is not covered by the Limited Exclusion Order issued in the original investigation.”

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On November 22, 2010, the Commission issued a Notice of its intent to review a portion of the final initial determination issued by the ALJ finding a violation of section 337 in Inv. No. 337-TA-690, In the Matter of Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission determined to review the final Initial Determination and set a procedural schedule for briefing on the issues under review as well as for briefing on remedy, public interest and bonding in Inv. No. 337-TA-687, In the Matter of Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same.  The Commission determined to review the Initial Determination ("ID") in part, including: (1) the ID's finding that the record evidence shows, clearly and convincingly, that claims 4, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 5,537,612 are invalid as anticipated or obvious; and (2) the ID's findings and conclusions with respect to independent claim 5 of the 7,154,564 patent, in particular whether the record evidence shows that claim 5 is infringed. The Commission also requested written submissions regarding the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered, whether the public interest factors support a remedy, and the amount of any bond to be imposed.  All written submissions should be received no later than December 3, 2010 and reply submissions should be received no later than December 10, 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The U.S. International Trade Commission determined not to review an Initial Determination terminating MIPO Science & Technology Co., Ltd. and MIPO Technology Limited based on a consent order in Inv. No. 337-TA-723, In the Matter of Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges with Printheads and Components Thereof. 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Charneski entered a summary determination order denying Spansion, Inc. and Spansion LLC's ("Spansion") motion of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,740,065 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶¶ 1 and 2 in Inv. No. 337-TA-685, In the Matter of Certain Flash Memory and Products Containing Same.  In denying Spansion's motion, the ALJ found that the Section 112 issues raised "cannot be resolved without the benefit of a hearing record, particularly expert testimony."  Thus, ALJ Charneski held that Spansion's motion was premature and denied the motion on that basis.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission Opinion modifies ALJ Charneski's final initial determination ("ID") and finding of no violoation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337) exists in Inv. No. 337-TA-680, In the Matter of Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems and Products Containing Same. On July 16, 2010, the ALJ issued his final ID finding no violation of section 337 by the remaining respondents MVTec Software GmbH; MVTec LLCTech; Omron Corporation; Resolution Technology, Inc.; Visics Corp.; Daiichi Jitsugyo Viswill Co., Ltd.; and Daiichi Jitsugyo (America), Inc.  The ALJ concluded that each accused product did not infringe any asserted claim of the '539 or '262 patents. Also, the ALJ found that claims 1, 12, 13, 28, and 29 of the '262 patent are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Further, the ALJ found that all asserted claims of both patents are invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter.

The Commission Opinion modifies-in-part the final ID but affirms the ALJ's ruling that the '539 and '262 patents fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter pursuant to § 101 because they do not satisfy the "machine-or-transformation" test.  The Commission Opinion sets aside the the part of teh final ID finding that claims 1, 12, 13, 28, and 29 of the '262 patent are invalid as anticipated.  All other findings in the ID were affirmed by the Commission.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Charneski issued an order denying Spansion Inc. and Spansion LLC's motion for summary determination of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,740,065 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Inv. No. 337-TA-385, In the Matter of Certain Flash Memory and Products Containing Same.  Spansion's motion, which argued that the '065 Patent covered unpatentable subject matter, was opposed by both the Complainat Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("Samsung") and the Staff.  In denying the motion ALJ Charneski held that "[w]hile there may be no disputed issues of material fact . . . Samsung and the Staff offer a more compelling argument for as to why summary determination is not appropriate."

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The U.S. International Trade Commission determined not to review the initial determination terminating the investigation as to the remaining respondents based on a consent order in Inv. No. 337-TA-722, In the Matter of Certain Automotive Vehicles and Designs Thereof. The consent order was entered into by the Complainant Chrysler Group LLC and Respondents Xingyue Group Co .. Ltd., Shanghai Xingyue Power Machinery Co., Ltd ., Shanghai Xingyue USA, Inc., Zhejiang Xingyue Vehicle Co. Ltd., and Crossville BNRV Sales, LLC, LLC d/b/a/ Boat-N-RV Supercenter. No party to the investigation petitioned for review of the initiatil determination. Remedy issues as to the defaulting respondents (Vehicles Online and Shanghai Tandem) remain to be resolved by the ALJ.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission granted a motion for termination of Inv. No. 337-TA-698, Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same, filed by complainant Richtek and consented to by respondent VisionTek Products LLC per a consent order stipulation. In the Consent Order, VisionTek agreed not to import into the United States, sell for importation into the United States, or sell or offer for sale after importation any DC-DC controllers or products containing the same that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,315,190; 6,414,470; or 7,132,717, or induce any of the above importation activities. Entry of the Consent Order constitutes a determination of a violation of section 337 by respondent VisionTek.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Federal Circuit reversed the Commission’s determination of violation under section 337 and vacated the corresponding exclusion orders and cease-and-desist orders today in its opinion Lucky Litter LLC v. ITC. As Inv. No. 337-TA-625, Certain Self-Cleaning Litter Boxes And Components Thereof, the Commission had previously ruled in favor of complainants Applica Consumer Products, Inc. and Waters Research Company, that respondents Lucky Litter LLC and OurPet’s Company’s self-cleaning letter boxes violated section 337.

At issue in the case is U.S. Patent No. RE 36,847 (‘847 patent). The Commission held that the respondent’s product infringed claim 33 of the ‘847 patent. The Federal Circuit held that the Commission erred in construing claim 33 to include a “cat exit,” which was contrary to the plain meaning of the claim. The court further held that when properly construed without this limitation, Claim 33 would have been obvious. Intervenor Applica proffered additional grounds to uphold the exclusion order, which the court rejected as without merit.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On September 24, 2010, in Inv. No. 337-TA-686, Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire, the Commission determined to affirm ALJ Rogers’s determination of no infringement of the asserted claims, but to review and take no position on certain claim construction, priority date, and validity issues. The complainant was Lincoln Electric Company of Ohio and the remaining respondents were The ESAB Group, Inc. of Italy and Sidergas SpA of Italy.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission has determined not to review an initial determination terminating Investigation No. 337-TA-698, Certain DC-DC Controllers And Products Containing Same.  The subject ID was granted by Chief ALJ Luckern on August 17, 2010, based on a settlement agreement between complainants Richtek Technology Corporation and Richtek U.S.A., Inc. and the final remaining respondent, VisionTek Products LLC.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission has issued a general exclusion order in 337-TA-678, Certain Energy Drink Products.  After settlement agreements were reached and the investigation terminated as to four respondents on January 20, 2010, the remaining respondents defaulted, and complainants Red Bull GmbH and Red Bull North America sought summary determination and a general exclusion order. The Commission's ruling prohibits the unlicensed entry into the U.S. of energy drink products that infringe Trademark Registration Nos. 3,092,197; 2,946,045; 2,994,429; 3,479,607; Copyright Registration No. VA0001410959; or any marks or designs that are confusingly similar or misleading as to source or origin.  The Commission also terminated the investigation.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On August 30, 2010, the en banc Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the ITC in Inv. No. 337-TA-474 (Princo Corp, et al. v. International Trade Commission, et al., Fed. Cir. 2007-1386). The opinion dealt with the doctrine of patent misuse, and the Court sustained the decision of the ITC that the doctrine does not bar the intervenor, U.S. Philips Corporation, from enforcing its patent rights against appellants Princo Corp. and Princo America Corp.  Judge Bryson authored the Opinion, in which Chief Judge Rader and Judges Newman, Lourie, Linn, and Moore joined. Judge Dyk authored a dissent in which Judge Gajarsa joined.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On August 27, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion on the appeal from Inv. No. 337-TA-615, General Protecht Corp. v. ITC.  The Court affirmed certain portions of the Commission's decisions and disagreed with others.  The Commission determined that  that Respondents General Protecht Corp., Wenzhou Trimone Science and Technology Electric Co. Ltd., and Shanghai ELE Mfg. Corp.'s importation into the United States, sale for importation or sale within the United States of certain ground fault circuit interrupters (GFCIs) violated section 337.  According to the Commission, devices manufactured by the Respondents infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7,283,340; 5,594,398 and 7,164,564 and a limited exclusion order was an appropriate remedy.

