ALJ Emphasizes Importance of Procedural Schedule

ALJ Emphasizes Importance of Procedural Schedule

In a recent order, Administrative Law Judge Bullock granted Respondents Fujifilm Holdings Corporation, Fujifilm Corporation, Fujifilm Holdings America Corporation, and Fujifilm Recording Media U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “Fujifilm”) motion to strike Complainants Sony Corporation, Sony Storage Media Solutions, Sony Storage Media Manufacturing Corporation, Sony DADC US Inc., and Sony Latin America Inc. (collectively, “Sony”) amended and supplemental identification of accused products and to preclude Sony from adding such products to the investigation.  Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-1058, Order 14.

Inducement After Importation Actionable Under Section 337

Inducement After Importation Actionable Under Section 337

Complainants often must rely on indirect infringement to prove a violation of Section 337.  Indirect infringement may be in the form of induced or contributory infringement.  In a recent opinion, the Commission clarified issues relating to post-importation inducement and distinctions between induced and contributory infringement.  Certain Digital Video Receivers And Hardware And Software Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1001, Commission Opinion (December 6, 2017). 

Commission to Weigh in on IPR Estoppel

Commission to Weigh in on IPR Estoppel

The Commission has determined to review an initial determination finding that Respondent Ford is estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting certain invalidity defenses previously adjudicated by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding.  Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles And Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1042, Notice (Dec. 8, 2017).  The underlying initial determination raises nuanced issues regarding the application of IPR estoppel in Section 337 investigations.