Commission Overturns Summary Determination in Optical Fibers Investigation

Commission Overturns Summary Determination in Optical Fibers Investigation

In an earlier post, we summarized ALJ McNamara’s recent Summary Determination in Certain UV Curable Coatings For Optical Fibers, Coated Optical Fibers, And Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1031, Order No. 33 (July 6, 2017).  The ALJ invalidated claims 16-18, 21, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 7,706,659, because the recited term “molecular weight” was indefinite.  On August 7, 2017, the Commission reversed and vacated the determination.  An opinion is forthcoming.  We will provide an update when the Commission issues its public opinion.

Indefiniteness Dooms Patent Claims on Summary Determination

Indefiniteness Dooms Patent Claims on Summary Determination

Dispositive summary judgment in district court patent cases is somewhat common, but similar early dispositions of Section 337 investigations in the ITC are rare in comparison.  One such outcome happened recently in Certain UV Curable Coatings For Optical Fibers, Coated Optical Fibers, And Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1031.  Order No. 33 (July 6, 2017).  Respondent Momentive UV Coatings (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (“MUV”) moved for summary determination that asserted claims 16-18, 21, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 7,706,659 (“the ’659 patent”) are invalid for claim indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶2.  ALJ McNamara concluded that there were no genuine disputes of material fact and granted the motion. 

Can Renting Be a Sale After Importation?

Can Renting Be a Sale After Importation?

We previously wrote about the ITC’s determination in Certain Semiconductor Devices, Semiconductor Device Packages, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1010 that renting accused products after importation does not violate Section 337. This week the ITC issued Commissioner Kieff’s concurring additional views which cast doubt on the precedential value of the ITC’s determination.

Can PTAB Decision Not to Institute IPR Tank Invalidity Defense In ITC?

Can PTAB Decision Not to Institute IPR Tank Invalidity Defense In ITC?

Judge McNamara determined to reopen the record after the hearing and take judicial notice of two PTAB decisions denying institution of IPR challenges of the asserted patents in Certain Composite Aerogel Insulation Materials and Methods for Manufacturing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1003. The ALJ’s decision raises interesting issues with respect to the effect of PTAB decisions on Section 337 investigations.

Renting is Not a Sale After Importation

Renting is Not a Sale After Importation

On April 3, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice in Certain Semiconductor Devices, Semiconductor Device Packages, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1010 determining not to review Judge Lord’s finding of no violation with respect to accused products that were rented after importation. The Commission’s decision raises interesting issues with respect to the ITC’s jurisdiction under Section 337.

Complainant Cannot Move For Summary Determination Against Its Own Interests

Complainant Cannot Move For Summary Determination Against Its Own Interests

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.