The Federal Circuit determined that the Commission erred in three respects: (1) General Protecht Group's 2003 and 2004 GFCIs and ELE's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '340 Patent, because they do not have a "detection circuit" as claimed in the patent; (2) Trimone's 2006 GFCIs and ELE's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '340 patent, because the "load terminals" of the patent do not include receptacle outlets; and (3) General Protecht Group's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '398 patent because General Protecht Group performs the function of the "latching means" in a different way than described in the patent.  The Court remanded for further proceedings in these three areas, but affirmed the Commission's determination in all other respects.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On August 27, 2010 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the holding of the International Trade Commission in Inv. No. 337-TA-615, that certain accused products produced by Respondents General Protecht Group, Wenzhou Trimone Science and Technology Electric Co. Ltd. and Shanghai ELE Manufacturing Corporation do not infringe the asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 5,594,398 and 7,212,386, held by Complainant Pass & Seymour, Inc.

For the '398 patent, Pass & Seymour appealed the Commission's construction of claim terms "mounting means for said conducting member to permit movement thereof between a first position wherein said pair of contacts are in respective circuit making engagement with said pair of terminals and a second position, wherein both of said pair of contacts are in spaced, circuit breaking relation to said pair of terminals."  The Court agreed with the Commission that this claim requires that each of the contacts moves from its first position into a spaced, circuit breaking relationship with respect to each of the respective terminations, and affirmed the Commission's finding that the accused products did not meet this claim requirement.  The Court further agreed with the Commission that General Protecht Group's 2003 devices do not include "a unitary electronically conducting member" and thus do not infringe the '398 patent.

For the '386 patent, Pass & Seymour challenged the Commission's finding that the claim at issue required that the claimed circuit interrupter had to be configured to trip in response to the actuator signal in the reset state, arguing that instead the claim at issue does not require that the accused device be configured to provide a wiring state detection signal in both the tripped and reset states. The Court adopted the Commission's construction of the term, rejecting Pass & Seymour's arguments and finding that the plain language of the claim at issue and the intrinsic evidence in the record provided support for the Commission.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

In Inv. No. 337-TA-701, Certain Electronic Products, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, and Computers, ALJ Charneski issued an order denying complainants Nokia Corp. and Nokia Inc.'s motion seeking an order requiring respondent Apple, Inc. to show cause why it should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with orders relating to Apple's production of source code files and other documentation relating to Nokia's infringement claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,073,036.  ALJ Charneski found that Nokia failed to show that sanctions were warranted, due to its failure to show which request for production addressed the unproduced items. 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Bullock issued two orders denying summary determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-704, Certain Mobile Communication Devices and Components Thereof.  ALJ Bullock denied complainant Nokia's motion for summary determination that respondent Apple, Inc. had failed to satisfy the domestic industry requirement for U.S. Patent No. 5,920,726.  ALJ Bullock also denied respondent Apple Inc.'s motion for summary determination that Nokia is not licensed to practice U.S. Patent Nos. 5,379,431, 5,455,599, or 6,424,354 because genuine issues of material fact remained in the investigation.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On August 25, ALJ Charneski issued an order setting September 8, 2010 as the date for a prehearing conference in Inv. No. 337-TA-602, Certain GPS Devices and Products Containing Same.  The complainant is Global Locate, Inc.; the respondents are SIRF Technology, Inc., E-Ten Corporation, Pharos Science & Applications, Inc., Mitac International Corporation, and Mio Technology Limited, USA

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Chief ALJ Luckern issued an order setting a 16-month target date of December 4, 2011 for completion of Inv. No. 337-TA-732, Certain Elastomeric Gel and Components Thereof. Complainant Interactive Life Forms requested a 16-month target date, while respondents California Exotic Novelties, Inc., Nanma Mfg. Co., Tenga Co. Ltd. and WES Consulting argued for an earlier target date given the related nature of the two asserted patents. Chief ALJ Luckern further ordered the parties to submit revised procedural schedules.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission issued a notice that it has determined not to review a July 29, 2010 initial determination by Chief ALJ Luckern granting a joint motion to terminate two respondents in Inv. No. 337-TA-698, Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same.  The joint motion to terminate respondents Micro-Star International Co., Ltd (Taiwan) and MSI Computer Corp. (City of Industry) was based on a settlement agreement with complainants Richtek Technology Corp. (Taiwan) and Richtek USA, Inc.  The Commission investigative attorney did not oppose the motion.  No petitions for review of the ID were filed.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Rogers issued an order denying respondent Microjet Technology Co.’s motion for termination and entry of a consent order in Inv. No. 337-TA-723, Certain Inkjet Cartridges with Printheads and Components Thereof.  ALJ Rogers denied the motion because Microjet’s consent order stipulation did not include the statements required by Commission Rule 210.21(c) and failed to comply with multiple procedural requirements for filing motions with the Commission

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission has issued its public opinion supporting its finding of no violation of Section 337 in Inv. No. 337-TA-670, Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof.  The complainant in the case was Humanscale Corp., and the respondents were CompX International and Waterloo Furniture Components Ltd.  On February 23, 2010, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding that the complainants’ “Wedge-Brake” products did not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,292,097, but that their “Brake-Shoe” products did infringe the asserted claims.  The ALJ further found certain asserted claims invalid.  On June 23, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its decision to reverse the ALJ’s finding and terminate the investigation with a finding of no violation due to no infringement and invalidity.  The Commission determined that the “Brake-Shoe” products did not infringe under its construction of “frictionally interengagable.”  The Commission affirmed that claim 7 was invalid and further found that claim 34 was invalid as obvious.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission has issued an opinion affirming ALJ Essex’s finding that a section 337 violation occurred, and provided further findings on invalidity, in Inv. No. 337-TA-661, Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers And Products Containing Same. As described in our July 26, 2010 entry, ALJ Essex found that the respondents violated Section 337 by infringing three of the five remaining patents asserted by complainant Rambus, Inc. (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,405; 6,591,353; 7,287,109; 7,117,998; and 7,210,016). The Commission reviewed four issues: the obviousness and anticipation rulings on the '016 and '998 patents; the obviousness-type double patenting ruling on the '405, '353 and '109 patents; the obviousness analysis of the '405, '353 and '109 patents; and the issue of patent exhaustion. The Commission's ruling upholds ALJ Essex's January 22, 2010 initial determination that Rambus Inc.’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,117,998 and 7,210,016 are invalid, and additionally finds that the respondents failed to demonstrate the invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,405, 6,591,353 and 7,287,109. The Commission also determined that Respondents' arguments regarding patent exhaustion failed because there was no showing that the relevant sales of memory controllers occurred in the United States.

On remedy, the Commission rejected Rambus' request for a general exclusion order, finding instead that a limited exclusion order was sufficient.  The Commission also issued a cease and desist order against Respondents NVIDIA, Hewlett-Packard, ASUS Computer International, Palit Multimedia, MSI Computer Corp., Microstar International, EVGA Corp., DiabloTek, Inc., Biostar Microtech and BFG Technologies, following the ALJ's determination on this issue. Finally, the Commission declined to issue a stay of the limited exclusion order and cease and desist order pending reexamination of the asserted patents, and entered a bond of 2.65 percent of the value of the accused products.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

In an opinion dated August 3, 2010, the Commission has determined not to modify the existing limited exclusion order, or impose a bond against respondent Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc. (AATI), in Inv. No. 337-TA-564, Certain Voltage Regulators, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same. ALJ Charmeski in an Initial Determination dated March 18, 2010 found that AATI's redesigned product still infringed complainant Linear Technology Corp.'s patent. Upon review, the Commission found that AATI did not act in disregard of the Limited Exclusion Order and that AATI does not maintain a commercially significant domestic inventory of accused products. Because of these facts, the Commission decided not to issue a cease-and-desist order and imposed no bond because the parties agreed that the existing limited exclusion order should remain in place.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission has issued a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order against the respondents in Inv. No. 337-TA-661, Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers And Products Containing Same.  On January 22, 2010, ALJ Essex found that the respondents violated Section 337 by infringing three of the five remaining patents asserted by complainant Rambus, Inc. (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,405; 6,591,353; 7,287,109; 7,117,998; and 7,210,016).  The Commission determined to review three issues: the obviousness and anticipation rulings on the '016 and '998 patents; the obviousness-type double patenting ruling on the '405, '353 and '109 patents; and the obviousness analysis of the '405, '353 and '109 patents.  The Commission later asked for briefing on the issue of patent exhaustion.  After review, the ALJ's ruling of a violation by infringement of the '405, '353, and '109 patents was affirmed. 

