• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 114-128 of 19,406 results

Initial Determination Granting Complainant's Motion No. 745-22 that Its Licensing Activities in the United States Satisfy the Domestic Industry Requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C) No. 455322

Document Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music, and Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof, 337-745, No. 455322-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Jul. 26, 2011)
The Commission Investigative Staff, in a filing dated June 6, 2011 argued that MMI has provided sufficient undisputed evidence that it has satisfied the domestic industry requirement
21, 2007) (finding(domestic industry (bag;-.d on licensing alone) (ndigital Processors); Certain it " Semiconductor Chi s withilvlinirnized `xn pPacl
Prong (C), supra, was specifically added to Section 337 to expand the definition of “domestic industry” beyond manufacturers to include “universities and other intellectual property owners who engage in extensive licensing of their rights to manufacturers.” _S__e_e_, gg, _}_3_S_S_, §1_1p_r_a_1, at 10;.
Similarly, on October 21, 2010, Motorola corresponded with { } Respondent Apple, in opposition, argued that MMI must allocate licensing costs and revenues to each asserted patent individually, relying on Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and , com onents Thereof and Products Containin Same Inv. No. 337—TA-650, Cormn’niOp., 2010 ITC LEXIS 57!)
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Granting Unopposed Motion to Adjust Procedural Schedule No. 454873

Document Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music, and Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof, 337-745, No. 454873-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Jul. 20, 2011)
21: Grantingi Unopgosed Motion To Adjust Procedural Schedule In a filing dated July 18, 2011, pursuant to Commission rules 201.15 ané Ground Ruies 3, complainant Motorola Mobility, inc. (Motorola) and respondent Apple Inc. (Apple), moved to adjust the proeedural schedule for the (submission of final preheating exhibits and final prehearingiexhibits lists and represented that the staffattorney for the Office ofUnfair Iinport Investigations does not oopose said Motion.
Movants, in the pending motion, proposed the foilowing schedule: .
‘ Submission ofifinal prehearing direct and rebuttal exhibits, including joint exhibits by the parties A Submission of final preheating exhibit lists, containing all relevant, outstanding objections ’by the parties Submission by the parties of three copies of a list of exhibits for which there are no
Tn July 20, 2011; each of the parties received a copy of this order.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation as to Claim 1 of the '317 Patent No. 451865

Document Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music, and Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof, 337-745, No. 451865-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Jun. 2, 2011)
Commission rule 210.2I(a)(l) provides in relevant part that: "[a]ny party may move at any time prior to the issuance of an initial determination on violation of section 337 ofthe Tariff Act of 1930 totenninate an investigation in whole or in part as to any or all respondents, on the basis of withdrawal ofthe complaint or certain allegations contained therein ...." I The Commission has stated that "in the absence ofextraordinary circumstances, termination ofthe investigation will be readily granted to a complainant during the preheating stage of an , investigation."
Further, pursuant to Commission rule 2l0.2l(a)(l), Mobility states there are no agreements, written or oral, express or implied between the parties concerning the subject matter ofthe investigation.
Moreover, based on the present record, the administrative lawjudge finds no extraordmary circumstances that wouldjustify denying Motion No. 745-24.
2/13/01) rejected an administrative law judge’s finding to dismiss a complaint “with prejudice.” For reasons articulated therein, the administrative law judge rejects complainanfs request to terminate the investigation as to said claim 1 without prejudice.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Relating to Cross-Use Agreement and Agreement Regarding E-Mail Discovery No. 448377

Document Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music, and Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof, 337-745, No. 448377-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Apr. 12, 2011)
(collectively "the District Court Actions") and the U.S. International Trade Commission Section 337 Investigations (collectively "the ITC Investigations"), styled as Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof, Inv. No .
The Parties further agree to move for the protection of Source Code in the District Court Actions to the extent necessary to conform with the Orders.
Depositions .primarily directed to witnesses or subject matter at issue in only the District Court Actions shall be conducted pursuant to the rules and procedures applicable in each of those cases.
All named inventors shall be custodians but the obligation of the parties to produce email from inventor-custodians is limited to email during the time period of one year prior to the earliest claimed conception date for any asserted claim of the patent for which the custodian is a named inventor until one year after the issue date of that patent.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Granting Unopposed Motion to File Corrected Pre-Hearing Statement No. 530681

