On January 31, 2011, respondent Acecom, Inc. – San Antonia (d/b/a inksell.com) submitted a notice of election to default in Inv. No. 337-TA-740, Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof. The complainant in this investigation is Lexmark International, Inc.
On January 28, 2011, respondent IJSS, Inc. submitted its notice of election to default in Inv. No. 337-TA-740. The investigation was brought by complainant Lexmark International, Inc.
On August 24, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an order granting appellant Amsted Industries' motion to dismiss its appeal of the Commission's determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-655, Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Certain Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same.
On August 19, 2010, complainant Rambus, Inc. filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit challenging the Commission’s determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-661, Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Products Containing Same. The appeal is Federal Circuit Docket No. 2010-1483, Rambus v. ITC. The Commission found that respondents infringed three of the five patents asserted by Rambus, but that two of the asserted patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,117,998 and 7,210,016, were invalid. Additionally, the Commission entered a limited exclusion order and 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.
On August 18, 2010, complainants O2 Micro, Inc. and O2 Micro Int’l, Ltd. filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit challenging the Commission’s determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-666, Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp Inverter Circuits and Products Containing the Same. The appeal is Federal Circuit Docket No. 2010-1482, O2 Micro Int’l, Ltd. v. ITC. On July 19, 2010 the Commission held that none of the products manufactured by respondents Monolithic Power Systems, ASUSTek Computer, Asus Computer International, and Microsemi infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,417,382.
ALJ Charneski issued the initial determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-680, Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same. ALJ Charneski found that Complainants Cognex Corp. and Cognex Technology and Investment Corp. failed to establish that Respondents MVTec Software GmbH, MVTec LLC, Omron Corp., Resolution Technology, Inc., Visics Corp., Daiichi Jitsugyo Viswill Co., Ltd, and Daiichi Jitsugyo (America) infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7, 016,539 (‘539 patent) and 7,065,262 (‘262 patent). ALJ Charneski further held that ‘539 patent was not anticipated by the prior art, that the ‘262 patent was anticipated by the prior art, and that both the ‘539 and ‘262 patents were invalid for failing to claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
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.
On May 3, 2010, ALJ Charneski denied respondent MVTec Software GmbH (“MVTec”) its motion for summary determination that each of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,016,539 and 7,065,262 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter in Inv. No. 337-TA-680, In the Matter of Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same. MVTec based its motion on the Federal Circuit In re Bilski decision, and the Commission Investigation Staff supported the motion. ALJ Charneski held summary determination was inappropriate in light of an undeveloped record and the impending Supreme Court decision regarding Bilski. (PDF)
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)
ALJ Rogers denied Complainants’ motion to preclude Respondents from relying on prior art in Inv. No. 337-TA-686, In the Matter of Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire. (PDF)
On September 29, 2009, Chief ALJ Luckern granted third party Alston & Bird, LLP’s motion to quash the subpoena served on it by respondents CompX International, Inc. and Waterloo Furniture Corporation Ltd. in Inv. No. 337-TA-670, In the Matter of Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems and Components Thereof. Chief ALJ Luckern found that the discovery sought was not relevant, that the potential hardship to the third party was significant, and that respondents failed to show sufficient need for the discovery request. (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: