In a recent Initial Determination, Administrative Law Judge Shaw concluded that the Complainant’s reliance on marketing and instructional materials was not sufficient to prove inducement of infringement of a claimed method.
On September 28, 2017, in Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products; Inv. No. 337-TA-1002, ALJ Lord issued the public version of her order requiring Respondents Wuhan Iron and Steel Group Corp., Wuhan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., and WISCO America Co., Ltd. (“WISCO”) and Jiangsu Shagang Group and Jiangsu Shagang International Trade Co., Ltd. (“Shagang”) each pay about $35,000 to Complainant in attorney’s fees as a sanction for violating an order requiring the production of certain discovery. The ALJ further held that an adverse inference would be entered against both parties.
Certain Access Control Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1016 (May 31, 2017), is a good lesson in covering all your bases. Relying on a non-infringement decision by ALJ Pender, respondents assumed that they did not need to present an invalidity case, and they failed to take certain relevant discovery. When Judge Pender’s decision was reversed by the Commission, they tried to get that discovery. Judge Pender ruled that it was too late.
On February 15, 2017, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Organik Kimya v. ITC, No. 15-1774, upholding the ITC’s decision finding Respondent Organik Kimya in default for destroying evidence.