Parties considering whether to pursue litigation in a district court or the ITC should know that service against a foreign respondent is easier at the ITC.
In a recent Notice, the Commission denied Respondents’ motion to modify the administrative protective order (APO) to permit them to use a third party’s confidential business information in related European proceedings.
In Certain Carbon Spine Board Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1008, the ITC investigated Complainant Laerdal’s allegations of section 337 violations based on the infringement of certain U.S. patents, copyrights, trade dresses and trademarks. The ITC determined to issue a limited exclusion order to some, but not all of the respondents, and a cease and desist order to one respondent. But the Commission also found that certain of Laerdal’s allegations relating to trade dress and copyright infringement were not adequately plead to support a violation of Section 337 which reduced the scope of the granted remedy.
In re Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (I), Inv. No. 337-TA-944 (ITC Comm’n Apr. 19, 2017), is a surprisingly rare opinion addressing a common issue: When should the ITC redact a portion of an opinion before it issues it to the public?
Judge Pender issued Order No. 19 in Certain Access Control Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1016, denying Complainant The Chamberlain Group’s (“CGI”) motion for summary determination that the accused products do not infringe one of the asserted patents under the ALJ’s claim construction order. CGI moved for summary determination in an attempt to obtain interlocutory Commission review of the claim construction order, but the ALJ denied the motion explaining that summary determination cannot be entered against the moving party’s interest.
ALJ Lord issued an Order Granting a Motion to Strike Affirmative Defense of unclean hands and inequitable conduct. Certain Krill Oil Products and Krill Meat for Production of Krill Oil Products, Order No. 8 (Feb. 7, 2017). Applying a heightened pleading standard for an inequitable conduct defense, ALJ Lord held that this affirmative defense did not satisfy the requirements of particularity articulated by the Federal Circuit in Exergen.