Close

Articles Posted in ITC

Updated:

Apple Settles with HTC: What Does It Mean for the Smartphone Wars?

Over the weekend, Apple and HTC settled all of the long running patent suits that both companies had filed against each other in multiple jurisdictions. Although few details of the settlement were released in the two sentence press release that included brief quotes from HTC and Apple, the companies did…

Updated:

Administrative Law Judge Denies Request to Exclude Rebuttal Witness and States That the Request Did Not Merit a Motion that Expends the Resources of the ITC and the Parties

Complainant Knowles Electronics, LLC (“Knowles”) initiated an investigation with the ITC against Analog Devices, Inc. Amkor Technology, Inc. and Avnet, Inc. (collectively, the Respondents) over silicon microphone packages. During the proceeding, Knowles submitted a rebuttal witness statement from Mr. Phillip Green. The Respondents moved to exclude the rebuttal statement alleging…

Updated:

Google Attempts to Intervene at the ITC in an Investigation Initiated by Nokia against HTC

Google moved to intervene as a respondent in the investigation brought by Nokia against HTC. HTC supported Google’s intervention and Nokia opposed it. Google asserted that it should be permitted to intervene as a respondent to defend its products and services and to protect its interest in the investigation. As…

Updated:

Administrative Law Judge at ITC Strikes Supplemental Expert Reports Filed without Permission

MyKey Technology Inc. initiated an ITC Investigation against several respondents, including Guidance Software, Digital Intelligence, Yec Co., Ltd.. and Cru Acquisitions. The parties served initial reports, rebuttal reports and supplemental reports in the Investigation. The procedural schedule only provided for initial expert reports and rebuttal expert reports. Nonetheless, the parties…

Updated:

ITC Denies Summary Determination Motion Where Respondent Filed the Motion Two Hours Past the Filing Deadline

The Respondent, Pandigital, Inc. (“Pandigital”) in this ITC investigation filed a motion for leave to file its motion for summary determination out of time. The proposed schedule in the matter required the filing of the summary determination motion by July 17, 2012. The deadline for filing documents with the ITC…

Updated:

Complainants in ITC Proceeding Permitted to Drop Patent from Investigation Over Objection from Respondents that Complainants Committed Inequitable Conduct before the Commission

In May 2012, the Complainants in this ITC proceeding, Standard Innovation (US) Corp. and Standard Innovation Corporation (“SIC”) filed a motion to terminate the Investigation in part with respect to U.S. Patent No. D605,779 (the “‘779 patent”). SIC filed the motion seeking to withdraw its allegations with respect to the…

Updated:

Apple’s Expert in ITC Proceeding Precluded from Offering Certain Testimony Regarding Non-Infringement and Lack of Domestic Industry

Complainant, Samsung, filed a motion to strike certain paragraphs of Apple’s expert’s, Dr. James Davis, report regarding non-infringement and lack of a domestic industry. Samsung asserted that the Davis Report contained arguments that Apple failed to disclose in response to interrogatories and, as a result, Samsung was prejudiced because the…

Updated:

Sanctions for Alleged Spoliation Against Samsung Denied in Ongoing Battle with Apple by Administrative Law Judge at the ITC

In the running battle between Apple and Samsung that is playing out in courts and agencies around the world, Apple filed a motion seeking sanctions against Samsung for the alleged spoliation of evidence. Apple alleged that Samsung should be sanctioned for spoliation because Samsung deliberately failed to take institutional steps…

Updated:

Complainant OSRAM AG Loses Summary Determination Motion to Establish Satisfaction of Domestic Industry Requirement at the ITC Because It Could Not Establish Economic Prong

Complainant OSRAM AG (“OSRAM”) moved for a summary determination that it had satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. Respondent LG Electronics, Inc. and other LG entities (collectively, LG) opposed the motion. OSRAM moved for summary determination on the ground that it has devoted substantial resources in the…

Updated:

3,000 Page Attachment with Limitation by Limitation Invalidity Analysis Violates ITC Ground Rule and Is Rejected

In this matter pending before the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), the ITC (Administrative Law Judge James Gildea) rejected the respondent’s pre-hearing statement for failing to follow ITC Ground Rule 7.1. As noted by Judge Gildea, the parties filed their respective prehearing statements on May 3, 2012. “Ground Rule 7.1 requires…

Contact Us