We recently posted about when a complainant is permitted to amend its complaint and the good cause that must be shown. Similar issues arise where a respondent wants to amend an answer without showing good cause. An order issued last week by Administrative Law Judge Lord provides insight as to respondent’s burden in seeking leave to amend its answer to the complaint. Certain Industrial Automation Systems and Components Thereof Including Control Systems, Controllers, Visualization Hardware, Motion Control Systems, Networking Equipment, Safety Devices, and Power Supplies, Inv. No. 337-TA-1074, Order 10 (December 15, 2017).
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.
In a recent order, Administrative Law Judge McNamara denied Complainants Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies ULC’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint to assert U.S. Patent Nos. 8,760,454 and 9,582,846 against Respondent VIZIO, Inc. Certain Graphic Systems, Components Thereof, And Consumer Products Containing The Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1044, Order 32.
This week the ITC stood firm in its position that final PTAB rulings of unpatentability in IPR proceedings are not grounds to modify, suspend, or rescind remedial orders. In Certain Foam Footwear, Inv. No. 337-TA-567, the ITC issued a short order denying a petition for such relief. In the Order, the ITC cited its precedent in Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components (II), Inv. No. 337-TA-945, Order (Sept. 11, 2017) which we discussed here.
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 a recently issued claim construction order, Chief Administrative Law Judge Bullock held that terms included in all asserted claims are indefinite. He accordingly found the asserted claims invalid, stayed the Investigation, and invited Respondents to file a motion for summary determination.