Respondents Sanctioned For Discovery Violation

Respondents Sanctioned For Discovery Violation

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.

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.