Commission has issued a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order against the respondents, and set bond at 2.65% of the value of the products entering the country during the 60-day Presidential review period.  The opinion itself is still unavailable to the public. 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission has followed ALJ Essex's initial determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-669, Certain Optoelectronic Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing The Same, and issued a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order against respondent Emcore Corporation's accused products.  The Commission's opinion follows a May 13 decision by the Commission not to review the ALJ Essex's initial determination finding a Section 337 violation due to infringement of claims 1-3 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,359,447 by Emcore.  Bond during the 60-day Presidential review period has been set at 3% of the value of the products entering the US during the period.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On July 22, the Commission issued notice of its decision to review an initial determination on claim construction issued by Chief ALJ Luckern in Inv. No. 337-TA-703, Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof.  The ID to be reviewed was issued on June 22,and the public version became available on July 14.  The Commission has requested briefing on whether there is legal authority for treating claim construction as a matter for summary determination, and whether the claim construction ruling is properly issued as an initial determination.  The notice offers the following hypothetical:

"As used in Rule 210.18(a), the term "issues to be determined in the investigation" can be viewed as limited to claims and affirmative defenses; a "part" of such an issue includes an element (or subpart thereof) of a claim or affirmative defense.  Thus, the following could be a non-exhaustive list of examples of issues or parts thereof that are covered by rule 210.18(a): violation, importation, infringement, domestic industry (technical or economic prong), invalidity on any basis (such as anticipation or obviousness), unenforceability.  Claim construction may be a necessary underpinning to the resolution of certain claims or elements, and may be part of a summary determination that addresses an issue or element.  On its own, however, claim construction might not be viewed as constituting such an issue or element."

The parties have been directed to file initial submissions by August 5, and reply submissions by August 16.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission issued a notice today declining review of an initial determination terminating Inv. No. 337-TA-707, Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors and Products Containing Same, Including Memory Modules as to the remaining respondents (Elpida Memory, Inc., 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) on the basis of a settlement agreement between the respondents and complainants Infineon Technologies AG and Infineon Technologies North America Corp.  The initial determination on which the decision was based was issued by ALJ Essex on June 29, 2010.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission has issued notice of its determination not to review an initial determination terminating Inv. No. 337-TA-706, Certain Wireless Communications System Server Software, Wireless Handheld Devices and Battery Packs on the basis of a settlement agreement reached between complainant Motorola, Inc. and respondents Research In Motion Ltd. and Research In Motion Corporation.  The parties filed a joint motion on June 17, 2010 to terminate the investigation, and the ALJ issued an initial determination granting the motion to terminate on June 29.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission issued notice today of its final determination that no violation of section 337 occurred in Inv. No. 337-TA-501, Certain Encapsulated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same, and terminated the investigation. This investigation, which has been active for almost seven years, was instituted based on a complaint by Amkor Technology, Inc., and named as respondents Carsem, Inc., Carsem (M) Sdn Bhd, and Carsem Semiconductor Sdn Bhd as respondents.

The investigation was delayed due to a three and a half year effort by the Commission to enforce a subpoena against a third party, ASAT, Inc., which the respondents claimed was critical to their defenses.  This investigation has also been the subject of three remands from the Commission -- one resulting from a change in the ALJ's claim construction, one for the purpose of considering the documents and information obtained from the subpoena, and one reversing the ALJ's initial determination that certain inventions of a third party were not prior art.  The combined result of these three remands were initial determinations that all of the patents asserted were either invalid or not infringed by Carsem's products.  The Commission has now decided not to review ALJ Bullock's second supplemental determination that various claims of patents asserted by complainant Amkor Technologies were invalid as anticipated and obvious in light of third party ASAT, Inc.'s prior art.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On July 19, the Commission issued the public version of its opinion affirming on modified grounds ALJ Gildea's finding that no violation of section 337 occurred in Inv. No. 337-TA-666, Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp Inverter Circuits and Products Containing the Same. ALJ Gildea's initial finding, released on April 19, 2010, found (1) that complainant O2 Micro had not satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, (2) that none of the products manufactured by respondents Monolithic Power Systems, ASUSTeK Computer and Asus Computer International infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,417,382, (3) that respondent Microsemi's LX1691 and LX1693 products did infringe the '382 patent, and (4) that the '382 patent was valid and enforceable.

After deciding to review ALJ Gildea's initial determination, the Commission reversed the ALJ's finding that the complainants did not satisfy the domestic industry requirement.  However, the Commission also reversed ALJ Gildea's finding that the LX1691 and LX1693 products of respondent Microsemi Corporation infringed the patent at issue, and left undisturbed his rulings as to the remaining respondents, finding that no Section 337 violation had occurred.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission declined review today of a May 27, 2010 initial determination by ALJ Gildea, finding no violation of Section 337 with respect to one patent, and terminated Inv. No. 337-TA-650, Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same.  The complainant in the investigation is John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC, Inc., and the respondents are Aska Communications Corp.; Edali Industrial Corp.; Fu Ching Technical Industrial Co., Ltd.; Gem Electronics; Hanjiang Fei Yu Electronics Equipment Factory; Zhongguang Electronics; Yangzhou Zhongguang Electronics Co.; and Yangzhou Zhongguang Foreign Trade Co.  The patents asserted were U.S. Patent Nos. 5,470,257; 6,558,194; D440,539; and D519,076.

