The ITC recently denied a joint motion to terminate an investigation on the basis of settlement after ALJ Cheney held that the redactions to the public version of the settlement agreement far exceeded the permissible scope of confidential business information under the rules.
In a recent order, ALJ McNamara reiterated that her Ground Rules require live direct and cross-examination testimony and any party seeking to utilize witness statements in lieu of live testimony must do so by motion. She emphasized such a motion will virtually never be granted for expert witnesses.
In a recent order, the ITC denied a motion to stay the investigation pending resolution of inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings against the asserted patents after ALJ Bullock found that the balance of the Semiconductor Chips factors weighed against granting the motion.
ALJ Bullock recently denied Respondent’s motion for summary determination of non-infringement because the motion was based on an incorrect interpretation of his claim construction. Based on the dispute between the parties as to the meaning of the claim term, ALJ Bullock revisited his claim construction to clarify what he meant.
ALJ Bullock recently issued an opinion striking portions of Complainant’s expert report related to certain test results not included in Complainant’s responses to contention interrogatories, but made an exception for test results related to alternative designs that were not disclosed by Respondent until the end of fact discovery.
The ITC is generally not willing to terminate an investigation even if it is likely the Commission won’t issue a final decision until after the expiration of the patents at issue.