Document Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities, 337-884, No. 530681-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Mar. 28, 2014)
(March 28, 2014) On March 24, 2014, Respondents filed an unopposed motion seeking leave to correct their Pre-Hearing Statement.
Respondents explain that they would like to make changes to their exhibit list, edit their witness schedule and time allocations, and revise their Ground Rule 7.1 invalidity charts to conform them to the rule.
The Administrative Law Judge finds that Respondents’ unopposed motion seeking leave to correct their Pre-Hearing Statement (Motion Docket No. 884-088) should be GRANTED.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination Granting a Joint Motion to Terminate the Investigation as to Respondents AmTran Logistics, Inc. and AmTran Technology Co., Ltd. Based upon Withdrawal of Allegations No. 524635

Document Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities, 337-884, No. 524635-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Dec. 20, 2013)
None of the parties petitioned for review of the ID.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Granting Non-Party Vivante Corporation's Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Subpoena No. 513387

Document Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities, 337-884, No. 513387-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Jul. 15, 2013)
(July 15, 2013) On July 12, 2013, nonparty Vivante Corporation (“Nonparty”) filed an unopposed motion seeking an extension of time to move to quash or limit the subpoena served on it on July 3, 2013 by Complainant.
Among other things, Nonparty says that it needs until July 19, 2013 to continue to make “its internal investigation into the issues raised in the subpoena.” (Mot.
Nonparty says that it has been diligent in negotiating with Complainant regarding the scope and reasonableness of the subpoena.
(Id.) The Administrative Law Judge finds under the circumstances that Nonparty’s motion for a limited extension (Motion Docket No. 884-007) should be GRANTED.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Granting Complainant's Motion in Limine No. 2 No. 530381

Document Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities, 337-884, No. 530381-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Mar. 25, 2014)
(March 25, 2014) On March 14, 2014, Complainant filed a motion in limine seeking to preclude Respondents from asserting a new claim construction with respect to the term “coupled to.” (Motion Docket No.
Complainant argues that, despite an agreement as to the meaning of the term that was adopted in Order No. 52, Respondents now seek to add a limitation that “coupled to” requires a “direct physical connection.” (Mot.
Respondents also say that the agreed construction for “coupled to,” when read “in light of the specification[,] requires V, a direct physical connection between components.” (Id. at 3.)
On March 24, the Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”) responded in support of the motion.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Granting Motion to Withdraw Motions 884-040, 884-043 and Motion for Leave to Submit Supplemental Briefing; and Granting Motion to Hold Motion 884-042 in Abeyance No. 523938

Document Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities, 337-884, No. 523938-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Dec. 12, 2013)
Ir1addition, Respondents requested leave to supplement their response to Motion Docket No. 884-038 based on Complainant’s document production and Order No. 36.
On December 9, 2013, Respondents Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America (collectively, “Panasonic”) filed an unopposed motion seeking to hold Motion Docket No. 884-042 in abeyance until afler the close of expert discovery.
The Administrative Law Judge agrees that resolution of the motion now would be premature.
Panasonic shall have five (5) business days afier the close of expert discovery to confer with Complainant and either renew or withdraw Motion Docket No. 884-042.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Granting-in-Part Non-Party's Motion to Extend Time to Quash or Limit Subpoena No. 518624