The ALJ's initial determination was the result of a March 31 remand from an earlier determination dated October 13, 2009. In the first determination, ALJ Gildea found that every patent asserted was infringed.  The Commission's March 31 order affirmed the finding of a violation of the '076 and '194 patents, but reversed the finding of a violation of the '257 patent, and remanded for additional findings on the '539 patent and the issue of domestic industry.  After remand, ALJ Gildea found that the domestic industry requirement had not been satisfied for the '539 patent, and the Commission declined review and terminated the investigation.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On July 12, the Commission declined review of an initial determination dated June 22, 2010 by Chief ALJ Luckern, terminating the investigation as to three respondents based on a settlement agreement, in Inv. No. 337-TA-698, Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same. The terminated respondents were Advanced Micro Devices, Diamond Multimedia, and XFX Technology USA.  The investigation was instituted on December 29, 2009, on the basis of a complaint filed by Richtek Technology Corp. and Richtek USA, alleging violations of section 337 on the basis of importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after important of certain DC-DC controllers, by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,315,190; 6,414,470; 7,132,717; and trade secret misappropriation. 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission has found no violation of Section 337 in Inv. No. 337-TA-670, Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof, and terminated the investigation.  The complainant in the case was Humanscale Corp., and the respondents were CompX International and Waterloo Furniture Components Ltd.  On February 23, 2010, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding that the complainants' "Wedge-Brake" products did not infringe the asserted claims U.S. Patent No. 5,292,097, but that their "Brake-Shoe" products did infringe the asserted claims.  However, the ALJ further found that the asserted claims of the patent were invalid.  The Commission, after reviewing the parties submissions, agreed with the ALJ that the asserted claims were invalid, but found that both the "Wedge-Brake" and "Brake-Shoe" products also did not infringe the asserted claims.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission has declined review of a June 18, 2010 initial determination terminating Inv. No. 337-TA-685, Certain Flash Memory and Products Containing Same, as to Appro International on the basis of a consent order, and issued the consent order.  No petitions for review were filed by any party.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission has declined review of ALJ Gildea's June 17, 2010 Order granting Complainant Murata Manufacturing's motion to terminate Inv. No. 337-TA-685, Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same, with respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,377,439.  ALJ Gildea granted Murata's motion (filed just two days earlier on June 15, 2010) after concluding that there were no extraordinary circumstances which would prevent the partial withdrawal of the '439 patent and that such a withdrawal will result in the conservation of public and private resources, and the Commission's notice, dated July 7, states that no party requested review of the ALJ's initial determination.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Office of the Secretary issued a Notice in the Federal Register announcing that the Commission on June 25, 2010 declined to review ALJ Bullock's initial determination terminating Inv. No. 337-TA-693, Certain Foldable Stools, based on a withdrawal of the complaint.  The investigation was instituted on December 9, 2009 based on a complaint by B&R Plastics, Inc., alleging violations of section 337 on the basis of infringement of U.S. Patent No. D460,566. The respondents were Amazon.com, Inc.; Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.; The Afternoon; QVC, Inc.; Kikkerland Design, Inc.; Buy.com; LTD Commodities, LLC, d/b/a abc Distributing; Euromarket Designs, Inc., d/b/a Crate & Barrel; The Container Store, Inc.; Home Depot USA Inc.; Ningbo ZhongTian Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Ningfeng Import and Export Co. Ltd.; and Always Something Brilliant.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Office of the Secretary issued a Notice in the Federal Register announcing that the Commission determined on June 21, 2010 not to review an initial determination terminating the investigation based on a withdrawal of the complaint, issued by ALJ Rogers in Inv. No. 337-TA-711, Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges with Printheads and Components Thereof. The investigation was instituted on April 6, 2010, on the basis of a complaint filed by Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto, California, alleging violations of section 337 on the basis of importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after important of certain authentication systems, including software and handheld electronic devices, by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,234,598; 6,309,053; 6,398,347; 6,412,917; 6,481,817; and 6,402,279. The respondents were MicroJet Technology Co., Ltd., of Hsinchu City, Taiwan; Mipo Technology Limited, of Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; Mipo Science & Technology Co., Ltd., of Guangzhou, China; Mextec d/b/a Mipo America Ltd. of Miami, Florida; SinoTime Technologies, Inc. d/b/a All Colors, of Miami, and Florida; and PTC Holding Limited, of Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Office of the Secretary issued a Notice in the Federal Register announcing that the Commission determined on June 21, 2010 not to review an initial determination terminating the investigation based on a settlement agreement, issued by ALJ Essex in Inv. No. 337-TA-697, Certain Authentication Systems, Including Software and Handheld Electronic Devices. The investigation was instituted on January 5, 2010, on the basis of a complaint filed by Prism Technologies LLC of Omaha, Nebraska, alleging violations of section 337 on the basis of importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after important of certain authentication systems, including software and handheld electronic devices, by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,290,288. The respondents were Research in Motion, Ltd. of Ontario, Canada and Research in Motion Corp. of Irving, Texas.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission issued a notice that it has determined not to review a June 4, 2010 initial determination by ALJ Bullock granting a joint motion to terminate respondents in Inv. No. 337-TA-708, Certain Stringed Musical Instruments and Components Thereof. The joint motion to terminate respondents Floyd Rose Guitars, Floyd Rose Marketing, Inc., Davitt & Hanser Music Co. d/b/a HHI, and Ping Well Industries, Co., Ltd. was based on a consent order stipulation with complainant Geoffrey McCabe, which has been issued by the Commission. The consent order provides that the respondents will not, except under consent or license from complainant or his assignees, sell for importation, import into the United States or sell in the United States after important, or knowingly aid such actions, in regards to the accused stringed musical instruments.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On June 25, the Commission determined not to review an initial determination terminating investigation 337-TA-693 based on withdrawal of the complaint.  The Complainant, B&R Plastics, moved to terminate on May 13, 2010 due to withdrawal of the complaint.  ALJ Bullock granted the motion on June 8, and no party petitioned for review.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On June 22, 2010. the Secretary to the Commissioner issued a Request for Further Briefing on the Issue of Patent Exhaustion in Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-661. The Commission had previously requested briefing on May 26, 2010 on the impact of a license to the patents by Complainant to a third-party. The parties in the briefing did not discuss or cite Fujifilm Corp. v. Benum, an opinion issued by the Federal Circuit on May 27, 2010. The Commission has allowed additional briefing to discuss the relevance and effect of that case.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

After review, the Commission affirmed the Initial Determination of no violation of Section 337 in Inv. No. 337-TA-666, Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp ("CCFL") Inverter Circuits and Products Containing Same. The Commission reviewed two findings in the Initial Determination, namely, (1) the finding that certain Microsemi products infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,417,382 and (2) the finding that Complainant, O2 Micro, has not satisfied the domestic industry requirement. The Commission, upon review, reversed the ALJ's findings in both respects. The Commission held that the Microsemi products do not infringe the '382 patent and that O2 Micro has satisfied the domestic industry requirement. A Commission opinion will issue shortly.

Commission Notice of Final Determination (.PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Respondents TianRui Group Company Ltd., TianRui Group Foundry Company, Barber TianRui Railway Supply, and Standard Car Truck Company filed an appeal to the Federal Circuit challenging the Commission determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-655, In the Matter of Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Certain Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same. The appeal is Federal Circuit Docket No. 2010-1395, TianRui Group Co. v. ITC.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission agreed that Magotteaux was entitled to attorney’s fees as a result of the defaulting Respondents failure to provide discovery during the investigation (a tactic that led to a finding of default and entry of a limited exclusion order). The Commission held that, under Commission Rule 210.33(c), Magotteaux may only recover those attorney’s fees incurred as a result of the defaulting Respondents failure to comply with an order to permit or provide discovery. The only actions Magotteaux took in response to the defaulting Respondents failure to provide discovery related to the default motions filed by the Investigative Attorney and Magotteaux. As a result, Magotteaux could only recover attorney’s fees for such activities. The Commission reduced the award sought by Magotteaux because (1) certain activities in the submitted billing records occurred before the relevant discovery order and (2) Magotteaux failed to carry its burden to show what portion of the mixed billing entries should properly be apportioned to the default motions.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Gildea has released the public version of his denials of a summary determination that one of the claims at issue in 337-TA-692, Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing The Same, is invalid.  Both the respondents and the OUII Staff had moved, based on different pieces of prior art, that the claims at issue in the investigation were invalid based on either anticipation or obviousness.  In the two denials the ALJ disagreed, finding that the Staff's motion contained a number of factual statements that were either wrong, or at the least established the existence of a genuine dispute concerning a material fact.  The ALJ also found that the complainant's response to the respondents' motion either failed to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard, or established there was a genuine dispute concerning the references set forth by respondents.

Denial of Motion for Summary Determination of Invalidity #1 (.PDF)

Denial of Motion for Summary Determination of Invalidity #2 (.PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Gildea released the public version of his initial determination that Complainant LG has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement in 337-TA-687, Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same. The ALJ determined that LG's investments in servicing, repair and support satisfied the requirement that there must be an industry in the United States protected by the patents at issue, and rejected the respondent's arguments that a selection of representative products could not be used to satisfy the domestic industry requirement, and that additional discovery was necessary to rebut LG's factual contentions.

ID Granting Summary Determination Satisfying Economic Prong of Domestic Industry Requirement (.PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission has adopted the recommendation of ALJ Essex that Complainants Magotteaux International and Magotteaux Inc. receive their attorneys fees from respondents AIA Engineering and Vega Industries in 337-TA-644, Certain Composite Wear Components and Products Containing Same.  The Commission determined that the repondents' behavior, including refusing to make witnesses available for deposition and notifying the ALJ that it would no longer participate in the investigation, constituted abuse of process and warranted sanctions in the form of attorneys fees.  However, the Commission found that not all of the itemized entries submitted by the Complainants to the ALJ actually represented costs related to the respondents' behavior, and lowered the total amount of attorney's fees granted by 25%.  One Commissioner dissented from the decision, arguing that reasonable fees in this case should have been awarded on a value-based services or a flat fee model, rather than the per-hour model adopted by the majority.

Commission Opinion (.PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission took two actions in 337-TA-691 today.  The Commission declined review of an initial determination by ALJ Essex granting an initial determination terminating the investigation as to respondent InkForSale.net, the remaining respondent in the investigation, based on a settlement agreement.  The Commission also agreed to amend the notice of investigation to reflect that Complainant Hewlett-Packard asserted two additional claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,630.

Notice Declining Review of ID Terminating Investigation (.PDF)   

Notice Declining Review of ID Amending Notice of Investigation (.PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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.

Commission Decision Not to Review (.PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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.
 

