ALJ Shaw held that the “colorable difference” test established by the Federal Circuit in its en banc Tivo v. Echostar opinion was not the appropriate test to determine whether the CDO was violated.
Last week, Judge Essex issued a notice updating his ground rules in active investigations pending before him.
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.
Judge Shaw issued Order No. 22 in Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same, Inv. 337-TA-1012, denying the Sony Respondents’ motion to extend witness statement page limits.
Following up on our November 22, 2016, post, the Commission issued a Notice of its Final Decision in Certain Lithium Metal Oxide Cathode Materials, Lithium-Ion Batteries For Power Tool Products Containing Same, And Power Tool Products With Lithium-Ion Batteries Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-951. As previously discussed, the oral argument in front of the Commission in this investigation was the first in nearly a decade.
On October 14, 2016, the Commission issued an Opinion in Certain Stainless Steel Products, Certain Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-933 denying a request for an advisory opinion.