ITC Blog: ITC 337 Update

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 Charneski has issued an initial determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-680, Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, And Products Containing Same, in favor of the respondents.  In a notice of the initial determination, issued July 16, the ALJ found that no accused product infringed the two patents at issue in the case, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,016,539 and 7,065,262.  The ALJ further found that claims 1, 12, 13, 28 and 29 of the '262 patent were anticipated by the prior art, and that all of the asserted claims in both patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. Section 101.  A public version of the initial determination should be available within the next few days. 

• 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