Commission Decision Declining Review (.PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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. 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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) 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission held that claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 5,227,335 (" '335") is obvious in light of certain prior art references in Inv. No. 337-TA-648, In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Integration Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same.  In its initial determination the ALJ held that dependent claim 4 of the '335 patent was invalid due to anticipation.  The ALJ's decision was based largely on the testimony of an inventor of a prior art reference that the recited "etching step" was reduced to practice.  The Commission held that reliance on uncorroborated inventor testimony was improper under Federal Circuit precedent and reversed the ALJ's ruling.  The Commission, however, eventually held that claim 4 is obvious in light of the combination of two or more prior art references which disclose the "etching step" and that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the references.  The Commission affirmed the ALJ's ruling that the remainder of the asserted claims were anticipated by prior art references.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Jack Lengemann and Lengemann & Associates, P.C. (“Lengemann”) filed a motion to quash document and deposition subpoenas served by RIM. The dispute centered on what compensation Lengemann believed it was entitled to for complying with the subpoenas. RIM agreed to pay for copying costs, deferment of the deposition until after tax season at a nearby deposition location, and compensation as permitted by Commission Rules and ITC precedent. Lengemann, however, wanted compensation at his CPA rate and compensation for the use of Lengemann’s office equipment. APJ Essex held that Lengemann was not entitled to hourly compensation for a CPA to review responsive documents and sit for a deposition because Mr. Lengemann is a fact witness and is not being deposed on the basis of his expertise. Lengemann offered no legal support for the contention that it should be compensated for office equipment use, and therefore, the request was denied.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission confirmed the termination of 337-TA-668, Certain Non-Shellfish Derived Glucosamine and Products Containing Same, on the basis of a settlement agreement between the parties.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Gildea released the public version of his March 17, 2010 denial of Vizio’s motion to compel LG Electronics to produce documents held by a non-party, LG Display Co., in 337-TA-687, Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same. The ALJ determined that the complainant did not have possession, custody or control over documents at the non-party, despite the fact that the complainant controlled 37.9% of the non-party’s stock, because a majority of the board was required to be appointed by outsiders, the two companies kept separate books, and there was no evidence that complainant had access to the non-party’s documents in the ordinary course of business.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 31, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its determination that a violation of section 337 occurred by Hanjiang Fei Yu Electronics Equipment Factory of China, Zhonguang Electronics of China, Yangzhou Zhongguang Electronics Co. of China and Yangzhou Zhonguage Foreign Trade Co. Ltd. of China with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,558,194, and D519,076 in Inv. No. 337-TA-650, In the Matter of Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same. The Commission determined to issued a general exclusion order and a limited exclusion order, as well as a remand order remanding the portion of the investigation relating to D440,539 to the ALJ for further proceedings. The Commission also determined to extend the target date of the investigation to June 1, 2010. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 26, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its determination to extend the target date in Inv. No. 337-TA-650, In the Matter of Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same to March 31, 2010. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission issued notice that a complaint was filed on behalf of Infineon Technologies AG of Germany and Infineon Technologies North America Corporation, alleging violations of section 337 based upon the importation, sale for importation, sale within the United States after importation of certain dynamic random access memory semiconductors and products containing same, including memory modules, by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,480,051; 5,422,309; 5,397,664 and 7,071,074. The respondents are Elpida Memory Inc., Elpida Memory USA, Rexchip Electronics Corporation and others. The investigation is Inv. No. 337-TA-707, In the Matter of Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors and Products Containing the Same, including Memory Modules. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 19, 2010 the Commission issued its opinion in Inv. No. 337-TA-655, In the Matter of Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Certain Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same, that respondents violated section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of cast steel railway wheels and products containing same by reason of trade secret misappropriation. The Commission issued a limited exclusion order lasting a period of 10 years as well as cease and desist orders prohibiting respondents from importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, or transferring cast steel railway wheels and products containing the same for the same period. The Commission set a bond of five percent of the entered value of wheels manufactured by respondents using any of the misappropriated trade secrets during the period of Presidential review. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 19, 2010, the Commission gave notice of its determination not to review an initial determination terminating Inv. No. 337-TA-691, In the Matter of Certain Inkjet Supplies and Components Thereof, as to respondent Comptree Ink d/b/a Meritline, ABCInk, EZ Label, and CDR DVDR Media on the basis of a settlement agreement. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Chief ALJ Luckern issued an order setting a target date in Inv. No. 337-TA-703, In the Matter of Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof. ALJ Luckern set a fifteen month target date for completion of the investigation, May 23 ,2011, with the final initial determine filed no later than January 24, 2011. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 18, 2010, ALJ Charneski issued notice of an enforcement initial determination, finding a violation of the limited exclusion order issued by the Commission on September 24, 2007, at the conclusion of the underlying violation investigation, Inv. No. 337-TA-564, In the Matter of Certain Voltage Regulators, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same. ALJ Charneski recommended that a cease and desist order issue against respondent Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 17, 2010 the Commission issued notice of its determination to extend the target date of completion of Inv. No. 337-TA-650, In the Matter of Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors Thereof and Products Containing Same, to March 26, 2010. The Commission issued the extension so that it could consider the final disposition of the final initial determination made by the ALJ on October 13, 2009. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 17, 2010 issued an Initial Determination setting the target date in Inv. No. 337-TA-685, In the Matter of Certain Flash Memory and Products Containing the Same. ALJ Charneski set February 28, 2011 as the due date of the final initial determination and June 28, 2011 as the target date for completion of the investigation. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Bullock issued an Initial Determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-664, In the Matter of Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same, granting complainants Spansion, Inc. and Spansion LLC’s consent motion for partial termination of the Investigation as to all asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,380,029 without prejudice. Spansion argued that the “motion would significantly reduce the number of issues to be decided by the Commission.” (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 11, 2010 the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review an initial determination of presiding ALJ Bullock terminating Inv. No. 337-TA-699, In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing the Same on the basis of a settlement agreement. The complainants is Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and the respondents are Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 9, 2010 ALJ Charneski issued an Initial Determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-663, In the Matter of Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components, amending the complaint and notice of investigation following complainant Eastman Kodak Company’s request for leave to amend its complaint and notice of investigation to add claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 5,493,335. ALJ Charneski found that complainant has established good cause for amending the complaint and notice of investigation to include the claim. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Gildea issued an order setting the procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-701, In the Matter of Certain Electronic Products, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players and Computers. Complainants Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc. and respondents Apple, Inc. had submitted a joint procedural schedule, setting January 31, 2002 as the date for a Final Initial Determination and May 31, 2011 as the target date for completion of the investigation.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 9, 2010, ALJ Charneski issued an Initial Determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-663, In the Matter of Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras and Components, 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 mobile telephones and wireless communication devices featuring digital cameras, or components thereof, that infringe claims 1, 4, and 12 of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,493,335 and claims 15, 23-27 of U.S. Patent No. 6,292,218. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Charneski issued his Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding in Inv. No. 337-TA-663, In the Matter of Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components. ALJ Charneski recommended that the Commission enter a limited exclusion order against the infringing products of respondent Samsung Electronics, that a cease and desist order be issued and that respondent be required to post a bond for importation of accused products during the Presidential review period. The complainant is Eastman Kodak Company of Rochester, NY.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 9, 2010, ALJ Charneski issued his Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding in Inv. No. 337-TA-655, In the Matter of Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Certain Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same. ALJ Charneski recommended that a limited exclusion order issue with respect to any of the respondents, Standard Car Truck Co., Barber Tianrui Railway Supply, LLC, Tianrui Group Co., Ltd. and Tianrui Group Foundry Co. Ltd., found to be in violation of section 337, and that a cease and desist order issue to that respondent. ALJ Charneski further ordered that if the Commission issued an exclusion order, a bond should be required for respondents’ importations during the Presidential review period. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 8, 2010 ALJ Rogers issued an order setting the procedural schedule for Inv. No. 337-TA-705, In the Matter of Certain Notebook Computer Products and Components Thereof. ALJ Rogers set February 23 ,2011 as the due date for an Initial Determination and June 23, 2011 as the target date for completion of the investigation.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 5, 2010 Chief ALJ Luckern issued his Final Initial and Recommended Determinations in Inv. No. 337-TA-670, In the Matter of Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof. ALJ Luckern issued his Final Initial Determination, finding that a violation of section 337 occurred in the importation, or sale within the United States after importation of certain adjustable keyboard support systems or components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 7, 10, 26, 27, 34, 37, 38 and 44 of U.S. Patent No. 5,292,097. ALJ Luckern issued his Recommended Determination that, should the Commission find a violation, a limited exclusion order, barring entry of the infringing products into the United States and a cease and desist order against respondent Waterloo Furniture Components, Ltd., should issue.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission issued notice of its determination to rescind the limited exclusion order issued on November 16, 2009 in Inv. No. 337-TA-634, Certain Liquid Crystal Display Modules, Products Containing Same, and Methods Using the Same, prohibiting the unlicensed entry of LCD devices, including display panels and modules, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,879,364, 6,952,192, 7,304,703 and 7,304,626 and the cease and desist orders issued prohibiting respondent Samsung Electronics from importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing and offering for sale the accused products. On February 12, 2010 complainant Sharp and respondent Samsung Electronics filed a joint petition to rescind the remedial orders on the basis of a settlement agreement between the parties. The Commission thereafter issued its order to rescind. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 2, 2010 the Commission issued its determination to rescind its December 14, 2009 limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of LCD devices, including display panels and modules that infringe claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,377,344, and cease and desist orders prohibiting respondent Sharp Electronics Corporation and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Corp. from importing, distributing, marketing, advertising, offering the accused products for sale. On February 12, 2010 complainant Samsung and respondent Sharp filed a joint petition to rescind the remedial orders on the basis of a settlement agreement. The Commission determined that the agreement constituted a “changed condition of fact or law” sufficient to justify rescission. The investigation is Inv. No. 337-TA-631, In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing Same. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 2, 2010 the Commission issued its determination not to review the initial determination of ALJ Rogers’s initial determination in consolidated Inv. Nos. 337-TA-667 and 337-TA-673, In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices Including Handheld Wireless Communication Devices and granted a motion to terminate the consolidated investigation in their entirety on the basis of settlement agreements. Saxon Innovations LLC filed the complaint on March 31, 2009 against Palm, Inc., Panasonic Corporation, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 2, 2010, ALJ Rogers issued an order in Inv. No. 337-705, In the Matter of Certain Notebook Computer Products and Components Thereof, setting February 23, 2011 as the date for Initial Determination on the alleged violation of section 337 and June 23, 2011 as the target date for completion of the investigation. The complainant is Toshiba Corporation; respondents are Wistron Corporation; Wistron InfoComm Corporation and Wistron InfoComm Technology. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Gildea gave notice of the grounds of Inv. No. 337-TA-706, In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communication System Server Software, Wireless Handheld Devices and Battery Packs, and set a target date of June 24, 2011 for completion of the investigation. ALJ Gildea directed the parties to submit a discovery statement and proposed procedural schedule by April 5, 2010.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On March 1, 2010 ALJ Bullock issued an Initial Determination granting Complainant B & R Plastics’ motion to terminate the investigation as to Respondent Buy.com in Inv. No. 337-TA-693, In the Matter of Certain Foldable Stools. Complainant moved to terminate on the basis of withdrawal of the complaint, following the adoption of a written agreement between the parties. (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 Charneski issued an enforcement initial determination finding respondents Proview International, Proview Shenzhen, and Proview Technology in default in Inv. No. 337-TA-617, In the Matter of Certain Digital Televisions Products and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same. Complainants Funai Electric Co. Ltd and Funai Corporation had moved for an order directing Proview respondents to show cause why they should not be found in default, given Proview respondents’ failure to respond to the enforcement complaint, notice of institution of enforcement proceeding, and a February 1, 2010 order to show cause why they should not be held in default. (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 23, 2010 Chief ALJ Luckern issued notice to complainant Humanscale Corp. and respondents CompX International, Inc. and Waterloo Furniture Companies, Ltd. containing his final initial determination and recommendation in Inv. No. 337-TA-670, In the Matter of Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof. Chief ALJ Luckern’s initial determination found that a violation of section 337 occurred in the importation and sale of the adjustable keyboard support systems at issue, and recommended that if the Commission determined a violation occurred that a limited exclusion order barring entry of items at issue into the U.S. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On February 23, 2010 ALJ Bullock issued an initial determination extending the target date and modifying the procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-693, In the Matter of Certain Foldable Stools. The order set February 9, 2011 as the date for issuance of initial determination and June 9, 2001 as the date for June 9, 2011 as the target date for completion of investigation.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On February 23, 2010, ALJ Bullock issued an initial determination terminating Inv. No. 337-TA-699, In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing the Same. Complainant Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and respondents Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America jointly moved to terminate the Investigation following the execution of settlement and licensing agreements.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Gildea issued an initial determination that Investigation No. 337-TA-687, Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, be terminated with respect to Funai Electric Co., Funai Corp., and P&D USA, Inc. based on a settlement between the parties.  The settlement leaves Vizio Inc. as the sole remaining respondent.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission gave notice that two new investigations had been instituted. The first, Investigation No. 337-TA-706, Certain Wireless Communication System Server Software, Wirelss Handheld Devices and Battery Packs, is based on a complaint filed on January 22, 2010 alleging violations of Section 337 by infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,319,712; 5,359,317; 5,569,550; 6,232,970; and 6,272,333.  The complainant is Motorola, Inc. and the respondent is Research in Motion, Ltd. and Research in Motion Corp.  The second, Investigation No. 337-TA-705, Certain Notebook Computer Products and Components Thereof, is based on a complaint filed January 19, 2010, alleging violations of Section 337 based on infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,156,693 and 5,430, 867.  The Complainant is Toshiba Corporation and the respondents are Wistron Corporation, Wistron Info Comm. (Texas) Corporation, and Wistron Info Comm. Technology (America) Corporation.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission gave notice that a new investigation had been instituted, 337-TA-704, Certain Mobile Communications and Computer Devices and Components Thereof, based on a complaint filed on January 15, 2010.  The complaint alleges violations of Section 337 by infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,379,431; 5,455,599; 5,519,867; 5,915,131; 5,920,726; 5,969,705; 6,343,263; 6,424,354; and RE39,486.  The complainant is Apple Computer Inc. and the respondents are Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On February 18, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its determination to reverse a supplemental initial determination to presiding ALJ Bullock to make findings on the issues of anticipation and obviousness in light of prior art determinations made by the Commission. The Commission also determined to extend the target date of Inv. No. 337-TA-501, Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same, to July 20, 2010. The complainant is Amkor Technology, Inc. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission gave notice that a new investigation had been instituted.  Investigation No. 337-TA-703, Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components thereof, is based on a complaint filed January 14, 2010.  The complaint alleges violations of section 337 by infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,292,218.  The complainant is Eastman Kodak Co., and the respondents are Research in Motion Ltd., Research in Motion Corp., and Apple, Inc.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

