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.
The Federal Circuit has determined to partially stay an ITC exclusion order as it pertains to products redesigned after the remedial orders issued. We have previously posted about Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (II); Inv. No. 337-TA-745 and the ITC’s refusal to stay its remedial orders after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found the asserted patents unpatentable in an IPR proceeding. Respondent Arista has had better luck in the Federal Circuit obtaining a stay of the remedial orders for its redesigned products.
In Certain Digital Cable and Satellite Products, Set-Top Boxes, Gateways and components Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-1049, ALJ McNamara recently denied a motion by Respondents to amend their answer to the complaint to add the defense of impermissible reissue recapture under 35 U.S.C. § 251.