Document Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities, 337-884, No. 518624-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Sep. 19, 2013)
(September 19, 2013) On September 17, 2013, nonparty Robert Drebin (“Nonparty”) filed an unopposed motion seeking a brief extension of time to move to quash or limit the subpoena served on him by Respondents on September 11, 2013.
Nonparty says that he has obtained counsel, is searching for responsive material, and that negotiations with respect to the scope of the subpoena are ongoing.
Nonparty says more time is needed to locate his records and to continue negotiations with Respondents.
(Id.) The Administrative Law Judge finds that Nonparty’s motion for a limited extension to move to quash or limit the subpoena (Motion Docket No. 884-030) should be GRANTED.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Notice of Determination to Grant a Joint Motion to Terminate the Investigation on the Basis of a Settlement Agreement; Termination of Investigation No. 552208

Document Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities, 337-884, No. 552208-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Feb. 27, 2015)
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S._International Trade Commission has determined to grant the joint motion to terminate the above-captioned investigation based upon a settlement agreement.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on June 25, 2013, based on a complaint filed by Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. of New Rochelle, New York (“GPH”).
On October 30, 2014, the Commission determined to review the final ID in part with respect to issues of claim-construction, validity, infringement, the domestic industry requirement, and Toshiba’s affirmative defenses of licensing and RAND.
The notice of review requested briefing on various issues of violation, remedy, bonding, and the public interest.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Granting Complainant's Motion to Declassify; and Releasing Revised Public Version of Final Initial Determination No. 546527

Document Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities, 337-884, No. 546527-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Nov. 20, 2014)
(November 20, 2014) On October 31, 2014, Complainant Graphic Properties Holdings, Inc. filed a motion seeking to declassify portions of Administrative Law Judge Gildea’s Final Initial Determination (“Final ID”) in this Investigation pursuant to Commission Rule 210.20.
Complainant represents that it and Respondents now agree that this information should not be redacted because it “is necessary for the public to understand the scope and context of the ID.” (ld.
(Mot., Ex. A.) According to Complainant, Respondents do not oppose the motion, but the Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”) had not yet taken a position.
By no later than the close of business on December 5, 2014, Complainant is ordered to refile Exhibit A attached to said motion as a public document.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Denying Motion for Summary Determination That the '158 Patent Is Invalid for Lack of a Written Description No. 531912

Document Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities, 337-884, No. 531912-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Apr. 15, 2014)
The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing that there is an absence of a genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
It is unclear why Respondents did not withdraw or update their motion after the Markrnan Order issued and contained language distinguishing the Silicon Graphics opinion.
The Administrative Law Judge finds, however, that Respondents have not met their burden of showing that there is an absence of a genuine issue of material fact such that they are entitled to a judgment that claims 1 and 4 of the '1 5 8 patent are clearly and convincingly invalid for lack of a written description.
Indeed, a review of the Silicon Graphics opinion shows that Respondents have understated the Federal Circuit’s evaluation of the degree to which the specification teaches that rasterization processes may or may not operate on a floating point format.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Granting-in-Part Complainant's Unopposed Motion to Correct Its Notice of Patent Priority Dates No. 518631

Document Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities, 337-884, No. 518631-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Sep. 19, 2013)
(September 19, 2013) On September 18, 2013, Complainant filed an unopposed motion seeking leave to fix an error in its Notice of Patent Priority Dates relating to the asserted '881 patent.
Complainant requests a procedural schedule change as well, to avoid prejudicing Respondents with respect to ceitain corresponding deadlines as to that patent.
The Administrative Law Judge does not find that any change to the fact discovery cutoff is warranted.
The September 27 deadline for supplementing the Notice of Prior Art with respect to the ‘88l patent is acceptable.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Ordering Shortened Response Time for Motion for Protective Order No. 471791

Document Certain Mobile Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers, 337-794, No. 471791-1 (U.S.I.T.C. Feb. 13, 2...
(Februa1yl3, 2012) On February 10, 2012, Complainants filed a motion seeking a protective order barring Respondent firom deposing four of Complainants’ executives.
Movants request a shortened response time in light of the fast approaching deadline for discovery.
The Administrative Law Judge finds that a shortened response time is appropriate.
Responses, if any, shall be due by the close of business on February 15, 2012.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... >>