Source: http://www.itcblog.com/component/tags/tag/initial-determinations?start=140
Timestamp: 2019-09-22 16:07:16
Document Index: 188297110

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4']

ALJ Essex Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (337-TA-850)
On September 30, 2013, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-850).
By way of background, the investigation is based on a May 23, 2012 complaint filed by FlashPoint Technology, Inc. of Peterborough, New Hampshire alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain electronic imaging devices that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,400,471 (the ‘471 patent), 6,222,538 (the ‘538 patent), 6,504,575, and 6,223,190 (the ‘190 patent). See our June 27, 2012 postfor more details on this investigation.
ALJ Gildea Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices (337-TA-853)
On October 24, 2013, ALJ James E. Gildea issued the public versions (dated September 6, 2013) of his Initial Determination (“ID”) and Recommended Determination (“RD”) on remedy and bond in Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-853). Due to its large size, we have separated the ID into part 1, part 2, and part 3.
By way of background, this investigation is based on a July 24, 2012 complaint filed by Technology Properties Limited LLC and Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC, both of Cupertino, California, and Patriot Scientific Corporation of Carlsbad, California (collectively, “Complainants”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain wireless consumer electronics devices and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 (the ‘336 patent). See our July 26, 2012 and August 24, 2012 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.
ALJ Bullock Finds Respondents In Default And Denies Motion To Terminate In Certain Tires (337-TA-894)
On December 6, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 15 and Order No. 17 in Certain Tires and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-894).
According to Order No. 15, Complainants Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd.; Toyo Tire Holdings of Americas Inc.; Toyo Tire U.S.A. Corp.; Nitto Tire U.S.A. Inc.; and Toyo Tire North America Manufacturing Inc. (collectively, “Toyo”) filed a corrected motion to terminate the investigation as to Respondent Weifang Shunfuchang Rubber & Plastic Co., Ltd. (“Weifang”) based on a consent order stipulation. ALJ Bullock observed that while the motion included the required statement under Commission Rule 210.21(c) that “there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied between Toyo and SoCal Wheels concerning the subject matter of this investigation,” the statement erroneously referred to Respondent “SoCal Wheels” instead of Weifang. Accordingly, the motion was denied.
Further to our December 17, 2013 post, on January 9, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of his Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination of Remedy and Bond (“ID”) (dated December 13, 2013) in Certain Optoelectronic Devices for Fiber Optic Communications, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-860). Due to the large size of the ID, we have split the document into part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4.
By way of background, this investigation is based on a complaint filed by Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. (collectively, “Avago”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation and sale of certain optoelectronic devices for fiber optic communications, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,947,456 (the ‘456 patent) and 5,596,595 (the ‘595 patent). See our September 26, 2012 and October 30, 2012 posts for more details about the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.
ALJ Bullock Issues Notice Of Initial Determination In Certain Windshield Wipers (337-TA-881)
On May 8, 2014, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Windshield Wipers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-881).
By way of background, this investigation was instituted by the ITC on June 11, 2013 based on a complaint filed by Federal-Mogul Corporation and Federal-Mogul S.A. alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondents Trico Corporation, Trico Products, and Trico Components SA de CV in the importation and/or sale of certain windshield wiper devices and components thereof that infringe claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,347,449 (the ‘449 patent). See our May 13, 2013 and June 10, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and notice of investigation, respectively.
ALJ Lord Issues Notice Denying Motion For Temporary Relief In Certain Sulfentrazone (337-TA-914)
On August 12, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued a notice Regarding Initial Determination Concerning Complainant's Motion for Temporary Relief ("IDTR") in Certain Sulfentrazone, Sulfentrazone Compositions, and Processes for Making Sulfentrazone (Inv. No. 337-TA-914).
By way of background, this investigation is based on a March 5, 2014 complaint filed by FMC Corp. ("FMC") alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain certain sulfentrazone active ingredient and formulated sulfentrazone compositions made by a process that infringes one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,169,952 (the '952 patent). See our March 6, 2014 and April 11, 2014 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.
ALJ Pender Issues Notice Finding Violation Of Section 337 In Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems (337-TA-890)
On August 22, 2014, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued a notice of Initial Determination ("ID") on violation of Section 337 in Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-890).
By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by ResMed Corporation, ResMed Incorporated, and ResMed Limited (collectively, "ResMed") alleging violation of Section 337 by BMC Medical Co., Ltd., 3B Medical, Inc., and 3B Products, L.L.C. (collectively, "Respondents") in the importation and/or sale of certain sleep-disordered breathing treatment systems and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of various patents. See our July 22, 2013 and August 20, 2013 posts for more details on ResMed's complaint and the Notice of Investigation, respectively.
ALJ Lord Issues Initial Determination Denying Motion For Temporary Relief In Certain Sulfentrazone (337-TA-914)
On August 28, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued the public version of an Initial Determination ("ID") On Complainant's Motion for Temporary Relief in Certain Sulfentrazone, Sulfentrazone Compositions, and Processes For Making Sulfentrazone (Inv. No. 337-TA-914).
Presidential Disapproval of ITC Remedy Remand Determinations Congressional Activity Involving ITC Did You Know... ALJ McNamara Enforcement Complaints ALJ Pender New 337 Complaints Updates Initial Determinations Commission Opinions Q & A with... Inequitable Conduct ALJ Charneski Commission Orders Final Determinations Enforcement Determinations Recommended Determinations ALJ Gildea Practice Tips CIT Decisions ALJ Essex Settlements ALJ Bullock Advisory Opinions Commission Notices Notices of Investigation ALJ Luckern ALJ Rogers ALJ Lord Claim Construction Hearings ALJs ALJ Orders Federal Circuit Cases Involving the ITC ALJ Shaw