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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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)
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)
On May 10, 2010, ALJ Carl Charneski denied respondent MVTec Software GmbH’s motion for summary determination of non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,016,539 and 7,065,262. Complainants Cognex Corp. and Cognex Tech. & Investment Corp. and the Commission Investigative Staff opposed the motion. ALJ Charneski found that there exist disputed issues of material fact, especially in light of disputed claim terms coupled with the highly complex technology at issue. The ALJ noted that a hearing was necessary to resolve the disputed material facts and to properly construe the disputed claim terms. (PDF)
On 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Add this blog to your feeds or put your e-mail in the box below and hit GO to subscribe by e-mail.
Enter keywords: