In re Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (I), Inv. No. 337-TA-944 (ITC Comm’n Apr. 19, 2017), is a surprisingly rare opinion addressing a common issue: When should the ITC redact a portion of an opinion before it issues it to the public?
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.
ALJ Lord issued an Order Granting a Motion to Strike Affirmative Defense of unclean hands and inequitable conduct. Certain Krill Oil Products and Krill Meat for Production of Krill Oil Products, Order No. 8 (Feb. 7, 2017). Applying a heightened pleading standard for an inequitable conduct defense, ALJ Lord held that this affirmative defense did not satisfy the requirements of particularity articulated by the Federal Circuit in Exergen.
On November 17th, the ITC held an oral argument in front of a packed hearing room 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. The oral argument was notable in that it was the first the Commission has held for a Section 337 investigation in nearly a decade.
Under 19 C.F.R. § 210.79, the ITC can issue an advisory opinion “as to whether [a] person’s proposed course of action or conduct would violate a Commission exclusion order, cease and desist order, or consent order.” On November 7, 2016, The Office of Unfair Import Investigation (“OUII”) issued its report in Certain Foam Footwear, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-567 (Advisory Opinion Proceeding) recommending an advisory opinion that the requesters’ products do not violate the Commission’s remedial orders. Of note, the Staff recommended that the scope of the advisory opinion be limited to the products actually named in the requesters’ petition.