the Commission issued a limited exclusion order and terminated Investigation No. 337-TA-655, Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same.  The Commission founda  violation of Section 337 in the importation and sale of steel railway wheels and products containing then using trade secrets asserted by the complainant.  The commission also issued a cease and desist order and set bod at 5% of the value of any cast steel railway wheels and products containing them during the 60-day presidential review period. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission has extended the target date for completion of Investigation No. 337-TA-501, Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Device and Products Containing Same, to February 18, 2010 due to the severe weather conditions in the Washingtion, DC area for the past week.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission gave notice that Investigation No. 337-TA-702, Certain Liquid Crystal Display modules and Products Containing the Same, and Methods for Making the Same, had been instituted, based on a complaint filed January 8, 2010.  The complaint alleges violations of section 337 by infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,379,140; 6,141,075; 7,283,192; 5,670,994; and 7,408,588.  The complainant is Sharp Corp., and the respondents are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Essex recommended that U.S. Patent Nos. 5,872,735; 6,104,640; and 6,118,692 be dropped from Investigation No. 337-TA-683, Certain MLC Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, based on the complainant BTG International Inc.'s request. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Luckern issued amended ground rules in Inv. No. 337-TA-698, In the Matter of Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Luckern issued an order setting the target date for April 5, 2011 in Inv. No. 337-TA-698, In the Matter of Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Rogers issued an order setting a procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-700, In the Matter of Certain Surface Mount MEMS Microphones and Products Containing the Same. The target date for completion of the investigation was set for May 4, 2011.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Charneski issued an order setting the deadline for Initial Determination as December 16,2010, and target date as April 16, 2011in Inv. No. 337-TA-694, In the Matter of Certain Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices and Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Roghers issued an order setting the deadline for Initial Determination on alleged violation of section 337 as January 4,2011, and the target date for completion of this investigation is May 4,2011, in 337-TA-700, In the Matter of Certain Surface Mount MEMS Microphones and Products Containing the Same.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission declined to review to initial determinations (Order Nos. 21 and 22) finding respondents Lamont Dist., Inc. ("Lamont") and Avalon International Trading, LLC ("Avalon") in default.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission granted the joint motion of Complainant Honeywell International Inc. and sole remaining Respondents Pioneer Corporation of Japan and Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. of Long Beach, California (collectively “Pioneer”) to terminate the Investigation after the parties reached a settlement agreement in Inv. No. 337-TA-657, In the Matter of Certain Automotive Multimedia Display and Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission issued a limited exclusion order in Inv. No. 337-TA-644, In the Matter of Certain Composite Wear Components and Products Containing the Same, prohibiting the unlicensed entry for consumption of composite wear components and products made by respondents that infringe the claims of the complainant’s patent, U.S. Patent No. RE 39, 998. The Commission also issued a cease and desist order covering the same certain composite wear components and products and directed at respondent Vega Industries and its principals. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On November 24, the Commission issued an opinion in Inv. No. 337-TA-644, concerning the importation and sale of products that infringe claims of U.S. Patent No. RE 39, 998, In the Matter of Certain Composite Wear Components and Products Containing the Same, determining to issue a cease and desist order to domestic respondent, Vega Industries, who maintains significant inventory in the United States, but not to foreign respondent, AIA Engineering, Ltd.. The Commission also determined that the issuance of a limited exclusion order against respondents would not be contrary to the public interest and set the bond at 100 percent of entered value due to failure of respondent AIA Engineeering to provide the relevant pricing information in discovery. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On November 24, 2009 the Commission issued its Opinion affirming the ALJ Bullock’s initial determination of no violation of section 337 in Inv. No. 337-TA-619, In the Matter of certain Flash Memory Controllers, Drivers, Memory Cards and Media Players and Products Containing Same. The Commission affirmed the construction of some claim terms, but reversed the ID’s construction of other claim terms. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On November 24, the Commission issued its Opinion affirming its decision not to review the Chief ALJ Luckern’s September 9, 2009 finding of violation of section 337 in the sale and importation of liquid crystal display devices that infringe complainants’ U.S. Patent Nos. 6,879,364, 6,952,192, 7,304,703 and 7,304,626 in Inv. No. 337-TA-634, In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal Display Modules, Products Containing the Same, and Methods for Using the Same. The Commission determined that the appropriate remedy includes cease and desist orders, that the public interest will not be affected by the entry of such an order and affirmed the ALJ’s determination that a 100 percent bond during the period of Presidential Review is appropriate, in such a case where there is inadequate information available to calculate a reasonable royalty rate. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On November 23, 2009, the Commission issued the public version of its November 12, 2009 Final Determination finding no violation of section 337 in Inv. No. 337-TA-621, In the Matter of Certain Probe Card Assemblies, Components Thereof, and Certain Tested DRAM and NAND Flash Memory Devices. The Commission terminated the investigation. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On November 23, 2009, the Commission issued notice of its determination to review in part a Final Initial Determination finding no violation of section 337 and to remand a portion of Inv. No. 337-TA-648, In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same, to the ALJ for further proceedings relating to the obviousness of one of the claims at issue. The Commission also requested that parties to the investigation, interested parties and others file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On November 23, the Commission issued notice of its determination to review in part a final initial determination finding no violation of section 337 and set forth a schedule for filing written submissions on the issues under review as well as submissions on remedy, the public interest, and bonding in Inv. No. 337-TA-657, In the Matter of Certain Automotive Multimedia Display and Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission issued a Notice of its determination not to review an initial determination of the presiding ALJ terminating Inv. No. 337-TA-680, In the Matter of Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems and Products Containing Same as to respondents Yxlon International Gmbh and Yxlon International, Inc. based on a consent order and a settlement agreement. The Commission also issued a Notice of its determination not to review an Initial Determination terminating the above-referenced investigation for respondents Multitest Elektronische System Gmbh and Multitest Electronic Systems, Inc. based on consent order and a settlement agreement. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On November 19, 2009, the Commission issued notice of its determination to extend the target date for the completion of the investigation In the Matter of Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-641 by eleven days, to December 18, 2009. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission issued notice that it has determined not to review ALJ Rogers’s initial determination in consolidated Inv. Nos. 337-TA-667 and 337-TA-673, In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices, granting complainant Saxon Innovations, LLC’s motion that it has met the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Rogers issued the public version of his October 14, 2009 order denying complainant Saxon Innovations, LLC’s motion for summary determination of no enforceability due to inequitable conduct and no invalidity in Inv. No. 337-TA-673, In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld, Wireless Communication Devices. ALJ Rogers’s order also denied respondent Samsung’s motion for summary determination of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct. ALJ Rogers ruled that a genuine issue of disputed material fact regarding an intent to deceive precluded a summary determination of unenforceability of U.S. Patent No. 5,608,873 due to inequitable conduct. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On November 16, 2009, ALJ Rogers denied respondent Sidergas SpA’s motion for summary determination of invalidity of claims 3, 4, 6, 12, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 6,708,864, held by complainant Lincoln Electric Company and Lincoln Global, Inc. ALJ Rogers noted that because the parties failed to identify the claim terms in dispute or offer any proposed claim constructions, granting summary determination based on anticipation would be improper In the Matter of Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire, Inv. No. 337-TA-686. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On November 10, 2009, the Commission gave notice of its determination to extend the target date and date for determining whether to review the final initial determination, issued October 14, 2009, in Inv. No. 337-TA-665, In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same. The Commission extended the target date until March 29, 2010 and extended the date to determine whether to review the final ID until January 29, 2010.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On November 9, 2009, the Commission issued its final determination of a violation of section 337 in Inv. No. 337-TA-634, In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal Display Modules, Products Containing Same, and Methods for Using the Same. The Commission issued a limited exclusion order directed against the products of respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.. of Korea, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. and cease and desist orders against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission issued public notice of its termination to terminate Inv. No. 337-TA-660, In the Matter of Certain Active Comfort Footwear.  On August 5, 2009 the Commission determined not to review an initial determination terminating the investigation based on a settlement agreement as to respondent RYN Korea and a withdrawal of complaint as to the remaining respondents. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On November 4, 2009, the Commission issued public notice of October 23, 2009 determination that no violation of section 337 occurred in Inv. No. 337-TA-619, In the Matter of Certain Flash Memory Controllers, Drivers, Memory Cards, and Media Players and Products Containing the Same. The Commission affirmed the final initial determination of the ALJ issued on April 10. 2009. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On November 4, 2009, the Commission issued the public version of its October 4, 2009 notice of its determination to review in part the final initial determination made by the ALJ on August 28, 2009, finding no violation of section 337 in Inv. No. 337-TA-692, In the Matter of Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same. The Commission requested submissions from complainants and respondents that address the form of remedy and the public interest factors in the context of the investigation. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

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

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On 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

On September 24, 2009, the Commission issued a notice that it would review in part the final initial determination of ALJ Gildea in Inv. No. 337-TA-636, In the Matter of Certain Laser Imageable Lithographic Printing Plates. The Commission determined to modify the ALJ’s claim construction analysis, but to affirm the ALJ’s determination of violation of section 337. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On September 24, 2009, the Commission issued the public version of its August 28, 2009 opinion in Inv. No. 337-TA-565 (Consolidated Enforcement Proceeding and Enforcement Proceeding II), In the Matter of Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof.   The Commission determined not to review Chief ALJ Luckern’s determination of violations as to cease and desist and consent orders applicable to respondents Ninestar Technology Co., Ltd., Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd., and Town Sky Inc. (the “Ninestar Respondents”), Mipo America Ltd. and Mipo International, Ltd. (the “Mipo Respondents”), nor to review the consent order applicable to Ribbon Tree USA, Inc. (d/b/a Cana-Pacific Ribbons) and Apex Distributing Inc. (the “Apex Respondents”). The Commission further determined to adopt Chief ALJ Luckern’s analysis and recommendations on penalties with respect to the Mipo Respondents and Apex Respondents, but determined to impose a lesser penalty on the Ninestar Respondents. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On September 21, 2009, the Commission issued a notice reversing a Remand Initial Determination of Chief ALJ Luckern and denying respondent’s motions to strike and to conform pleadings to evidence taken in Inv. No. 337-TA-623,  In the Matter of Certain R-134a Coolant (Otherwise Known as 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane). The Commission reversed the RID’s conclusion that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,559,276, concluding that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. The Commission disagreed with Chief ALJ Luckern’s determination on remand that it was not necessary to consider the respondent’s arguments relating to admissions by complainants and the “state of the prior art at the time of invention.” The Commission was able to find the claim at issue obvious without consulting the specific remand references, and determined that, were they consulted, the conclusion would be the same. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On September 14, 2009, the Commission issued a notice that it would review in part the Final Initial Determination of ALJ Bullock in Inv. No. 337-TA-621, In the Matter of Certain Probe Card Assemblies, Components Thereof and Certain Tested DRAM and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same. The Commission determined to review: 1) the Initial Determination’s finding that a prior patent application publication did not anticipate the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,509,751, 2) the Initial Determination’s conclusion of law regarding non-infringement of the ‘751 patent by the accused products, and 3) the Initial Determination’s conclusion that no analysis of the validity of the asserted claims that depend from claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 5,994,152 was needed. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission decided to review the ALJ’s Order No. 26 terminating the investigation as to respondent Ethical Naturals, Inc. in Inv. No. 337-TA-668, In the Matter of Certain Non-Shellfish Derived Glucosamine and Products Containing Same. The ALJ granted a motion to terminate the investigation as to one of six respondents, Ethical Naturals, Inc., based on a settlement agreement. The Commission decided to review this order and determination despite the fact that no petitions for review were filed. The subject of the Commission’s review was designated as Confidential and not disclosed. Written submissions are due on September 7, 2009 and reply submissions are due September 17, 2009. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission has granted review in part of the final initial determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-619, In the Matter of Certain Flash Memory Controllers, Drivers, Memory Cards and Media Players and Products Containing Same. On April 10, 2009 the ALJ issed a final initial determination finding no violation of section 337 by respondents. The ALJ also found that claim 8 of U.S. Pat. No. 7,137,011 was rendered obvious by prior art. The Commission, after reviewing the ALJ’s final initial determination, has decided to review the claim construction, infringement, and validity (including the ALJ’s decision not to consider a PCT publication as prior art) of U.S. Pat. No. 6,763,424. 

The Commission instructed the parties to address five questions in their briefing: (1) whether the accused products would infringe claim 17 of the ’424 patent if “updating pages of original data within any of the metablock component blocks less than all the pages within the block” was construed to cover single-page updates; (2) whether “reading and assembling data from the first and second plurality of pages” should be construed to cover the so-called “table method” and if infringement would result if the term was so construed; (3) why the Sinclair PCT was not listed on any notice of prior art as required by Ground Rule 5; (4) under what circumstances the Commission should consider a reference not submitted in accordance with an ALJ’s ground rule; and (5) the similarities and differences between U.S. Pat. No. 6,725,321 and the Sinclair PCT. Written submissions are required by September 3, 2009 and reply submissions are required by September 12, 2009. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commission issued an opinion supporting its June 11, 2009 Final Determination of violation of section 337, entry of limited exclusion order, and termination of the investigation in Inv. No. 337-TA-629, In the Matter of Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing the Same. After the ALJ issued its Initial Determination the Commission determined to review whether the Respondent, MEMS Technology Berhad, infringed certain claims in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,781,231 and 7,242,089. The Commission also reviewed the ALJ’s determination regarding nonobviousness and anticipation of the two patents and certain claim constructions and secondary considerations of the ’089 patent. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Roberts granted Complainant Phillips Lumileds Lighting Company, LLC’s motion to withdraw its complaint and terminate the investigation in its entirety in Inv. No. 337-TA-556, In the Matter of Certain High-Brightness Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same. Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1) permits a motion for an order terminating an investigation provided the motion contain a statement disclosing any agreements between the parties concerning the subject matter of the investigation or stating that no such agreement exists. Phillips’ motion to terminate the investigation states that no such agreement exists in this case. On May 24, 2009 the Federal Circuit vacated the Commissions limited exclusion order and remanded this case to allow respondent to challenge the validity of Phillips’ asserted patent. The asserted patent, however, will expire on December 18, 2009 and Phillips would not be able to complete the entire remand proceeding prior to the patent’s expiration. ALJ Roberts, finding no extraordinary circumstances preventing the termination of the remanded investigation and finding that such a termination to be in the public interest, granted Phillips’ motion. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On August 12, 2009, Chief ALJ Luckern granted complainant’s motion to amend the procedural schedule in Inv. No. 337-TA-670, In the Matter of Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof. The schedule was amended to allow complainant to obtain any additional follow-up discovery generated from depositions that are scheduled to take place the day before the close of fact discovery. In addition, Chief ALJ Luckern pointed to the fact that respondents provided document discovery after the deadline for such discovery and a week before the close of fact discovery. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

ALJ Gildea denied Finnegan’s motion to intervene on its own behalf in Inv. No. 337-TA-666, In the Matter of Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (CCFL) Inverter Circuits and Products Containing the Same on August 6, 2009. Finnegan sought to intervene for the limited purpose of enforcing the terms of a retainer agreement. ALJ Gildea denied the motion, finding that good cause does not exist to grant Finnegan’s motion.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On August 5, 2009, ALJ Rogers issued the public version of his July 14, 2009, Order denying respondent’s motion for a protective order in Inv. Nos. 337-TA-667 and 673, In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices. In its motion, respondent Palm, Inc. sought to preclude Complainant Saxon Innovations, LLC from accusing the Palm Pre phone of infringement on the basis that Saxon failed to include the device in relevant interrogatory responses by the applicable deadline. ALJ Rogers concluded that Palm was on notice before the applicable deadline of the fact that Saxon was accusing Palm of infringement and thus failed to show good cause for issuance of a protective order.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On August 4, 2009, ALJ Gildea determined that a 16 month target date was appropriate for Inv. No. 337-TA-682, In the Matter of Certain Collaborative System Products and Components Thereof, resulting in a target date of December 2, 2010, (final ID on violation will be due no later than August 2, 2010). ALJ Gildea further stated that the investigation was to be governed by the Commission Rules and the attached ground rules.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On August 3, 2009, the Commission issued a notice reversing a remand determination of the presiding ALJ and to terminate Inv. No. 337-TA-623, In the Matter of Certain R-134a Coolant (Otherwise Known as 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane), with a finding of no violation. The Commission determined to reverse the conclusion reached by the ALJ that the only remaining claim of the patent-at-issue was not obvious. The Commission found that the claim would have been obvious to a skilled artisan and is thus invalid.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On July 29, 2009 the Commission denied two motions to stay enforcement of relief in separate investigations. 

First, the Commission denied respondents’ motion to stay enforcement of the limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders pending appeal in Inv. No. 337-TA-617, In the Matter of Certain Digital Television Products and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same. The violation stage of the investigation was terminated by Order of the Commission on April 10, 2009, resulting in the relief at-issue. On June 2, 2009, certain respondents filed a motion to stay enforcement of the relief pending appeal to the Federal Circuit. (PDF)

Second, the Commission also denied a similar motion in Inv. No. 337-TA-605, In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same. In determining whether a stay was appropriate the Commission considered the four-prong test used by courts to determine whether to grant a preliminary injunction. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On July 28, 2009, the Commission issued a notice denying respondents’ joint motion to stay enforcement of a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders pending appeal of the Commission’s final determination of a Section 337 to the Federal Circuit. The investigation number is 337-TA-617, In the Matter of Certain Digital Television Products and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On July 27, 2009, the Commission Ordered that Inv. No. 337-TA-556, In the Matter of Certain High-Brightness Light Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same, be remanded to Chief ALJ Luckern for proceedings consistent with the May 22, 2009 judgment of the Federal Circuit in Epistar Corp. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009), including issuance of a final initial determination on violation and a recommended determination on remedy and bonding. The investigation was appealed to the Federal Circuit after the Commission found infringement and issued a limited exclusion order. The Federal Circuit vacated the limited exclusion order and vacated and remanded the Commission’s final determination.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On July 20, 2009, the Commission issued the public version of its June 20, 2009, Order on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding in Inv. No. 337-TA-637, In the Matter of Certain Hair Irons and Packaging Thereof. The Commission determined not to review the ALJ’s finding that there has been a violation of section 337. In the Order the Commission agreed with the ALJ’s findings on remedy that there was a pattern of violation and that it was difficult to identify the source of infringing goods, thus determining that the appropriate remedy was a general exclusion order. The Commission also concluded that the public interest would not be harmed by the general exclusion order.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On July 16, 2009, the Commission issued its Opinion supporting its June 11, 2009, final determination of violation of section 337, entry of a limited exclusion order, and termination of the investigation in Inv. No. 337-TA-629, In the Matter of Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing Same. The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s determinations that the asserted claims of the patents-at-issue were infringed and not invalid. The Commission further affirmed findings of domestic industry. The Commission determined that the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order, the public interest will not be adversely affected by the entry of such order and there should be no bond during the period of Presidential Review. (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On July 14, 2009, the Commission issued an opinion affirming the ALJ’s determination of violation as to one patent but reverses as to another in Inv. No. 337-TA-631, In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing Same. For purposes of the violation, the Commission determined that the appropriate form of relief is a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.  (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link